gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680597 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 10:29:45 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: SMiLE - What's missing from the vaults?  (Read 12871 times)
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 18, 2011, 02:57:42 AM »

For years, folk have had small orgasms about unearthing "SUpt2", and it's even been stated that someone (actually, just one uncorroborated person) has heard it, but the fact is, the sole piece of extremely shaky evidence for any such piece of music even existing, much less being recorded, is an AFM sheet that lists the session as "Surf's Up (1st movement)", causing those prone to doing so to leap (and doubtless bound - ya see what I did there ?) to the assumption that a part 2 MUST exist. There's more persuasive evidence for the existence of Bigfoot.

If my thinking is correct then how would we know the session wasn’t for Surf’s Up part 2? I get that there is no firm evidence supporting it was for part 2 but if we know a) there was a session that day b) it was logged as Surf’s Up and c) a backing for the 2nd half of the song had yet to be recorded then ‘part 2’ seems as likely as anything else. I guess I’m not seeing how we would know for certain there was no session this date or why the lack of a tape would be firm proof it never happened...

So... why wasn't it logged as "part 2" or "(2nd movement)" ?  Grin
« Last Edit: November 18, 2011, 03:00:57 AM by Andrew G. Doe » Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
The Shift
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 7427


Biding time


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: November 18, 2011, 03:12:38 AM »

For years, folk have had small orgasms about unearthing "SUpt2", and it's even been stated that someone (actually, just one uncorroborated person) has heard it, but the fact is, the sole piece of extremely shaky evidence for any such piece of music even existing, much less being recorded, is an AFM sheet that lists the session as "Surf's Up (1st movement)", causing those prone to doing so to leap (and doubtless bound - ya see what I did there ?) to the assumption that a part 2 MUST exist. There's more persuasive evidence for the existence of Bigfoot.

If my thinking is correct then how would we know the session wasn’t for Surf’s Up part 2? I get that there is no firm evidence supporting it was for part 2 but if we know a) there was a session that day b) it was logged as Surf’s Up and c) a backing for the 2nd half of the song had yet to be recorded then ‘part 2’ seems as likely as anything else. I guess I’m not seeing how we would know for certain there was no session this date or why the lack of a tape would be firm proof it never happened...

So... why wasn't it logged as "part 2" or "(2nd movement)" ?  Grin

Careful Andrew, if what you're reporting was being taken by some as a basis for evidence of a Part Two, then surely it also doesn't rule there being parts Three and Four… in fact, maybe as many as 24.

Oooh the excitement!
Logged

“We live in divisive times.”
Chris Moise
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 192


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: November 20, 2011, 07:17:37 PM »

So... why wasn't it logged as "part 2" or "(2nd movement)" ?  Grin

Not sure why you ask. Understand I haven't argued or assumed it was for "part 2" or "2nd movement" - in fact I went out my way to acknowledge it could've been for anything and there was no proof it had feces to do with Surf's Up.

My only point was to question the assertion part 2 was definitely not recorded. I totally get there is zero proof for it - if I were a betting man I'd bet against it but since - a) there are more sessions logged as "SU" than we have tapes for b) the session in question wasn't cancelled c) the instrumental lineup doesn't match any Smile known material it seems possible the Jan 23 session was "part 2", sure, it's also possible it was a full band recreation of "Ball & Mitt" or the session went so bad they didn't bother starting the tape machine. It just seemed premature to me to strike the gavel and declare it wasn't recorded but, as I said earlier, I'll yield to your expertise here, just not without a fight first  Grin
« Last Edit: November 20, 2011, 07:20:39 PM by Chris Moise » Logged
Chris Moise
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 192


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: November 20, 2011, 07:20:05 PM »

...but the fact is, the sole piece of extremely shaky evidence for any such piece of music even existing, much less being recorded, is an AFM sheet that lists the session as "Surf's Up (1st movement)", causing those prone to doing so to leap (and doubtless bound - ya see what I did there ?) to the assumption that a part 2 MUST exist. There's more persuasive evidence for the existence of Bigfoot.

I believe c-man has said the AFM sheet lists the first session as just "Surf's Up" and the second session later that day with the strings is logged as simply "Part 1".
Logged
Dr. Tim
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 383

"Would you put a loud count on it for us please?"


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: November 20, 2011, 07:57:56 PM »

Asked this in the Surf's Up box set thread but I'll ask it here too:

For BWPS, Brian asked Paul Mertens to add a string section for part 2.  My question: is that string arrangement something Brian remembered from 1967 and told Paul how it should go?  Or was that one of the 2003 improvements and "new things" added to BWPS?

I still ask, though I also understand that there was no actual string section recorded for part 2 in 1967, as Andrew notes above.
Logged

Hey kids! Remember:
mono mixes suck donkey dick
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: November 20, 2011, 08:14:14 PM »

Asked this in the Surf's Up box set thread but I'll ask it here too:

For BWPS, Brian asked Paul Mertens to add a string section for part 2.  My question: is that string arrangement something Brian remembered from 1967 and told Paul how it should go?  Or was that one of the 2003 improvements and "new things" added to BWPS?

I still ask, though I also understand that there was no actual string section recorded for part 2 in 1967, as Andrew notes above.

Well, even if it was something from 1967, we could hardly imagine that there'd be any similarities since it would be an entirely new arrangment written by a person who wasn't even around the original sessions.

But I would say that it is extremely unlikely bordering on impossible that this was a vintage idea. The 2003 idea is simply using the the Surf's Up LP model, which was forced to use the solo demo version for Part 2 in lieu of no actual studio recording of Part 2 turning up, and they added a string arrangment over top. Of course using a demo for a section quite simply would not have happened on a completed 1967 Smile. Moreover the 2003 string arrangement is just not in keeping with the Smile asethetic. So like I said in that same thread, while there are lots of gorgeous and wonderful versions of Smile (both on the sessions, the demo, the Wild Honey version, and on BWPS) we unfortunately have nothing that sounds like what the song would have sounded like had it been completed in 1967 for a completed Smile album.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2011, 08:22:13 PM by rockandroll » Logged
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 3038



View Profile
« Reply #31 on: November 20, 2011, 09:10:39 PM »

Asked this in the Surf's Up box set thread but I'll ask it here too:

For BWPS, Brian asked Paul Mertens to add a string section for part 2.  My question: is that string arrangement something Brian remembered from 1967 and told Paul how it should go?  Or was that one of the 2003 improvements and "new things" added to BWPS?

I still ask, though I also understand that there was no actual string section recorded for part 2 in 1967, as Andrew notes above.

Well, even if it was something from 1967, we could hardly imagine that there'd be any similarities since it would be an entirely new arrangment written by a person who wasn't even around the original sessions.

But I would say that it is extremely unlikely bordering on impossible that this was a vintage idea. The 2003 idea is simply using the the Surf's Up LP model, which was forced to use the solo demo version for Part 2 in lieu of no actual studio recording of Part 2 turning up, and they added a string arrangment over top. Of course using a demo for a section quite simply would not have happened on a completed 1967 Smile. Moreover the 2003 string arrangement is just not in keeping with the Smile asethetic. So like I said in that same thread, while there are lots of gorgeous and wonderful versions of Smile (both on the sessions, the demo, the Wild Honey version, and on BWPS) we unfortunately have nothing that sounds like what the song would have sounded like had it been completed in 1967 for a completed Smile album.

I know what you're saying, but you know what? It doesn't really bother me. All of the versions of this song are beautiful, and I'm happy we have all of them.

And yes, it didn't sound exactly like it may have in 1967, but we have to remember that Brian contributed to and/or okayed all of the versions that are out there, including the Surf's Up version, the BWPS version, and The SMiLE Sessions version. And what I care about, is that the song hits me emotionally, and that the artist seems happy with it. And Brian is happy with all of those, so I won't waste time crying over spilt milk. It's kinda how I feel about SMiLE as a whole; sure, I'd really love it was finished the way Brian saw it at one point in 1966 or 1967, but it wasn't, and I'm happy that he's shared all that he has with us.
Logged
Shane
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 620



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: November 20, 2011, 09:12:54 PM »

Not to derail the thread or anything... I noticed the mention of "Ball and Mitt" a few posts ago.  I saw that notation on one of the tape boxes... what exactly is this thing?
Logged
Chris Moise
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 192


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: November 21, 2011, 02:38:26 PM »

Not to derail the thread or anything... I noticed the mention of "Ball and Mitt" a few posts ago.  I saw that notation on one of the tape boxes... what exactly is this thing?

Others will have more details but I believe it is a recording of a baseball landing in a catchers mitt.
Logged
Tristero
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: November 21, 2011, 03:09:56 PM »

I know what you're saying, but you know what? It doesn't really bother me. All of the versions of this song are beautiful, and I'm happy we have all of them.

And yes, it didn't sound exactly like it may have in 1967, but we have to remember that Brian contributed to and/or okayed all of the versions that are out there, including the Surf's Up version, the BWPS version, and The SMiLE Sessions version. And what I care about, is that the song hits me emotionally, and that the artist seems happy with it. And Brian is happy with all of those, so I won't waste time crying over spilt milk. It's kinda how I feel about SMiLE as a whole; sure, I'd really love it was finished the way Brian saw it at one point in 1966 or 1967, but it wasn't, and I'm happy that he's shared all that he has with us.
I'm with you on this.  It's fascinating to speculate what Brian might have done with the arrangement for Part 2 back then and if the tapes magically emerged tomorrow, I'd get down on my knees and thank Murry, but I'm not holding my breath.  Maybe the sessions went badly or they were actually for something else--we'll likely never know.  At this point, I've grown so accustomed to the stripped down "demo" version from '66, I tend to prefer a more minimalist presentation on Surf's Up anyway.  When the song's that great, you don't need a lot of additional window dressing.
Logged
hypehat
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6311



View Profile
« Reply #35 on: November 21, 2011, 04:05:58 PM »

Not to derail the thread or anything... I noticed the mention of "Ball and Mitt" a few posts ago.  I saw that notation on one of the tape boxes... what exactly is this thing?

Others will have more details but I believe it is a recording of a baseball landing in a catchers mitt.

Brian and Dennis chucking a ball about in the studio, apparently. I guess it was deemed dispensable in cutting down from 7 discs worth of sessions.
Logged

All roads lead to Kokomo. Exhaustive research in time travel has conclusively proven that there is no alternate universe WITHOUT Kokomo. It would've happened regardless.
What is this "life" thing you speak of ?

Quote from: Al Jardine
Syncopate it? In front of all these people?!
Bubba Ho-Tep
Guest
« Reply #36 on: November 21, 2011, 09:53:59 PM »

Not to derail the thread or anything... I noticed the mention of "Ball and Mitt" a few posts ago.  I saw that notation on one of the tape boxes... what exactly is this thing?

Others will have more details but I believe it is a recording of a baseball landing in a catchers mitt.

Brian and Dennis chucking a ball about in the studio, apparently. I guess it was deemed dispensable in cutting down from 7 discs worth of sessions.

5 seconds of hidden track wouldn't have hurt!  Tongue
Logged
Dunderhead
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1643



View Profile
« Reply #37 on: November 22, 2011, 12:00:22 AM »

I always thought the arrangement for part 2 would follow the piano. It's always been taken for granted that the second half of the song would have that piano backing, but remember, as far as we know it was just a demo. That piano part could have been played by strings/horns instead. I think you can kind of imagine how it would sound.
Logged

TEAM COHEN; OFFICIAL CAPTAIN (2013-)
XXXCD
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: November 22, 2011, 02:57:41 AM »

Were any more "Elements" tracks recorded apart from "Part One: Fire" ??

I am guessing that the answer is "no".
Logged
37!ws
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1509


All baggudo at my man


View Profile WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 22, 2011, 08:53:03 AM »

Brian and Dennis chucking a ball about in the studio, apparently. I guess it was deemed dispensable in cutting down from 7 discs worth of sessions.

My guess is it was never even considered -- remember, Linnet said that when whittling down to 5 disc, NO MATERIAL was sacrificed; I'm guessing it was just simply the arrangement of tracks to make 'em fit in as few CDs as possible...
Logged

Check out my podcasts: Tune X Podcast (tunex.fab4it.com) and Autobiography of a Schnook (SchnookPodcast.com); there are worse things you can do!
The Shift
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 7427


Biding time


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: November 22, 2011, 08:59:23 AM »

Brian and Dennis chucking a ball about in the studio, apparently. I guess it was deemed dispensable in cutting down from 7 discs worth of sessions.

My guess is it was never even considered -- remember, Linnet said that when whittling down to 5 disc, NO MATERIAL was sacrificed; I'm guessing it was just simply the arrangement of tracks to make 'em fit in as few CDs as possible...

Ball & Mitt would have added nothing to the box -  I'd take one minute of Surf's Up over a thousand Ball & Mitts.
Logged

“We live in divisive times.”
runnersdialzero
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5143


I WILL NEVER GO TO SCHOOL


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: November 22, 2011, 09:06:04 AM »

Brian and Dennis chucking a ball about in the studio, apparently. I guess it was deemed dispensable in cutting down from 7 discs worth of sessions.

My guess is it was never even considered -- remember, Linnet said that when whittling down to 5 disc, NO MATERIAL was sacrificed; I'm guessing it was just simply the arrangement of tracks to make 'em fit in as few CDs as possible...

Ball & Mitt would have added nothing to the box -  I'd take one minute of Surf's Up over a thousand Ball & Mitts.

You speak as though, had "Ball & Mitt" been included, something incredibly important as part of the "Surf's Up" session would've been removed.
Logged

Tell me it's okay.
Tell me you still love me.
People make mistakes.
People make mistakes.
Wirestone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6043



View Profile
« Reply #42 on: November 22, 2011, 10:26:23 AM »

From the invaluable "Sound on Sound" article about BWPS (http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Oct04/articles/smile.htm)

"Mertens also helped to score the orchestration for the second part of the song 'Surf's Up'. A 1966 version featuring Brian playing the song alone at the piano has survived, and a more produced instrumental track for the first section exists featuring percussion, basses and horns, but no similarly developed recording of the second section has ever been found. "I asked Brian what he remembered of it," says Darian, "and he said there were some strings, so we worked on that a little bit, and Van Dyke and Paul Mertens did some orchestrating."
Logged
Dr. Tim
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 383

"Would you put a loud count on it for us please?"


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: November 22, 2011, 10:40:17 AM »

That's as good an answer as can be expected - thanks!

I now recall I read this at the time but did not download it, I had remembered the part about the orchestrating but not the rest.  Will keep it now for my reference archive!
Logged

Hey kids! Remember:
mono mixes suck donkey dick
anazgnos
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 384



View Profile
« Reply #44 on: November 22, 2011, 10:45:29 AM »

Brian and Dennis chucking a ball about in the studio, apparently. I guess it was deemed dispensable in cutting down from 7 discs worth of sessions.

My guess is it was never even considered -- remember, Linnet said that when whittling down to 5 disc, NO MATERIAL was sacrificed; I'm guessing it was just simply the arrangement of tracks to make 'em fit in as few CDs as possible...

Ball & Mitt would have added nothing to the box -  I'd take one minute of Surf's Up over a thousand Ball & Mitts.

Of course, in a few years once the dust has settled and the needs of "Joe Public" are but a distant memory, the failure of The Smile Sessions to take a strict "one thousand Ball and Mitts" approach will come to be seen as a tragic missed opportunity.  Mark my words.
Logged
gfx
Pages: 1 [2] Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 2.008 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!