gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680598 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 04:59:03 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Domenic Priore on The SMiLE Sessions  (Read 20865 times)
JaredLekites
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 207



View Profile WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 17, 2011, 07:22:18 AM »


"When Darian worked with Brian Wilson to sequence 'SMiLE' for 2004," he said, "Wilson placed its heaviest song, 'Surf's Up,' back in the proper order of that sequence.

It could be reasonably argued that, as the 3rd section of BWPS is entirely a 21st century construct, "Surf's Up" did indeed close Smile and hadn't changed position at all. That's the argument: the fact is, no-one knows. To say things were fluid in those days is a huge understatement.

I'm eagerly awaiting Dom's new essay: currently re-reading his Sunset Strip book and the sense of time, place and context is outstanding.


I always enjoy reading Priore's books. Though sometimes I think he has a tendency to interject his own (often strong and sometimes radical) musical opinions into the story, the backstory and mood settings really give you a further appreciation of the music. Rather than the typical 'it was the mid-1960s and JFK was shot to death' scenarios that have become cliche' to say the least, he lets you in on what was happening on the streets and the whole lingo that was uprising amongst youth. I hadn't realized how seemingly obsessed Brian Wilson was with "modern" sounds until Priore pointed it out in his recent Smile book.
Logged

jaredlekites.bandcamp.com/
pixletwin
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4925



View Profile
« Reply #26 on: March 17, 2011, 08:00:19 AM »

I think the cover will likely be something drab with the appropriate SMiLE font, ala the Pet Sounds Sessions box set.
Logged
buddhahat
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2643


Hi, my name's Doug. Would you like to dance?


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: March 17, 2011, 08:14:04 AM »

I think the cover will likely be something drab with the appropriate SMiLE font, ala the Pet Sounds Sessions box set.

What you describe is essentially the 78 record store day cover. It actually could be classy if they use that same texture they used on the PS box, but bad news if the smile artwork wasn't anywhere in the release. I'm sure Frank'll get his due & we'll see those smiles beaming out at us come the end of the year.
Logged

Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes ......
juggler
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1120


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: March 17, 2011, 09:58:36 AM »

I think the cover will likely be something drab with the appropriate SMiLE font, ala the Pet Sounds Sessions box set.

Let's keep in mind that the Pet Sounds Sessions and Smile Sessions boxes won't be the same shape.  The PS box was, of course, a long rectangle (not a great shape on which to reproduce an LP cover).  Because the Smile box will contain vinyl LPs, it will have to be a ~12"x12" square...  the perfect shape for simply using the beloved 1967 Smile shop cover.

Logged
pixletwin
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4925



View Profile
« Reply #29 on: March 17, 2011, 10:09:12 AM »

I think the cover will likely be something drab with the appropriate SMiLE font, ala the Pet Sounds Sessions box set.

Let's keep in mind that the Pet Sounds Sessions and Smile Sessions boxes won't be the same shape.  The PS box was, of course, a long rectangle (not a great shape on which to reproduce an LP cover).  Because the Smile box will contain vinyl LPs, it will have to be a ~12"x12" square...  the perfect shape for simply using the beloved 1967 Smile shop cover.



Ooops. You're right. I wish they would just release a picture already with a tracklist so we can all move on and start drooling.  Evil
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 17, 2011, 10:10:35 AM »


"When Darian worked with Brian Wilson to sequence 'SMiLE' for 2004," he said, "Wilson placed its heaviest song, 'Surf's Up,' back in the proper order of that sequence.

It could be reasonably argued that, as the 3rd section of BWPS is entirely a 21st century construct, "Surf's Up" did indeed close Smile and hadn't changed position at all. That's the argument: the fact is, no-one knows. To say things were fluid in those days is a huge understatement.

I'm eagerly awaiting Dom's new essay: currently re-reading his Sunset Strip book and the sense of time, place and context is outstanding.


I always enjoy reading Priore's books. Though sometimes I think he has a tendency to interject his own (often strong and sometimes radical) musical opinions into the story, the backstory and mood settings really give you a further appreciation of the music. Rather than the typical 'it was the mid-1960s and JFK was shot to death' scenarios that have become cliche' to say the least, he lets you in on what was happening on the streets and the whole lingo that was uprising amongst youth. I hadn't realized how seemingly obsessed Brian Wilson was with "modern" sounds until Priore pointed it out in his recent Smile book.

The bold section I agree with 100%. I really, and I mean REALLY enjoy the absolute scholarship and completeness Mr. Priore brings to his history of the Sunset Strip scene, and how he relates certain events to the surroundings at the time. You appreciate this when you look at some of those period photographs or even newsreel footage to see the places come alive visually, and he has a talent for capturing a lot of what surrounded the happenings at that time. I am fascinated by that scene, and it's great to have historians actively getting the information out there to the public.

But I do prefer history be told without a personal bias, and unfortunately that's a tall order and has been for some time. Every author has his or her own style, and in Domenic's case from what I read and heard he likes to inject opinions into the history, and it's not a personal criticism but I prefer my history be told in raw facts rather than through a filter of any kind. Not that I don't enjoy most everything the man has written, but it's just a personal preference not to have those "strong and sometimes radical" opinions, to use the highlighted phrase, injected into the story. Just my two cents. I'm looking forward to what he has to say on this project.


Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
bgas
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6372


Oh for the good old days


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: March 17, 2011, 01:22:37 PM »


But I do prefer history be told without a personal bias, and unfortunately that's a tall order and has been for some time. Every author has his or her own style, and in Domenic's case from what I read and heard he likes to inject opinions into the history, and it's not a personal criticism but I prefer my history be told in raw facts rather than through a filter of any kind. Not that I don't enjoy most everything the man has written, but it's just a personal preference not to have those "strong and sometimes radical" opinions, to use the highlighted phrase, injected into the story. Just my two cents. I'm looking forward to what he has to say on this project.

Without bothering to present any examples, isn't all history presented in someone's viewppoint? For almost any accounting of anything there are usually at least a couple of variations on what Actually happened.  
« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 01:41:21 PM by bgas » Logged

Nothing I post is my opinion, it's all a message from God
drbeachboy
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5214



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: March 17, 2011, 01:37:51 PM »

I agree. I see nothing wrong when history is written from someone's viewpoint, especially from those who actually lived through the experience.
Logged

The Brianista Prayer

Oh Brian
Thou Art In Hawthorne,
Harmonied Be Thy name
Your Kingdom Come,
Your Steak Well Done,
On Stage As It Is In Studio,
Give Us This Day, Our Shortenin' Bread
And Forgive Us Our Bootlegs,
As We Also Have Forgiven Our Wife And Managers,
And Lead Us Not Into Kokomo,
But Deliver Us From Mike Love.
Amen.  ---hypehat
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: March 17, 2011, 01:44:24 PM »

Quote
But I do prefer history be told without a personal bias, and unfortunately that's a tall order

Not only is it tall, it's impossible!
Logged
JaredLekites
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 207



View Profile WWW
« Reply #34 on: March 17, 2011, 03:26:05 PM »


But I do prefer history be told without a personal bias, and unfortunately that's a tall order and has been for some time. Every author has his or her own style, and in Domenic's case from what I read and heard he likes to inject opinions into the history, and it's not a personal criticism but I prefer my history be told in raw facts rather than through a filter of any kind. Not that I don't enjoy most everything the man has written, but it's just a personal preference not to have those "strong and sometimes radical" opinions, to use the highlighted phrase, injected into the story. Just my two cents. I'm looking forward to what he has to say on this project.

Without bothering to present any examples, isn't all history presented in someone's viewppoint? For almost any accounting of anything there are usually at least a couple of variations on what Actually happened.  

True. That's why it's probably best to present all existing viewpoints instead of just one.
Logged

jaredlekites.bandcamp.com/
drbeachboy
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5214



View Profile
« Reply #35 on: March 17, 2011, 03:42:05 PM »

History authors can be neutral. An author who writes about World War II who is born 10-20 after the event, usually writes from the viewpoint of the parties involved, but generally not from his own.
Logged

The Brianista Prayer

Oh Brian
Thou Art In Hawthorne,
Harmonied Be Thy name
Your Kingdom Come,
Your Steak Well Done,
On Stage As It Is In Studio,
Give Us This Day, Our Shortenin' Bread
And Forgive Us Our Bootlegs,
As We Also Have Forgiven Our Wife And Managers,
And Lead Us Not Into Kokomo,
But Deliver Us From Mike Love.
Amen.  ---hypehat
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: March 17, 2011, 09:46:45 PM »

Quote
History authors can be neutral. An author who writes about World War II who is born 10-20 after the event, usually writes from the viewpoint of the parties involved, but generally not from his own.

Well, for starters, why does the historian choose to write about WWII over other historical events?

That's just the beginning of the personal bias but it can go on and on - where after all does WWII begin? When does the narrative end? All of these questions rely on subjective interpretations of events, which is impossible to avoid.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #37 on: March 17, 2011, 09:55:16 PM »

Historians can be neutral, in fact I'd almost demand it of them if they are to be responsible for telling the story to a future generation after all of the principals are dead and gone. If they are writing an opinion piece as an opinion piece, they can say whatever they want. If it's for the sake of history, I'll take just the facts.

I can cite example after example of historians interjecting too much of themselves and their personal bias into a story. Or, "slanting" the telling of story in order to back up a personally held opinion or to boost that opinion from opinion to fact. I'll stick to two biggies with Smile:

Look at the reporting of the "Inside Pop" filming that we read had included Mike and other Beach Boys hassling others at the session over lyrics as the CBS cameras rolled. This indirectly led to finding the actual camera notes and finding out it wasn't quite that way, if the incident happened at all. But saying it happened a certain way backed up some points which were being made.

Or explain how else Mike Love was turned into such an "enemy" of Smile for decades if not through a slanted telling of the story. Turns out he just wasn't as much of an issue in the album's collapse as some would lead us to believe. I remember doing a web search for Smile in the early days of the web, on a friend's PC, and I got a transcript of Mike Love's Heroes rant from the Heider sessions, not knowing where it came from and having not heard it before reading it. It was some time before I learned it had been scripted as a joke by Brian, and whoever it was who shared the transcript either didn't know or failed to mention that fact. So I read this speech and thought what a jerk that guy was to say those things, while the full story was completely different.

So would a hypothetical future historian copy that speech Mike delivers word-for-word, reprint it in a history of Smile or the Beach Boys, and fail to mention it was a total joke and a put-on? If you're pushing an agenda, you might. If you're telling the story as "just the facts" (apologies to Jack Webb...), you'd mention it was a scripted joke.

All history is not required to come from someone's viewpoint if they stick to the facts. Was the previous day St. Patricks Day, March 17th 2011, a Thursday? Or was it also a beautiful, mild, sunny day with nary a cloud in the sky and the sweet smell of spring in the air?


Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: March 17, 2011, 09:59:56 PM »

Quote

True. That's why it's probably best to present all existing viewpoints instead of just one.

I disagree. First, it is impossible "to present all existing viewpoints" of a historical event in any manageable and structured way.

Second, there is a small chunk of lunatics whose viewpoint on WWII is that the Holocaust is a fabrication. Clearly historians should not be forced to "present" this viewpoint in their analysis of WWII. It's best for them to, instead, present their own interpretation of events using the standards of evidence available and let readers decide for themselves. And after all, placing "Holocaust denial" in with other perspectives on WWII gives the impression that such a position is as equally valid as the other ones (kind of like when news stations put on a Global Warming denier on to debate a climatologist to give a certain false impression).

To try and escape subjectivity is, in my opinion, fruitless at best and dangerous at worst.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: March 17, 2011, 10:04:33 PM »

All history is not required to come from someone's viewpoint if they stick to the facts.

And who decides which "facts" are relevant for the history books? You aren't seriously suggesting that history is ever simply a random collection of facts, are you?

Quote
Was the previous day St. Patricks Day, March 17th 2011, a Thursday?

Yes, but that's not history. That's a calendar.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #40 on: March 17, 2011, 10:09:40 PM »

Did you read my examples related to Smile? We don't even need to get into World War II as an example. It's not about presenting all viewpoints, it's about presenting facts...if you're writing history. If you're writing opinion or commentary on history, write whatever you want! Blurring the lines between history and commentary can be the dangerous part, mostly for future generations reading that commentary and thinking it's 100% fact.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
SMiLEY
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 115

Columnated Ruins Domino


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: March 17, 2011, 10:19:00 PM »

More to the subject --  calling the Heroes skit 'just a joke' is also showing bias, isn't it? I mean, it has all the hallmarks of having been done as a way of dealing with real tensions between Mike and Brian over the way everything had gone in the year since GV had come out. His rant bears the gist of his very real anger. Like the Sonny Love vs. Cassius Wilson skits, they are fun yes, but they are also 'paging Sigmund Freud' moments.

As to Dom -- I think at times he has needed the admonishment, "Your Kung Fu is good, but your emotions lead you." Fortunately, he seems to have got the lesson -- he frankly states that his insistence on Surf's Up being the finale of SMiLE was based on the template of A Day In The Life, and was therefore incorrectly assuming Surf's Up should similarly come at the end.

So, he has shown growth as a writer, and the ability to be objective or at least admit being wrong. It is, after all, OK to be wrong if one adjusts and corrects when better info comes in.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 10:20:54 PM by SMiLEY » Logged

Look! Listen! Vibrate! SMiLE!
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: March 17, 2011, 10:20:20 PM »

Quote
Did you read my examples related to Smile?

Yes, but your examples do nothing to suggest a way out of bias. So you would add to the transcript that "it was a joke"? That doesn't quite explain why such jokes were being made in the first place. And furthermore, why are we considering this information historically relevant? What makes it important as a historical document? These are all personal decisions that you yourself seem to be making.

Quote
it's about presenting facts...if you're writing history.

No, history is not just "presenting facts". It's about turning past events into a cohesive and understandable narrative.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 10:22:13 PM by rockandroll » Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #43 on: March 17, 2011, 10:28:14 PM »

All history is not required to come from someone's viewpoint if they stick to the facts.

And who decides which "facts" are relevant for the history books? You aren't seriously suggesting that history is ever simply a random collection of facts, are you?

Quote
Was the previous day St. Patricks Day, March 17th 2011, a Thursday?

Yes, but that's not history. That's a calendar.

When or where did I say history is a random collection of facts? Please show me.

A hypothetical history based on facts might be reporting that on a certain Smile session, backing vocals for Cabinessence were attempted, and these 5 band members were present at this particular studio on this date from this time to that, and they recorded in front of a U47 microphone set to the omnidirectional pattern. Session tapes reveal they attempted parts of the verse and the chorus, before calling an early end to the session and deciding to go home. The session was logged with the AFM, and Diane Rovell was listed as the contractor.

Is there anything random about that? It's factual, it relates to one date in history, it can be proven by documentation and possibly even audio tape, and it pertinent to a discussion on Smile. And it's interesting to a segment of readers and fans of the band.

What possible reason would a historian have to inject commentary or opinion into a reporting of facts such as that if that was his or her assignment?
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: March 17, 2011, 10:42:39 PM »

Quote
When or where did I say history is a random collection of facts? Please show me.

May I point you in the direction of the question mark at the end of that sentence?

But you're right, given what you've asserted so far, you couldn't conceive that facts are collected randomly. Apparently they just happen in a neat package and it is the historians task to merely take that package and, I guess, publish it.

Quote
A hypothetical history based on facts might be reporting that on a certain Smile session, backing vocals for Cabinessence were attempted, and these 5 band members were present at this particular studio on this date from this time to that, and they recorded in front of a U47 microphone set to the omnidirectional pattern. Session tapes reveal they attempted parts of the verse and the chorus, before calling an early end to the session and deciding to go home. The session was logged with the AFM, and Diane Rovell was listed as the contractor.

Is there anything random about that?

Yes.

Where were the five standing? At what time did they arrive? What were they driving in when they arrived? Did some walk? Did some stay longer than others? How long approximately was the hair of each member? Did they all shower before coming? Did any of them bring anything to eat? Was there any eating that took place? If so, what? If so, was any of it left unfinished? How many chews did they take of their food? Did anyone leave at any point to go to the bathroom? What did they do in the bathroom?

Now, the answer to all of these questions would indeed constitute facts. The number of "facts" that probably occurred on this day alone, amongst this group of people, would probably total over a million. But, of course, you want to concentrate on particular facts. There are facts to you that are relevant and facts to you that aren't. And that, my friend, is a bias. Sure, there is no interjection of commentary and there is no interjection of opinion but the very fact that you have decided what constitutes relevant information and what doesn't is pure out-and-out textbook bias. More over, it's not only just as biased as injecting commentary and injecting opinion, it's much much worse, because it pretends to be objective when it isn't. At least the person who is open about their positionality in narrating past events is honest. The person who pretends that what this kind of "history" is objective and free from bias is presenting a falsehood.

I put "history" in quotes by the way because your example is not history by any stretch of the imagination. It is, indeed, just a random collection of facts.

Quote
What possible reason would a historian have to inject commentary or opinion into a reporting of facts such as that if that was his or her assignment?

Well, if their assignment is to report facts then he or she probably isn't a historian.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 10:44:57 PM by rockandroll » Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #45 on: March 17, 2011, 10:45:09 PM »

Quote
Did you read my examples related to Smile?

Yes, but your examples do nothing to suggest a way out of bias. So you would add to the transcript that "it was a joke"? That doesn't quite explain why such jokes were being made in the first place. And furthermore, why are we considering this information historically relevant? What makes it important as a historical document? These are all personal decisions that you yourself seem to be making.

Quote
it's about presenting facts...if you're writing history.

No, history is not just "presenting facts". It's about turning past events into a cohesive and understandable narrative.

At what point would you determine a historian has to inject his or her own personal opinion or bias into recording those past events in order to meet the standard for a "cohesive and understandable narrative"? Is the suggestion then creating a situation where history cannot present facts as cohesive and understandable without injecting the historian's bias? If it is, I'd disagree strongly.

The Mike Love rant was historically relevant because it radically shaped an opinion of the entire "saga" of Smile until the full story was told, that it was in fact a put-on, a "joke" which I'll still call it, and not a serious rant. There was no context given with the speech, there was no date or time, there was just the transcript of a speech Mike Love delivered during a Heroes session, and it made him sound/look like a jerk. I can't count the number of times people have heard that speech and asked about it with the same negative opinion of Mike until someone pointed out it wasn't what it appeared to be.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: March 17, 2011, 10:54:14 PM »

Quote
At what point would you determine a historian has to inject his or her own personal opinion or bias into recording those past events in order to meet the standard for a "cohesive and understandable narrative"? Is the suggestion then creating a situation where history cannot present facts as cohesive and understandable without injecting the historian's bias? If it is, I'd disagree strongly.

I should probably wait until you respond to my last post, but in the meantime I will say that if you disagree that a historian isn't biased when they are presenting facts as a cohesive and understandable narrative, then you haven't thought through what it means to do that.

Quote
The Mike Love rant was historically relevant because it radically shaped an opinion of the entire "saga" of Smile until the full story was told, that it was in fact a put-on, a "joke" which I'll still call it, and not a serious rant

I wasn't asking you to explain why the Love rant was relevant. I was pointing out that whenever you, or me, or anyone deems an event "historically relevant", they are showing a bias. You are implying that certain events are relevant and certain events are not, which is exactly a bias.

Quote
There was no context given with the speech, there was no date or time, there was just the transcript of a speech Mike Love delivered during a Heroes session, and it made him sound/look like a jerk. I can't count the number of times people have heard that speech and asked about it with the same negative opinion of Mike until someone pointed out it wasn't what it appeared to be.

This story in many ways works to challenge the very notion of history as truth. The story suggests that as we find more information from the past, our understanding of the past changes or shifts. And, of course, we can never exhaust all the information from the past, because there was always something going somewhere. Therefore, we can never really know the "full story" of the past. It is always beyond our reach.



Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #47 on: March 17, 2011, 11:02:02 PM »

Quote
When or where did I say history is a random collection of facts? Please show me.

May I point you in the direction of the question mark at the end of that sentence?

But you're right, given what you've asserted so far, you couldn't conceive that facts are collected randomly. Apparently they just happen in a neat package and it is the historians task to merely take that package and, I guess, publish it.

Quote
A hypothetical history based on facts might be reporting that on a certain Smile session, backing vocals for Cabinessence were attempted, and these 5 band members were present at this particular studio on this date from this time to that, and they recorded in front of a U47 microphone set to the omnidirectional pattern. Session tapes reveal they attempted parts of the verse and the chorus, before calling an early end to the session and deciding to go home. The session was logged with the AFM, and Diane Rovell was listed as the contractor.

Is there anything random about that?

Yes.

Where were the five standing? At what time did they arrive? What were they driving in when they arrived? Did some walk? Did some stay longer than others? How long approximately was the hair of each member? Did they all shower before coming? Did any of them bring anything to eat? Was there any eating that took place? If so, what? If so, was any of it left unfinished? How many chews did they take of their food? Did anyone leave at any point to go to the bathroom? What did they do in the bathroom?

Now, the answer to all of these questions would indeed constitute facts. The number of "facts" that probably occurred on this day alone, amongst this group of people, would probably total over a million. But, of course, you want to concentrate on particular facts. There are facts to you that are relevant and facts to you that aren't. And that, my friend, is a bias. Sure, there is no interjection of commentary and there is no interjection of opinion but the very fact that you have decided what constitutes relevant information and what doesn't is pure out-and-out textbook bias. More over, it's not only just as biased as injecting commentary and injecting opinion, it's much much worse, because it pretends to be objective when it isn't. At least the person who is open about their positionality in narrating past events is honest. The person who pretends that what this kind of "history" is objective and free from bias is presenting a falsehood.

I put "history" in quotes by the way because your example is not history by any stretch of the imagination. It is, indeed, just a random collection of facts.

Quote
What possible reason would a historian have to inject commentary or opinion into a reporting of facts such as that if that was his or her assignment?

Well, if their assignment is to report facts then he or she probably isn't a historian.

Can you not see the obvious difference in reporting how many bites Al Jardine took of his ham sandwich on December 12 1966 and reporting the facts of that session? You're trying to throw everything but the kitchen sink into an example that was hypothetical, you're picking and choosing which comments to address while ignoring others, and maybe that's the kind of history you're into reading, I don't know. It seems more about trying to prove your opinions against what I'm saying by taking everything to an extreme example when that's not reality.

Again, am I suggesting anywhere above the kind of absurd, minute details you're throwing out there should be the standard for telling the history of an event? Or a telling of the facts in a historical account must include details like eating and bathroom habits of the band? And how does not including when the band took a piss or ate their food constitute a bias?

If a historian takes on an assignment to write about a specific event in history, and if in your definition and standard of what makes a historian the reporting and recording of facts isn't the ultimate goal for that historian, that person is indeed a commentator and is not a historian and the book should be titled that way, as commentary rather than history. My opinion.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: March 17, 2011, 11:22:57 PM »



Can you not see the obvious difference in reporting how many bites Al Jardine took of his ham sandwich on December 12 1966 and reporting the facts of that session?

Is one more factual than the other? If so, how do you determine this?

Quote
You're trying to throw everything but the kitchen sink into an example that was hypothetical, you're picking and choosing which comments to address while ignoring others, and maybe that's the kind of history you're into reading, I don't know.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

Quote
Again, am I suggesting anywhere above the kind of absurd, minute details you're throwing out there should be the standard for telling the history of an event?

No, you're not, and that's exactly my point. That you consider the fact that "they recorded in front of a U47 microphone set to the omnidirectional pattern" to be relevant and the fact that Jardine took X amount of bites from his sandwhich to be an "absurd, minute detail" is telling that you are extraordinarily biased. That the former should be "history" while the other should not be known at all is exactly a case of a historian interjecting into past events, decided himself what constitutes relevant information.

Quote
Or a telling of the facts in a historical account must include details like eating and bathroom habits of the band?

You need to step back a minute and re-read this thread because you are blatantly missing my point. You are the one suggesting that you need to get the "full story" and to collect all the facts. Wasn't that the point of the Mike Love transcript story?

So, no. I'm not saying you have to "include details like eating and bathroom habits of the band". I'm saying, rather, that the historian is always making a biased choice as to what constitutes history and what doesn't. History, in order for it to function as history, and in order for it to be coherent in any way, is always necessarily an act of exclusion. Now what a historian decides to be history is typically an ideological construct. Different societies and different time periods have always had different ideas of what counts as history and what doesn't. And the cool thing about ideology is that it always passes for "reality" when it fact, it's just a particular perspective. This is why you see certain facts as being relevant and other facts as being minute and absurd because you have been taught a concept of history that is particular to your time and place.

Quote
And how does not including when the band took a piss or ate their food constitute a bias?

Because the historian is making the decision for everyone else what constitutes history and that is purely his or her perspective.

Quote
If a historian takes on an assignment to write about a specific event in history, and if in your definition and standard of what makes a historian the reporting and recording of facts isn't the ultimate goal for that historian, that person is indeed a commentator and is not a historian and the book should be titled that way, as commentary rather than history. My opinion.

The role of a historian is not a matter of opinion. History is a cohesive and organized narrative of past events and it is the historian's job to either construct those narratives or help find the information that allows other historians to construct those narratives. Their job is NEVER about "reporting and recording" facts.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 11:24:55 PM by rockandroll » Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #49 on: March 17, 2011, 11:25:13 PM »


Quote
I should probably wait until you respond to my last post, but in the meantime I will say that if you disagree that a historian isn't biased when they are presenting facts as a cohesive and understandable narrative, then you haven't thought through what it means to do that.

Quote
I wasn't asking you to explain why the Love rant was relevant. I was pointing out that whenever you, or me, or anyone deems an event "historically relevant", they are showing a bias. You are implying that certain events are relevant and certain events are not, which is exactly a bias.

This is quite a stretch. This bias, according to your analysis, would be what exactly in the case of not reporting in a history of a single Smile session what kind of food they ate during a lunch break or what brand of cigarettes Carl is heard smoking during the breaks?

Are you biased if someone asks you tomorrow how your day is going and you fail to mention every bite you took of your breakfast? I define bias in reporting historical facts in a much different way than failing to include every last detail to the point of obsession.

An example of bias in the Beach Boys world, a glaring one actually, is the biography of Brian Wilson that reports obvious lies as facts. If that author were reporting facts as I think a historian should put above everything, George Benson wouldn't be part of the story at all, since he has no association with Brian Wilson. Since the book was pushing an agenda, trying to make certain parties look "better" than others, George Benson was discovered by Gene Landy shining shoes, which is obviously total crap.


Quote
This story in many ways works to challenge the very notion of history as truth. The story suggests that as we find more information from the past, our understanding of the past changes or shifts. And, of course, we can never exhaust all the information from the past, because there was always something going somewhere. Therefore, we can never really know the "full story" of the past. It is always beyond our reach.

I do agree with this philosophy and analysis, in fact if we think about it too hard it can be overwhelming and a bit too hopeless. It is very overwhelming to consider we will NEVER get as close as we'd like in order to understand the stories of history. Even if time travel became possible somewhere/somehow, where exactly would we go? You can't pinpoint history, and that is frustrating.

I still don't think it's showing a bias, when charged with writing history, to do the best we can with what we have available. Whoever posted the Mike Love rant, I give them the benefit of the doubt they never heard about it being scripted and assumed as did I and others it was an example of Mike being a "villain" in the story of Smile. The beauty of studying history is in the discovery. Like a good teacher would want to see their student eventually become better than that teacher, wouldn't a good historian like to be proven wrong if it means getting closer to the truth?

« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 11:27:52 PM by guitarfool2002 » Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
gfx
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.425 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!