"Heroes and VIllains, Part 2":Does it, or did it ever exist?

[Chris Brown]

As fascinating as the sections that were supposedly intended for part 2 are, I'm not sure they could stand alone as a distinct album track.  I just can't see any other use for a lot of those sections, as they don't really seem to fit within any versions of the Heroes single we've heard.

I agree  - a lot of those Heroes sections are quite repetitive. Beautiful, but repetitive in a sort of "look what we can do" way. I think that they were designed for the Heroes b side makes perfect sense. They are throwaway - an advert for the album, but not part of the album proper.

Exactly - they're really nothing all that complicated, just basically Brian showing off how many different ways he can present a really simple idea.  Hell, "Mama Says" is really a dumbed-down version of that very idea.  Even though that track ended up on an album, I can't imagine Brian wasting a track on his "teenage symphony to God" on some throwaway vocal experiments (not to knock them at all - I find them all quite fascinating).

[Bicyclerider]

Don't believe there ever was a "Part 2". Never have, never will.

So your belief is those long "the heroes, the heroes..." and "dit dit dit, heroes and villains" chants were actually meant to be part of the A side at one point?  Because to me they have always sounded like a throwaway B side (as others here have said). 

Regardless of whether the chants were intended for a B-side or not, they work really well as replacements for the "Bicycle Rider" chorus!

Particularly the fast one with the Hammer & anvil percussion!

[buddhahat]

Hopefully this is the longer version Mark is referring to - possibly the same as on Al's acetate (or Bruce's).

Can you imagine how many minds here will be blown if the above is true!?

The press release on BW.com suggests that a tracklisting will be released soon (which conflicts somewhat with what Mark says in his interview about a bit of work still needing to be done). I wonder when we will get a tracklisting and whether we'll be able to glean anything from that about unbooted material, especially the presence of an unbooted vintage edit of Heroes?

[Les P]

The press release on BW.com suggests that a tracklisting will be released soon (which conflicts somewhat with what Mark says in his interview about a bit of work still needing to be done).

The term "soon" might be relative when it comes to a 44-year project.

[PhilCohen]

Brian was planning a double-sided 45 at one point, was he not?
Mark Linnett has confirmed that there is a longer version of 'Heroes' than the ones we know about.

I disagree that part 2 would have been just the "sections" that are found in your Big O collection.

Those sections(in that sequence) were in Capitol's proposed 1988 "Smile" compilation, and as it has been stated, they were on a mono mix reel, in that order, but not yet spliced together.

[Roger Ryan]

Brian was planning a double-sided 45 at one point, was he not?
Mark Linnett has confirmed that there is a longer version of 'Heroes' than the ones we know about.

I disagree that part 2 would have been just the "sections" that are found in your Big O collection.

Those sections(in that sequence) were in Capitol's proposed 1988 "Smile" compilation, and as it has been stated, they were on a mono mix reel, in that order, but not yet spliced together.

And given that they were not spliced together suggests to me that Brian considered them fragments that could be edited into other tracks (maybe as choruses to "Heroes & Villains", maybe something else).

[Rocker]

The press release on BW.com suggests that a tracklisting will be released soon (which conflicts somewhat with what Mark says in his interview about a bit of work still needing to be done).

The term "soon" might be relative when it comes to a 44-year project.

"New site coming soon"

http://beachboyscentral.com/

[desmondo]

I don't know anything about any new material discovered, so that may change things. But as things stand now it seems to me you can make a case for or against an H&V Part/Side 2.

I think the case for is stronger. You have two scenesters who claim it was intended or existed and you have tracks identified as Part/Side 2 with their own master numbers which are recorded concurrently with the H&V tracks not identified as Part/side 2 under a different master number. As far as I can tell now, coincidently all of the so far identified Part/side two tracks are samples of non-H&V SMiLE album tracks.

Interesting either way.

Cam

Would care to expand on - As far as I can tell now, coincidently all of the so far identified Part/side two tracks are samples of non-H&V SMiLE album tracks. please

Thanks

[Cam Mott]

Take 2. I typed out a response and fumble fingered it away into the ether. [sigh]

First: there are two eye/earwitnesses that testified there was two parts/sides to the H&V single, Vosse and Britz. Are far as I remember, they both gave this witness long before there was a controversy over the subject.

Second, the documentation: We have the documentation of a master for H&V and a separate master for an H&V Part 2. Two separate masters recorded concurrently. I take the notation as for a master as the normal meaning which would be recording or recordings collected and edited together as a stand alone recording which could than be collected with other stand alone masters as an album or on separate sides of a single.

Third: one of the recordings for the H&V Part 2 master is also actually identified as for "side 2".

So that is the main evidence in favor of imo.

Not evidence for but a coincidence that the H&V single was described by those who heard it at the time as longer than usual, especially the usual for the BBs singles.

My info here may be out of date since recent activity finding and identifying recordings but as far as I know some of the recordings for the H&V Part/side 2 master have been found and identified, some probably have not. Of the ones that have/had been found and identified as positively as possible, I noticed they share a coincidence, they all are modified samples from other non-H&V SMiLE album tracks. Correct me where my memory is faulty. There is the Jan 5 recording for the H&V Part/Side 2 master which is a sample of DYLW with DYLW lyric. There is the intro for the H&V Part 2 master number which is a modified sample of Fire. There is fade for the H&V Part 2 master number which is a modified sample of the fade for OMP. Did I miss anything or misstate? So far it is just another interesting coincidence until more is known about all of the recordings for the H&V Part 2 master number.

The main evidence against, I think, is that Brian said in February he didn’t want to give away too much about SMiLE on the  2nd side of the H&V single. Is that a deal breaker? Maybe but to me it is extremely pale compared to the over evidence. It also could be true when said and still not rule out a 2 sided H&V single. I would point out that in spite of what Brian said he also said he was going back and forth on the issue and sure enough, coincidently, he had been recording tracks for a separate H&V Part 2 master before that comment and more importantly he resumed recording tracks for a separate H&V Part 2 master after. And that post-February Brian comment, post February-March H&V Part 2 master recordings, but pre-Smiley version, of a two sided H&V single is what Britz was specifically referring to if  I remember it right.

Discuss, please.

[desmondo]

Take 2. I typed out a response and fumble fingered it away into the ether. [sigh]

First: there are two eye/earwitnesses that testified there was two parts/sides to the H&V single, Vosse and Britz. Are far as I remember, they both gave this witness long before there was a controversy over the subject.

Second, the documentation: We have the documentation of a master for H&V and a separate master for an H&V Part 2. Two separate masters recorded concurrently. I take the notation as for a master as the normal meaning which would be recording or recordings collected and edited together as a stand alone recording which could than be collected with other stand alone masters as an album or on separate sides of a single.

Third: one of the recordings for the H&V Part 2 master is also actually identified as for "side 2".

So that is the main evidence in favor of imo.

Not evidence for but a coincidence that the H&V single was described by those who heard it at the time as longer than usual, especially the usual for the BBs singles.

My info here may be out of date since recent activity finding and identifying recordings but as far as I know some of the recordings for the H&V Part/side 2 master have been found and identified, some probably have not. Of the ones that have/had been found and identified as positively as possible, I noticed they share a coincidence, they all are modified samples from other non-H&V SMiLE album tracks. Correct me where my memory is faulty. There is the Jan 5 recording for the H&V Part/Side 2 master which is a sample of DYLW with DYLW lyric. There is the intro for the H&V Part 2 master number which is a modified sample of Fire. There is fade for the H&V Part 2 master number which is a modified sample of the fade for OMP. Did I miss anything or misstate? So far it is just another interesting coincidence until more is known about all of the recordings the H&V Part 2 master number.

The main evidence against, I think, is that Brian said in February he didn’t want to give away too much about SMiLE on the  2nd side of the H&V single. Is that a deal breaker? Maybe but to me it is extremely pale compared to the over evidence. It also could be true when said and still not rule out a 2 sided H&V single. I would point out that in spite of what Brian said he also said he was going back and forth on the issue and sure enough, coincidently, he had been recording tracks for a separate H&V Part 2 master before that comment and more importantly he resumed recording tracks for a separate H&V Part 2 master after. And that post-February Brian comment, post February-March H&V Part 2 master recordings, but pre-Smiley version of a two sided H&V single is what Britz was specifically referring to if  I remember it right.

Discuss, please.

Wow Cam - thanks so much for this - all new to these ears - but then I have been away for seven years - is what you are saying the following

H&V Part 2 was a sampler for other Smile album tracks - like we we now have in the 21st Century on the like of Amazon and iTunes - but freaked versions of those tracks. These samples consisted of

1. Modified Fire sample - H&V Intro??
2. Modified DYLW sample _ BR theme???
3. Modified YAMS sample - Barnshine???

Plus anything else - anyone?? Are these available anywhere

I am stoked at this

[Cam Mott]

Yeah, it looks like that might have been the deal, but that is based on a coicidence between some of the tracks for the H&V Part 2 master. One newly identified non-album sample track for the H&V Part 2 master would change things.

Another possible coincidence was the supposed existence of a PS album sampler side in the archives intended for a PS single but not used. Whether that really exists is under scrutiny, the source for it BE under suspicion. It is being looked into but confirmation or non-confirmation may be a while in coming. Even if it did exist and had been intended for a PS single, was it put together by Brian or Capitol? Does it really say anything about the H&V single? [shrug]

[Micha]

Don't believe there ever was a "Part 2". Never have, never will.

I don't believe there ever was a "Part 1". There you go! 

I mean, there was a track "Shut Down, Part 2", remember? But no "Shut Down, Part 1", just a track "Shut Down" which had no resemblance or connection to "Shut Down, Part 2". 

[buddhahat]

There is fade for the H&V Part 2 master number which is a modified sample of the fade for OMP.

Is this the re-record of the false barnyard fade with Carl's doo-be-doo scatting over the top? I always assumed that this was the 'fade' that would have followed 'Prelude to Fade' (western theme) and therefore this was to be the tag to part 1 of the single, usurping false barnyard (the cantina fade). Does the master no. suggest this was actually the fade to side 2 (if we accept the 2 part single idea)?

So we'd potentially have had Western theme + False Barnyard rounding off side 1, and False Barnyard re-record rounding off side 2?

Does anyone know when the Tag to Part 1 (the prototype of Do A Lot) was recorded? When was that likely discarded as a fade to the single, or could it have still been in the running in 67?

[Cam Mott]

Going by master numbers, the re-recorded OMP "insert"/fade of Feb 28 with Carl scat was for H&V Part 2 [master number 57045]. The "prelude to fade" of Feb. 15 was for H&V [master number 57020]. Not sure what was the fade for H&V [master number 57020] by early March '67.

As I remember, a version of "Tag to Part 1" was recorded by December but apparently there were at least 4? versions, or so...?...doesn't an engineer call out a take as version four or something?...but I'm not sure it is known when they would have been recorded.

[buddhahat]

Going by master numbers, the re-recorded OMP "insert"/fade of Feb 28 with Carl scat was for H&V Part 2 [master number 57045]. The "prelude to fade" of Feb. 15 was for H&V [master number 57020]. Not sure what was the fade for H&V [master number 57020] by early March '67.

I guess an interesting question is: What are the candidates to follow prelude to fade at that point? As I see it, likely options would be:
1. False Barnyard.
2. Minor key Bike Rider (which is the fade on the 45). Mark L sequences the minor key piano version after Prelude in the Heroes Sections track and it sounds perfect.
3. Tag To Part 1 (precursor to Do A Lot)
4. My Children Were Raised/Sunny Down Snuff - Could Brian have started this idea around the same time, or is this only something he worked on during Smiley?
5. Barnyard. I suspect this had been broken off at this point, maybe to be used with Great Shape or Old Master Painter, but there's no evidence that Brian wouldn't still have used it to close Heroes is there?

As I remember, a version of "Tag to Part 1" was recorded by December but apparently there were at least 4? versions, or so...?...doesn't an engineer call out a take as version four or something?...but I'm not sure it is known when they would have been recorded.

Version 4 is the one that has the Windchimes style piano embellishments, which would have been a beautiful fade to the single.

In response to your theory as H&V pt 2 as a sampler, there are many instances where H&V sections seemed to be representing specific Smile songs: The above version of the Tag = Windchimes is a good example, but I'm inclined to think Brian was just recycling left right and centre at this point and techniques from different songs were being replicated all over the place. That said, Heroes Intro seems to be a very deliberate nod to Fire, in that it really is quite out of place within H&V, so maybe Brian was saying "here kids, this is some of the stuff that will be on the album".

[37!ws]

Truth be told, we cannot conclusively say that there would have been a "part 2" as its own track; we also can't say there wouldn't have been. Remember, Brian was constantly changing his mind back and forth...and even if there was an actual "part 2" mastered, acetated, announced by Britz during recording sessions, etc., that doesn't mean anything, when you consider:

1) how many people don't think "Our Prayer" is an intro, despite that Brian actually said during the recording sessions/rehearsals, "This is 'intro to the album,' take 1."

2) part numbers don't necessarily correspond to anything. Case in point: "Fire" was announced as "The Elements, part 1" -- all it means perhaps is that it was the second thing recorded, the second thing recorded under that title during the same session, or maybe the same day, the same studio, etc.

Basically, for every eyewitness/earwitness who swears one thing, there's another who swears another.

As for that string of H&V "sections," Linett himself said that he basically took every fragment labeled "Heroes and Villains" he could find (remember, this was many years ago and more have been unearthed since) and just sequenced them together...

And what we now know as the intro to "Mrs. O'Leary's Cow" intro was actually labeled "Heroes And Villains (intro)" on the tape box....does that mean it would have definitely been an H&V intro? Does that mean it was going to be part of H&V part 2? Was it definitively going to be the "Fire" intro? We don't know.

And we'll probably never know.

[The Shift]

Mark also stated that the sessions them selves acted as a guide (or something to that effect) and if you listen to one of the H&V sessions boots (I forget which) you can indeed here them being called in order so Mark's task in stringing them together wasn't only made easier, but was also accurate. One of the SoT boots has precisely such a rough sequence mix though the part known as Swedish Frog is excised.

That interests me. Did Brian consider it too obscure? Or maybe - maybe  - it was sliced out because it wasn't the Beach Boys grunting. Maybe it was the Vosse posse. I say this because I listened to Psychedelic Sounds today and there's some remarkably similar grunting on there.

Swedish Frog also makes a good match for some of the SoT Vega-Tables/Do A Lot sessions, in which case that would fit with Cam's theory about each section representing a different element of SMILE.

[Roger Ryan]

...That interests me. Did Brian consider it too obscure? Or maybe - maybe  - it was sliced out because it wasn't the Beach Boys grunting. Maybe it was the Vosse posse. I say this because I listened to Psychedelic Sounds today and there's some remarkably similar grunting on there.

I don't know, but even though it's just grunting and such, it has a musicality that seems like it would only come from professional singers.

[Bicyclerider]

Swedish Frog was not a favorite of at least one Beach boy - Alan, who said (in Record Collector or Goldmine, I can't remember which) that is was  a humiliating session.  Maybe group resistance was the reason for excising it.

OR (and I like this reason better) he pulled it to go with Great Shape/Barnyard as another section - a bridge between the two parts maybe. Add Do a Lot and you've got the fabled "Barnyard Suite!"

The problem with the "sampler" idea is that usually a sampler uses the actual music from a bunch of different songs.  so then the listener wants to hear those songs complete and buys the album.  Having reworked sections of songs or musical sections (like intro) only reminiscent of other songs would not serve the purpose of having a sampler in the first place.  For me it's just Brian recycling ideas or variations on ideas in an attempt to complete the all important single followup to good Vibrations. 

[buddhahat]

Truth be told, we cannot conclusively say that there would have been a "part 2" as its own track; we also can't say there wouldn't have been. Remember, Brian was constantly changing his mind back and forth...and even if there was an actual "part 2" mastered, acetated, announced by Britz during recording sessions, etc., that doesn't mean anything, when you consider:

1) how many people don't think "Our Prayer" is an intro, despite that Brian actually said during the recording sessions/rehearsals, "This is 'intro to the album,' take 1."

2) part numbers don't necessarily correspond to anything. Case in point: "Fire" was announced as "The Elements, part 1" -- all it means perhaps is that it was the second thing recorded, the second thing recorded under that title during the same session, or maybe the same day, the same studio, etc.

Basically, for every eyewitness/earwitness who swears one thing, there's another who swears another.

As for that string of H&V "sections," Linett himself said that he basically took every fragment labeled "Heroes and Villains" he could find (remember, this was many years ago and more have been unearthed since) and just sequenced them together...

And what we now know as the intro to "Mrs. O'Leary's Cow" intro was actually labeled "Heroes And Villains (intro)" on the tape box....does that mean it would have definitely been an H&V intro? Does that mean it was going to be part of H&V part 2? Was it definitively going to be the "Fire" intro? We don't know.

And we'll probably never know.

All fair points (although I think Heroes Intro was erroneously connected with Fire by David Leaf and it's just one of those things that's stuck).

However, as a few have pointed out here, there is a vintage edit of some of the Heroes Sections (with Swedish frog spliced out). This suggests those sections were to run together. Do we really think that was work done for the main H&V single - one of the corner pieces of Smile? The existence of a B side does make sense of a lot of the more throwaway material recorded for H&V - Heroes Intro, Swdish Frog, the dit dit sections etc. It's so repetitive I just have a hard time believing that was designed for an A Side.

2) part numbers don't necessarily correspond to anything. Case in point: "Fire" was announced as "The Elements, part 1" -- all it means perhaps is that it was the second thing recorded, the second thing recorded under that title during the same session, or maybe the same day, the same studio, etc.

Yes, agreed' 'Part 1' is a pretty loose categorization and could refer to part of a session etc. but labelling something as an Intro, as in Heroes Intro, is far more specific. Likewise, how do you explain the naming of 'Tag to Part 1'. That, for me, is extremely suggestive of the existence of a two parted Heroes.

1) how many people don't think "Our Prayer" is an intro, despite that Brian actually said during the recording sessions/rehearsals, "This is 'intro to the album,' take 1."

Ha ha - I am one of those people! However, although I think it may have been a closer, I also accept that when he was recording it he was considering it as an opener.

I do agree that we know nothing for certain with Smile, but some clues such as the name 'Tag To Part 1' seem too suggestive imo.

[Cam Mott]

Right, but what we do know points very strongly to a 2 sided H&V single and very weakly away from it.

[bgas]

Right, but what we do know points very strongly to a 2 sided H&V single and very weakly away from it.

Except they released it without it being 2-sided, so that's very strongly the other way.  If it was "supposed to be" 2 sided, why not just put it out that way? Why use " You're Welcome" ?

[Chris Brown]

Right, but what we do know points very strongly to a 2 sided H&V single and very weakly away from it.

Except they released it without it being 2-sided, so that's very strongly the other way.  If it was "supposed to be" 2 sided, why not just put it out that way? Why use " You're Welcome" ?

You have to remember, things were very different in February '67 (when Brian was doing extensive work on "Heroes") than when the single came out in July.  Namely, the Capitol lawsuit happened in March (I believe), which probably put a damper on any immediate plans that Brian had for a two-sided "Heroes" single.  Moreover, we all know how excessively Brian was tinkering with the song throughout early '67 - but by the time summer rolled around, Smile as an album concept was no longer on the table.  At that point, I think the general feeling in the group was to just get something out, even if it was an overly-tinkered-with version of "Heroes" and a throwaway B-side.

[Cam Mott]

Right, but what we do know points very strongly to a 2 sided H&V single and very weakly away from it.

Except they released it without it being 2-sided, so that's very strongly the other way.  If it was "supposed to be" 2 sided, why not just put it out that way? Why use " You're Welcome" ?

The same reason the album it was to be a single for didn't come out I suppose: Brian changed his mind.

The question was, was there a two sided H&V and what we do know points very strongly to a 2 sided H&V single and very weakly away from it. What did doesn't change what was.

[bgas]

Right, but what we do know points very strongly to a 2 sided H&V single and very weakly away from it.

Except they released it without it being 2-sided, so that's very strongly the other way.  If it was "supposed to be" 2 sided, why not just put it out that way? Why use " You're Welcome" ?

The same reason the album it was to be a single for didn't come out I suppose: Brian changed his mind.

The question was, was there a two sided H&V and what we do know points very strongly to a 2 sided H&V single and very weakly away from it. What did doesn't change what was.

You make solid points; but, and it's a  huge but, There's no solid physical evidence to support the theory.
No Capitol paperwork, no memos.
If someone can get a lucid Brian to come forth with  real details about this period, that's the only way we'll ever know.
Endless speculation will never reveal anything.