SMiLE release thoughts from a returnee and some questions for the scholars

[drbeachboy]

Roger, that is not what Disc 1 is about. It is to be an approximation of what the original album might have been. You guys read into stuff and question everything, even when the people working on it explain what they are doing. It's not crystal clear, but clear enough that I know what to expect come release time.

[Cam Mott]

I agree that uncertainty killed SMiLE but not uncertainty about what went where and how he wanted the tracks to be but uncertainty about how what he wanted was working for him. You know, you know what you want to do but then sometimes when you do it, you aren't really that wild for it.

[drbeachboy]

I doubt that Smile was sequenced before the vocals were finished. That's not to say that Brian wasn't thinking about it, but I think you get it all recorded first, then you start thinking about how it will be released.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Roger, that is not what Disc 1 is about. It is to be an approximation of what the original album might have been. You guys read into stuff and question everything, even when the people working on it explain what they are doing. It's not crystal clear, but clear enough that I know what to expect come release time.

'Xactly - and in 1967, that wasn't three sides of vinyl.

[desmondo]

Roger, that is not what Disc 1 is about. It is to be an approximation of what the original album might have been. You guys read into stuff and question everything, even when the people working on it explain what they are doing. It's not crystal clear, but clear enough that I know what to expect come release time.

'Xactly - and in 1967, that wasn't three sides of vinyl.

Abso*********ly right Andrew

SMiLE would have been two sides of vinyl - no more than 40 mins of music - any other thoughts are complete nonsense

In terms of sequencing it would have been possible to sequence before vocals were completed - I think the very nature of SMiLE with its modular core and slightly narrative lyrical style would have meant that. I do agree that sequencing can be difficult if we are talking about a normal album - eg PS - but SMiLE wasn't normal

[buddhahat]

Roger, that is not what Disc 1 is about. It is to be an approximation of what the original album might have been. You guys read into stuff and question everything, even when the people working on it explain what they are doing. It's not crystal clear, but clear enough that I know what to expect come release time.

'Xactly - and in 1967, that wasn't three sides of vinyl.

 It is to be an approximation of what the original album might have been

I think getting hung up on exact, pin point historical accuracy, and keeping smile firmly bottled up within it's 12 month or whatever time-span is missing the point. It wasn't finished. There was no definitve end point, and you could argue that work on smile continued sporadically right up to 2003 (in fact 2011, if we take the boxset work in progress).

I think when Mark and Alan say they will create an approximation of the original album, they are not 1/10th as uptight about it as we are here. They just want to collate all the best bits and arrange them in playable fashion. Fortunately for them, Brian and VDP did exactly this 7 or 8 years ago. They won't be beating their heads against a wall trying to envisage a 67 sequence that never was. They'll just say, let's use BWPS as a starting point to arrange the sessions.

Does using the 03 sequence devalue the authenticity of the project? As it's the authors' sequence I'd say it's more legitimate than Mark and Alan making one up based on the handwritten tracklist from 67 that wasn't sequenced. If they do that we'll have Mark and Alan's fanmix, not Brian's.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Roger, that is not what Disc 1 is about. It is to be an approximation of what the original album might have been. You guys read into stuff and question everything, even when the people working on it explain what they are doing. It's not crystal clear, but clear enough that I know what to expect come release time.

'Xactly - and in 1967, that wasn't three sides of vinyl.

 It is to be an approximation of what the original album might have been

I think getting hung up on exact, pin point historical accuracy, and keeping smile firmly bottled up within it's 12 month or whatever time-span is missing the point. It wasn't finished. There was no definitve end point, and you could argue that work on smile continued sporadically right up to 2003 (in fact 2011, if we take the boxset work in progress).

I think when Mark and Alan say they will create an approximation of the original album, they are not 1/10th as uptight about it as we are here. They just want to collate all the best bits and arrange them in playable fashion. Fortunately for them, Brian and VDP did exactly this 7 or 8 years ago. They won't be beating their heads against a wall trying to envisage a 67 sequence that never was. They'll just say, let's use BWPS as a starting point to arrange the sessions.

Does using the 03 sequence devalue the authenticity of the project? As it's the authors' sequence I'd say it's more legitimate than Mark and Alan making one up based on the handwritten tracklist from 67 that wasn't sequenced. If they do that we'll have Mark and Alan's fanmix, not Brian's.

From Mark's interview as published 3/1/11:

"it was surely never proposed than more than a single album to Capital at that time... we will certainly going to present the whole piece as close to it as was envisioned, or as is envisioned, as possible. "

BWPS is Brian & Darian's 2003 vision, not the original 1966-67 vision. Does the word "bowdlerisation" mean anything to you ? Look it up.

We're getting into Queen of Hearts territory here.

[Bicyclerider]

My best case scenario:

40-44 minutes (22 minute sides were not uncommon in the 60's - Dylan had close to 30 minute sides on some albums but they were acoustic and didn't suffer as much from the necessary compression).

CD1: 12 tracks from the list.  A new mix of Heroes reconstructed from acetate versions, but using the original tapes.  New mix of Vegetables using the mono mixes of sections Brian did in 67 including the fade.  I suspect that Look and Holidays will be included in the CD1 "original album" because of Mark's comments about using BWPS as the template, but I hope not.

rest of CD1:  outtakes - Heroes Feb mix, Heroes sections, Look, Holidays, Speeches, French Horns, "Jazz" (hopefully we'll finally get to hear this).  Workshop.  Midnight Hour?  Dennis track and Carl's Tones.

CD 2-4:  Session excerpts, finished instrumental tracks, alternate mixes, acetates.

[guitarfool2002]

I forgot about "Jazz"! That would be neat, although the pessimist in me says it's more like that section on the Good Vibrations sessions where the musicians are just noodling around with jazz phrases and not making much sense of it. Kind of like an off-night jam session at the Baked Potato.

[Peter Reum]

I think what no one has acknowledged here is that what Alan and Mark come up with will need approval from voting members of BRI. That would be Brian, Mike, Al, and Carl`s estate. I think they will defer to Brian, as it was his baby. So it really doesn`t matter what the "experts," myself included think...

[desmondo]

My best case scenario:

40-44 minutes (22 minute sides were not uncommon in the 60's - Dylan had close to 30 minute sides on some albums but they were acoustic and didn't suffer as much from the necessary compression).

CD1: 12 tracks from the list.  A new mix of Heroes reconstructed from acetate versions, but using the original tapes.  New mix of Vegetables using the mono mixes of sections Brian did in 67 including the fade.  I suspect that Look and Holidays will be included in the CD1 "original album" because of Mark's comments about using BWPS as the template, but I hope not.

rest of CD1:  outtakes - Heroes Feb mix, Heroes sections, Look, Holidays, Speeches, French Horns, "Jazz" (hopefully we'll finally get to hear this).  Workshop.  Midnight Hour?  Dennis track and Carl's Tones.

CD 2-4:  Session excerpts, finished instrumental tracks, alternate mixes, acetates.

If you take BWPS - take out Barnyard, Song for Children and On A Holiday, take off Gee from Prayer, substitute original GV single and accept Elements is just MOC and Dada - its the 12 track list under 40 mins - you don't even have to change the order

And it sounds pretty good

[Bicyclerider]

I think what no one has acknowledged here is that what Alan and Mark come up with will need approval from voting members of BRI. That would be Brian, Mike, Al, and Carl`s estate. I think they will defer to Brian, as it was his baby. So it really doesn`t matter what the "experts," myself included think...

And Brian will defer to Melinda - what are her thoughts on track list and sequence?

[Andrew G. Doe]

I forgot about "Jazz"! That would be neat, although the pessimist in me says it's more like that section on the Good Vibrations sessions where the musicians are just noodling around with jazz phrases and not making much sense of it. Kind of like an off-night jam session at the Baked Potato.

You are entirely correct, sir.

[The Heartical Don]

(I thought that interpreting the meaning of all Bible books, including the Apocryphal ones, and all secondary literature that surrounds them, is a difficult task. No so anymore. SMiLE scholars prove me wrong all of the time these days. But please go on.)

[Andrew G. Doe]

I think what no one has acknowledged here is that what Alan and Mark come up with will need approval from voting members of BRI. That would be Brian, Mike, Al, and Carl`s estate. I think they will defer to Brian, as it was his baby. So it really doesn`t matter what the "experts," myself included think...

And Brian will defer to Melinda - what are her thoughts on track list and sequence?

I think that question has already been answered... or at least hinted on...

[drbeachboy]

Some here act like Mark Linett doesn't know the english language and what words like blueprint and template and approximation mean. I'm sure he chose his words carefully when being interviewed. But of course, we all know better than the actual people working on the project. Also, as Peter stated, BRI, and especially, Brian have to approve what he and Alan are working on. I know I'm reading into this a little bit, but I can see that Brian is leaning toward what he did with the material on BWPS.

[buddhahat]

From Mark's interview as published 3/1/11:

"it was surely never proposed than more than a single album to Capital at that time... we will certainly going to present the whole piece as close to it as was envisioned, or as is envisioned, as possible. "

BWPS is Brian & Darian's 2003 vision, not the original 1966-67 vision. Does the word "bowdlerisation" mean anything to you ? Look it up.

We're getting into Queen of Hearts territory here.

Yes, granted, if they use the BWPS sequence and tell us it's vinatge that will be bowdler territory but note the "or as is envisioned" part of the quote - I think that's relevant and  leaves this wide open to be based on the 03 sequence.

I think there's a danger in getting too caught up in this ideal of historical accuracy for an unfinished piece of work. You're a historian, so historical accuracy is of utmost importance to you. I'm a commercial illustrator and know from experience that artistic ambitions need to be compromised sometimes in order to communicate something clearly to Joe Public. I think we are setting the compilers of this box an unrealistically high benchmark if we declare that the Smile box they produce must exist in some sort of 1967 bubble, untainted by Smile's subsequent history and BWPS. Most people outside Beach Boys fandom, if they know about Smile, will know that Brian revisited and 'finished' it in 04. He, VDP and Darian also came up with a brilliant, critically acclaimed sequence. Commerically it makes very good sense to tip a nod to that sequence with this box. Politically, as far as Brian Wilson, Melinda, whatever, are concerned, it will also make good sense.

If they can produce a sequence from the 66 tracklist then good luck and I'm sure it will be great. But don't set this up to fail by demanding a release that meets your ideal of historical accuracy. It would be great but I just don't think it's realistic.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Some here act like Mark Linett doesn't know the english language and what words like blueprint and template and approximation mean. I'm sure he chose his words carefully when being interviewed. But of course, we all know better than the actual people working on the project. Also, as Peter stated, BRI, and especially, Brian have to approve what he and Alan are working on. I know I'm reading into this a little bit, but I can see that Brian is leaning toward what he did with the material on BWPS.

I would accept this kind of arrogance if you didn't carelessly rip the word "blueprint' from its context and pretend like it means something different than what Linett actually meant what he used it (something we can see clearly by reading the context - again, I suggest you do so because you might be surprised with what you see there).

One thing that I am in agreement with here is that Linett is choosing his words carefully. In other words, he doesn't want too give too much away, nor does he want to say anything definitive about a project that is still in the works. Note that in answer to the question of whether BWPS will "serve as a guide line for the Smile 'Sessions' track listing", he certainly never answers in the affirmative. In fact, the first thing he seems to say on the subject of the track listing is as follows:

We have some rough mixes from 1966, which will probably become part of the quote album

In other words, they seem to be relying on the 66/67 vision of the album where and when they can.

And this position is summed up by Domenic Priore in his recent press release:

Brian Wilson wasn't hiding information, or what the sequence would be from anyone during 1966/1967," Priore says. "He was quite lucid not only with talk on the session tapes, but in Pop magazine interviews, private conversation with the musicians, with notation on tape boxes and so on. Alan Boyd has, since the release of "Brian Wilson Presents SMiLE" (the 2004 Brian Wilson release that featured the 'finished' album) really gotten into the science behind this kind of detail, with complete access to the Beach Boys' tape archive

Of course, if BWPS is now understood by Linett and Boyd as the authoritative sequence or the "blueprint" sequence for the new collection, then why on earth would Alan Boyd need to seemingly investigate this further, as Priore suggests here? Granted, Priore is not necessarily the most authoritative figure here, but what he says in many ways corroborates Linett's own remarks in the Billboard interview.

Again, I am all in favour of taking the people working on the project at their word. However if we do that, we have to do more than just rip a word out of its context and then arrogantly scoff at people who actually examine what the person really said. The fact is that Linett was a bit cagey in that interview and that is perfectly understandable. The project surely isn't entirely figured out yet so what is he ultimately supposed to say?

I think we are setting the compilers of this box an unrealistically high benchmark if we declare that the Smile box they produce must exist in some sort of 1967 bubble, untainted by Smile's subsequent history and BWPS. Most people outside Beach Boys fandom, if they know about Smile, will know that Brian revisited and 'finished' it in 04. He, VDP and Darian also came up with a brilliant, critically acclaimed sequence. Commerically it makes very good sense to tip a nod to that sequence with this box.

First of all, I should make it clear that I don't think that "the Smile box they produce must exist in some sort of 1967 bubble". In fact, that's impossible since if it did, it wouldn't ever see the light of day since it didn't in 1967. That being said, I think that if Linett and Boyd are doing some very serious research for this project that may work to uncover some information about the 66/67-era Smile that BWPS didn't account for, then they will probably defer to that. And I think that everything that has been on the subject so far seems to reinforce that.

I might also add that commercially it wouldn't make sense to simply reproduce the exact same tracklisting. I would imagine that something a bit more distinct would compel people (not the kind of devotees like we are who would buy anything related on the matter) who bought BWPS to buy Sessions.

[drbeachboy]

You go ahead and believe whatever you like about Disc 1. You are going to get all kinds of goodies on discs 2 through 4. No matter what track listing or sequence is used, the fact that it is all on CD allows you to make your version of Smile. Oh, and I'm not being arrogant, just realistic, and I don't tend to read more into things than what is actually stated. You have been way more outlandish in your thought processes than I have throughout this thread.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

You go ahead and believe whatever you like about Disc 1.

I don't care what's on Disc 1 as long as it's good mixes of Smile material. I find it hard to believe that I could possibly be disappointed in what I get.

Oh, and I'm not being arrogant, just realistic

And prey tell, how does telling me that I need to look up words in a dictionary constitute being realistic?

and I don't tend to read more into things than what is actually stated.

In fact, that is precisely what you have done. You have taken one word that Linett said and assumed that he was talking about the sequence of the album when he wasn't. That is exactly "reading more into things than what is actually stated". Again, I highly encourage you to read the quotation from Linett that I posted above because it will put this entire matter to rest.

You have been way more outlandish in your thought processes than I have throughout this thread.

What you mean, actually, is that Linett and Priore have been "way more outlandish in their thought processes" since I have done nothing other than provided their quotations and then summarized them. So if anyone is being outlandish, it's them, since I am merely quoting them directly.

I would imagine it would be very easy to counter my position. All you would have to do is look at the quotations I have provided and explain why it is "outlandish" that I have reached the conclusions I've reached based on those quotations. You've had ample opportunity to do that, and you have entirely neglected to do so. Instead you keep harping on this one word, "blueprint" (well, initially it was "template" until I provided the actual quotation that came from the interview rather than Billboard's summary) as if we should ignore everything else Linett said, and then telling me that I need to look at a dictionary or that I am not taking them at their word, or other nonsense on that level.

[drbeachboy]

@rockandroll

I don't even want to pretend that I know a lot about The Beach Boys. I used to think I did, I wasn't even close. I suggest that you care more what is commicated here from Andrew and Peter and others that have studied, researched and commicate with those close to the inside. You will always get the best information from them.

[Roger Ryan]

I will only add that the copy editing job done on Mark's interview was pretty weak and left a number of responses unclear. Certainly the syntax of the quote regarding the "slightly longer version of 'Heroes & Villains'" was so screwed up as to make the quote unintelligible.

[drbeachboy]

Most of this thread has been devoted to Disc 1, best you reread. Boy, you sure like quote a lot. I do remember what I posted. I'm done. Let's move on before this gets ugly. I don't like ugly.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Most of this thread has been devoted to Disc 1, best you reread

You are infuriating. Have I said anything that in any way suggests that I don't know we've been talking about Disc 1? I've been talking about Disc 1 as well. It just so happens that when I say I have few expectations when it comes to Disc 1, I really mean it.

Boy, you sure like quote a lot. I do remember what I posted. I'm done.

Kudos to your memory. Sometimes I like to think that the others who are reading this might like to know exactly what it is I'm responding to, for the sake of clarity and organization. After all, you and I are not the only people here.

[buddhahat]

First of all, I should make it clear that I don't think that "the Smile box they produce must exist in some sort of 1967 bubble". In fact, that's impossible since if it did, it wouldn't ever see the light of day since it didn't in 1967.

I think this is the paradox that upturns the whole "no Cabinessence lead vocals" argument. There's no end point with Smile so those Cabinessence vocals are still legit imo, besides being essential. What's more important if you ask me, are the aesthetic judgements that are made. I wouldn't be concerned if they use parts of the 71 Surf's Up due to historical reasons: More that the moog would sound way out of place.

That being said, I think that if Linett and Boyd are doing some very serious research for this project that may work to uncover some information about the 66/67-era Smile that BWPS didn't account for, then they will probably defer to that. And I think that everything that has been on the subject so far seems to reinforce that.

I might also add that commercially it wouldn't make sense to simply reproduce the exact same tracklisting. I would imagine that something a bit more distinct would compel people (not the kind of devotees like we are who would buy anything related on the matter) who bought BWPS to buy Sessions.

This is a good point. Wouldn't it be incredible if the above turned out to be true?