Evolution of Heroes and Villains

[Dunderhead]

What's with having Bag of Tricks in the middle of the song?

[Bicyclerider]

What's with having Bag of Tricks in the middle of the song?

Where else would it (or chimes intro) go in an A side only version of the song?  I'm sure it would have vocals over it of some kind (fall breaks vocals anyone?)
as I've mentioned before.

[Dunderhead]

A lot of this stuff doesn't seem to follow Brian's own nomenclature. Prelude to Fade for example, shouldn't that come before the fade? Bridge to Indians, well should be a bridge to Indians (BR?)

The "early outtake sections" could be significant, but what is it? Was it simply found on a reel that way? Was this an attempt by Brian to put together a complete version of the song? Lets see if we can't figure out a structure here:

Part One:
- Verse
...
- Tag to Part One.

Part Two:
- Gee?
...
- Prelude to Fade
- Fade

[The Demon]

The thing that amazed me most with hearing the song come together on the box was how it was barely a song at first--just variations on melodic ideas.  I also thought it was interesting that "Do A Lot" appears there a few months before it pops up in "Vega-Tables."  He was kind of feeling his way around that childhood theme, again, which appears so often in all his music.

[Bicyclerider]

A lot of this stuff doesn't seem to follow Brian's own nomenclature. Prelude to Fade for example, shouldn't that come before the fade? Bridge to Indians, well should be a bridge to Indians (BR?)

The "early outtake sections" could be significant, but what is it? Was it simply found on a reel that way? Was this an attempt by Brian to put together a complete version of the song? Lets see if we can't figure out a structure here:

Part One:
- Verse
...
- Tag to Part One.

Part Two:
- Gee?
...
- Prelude to Fade
- Fade

My understanding is early outtakes are Brian mono mixes of sections of the songs - test edits and test mixes if you will. 

Part Two is clearly

Intro (March 1-2 version)
Gee
"Sections" - the dit dit dits, Swedish frog, slow dit dit dit - but there is that Brian mix wihere Swedish frog is cut out)
Prelude to Fade
Fade (presumably Fade rerecord)

Part 1 is cantina, right?  Tag to Part 1 was recorded in January, presumably when he was first  thinking about a Part 2 for the B side - but then he didn't use it for the cantina version in February, so I assume it would not have made the cut.  Likewise Bicyce Rider which was cut in January.  That leaves the "chorus" - what eventually became the chorus backing track - and the solo piano Bicyclerider theme.  Unclear where and if they fit anywhere.

[Cam Mott]

The January BR was always for the H&V Part 2 master wasn't it?

Does the sessionography show Gee and Swedish Frog were recorded for the H&V Part 2 B side master or are they labeled as a part 2 for the H&V A side master?

[Mahalo]

Swedish Frog sounds so good under the Cantina section, I wish it was put there...makes it really tripped out.

[trismegistus]

I don't know if anyone else has ever thought this before, but is it possible that Great Shape was originally to be the section of H&V eventually supplanted with the cantina section? To me at least the bits even sound similar for the first couple notes, and a rough replacement doesn't sound too jarring, though the cantina section does sound better that might just be because I'm used to it. I've always thought that Great Shape was too short to be anything but a section, in any event...

[Micha]

I find it interesting that there are descending strings on the ending of the newly found version of prelude to "fade". The "fade" at that point was the one lifted from OMP, and OMP has descending strings just before the fade too. I assume that Brian went back to that idea in recording the prelude and scrapped OMP for good at that point.

[Dunderhead]

Agree with the above two posts.
I think that after the rough sessions in November, Brian wanted to just finish the single. Everything else was put on hold. He probably wanted to release a single to test the waters, if it did well then he could have used it as a proof of concept, and gotten the rest of the band to cooperate more easily. So the single became the make or break thing. Then litigation with Capitol started, and maybe he used that as an excuse to buy himself more time.

[desmondo]

A lot of this stuff doesn't seem to follow Brian's own nomenclature. Prelude to Fade for example, shouldn't that come before the fade? Bridge to Indians, well should be a bridge to Indians (BR?)

The "early outtake sections" could be significant, but what is it? Was it simply found on a reel that way? Was this an attempt by Brian to put together a complete version of the song? Lets see if we can't figure out a structure here:

Part One:
- Verse
...
- Tag to Part One.

Part Two:
- Gee?
...
- Prelude to Fade
- Fade

Early Outtake Sections structure from CD 4

The structure of CD4 version from Jan/Feb 67 is as follows

1. Normal first verse although the lead vocal sounds quite laid back ( more than normal

2. Whistle/Dum Dum section

3. My Children were raised accapella with Often wise/piano section

4. Wordless vocal verse

5. In the Cantina

6. How I love my girl (Gee)

7. Dit Dit accapella H&V with handclaps and the one/two note bass line

8. HEroes & Villains accapella - with the clip clop thing

9 False Barnyard with hum dum vocals

I think thats it

[Matt Bielewicz]

Fascinating discussion...! Coupla points I wanted to make:

1) I like the idea of trying to figure out the various evolving structures of H&V over time, but as the track kept shifiting throughout the timespan of the sessions from May 1966 to June 1967, I think it's going to be fantastically hard to do so with any kind of certainty. Not that this should prevent an attempt to do so, but we should be mindful of just how uncertain Brian was about things, and how in flux the arrangement was. By way of example:

All we know about the (pre-Van Dyke?) May 11 Heroes and Villains, now taped over, is that it had some kind of You Are My Sunshine feel to it, thanks to Al Kooper.

By November 66, Brian is still recording H&V bits and also You Are My Sunshine parts, now as separate tracks.

Come February 1967, he steals the end section of what was recorded as You Are My Sunshine and puts it into Heroes And Villlains again, where it becomes the False Barnyard we all know and love in the Cantina version, or H&V Part 1. But this version never gets released, and when the 45 finally comes out, the 'Sunshine'-derived False Barnyard fade is gone again.

In other words, something was in Heroes and Villains in some way, left it, was made its own track, then went back into H&V again, and finally, by the time the 45 version was recorded, was dropped again. Stuff is in, it's out, it's in again, it's dropped. Can we ever be certain about anything when there's this much movement over time?

2) Following on from point one: relying on Brian's description of sections as 'Part 1' 'Part 2' 'Part 3' etc, whether from spoken 'slates' on tape or from tape box notations is simultaneously good - these are among the only concrete pieces of evidence we have - and yet also unwise, because they only refer to 'Part 2' (or whatever number) of what the particular configuration of H&V was in Brian's head AT THAT TIME. Famously, there are many, many sections, all completely different, that Brian slates as 'Heroes and Villains Part 2'. In fact, it's only with the release of the new box that we see just how many of the damn things there were. Clearly, at various different times, all of these were going to be part 2. And then they weren't any more.

As a result, isn't it unwise to say, for example, 'the chimes intro thing from December is slated as Part 3, therefore in December 1966 the track must have been Verse, I'm In Great Shape, Chimes Intro, Barnyard'? *

In Early November 66, sure, Brian demoed H&V for Humble Harve and the track went Verses, IIGS, Barnyard. And in a contemporary article from round about then, a musical section that is clearly Barnyard is described as the fade. But it's a massive leap to assume that the demo structure was kept the same all the way into December, and up to the cutting of the Chimes Intro. By then Part 2 could have been something totally other than IIGS. And Barnyard might no longer have been the fade.

I can see why Verse could be Part 1 - that seems to have stayed pretty much consistent throughout the versions that have come down to us** - and IIGS, going by the November demo version to Humble Harve, could have been part 2 THEN. But by December, several weeks later, and the recording of Chimes Intro, we surely can't assume that Part 2 was still the SAME part 2. Come January 1967, all sorts of bits start to be described as 'Part 2', and even 'Part 2 revised version'. What else was recorded in December 1966? The piano and Rhodes versions of 'Da da'. And in the early days of the new year, an effort was made to record THOSE at an H&V session, logged as All Day. THEY could have been part 2 in December for all we know, although I admit no evidence supports that.

I appreciate that I'm introducing yet more uncertainty and confusion into your admirable efforts to make sense of all this, which is not helping! But I think it could be a mistake to assume that a December version of H&V would have necessarily placed the 'Part 3' section recorded that month (Chimes Intro) after the section described in early November as 'Part 2' (that is, IIGS). Especially given that there was this degree of movement of pieces in and out of the song, and even back in again in some cases, over such short spaces of time.

MattB

* What you actually said was 'If on the demo the verse is part one and great shape is part two, which it clearly is on the demo, then the "chimes intro" would come next.' but I paraphrase...

** the titling of H&V Intro in March 1967 suggests that even the position of the VERSE at the start of the song was temporarily in question by the Spring! Although that idea was dropped again by the time the 45 version was finalised...

[desmondo]

Fascinating discussion...! Coupla points I wanted to make:

1) I like the idea of trying to figure out the various evolving structures of H&V over time, but as the track kept shifiting throughout the timespan of the sessions from May 1966 to June 1967, I think it's going to be fantastically hard to do so with any kind of certainty. Not that this should prevent an attempt to do so, but we should be mindful of just how uncertain Brian was about things, and how in flux the arrangement was. By way of example:

All we know about the (pre-Van Dyke?) May 11 Heroes and Villains, now taped over, is that it had some kind of You Are My Sunshine feel to it, thanks to Al Kooper.

By November 66, Brian is still recording H&V bits and also You Are My Sunshine parts, now as separate tracks.

Come February 1967, he steals the end section of what was recorded as You Are My Sunshine and puts it into Heroes And Villlains again, where it becomes the False Barnyard we all know and love in the Cantina version, or H&V Part 1. But this version never gets released, and when the 45 finally comes out, the 'Sunshine'-derived False Barnyard fade is gone again.

In other words, something was in Heroes and Villains in some way, left it, was made its own track, then went back into H&V again, and finally, by the time the 45 version was recorded, was dropped again. Stuff is in, it's out, it's in again, it's dropped. Can we ever be certain about anything when there's this much movement over time?

2) Following on from point one: relying on Brian's description of sections as 'Part 1' 'Part 2' 'Part 3' etc, whether from spoken 'slates' on tape or from tape box notations is simultaneously good - these are among the only concrete pieces of evidence we have - and yet also unwise, because they only refer to 'Part 2' (or whatever number) of what the particular configuration of H&V was in Brian's head AT THAT TIME. Famously, there are many, many sections, all completely different, that Brian slates as 'Heroes and Villains Part 2'. In fact, it's only with the release of the new box that we see just how many of the damn things there were. Clearly, at various different times, all of these were going to be part 2. And then they weren't any more.

As a result, isn't it unwise to say, for example, 'the chimes intro thing from December is slated as Part 3, therefore in December 1966 the track must have been Verse, I'm In Great Shape, Chimes Intro, Barnyard'? *

In Early November 66, sure, Brian demoed H&V for Humble Harve and the track went Verses, IIGS, Barnyard. And in a contemporary article from round about then, a musical section that is clearly Barnyard is described as the fade. But it's a massive leap to assume that the demo structure was kept the same all the way into December, and up to the cutting of the Chimes Intro. By then Part 2 could have been something totally other than IIGS. And Barnyard might no longer have been the fade.

I can see why Verse could be Part 1 - that seems to have stayed pretty much consistent throughout the versions that have come down to us** - and IIGS, going by the November demo version to Humble Harve, could have been part 2 THEN. But by December, several weeks later, and the recording of Chimes Intro, we surely can't assume that Part 2 was still the SAME part 2. Come January 1967, all sorts of bits start to be described as 'Part 2', and even 'Part 2 revised version'. What else was recorded in December 1966? The piano and Rhodes versions of 'Da da'. And in the early days of the new year, an effort was made to record THOSE at an H&V session, logged as All Day. THEY could have been part 2 in December for all we know, although I admit no evidence supports that.

I appreciate that I'm introducing yet more uncertainty and confusion into your admirable efforts to make sense of all this, which is not helping! But I think it could be a mistake to assume that a December version of H&V would have necessarily placed the 'Part 3' section recorded that month (Chimes Intro) after the section described in early November as 'Part 2' (that is, IIGS). Especially given that there was this degree of movement of pieces in and out of the song, and even back in again in some cases, over such short spaces of time.

MattB

* What you actually said was 'If on the demo the verse is part one and great shape is part two, which it clearly is on the demo, then the "chimes intro" would come next.' but I paraphrase...

** the titling of H&V Intro in March 1967 suggests that even the position of the VERSE at the start of the song was temporarily in question by the Spring! Although that idea was dropped again by the time the 45 version was finalised...

Just to add to the confusion, I don't think we can really rely on the Humble Harv demo as giving a reliable order to H&V at that point - doesn't Brian just say "Here's another section" - that doesn't mean that the structure at that time was verse/IIGS/BArnyard at all, just that there were several sections

[Matt Bielewicz]

Another really good point, Desmondo!

I agree, the placement of Barnyard is the most shaky of those assumptions from the demo, certainly, as Brian just says 'Here's another section...' which could have been anywhere at the time!

With IIGS, he kind of goes straight into it after the fluttertone on the demo, so maybe it *was* supposed to be next at that point... but really, who knows?

We don't, as I may possibly have said before ( ), really know anything about anything. STILL we don't, after all these years...!

MattB

[Matt Bielewicz]

Oh yes, and regarding the Disc 4 Early Version Out-takes Mix, I believe from what's being said elsewhere that these are indeed a load of sections mixed to mono by Brian back in the day (possibly for use on the Feb 67 'Cantina' mix)... but they've been edited together in the order they're in for THIS release.

In other words, the internal structure and mix of the pieces was Brian's decision from 1967, but the order in which the parts are edited together is a 2011 decision.

I *think*.

...jeez, this stuff gets MORE confusing, not less!

MattB

[buddhahat]

This is a fascinating thread. Between this and the ghost vocals thread it's great to see Smile discussion alive and well at SS.net!

I'm interested in the version that might have contained Prelude to Fade in 67. I always assumed this was to be incorporated into the side A version, and not Part 2. Is this correct as far as we know?

Also, judging by the dates, Brian created the cantina mix on the 10th February, and then on the 15th was back in the studio recording Prelude and the piano theme.

It seems a no brainer that Prelude was to precede the False Barnyard fade at this point.

But where was the 15th Feb recording of Piano Theme to go?

It actually ends on a note that would move perfectly into Western Theme. As it contains a strong ascending then descending piano riff in its second half, this also sets up western Theme nicely with the ascending notes that build up to the Flutter tone (which then has the descending strings) creating a nice repetition.

So what I'm, wondering is if by the 10th Feb 67, Brian's plan for the A Side was essentially:

Cantina Mix (up to dum dum tape explosion) + piano Theme + Western Theme + False Barnyard fade.

I haven't tried to edit the parts together yet but I'm pretty sure it would make for a well paced sequence.

[desmondo]

Oh yes, and regarding the Disc 4 Early Version Out-takes Mix, I believe from what's being said elsewhere that these are indeed a load of sections mixed to mono by Brian back in the day (possibly for use on the Feb 67 'Cantina' mix)... but they've been edited together in the order they're in for THIS release.

In other words, the internal structure and mix of the pieces was Brian's decision from 1967, but the order in which the parts are edited together is a 2011 decision.

I *think*.

...jeez, this stuff gets MORE confusing, not less!

MattB

Not sure about that Matt - I understood it was a genuine BW 67 mix found on a reel

[buddhahat]

Oh yes, and regarding the Disc 4 Early Version Out-takes Mix, I believe from what's being said elsewhere that these are indeed a load of sections mixed to mono by Brian back in the day (possibly for use on the Feb 67 'Cantina' mix)... but they've been edited together in the order they're in for THIS release.

In other words, the internal structure and mix of the pieces was Brian's decision from 1967, but the order in which the parts are edited together is a 2011 decision.

I *think*.

...jeez, this stuff gets MORE confusing, not less!

MattB

Not sure about that Matt - I understood it was a genuine BW 67 mix found on a reel

I think Matt's correct. Alan Boyd said at some point that those were original Brian mixes that had been put together for this release. I think the Mike/Brian trade off verse vocals + Dum Dum + three score & five up to the small fade is one vintage edit ( although the fade is a 2011 decision). Then cantina + woo woos is another Brian edit (presumably informing the decision to have the woos in the disc 1 version of H&V). Then it's the vintage edit of Gee up to (but not including) false barnyard, with Swedish frog noticeably spliced out. Finally False Barnyard has been added in 2011 just to make it feel like a complete track. That's my take on it.

[Dunderhead]

So the version Brian did was for a single track release.

[Dunderhead]

Also, what's with the fade? So it was originally recorded at the same session as OMP, as the "big finale". Then in '67 Brian rerecorded it with the bird whistles. And then he used the original version anyway for the Cantina version.

[desmondo]

Guys - I have done a side by side comparison which may aid discussion - please let me know of any corrections you may have

http://www.zshare.net/download/958293912732c065/

Sorry could upload it direct - if you can please feel free

[buddhahat]

Also, what's with the fade? So it was originally recorded at the same session as OMP, as the "big finale". Then in '67 Brian rerecorded it with the bird whistles. And then he used the original version anyway for the Cantina version.

As I see it he recorded the fade for OMP in November, decided to nab it for the cantina edit (recording extra vocal overdubs for it) on the 10th feb 67, and then probably decides on a different structure after that, which requires a new fade that he records on the 28th Feb. It might be that he plans to keep the False Barnyard fade for the A Side, and needs a fade for the B Side, so just records a slight variation on it, although you have to wonder why he didn't just use an exiting fade, such as Barnyard or Tag To Part 1. The rerecord is a lot of effort to go to, which suggests to me that:

a) That False Barnyard fade is being used elsewhere (most likely the A Side), it's not just that he doesn't like it anymore.
b) That he might be saving Barnyard for something else, as it would work perfectly well as a Part 2 fade imo, which in turn suggests he hasn't given up on the Smile album yet in February.

I also wonder if the Part 2 session (track 21 disc 2) is also the B side counterpart to the A Side Western theme, so Brian is sort of quickly creating variations on some of the side A pieces to quickly put the side B side version together, rather than writing a fully formed song from scratch. Most of the part 2 sections (all the dit dit dits and dum dum dums) are kind of variations on existing pieces so it would make sense that he employ the same strategy throughout to flesh out the B Side of Heroes. Of course, no hard evidence for these things but it's fun to speculate!

Guys - I have done a side by side comparison which may aid discussion - please let me know of any corrections you may have

http://www.zshare.net/download/958293912732c065/

Sorry could upload it direct - if you can please feel free

That's great - thanks, Desmondo!

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

What about the acetates? We have H&V verse acetate and as it ends we hear a sloppy edit into Bicycle Rider theme briefly before it fades out.

On Bicycle Rider acetate, we hear a sloppy edit into the H&V verse just as it fades out.

Did the H&V verse/Bicycle Rider chorus format, as was essentially done on the finished H&V single, precede the cantina version, then get replaced, and then Brian went back to it? Or are those acetates from after the cantina version?

And what about the remakes? He starts recutting the verse and the fade...what would that H&V have looked like?

What does it all mean!??!? 

[Micha]

What about the acetates? We have H&V verse acetate and as it ends we hear a sloppy edit into Bicycle Rider theme briefly before it fades out.

On Bicycle Rider acetate, we hear a sloppy edit into the H&V verse just as it fades out.

Did the H&V verse/Bicycle Rider chorus format, as was essentially done on the finished H&V single, precede the cantina version, then get replaced, and then Brian went back to it? Or are those acetates from after the cantina version?

And what about the remakes? He starts recutting the verse and the fade...what would that H&V have looked like?

What does it all mean!??!? 

I don't know but it seems that unlike GV he seems to not have found a definite structure for H&V for a long long time.

And about the various parts -  it gets so confusing because "part 2" can mean "section 2 of part one (A side of the single)" or just "part two (B side of the single)". So if BR is called out to be "part 2" it could either follow the verses on the A side or be part of the B side.

[cablegeddon]

I listen to that "Verse Edit Experiment" on CD2 and I think to myself "my god did he obsess on stupid details", but it's a double edged sword because sometimes the small details make the difference and sometimes they don't matter at all.