Domenic Priore on The SMiLE Sessions

[Chocolate Shake Man]

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?

The bias is favouring particular facts over others as being relevant to the narrative that you are constructing about this event. It's fairly clear.

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 thought you were concerned with someone interjecting their personal opinion? If someone asks me how my day is going, my answer is going to be a personal opinion even if my personal opinion happens to be a fact. So by your standards, my answer is problematic no matter what. And if your answer to this is, "well, of course, your answer would be a personal opinion", then you must realize this isn't a very good hypothetical example for you, since you're the one who believes that there is a significant difference between  me telling you about my day and me telling you about an historical event.

I define bias in reporting historical facts in a much different way than failing to include every last detail to the point of obsession.

Right - because, again, you yourself are biased in terms of what constitutes history.

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.

Your examples thus far of bias seem to rely heavily on incidents where information was given that was incorrect (the above example, and the Mike Love transcript example, for instance) but, in actuality, the definition of bias has nothing to do with true or false information. I haven't seen any definition of "bias" which suggests that if you are biased you are presenting events falsely. It seems as if you are making an incorrect assumption that if you privilege one view over another that you are being false.

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.

But who decides what makes for the "best" history. To be honest, the hypothetical examples you've given me so far, don't make the cut.

The best history books I've read are books that question how certain narratives of history came to be known as "history" while other events were discarded from those narratives. I might suggest reading Michel Foucault's book as examples. Foucault, incidentally, really changed the entire way most people understand history.

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?

I think a good historian would gladly be proven wrong, yes. And they are proven wrong all the time, which is why a good historian would be fooling themselves if they thought that we were "getting closer to the truth" simply by finding another piece of information.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

delete

[guitarfool2002]

Again, you seem to put a lot of your opinions on what I have said out there as fact, and the way you're saying I'm defining bias as putting out true versus false information is not what I'm saying despite what you may want to think. The Mike Love example was one where if a historian were to put that out in a book about Smile knowing what the speech really was yet failing to mention that fact in the history, that is a bias, especially if the rest of the book's theory revolves around the notion that Mike Love was a jerk. Excluding that fact in order to promote a more far-reaching hypothesis or belief is clearly a bias, and an obvious one.

It's absurd and smacks of relativism to equate not including what Mike ate that day with failing to mention the whole thing was a rehearsed skit, talking hypothetically of course and as always in my opinion.

I think the notion of "bias" in general is getting taken too far in some of these responses. If you think showing bias includes the decision to include or not include the most minute details, it's too literal a definition to be a workable standard, in my opinion. I think showing bias is an obvious thing to notice - by your standard since the simple act of saying something is relevant or non-relevant to the story shows a bias, up to and including details of meals, then the original notion of bias is rendered useless? Again, some of it seems to be touching on the concept of relativism.

The heart of this may be in fact how to define bias. I'll go back to the Beach Boys: the Brian bio was biased to show Landy as a savior, and in a very positive light. That, to me, is writing history with an obvious bias, and a glaring example of it. For that book to leave out details of a specific recording session in a chapter on Smile, however, is not showing a bias in that context.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Again, you seem to put a lot of your opinions on what I have said out there as fact, and the way you're saying I'm defining bias as putting out true versus false information is not what I'm saying despite what you may want to think.

I suggest you re-read my post. I didn't say that you were defining bias as presenting false information. I observed (correctly, I might add) that your examples of bias thus far concentrated solely on false information. What I am suggesting is that that's a problematic way of only looking at bias.

The Mike Love example was one where if a historian were to put that out in a book about Smile knowing what the speech really was yet failing to mention that fact in the history, that is a bias, especially if the rest of the book's theory revolves around the notion that Mike Love was a jerk. Excluding that fact in order to promote a more far-reaching hypothesis or belief is clearly a bias, and an obvious one.

I might offer that I would much prefer an obvious bias to the hidden ones that pretend to not be biases that you clearly prefer.

It's absurd and smacks of relativism to equate not including what Mike ate that day with failing to mention the whole thing was a rehearsed skit, talking hypothetically of course and as always in my opinion.

I would agree. It's a shame that I wasn't relating those two examples at all, else you might actually have some kind of case on your hands.

I think the notion of "bias" in general is getting taken too far in some of these responses. If you think showing bias includes the decision to include or not include the most minute details, it's too literal a definition to be a workable standard, in my opinion.

I'm merely using the exact definition of bias. We can use Wikipedia as an example, though any definition you find will say the same thing, and that is, holding a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives. Now these details that you call "minute" are not only alternatives but they are "equally valid" by your own standards since you are the one who is privileging facts. Again, there are millions of facts that occur during a single event like the one you describe. Clearly, if one is forced to delete "minute details" or even if one decides that certain details are minute while other details are of historic importance, then he or she is clearly partial to a particular perspective of history and to certain ways of telling the event over others.

What this comes down to, seemingly, is that you prefer one kind of bias but not another kind of bias.

I think showing bias is an obvious thing to notice - by your standard since the simple act of saying something is relevant or non-relevant to the story shows a bias, up to and including details of meals, then the original notion of bias is rendered useless? Again, some of it seems to be touching on the concept of relativism.

No, the definition of bias is not rendered useless simply because it can be applied in a way you don't like it. What is rendered useless however is any conceivable idea of an objective history that is beyond the historian's perspective and opinions.

The heart of this may be in fact how to define bias. I'll go back to the Beach Boys: the Brian bio was biased to show Landy as a savior, and in a very positive light. That, to me, is writing history with an obvious bias, and a glaring example of it. For that book to leave out details of a specific recording session in a chapter on Smile, however, is not showing a bias in that context.

Good - I'll stick with the official definition of bias, and you can stick with the one you've made up. As long as we're playing by those rules, you're certainly going to believe you're right now matter where this conversation goes.


[/quote]

[guitarfool2002]

So in your world the only definition of bias is one you propose, and I should, what, submit to that and say you're right? You're right about everything! In your opinion, not mine. But I'm biased that way.

I'm "making up" a definition through what I consider specific examples of bias relating to the Beach Boys? You're still trying to relate a historian choosing between minutiae and pertinent facts to a standard which would effectively eliminate the ability to judge anyone's writings as biased because any historian who writes history is biased in what details they choose to include or exclude. Or any historian who focuses in on pertinent facts like "who-what-when-where-why" is biased by not including what color shirt an individual wore the day the event took place, in fact even saying that's not relevant is showing a bias.

Let me ask this: Is the size of the hat Mike Love wore at Knebworth important enough to a historian writing an account of the Beach Boys playing at that show? Is the historian biased if he or she does not include Mike's hat size in the history of the Knebworth show? Common sense and reality at some point kicks in where relativism would suggest the hat size is as important as the setlist.

I'm almost convinced relativism is at the heart of this discussion after reading that last reply. If that's a view you share, or if that's where you're coming from as an individual, I'll respect that but I will disagree and also debate your attempts to equate your absurd examples of excluding details and attempts to define my definition of bias your own way.

[guitarfool2002]

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.

Historians' jobs are never about reporting and recording facts...Is this coming from the same school of thought that would award points on a test to the student who argues 2+2 does not equal 4?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

So in your world the only definition of bias is one you propose, and I should, what, submit to that and say you're right?

If you are honestly being smug about this issue, then you are not prepared to engage seriously in a discussion.

Yes, I am suggesting that we agree to an official definition of the term, rather than make up a definition for ourselves. Of course, if we make up our own definitions of words we are clearly going to choose one that reinforces are own position. That's why such behaviour is intellectually dishonest.

It is more than ironic that the person who has been railing against a biased perspective should be so smug about being forced to adhere to an official definition of a term rather than the one he happens to spin out of his head.

You're right about everything!

And I should reinforce yet again here that, no, I would not be "right", since I'm not the one who is proposing my own definition here.

I'm "making up" a definition through what I consider specific examples of bias relating to the Beach Boys?

Putting "making up" in quotes doesn't change the fact that you are making one up. And you can't define a word through examples.

You're still trying to relate a historian choosing between minutiae and pertinent facts to a standard which would effectively eliminate the ability to judge anyone's writings as biased because any historian who writes history is biased in what details they choose to include or exclude.

Well, yes, given that all history is biased, it is a stupid criteria on which to base one's judgement of history. Since a lack of bias would imply that it is not history, there is no reason to judge history on the basis of how biased it is. Fortunately, bias has rarely been a criteria for such judgements and has only really become en vogue in the past several decades, in particular in US news organization who use it as a basis of critique.

Or any historian who focuses in on pertinent facts like "who-what-when-where-why" is biased by not including what color shirt an individual wore the day the event took place, in fact even saying that's not relevant is showing a bias.

You've really taken my example and driven it into the ground. In fact, what shows more of a bias in this example on the part of the historian is not what details they give but who the "who" is they decide to discuss. In fact, in the time when this "who-what-when-where-why" criteria was most used in history, history was typically focused on only the very powerful or the very wealthy (typically, the same people). The "where" was either the battlefield, the kingdom, or the construction of a new society. Historians as far back as the early 20th Century saw enormous problems with this as it painted a history that essentially excluded the work of the common man, women, the East, non-whites, etc. and if those people were described, they were only described in relation to powerful people. So, that's where "who-what-when-where-why" got us, and that's why no historian today takes that method seriously.

Let me ask this: Is the size of the hat Mike Love wore at Knebworth important enough to a historian writing an account of the Beach Boys playing at that show? Is the historian biased if he or she does not include Mike's hat size in the history of the Knebworth show? Common sense and reality at some point kicks in where relativism would suggest the hat size is as important as the setlist.

It depends on the historian. If someone was writing about the history of fashion amongst rock stars in the latter-20th century, then yes, Mike Love's hat would be much more important than the setlist at the show. But in order to believe that, you'd have to believe that historians come to particular past events with a particular perspective, which you don't believe since having a perspective means having a bias (see above definition).

Again, you clearly haven't thought this through. The fact that you are assuming that Mike Love's hat has no historical relevance when I've just given a perfectly reasonable scenario where it would be relevant is telling of that. Clearly YOU wouldn't be interested in the hat but would be interested in the setlist, because simply put, you are biased. You are looking for specific things because you have specific concerns - namely, in this case, The Beach Boys' music. So because you have very specific concerns, you are going to be relaying only the information that pertains to those concerns. The hat to you is irrelevant, while the setlist to the above historian would be irrelevant. This is why your "just the facts except for the ones that are minute details" philosophy is just entirely non-sensical. What is minute details to you could be a treasure trove to other historians. And what is important history to you could constitute minute details to them. And that's just the nature of history writing. It's not so clear cut as presenting the facts. When you are presenting the past as a narrative, that means you are melding the past into a story and there are many different stories to tell even if you are just dealing with one past event. The fact that you would choose one story (which requires certain facts but not others) over another is incontrovertibly a biased choice, but there's nothing wrong with that, because that's simply the nature of history writing.

[smile-holland]

As much as I appreciate the talking about who's right and who's wrong, definition of bias(ed), suggestions to re-read posts, etc etc. , by now I don't even have a clue what the original topic was all about...

I would seriously consider you both to continue this side-discussion in the Sandbox. Btw, kudos for keeping the discussion civil, despite the fact that you obviously don't disagree. I've seen discussion like these go totally overboard in the past... 

[Crow]

I find it interesteding that Domenic found the elements on BWPS not quite right because that is exactly how I felt. I always thought IWBA and workshop would follow fire. Is there any concensus about what order the elements would or should go in? And should the album end with Surf's up? 

[buddhahat]

I find it interesteding that Domenic found the elements on BWPS not quite right because that is exactly how I felt. I always thought IWBA and workshop would follow fire. Is there any concensus about what order the elements would or should go in? And should the album end with Surf's up? 

Nothing's certain as far as sequence goes. I'm with you on Fire + IWBA + Friday Night though. Just sounds right to my ears.

[onkster]

It's so weird how, once again, this thing called SMiLE--intended as such a happy and joyful thing--gets mired in argument and controversy!

That's duality for you, I guess...

[Jonas]

We don't come here to talk about the Beach Boys...we come here to argue about the Beach Boys.

[drbeachboy]

@ onkster & Jonas

No truer words were ever spoken (written, in this case).

[MD]

Peter, does that mean Frank Holmes' work isn't being used?

Or does it mean that Dom is helping Tom Recchion to present Frank's work in addition to other artwork?


After all this time wrangling for the music's release, I'd hate for the only quibble to be about the artwork. A minor quibble, but Frank's work is very evocative of the whole smile 66-67 project.

The artwork isn't a minor quibble. To accurately use for once a hugely overworked word, it is iconic. To release this project without using Frank's cover is, simply unthinkable. remember, Frank wasn't paid back in the day, and his artwork wasn't used on BWPS because no-one would match his asking price. Hopefully Capitol won't be so stupid this time.

Delurking for a clarification...

Andrew...

In the link below...

http://www.examiner.com/beach-boys-in-national/the-smile-sessions-box-set-to-see-release-this-summer

Underneath the picture of the SMiLE cover art it says...

The SMiLE album cover art from 1967
Photo: © Frank Holmes/Capitol Records

Could this mean that Capitol Records has met Frank's price since the copyright
for the album cover art is attributed to Both Frank and Capitol Records???

Monty...

[Cam Mott]

We don't come here to talk about the Beach Boys...we come here to argue about the Beach Boys.

[giggle]

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

As much as I appreciate the talking about who's right and who's wrong, definition of bias(ed), suggestions to re-read posts, etc etc. , by now I don't even have a clue what the original topic was all about...

I would seriously consider you both to continue this side-discussion in the Sandbox. Btw, kudos for keeping the discussion civil, despite the fact that you obviously don't disagree. I've seen discussion like these go totally overboard in the past... 

I appreciate that this has seemed to have veered off topic, but at the same time, it could be quite a relevant discussion to the Beach Boys if we can keep it less abstract and more concrete.

What is being discussed here is a fairly under-explored topic, I think, viz. the Philosophy of History and Historiography of Pop Music History.  And really, what band is a better Guinea-Pig for this than the Beach Boys?  I smell some cutting edge Ph.D. Topic here.

It could be a fascinating exploration:  Our sources for Smile history necessitate epistemological humility on our part, I think.  Pop music history is a little different than, say, social history, the history of ideas, or political history, because--while certainly important in its way--pop music is not quite so critical to get a handle on.  If we don't understand the history of the Beach Boys, well, who among us wouldn't actually quite enjoy being doomed to repeat it?

So I think a more pragmatic approach is needed, in this case, despite my general distaste for pragmatism.  Let's find what works for what we are trying to get at.  E.G., Did/Does Dom's method work for us?  If not, why not?  What truth are we trying to get at here?

I could write about this all day, but won't, at least not right now.  I don't find this thread to have taken an argumentative (in the bad sense) at all, this is what philosophers do all the time.  Of course, many of them have been killed for doing it, but that's not their fault, as such.  There has to be some back and forth and maybe we can get at something important, because let's face it, Beach Boys history has not been easy to get right.

[JaredLekites]

I appreciate that this has seemed to have veered off topic, but at the same time, it could be quite a relevant discussion to the Beach Boys if we can keep it less abstract and more concrete.

"fire bad" - Frankenstein's monster

[Andrew G. Doe]

Peter, does that mean Frank Holmes' work isn't being used?

Or does it mean that Dom is helping Tom Recchion to present Frank's work in addition to other artwork?


After all this time wrangling for the music's release, I'd hate for the only quibble to be about the artwork. A minor quibble, but Frank's work is very evocative of the whole smile 66-67 project.

The artwork isn't a minor quibble. To accurately use for once a hugely overworked word, it is iconic. To release this project without using Frank's cover is, simply unthinkable. remember, Frank wasn't paid back in the day, and his artwork wasn't used on BWPS because no-one would match his asking price. Hopefully Capitol won't be so stupid this time.

Delurking for a clarification...

Andrew...

In the link below...

http://www.examiner.com/beach-boys-in-national/the-smile-sessions-box-set-to-see-release-this-summer

Underneath the picture of the SMiLE cover art it says...

The SMiLE album cover art from 1967
Photo: © Frank Holmes/Capitol Records

Could this mean that Capitol Records has met Frank's price since the copyright
for the album cover art is attributed to Both Frank and Capitol Records???

Monty...

Nice spot. I'd say an accommodation could have been reached. Really hope so.

[Bicyclerider]

On Frank's artwork -

Frank WAS paid for his art back in 66 - I've heard $500 and I've heard $2000 (the latter from Mark London, not sure the source of his information).

If he was paid by Capitol, wouldn't they have rights to use the artwork as they see fit?  Is there a time limit on when they could use the artwork that they paid for on a record album?

Even if they legally could use his artwork now because of paying for it back in the day, I think it would be unconscionable (sp?) if he was not reimbursed for his art on this new release.

[Andrew G. Doe]

On Frank's artwork -

Frank WAS paid for his art back in 66 - I've heard $500 and I've heard $2000 (the latter from Mark London, not sure the source of his information).

If he was paid by Capitol, wouldn't they have rights to use the artwork as they see fit?  Is there a time limit on when they could use the artwork that they paid for on a record album?

Even if they legally could use his artwork now because of paying for it back in the day, I think it would be unconscionable (sp?) if he was not reimbursed for his art on this new release.

Interesting. I distinctly recall it being stated in an interview that he'd never been paid.

[bgas]

On Frank's artwork -

Frank WAS paid for his art back in 66 - I've heard $500 and I've heard $2000 (the latter from Mark London, not sure the source of his information).

If he was paid by Capitol, wouldn't they have rights to use the artwork as they see fit?  Is there a time limit on when they could use the artwork that they paid for on a record album?

Even if they legally could use his artwork now because of paying for it back in the day, I think it would be unconscionable (sp?) if he was not reimbursed for his art on this new release.

Interesting. I distinctly recall it being stated in an interview that he'd never been paid.

I'd like to know the source of your claim that Frank has been paid, since Frank has always made it clear that he was NEVER paid. 

[37!ws]

Here's what I have to say about DPriore and TSS:

1) Make a drinking game out of it: while reading the liner notes, one drink for every time he refers to himself as "yours truly."

2) Let's see what new opinions he comes up with that are passed off as fact. Totally did not like his Smile book from a few years ago and his Fishwrap article because it just seemed that he was taking his own opinions and observations and trying to tell us that they're gospel truth.

I don't mean to be all bad about the guy....LOVE LLVS, and personally, I find his taste in surf music impeccable. Friendly guy, too...

[Micha]

And should the album end with Surf's up? 

No. Too sad sounding ending for an album called "SMiLE". But then again, I think the minor chord opening of "Prayer" is a too sad sounding intro to an album called "SMiLE". Great track, I love it, but I don't like it as the opener even if everybody else loves it as the opener. IMHO it should be somewhere near the end with its major chord ending.

[The Shift]

Here's what I have to say about DPriore and TSS:

1) Make a drinking game out of it: while reading the liner notes, one drink for every time he refers to himself as "yours truly."

2) Let's see what new opinions he comes up with that are passed off as fact. Totally did not like his Smile book from a few years ago and his Fishwrap article because it just seemed that he was taking his own opinions and observations and trying to tell us that they're gospel truth.

I don't mean to be all bad about the guy....LOVE LLVS, and personally, I find his taste in surf music impeccable. Friendly guy, too...

I've already mentioned this elsewhere but I reckon Dom will have a theory (whether it's labelled theory or not I can't predict) that there was a fourth SMiLE movement (you can't have a double album with only three sides, after all) about a fellow called George falling into a French horn; it's also include a bit about a chap called Brian who disappears into a piano, followed by Michael Vosse. Barnyard Billy's in there too, and there's a chant goes "It was Brian in the mic... it was Brian in the Mike..."

[buddhahat]

And should the album end with Surf's up? 

No. Too sad sounding ending for an album called "SMiLE". But then again, I think the minor chord opening of "Prayer" is a too sad sounding intro to an album called "SMiLE". Great track, I love it, but I don't like it as the opener even if everybody else loves it as the opener. IMHO it should be somewhere near the end with its major chord ending.

Agreed on Our Prayer, or at least if it was the be the opener don't follow it with H&V. I always found that leap from sombre to the slapstick humour of H&V a bit jarring. Prayer + Good Vibrations works much better as an opener imo.

It's worth noting that Vosse implies Prayer as a closer, and Siegel mentions Brian playing it last in his private acetate radio show, so I don't think it's a given that Prayer was to open the album.