Durrie Parks Smile acetates up for sale for $10,000

[buddhahat]

I think if you accept the two sided Heroes theory it makes more sense of a lot of the odd sections such as those dit dit parts. They seem to me like a showcase of the Beach Boys vocal acrobatics - riffs on the Heroes theme that would've been perfect B side material: nothing more, nothing less.

Well, I don't fully accept that theory. Again, this just doesn't jive with him by early 1967 referring to sections as Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4. Part 2 does have some vocal acrobatics stuff like Gee but it also has the DYLW riff in it and the Cantina section. Part 3 has some of the "doo doo Heroes and Villains" parts but it certainly wouldn't be enough for a B side. Part 4 is the the dum dum whistle distortion section as it was called above. The way Brian was talking about these parts, to me, does not suggest that there was any of this A-side/B-side business going on at this point.

This has been discussed before and may seem like a cop out answer but Brian did structure songs as part 1, 2, 3 etc. as you point out. However in this instance as well as parts within songs, parts 1 & 2 also refer to the two sides in my opinion and this is where it gets confusing. What else would explain a label like 'Tag to Part 1'? Does anyone really believe that Heroes Intro was an intro to the A Side? Makes more sense that it was an intro to side B of a two sided single imo.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I think if you accept the two sided Heroes theory it makes more sense of a lot of the odd sections such as those dit dit parts. They seem to me like a showcase of the Beach Boys vocal acrobatics - riffs on the Heroes theme that would've been perfect B side material: nothing more, nothing less.

Well, I don't fully accept that theory. Again, this just doesn't jive with him by early 1967 referring to sections as Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4. Part 2 does have some vocal acrobatics stuff like Gee but it also has the DYLW riff in it and the Cantina section. Part 3 has some of the "doo doo Heroes and Villains" parts but it certainly wouldn't be enough for a B side. Part 4 is the the dum dum whistle distortion section as it was called above. The way Brian was talking about these parts, to me, does not suggest that there was any of this A-side/B-side business going on at this point.

This has been discussed before and may seem like a cop out answer but Brian did structure songs as part 1, 2, 3 etc. as you point out. However in this instance as well as parts within songs, parts 1 & 2 also refer to the two sides in my opinion and this is where it gets confusing. What else would explain a label like 'Tag to Part 1'? Does anyone really believe that Heroes Intro was an intro to the A Side? Makes more sense that it was an intro to side B of a two sided single imo.

In that case what do Parts 3 and 4 refer to?

[Cam Mott]

I understand the confusion over "H&V" and "H&V II" and "part 1" and "part 2" and "side 2" and the other section labels in H&V but the key is the master numbers. H&V was its own master with its own master number and own parts 2 and 3 and bridges and intros and fades etc.. H&V II was its own different master with its own different master number and its own different parts and intro and fade and prelude etc..

Two different masters for two different sides of a single both numbering and labeling their internal parts with similar systems. The master numbers are the organizing thing.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I understand the confusion over "H&V" and "H&V II" and "part 1" and "part 2" and "side 2" and the other section labels in H&V but the key is the master numbers. H&V was its own master with its own master number and own parts 2 and 3 and bridges and intros and fades etc.. H&V II was its own different master with its own different master number and its own different parts and intro and fade and prelude etc..

Two different masters for two different sides of a single both numbering and labeling their internal parts with similar systems. The master numbers are the organizing thing.

OK good. That makes more sense. In that case, then, what counts as H&V I and what counts as H&V II? Where can I find that out?

[buddhahat]

I think if you accept the two sided Heroes theory it makes more sense of a lot of the odd sections such as those dit dit parts. They seem to me like a showcase of the Beach Boys vocal acrobatics - riffs on the Heroes theme that would've been perfect B side material: nothing more, nothing less.

Well, I don't fully accept that theory. Again, this just doesn't jive with him by early 1967 referring to sections as Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4. Part 2 does have some vocal acrobatics stuff like Gee but it also has the DYLW riff in it and the Cantina section. Part 3 has some of the "doo doo Heroes and Villains" parts but it certainly wouldn't be enough for a B side. Part 4 is the the dum dum whistle distortion section as it was called above. The way Brian was talking about these parts, to me, does not suggest that there was any of this A-side/B-side business going on at this point.

This has been discussed before and may seem like a cop out answer but Brian did structure songs as part 1, 2, 3 etc. as you point out. However in this instance as well as parts within songs, parts 1 & 2 also refer to the two sides in my opinion and this is where it gets confusing. What else would explain a label like 'Tag to Part 1'? Does anyone really believe that Heroes Intro was an intro to the A Side? Makes more sense that it was an intro to side B of a two sided single imo.

In that case what do Parts 3 and 4 refer to?

Well, parts 3 & 4 of the a side, or perhaps the b side! I'm just saying I think with Heroes & Villains there are times where 'part 1 and 'part 2' refer to the a and b sides of the song, and then there are times when they simply refer to parts within the song. I told you it was a cop out answer!  

[Andrew G. Doe]

I think if you accept the two sided Heroes theory it makes more sense of a lot of the odd sections such as those dit dit parts. They seem to me like a showcase of the Beach Boys vocal acrobatics - riffs on the Heroes theme that would've been perfect B side material: nothing more, nothing less.

Well, I don't fully accept that theory. Again, this just doesn't jive with him by early 1967 referring to sections as Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4. Part 2 does have some vocal acrobatics stuff like Gee but it also has the DYLW riff in it and the Cantina section. Part 3 has some of the "doo doo Heroes and Villains" parts but it certainly wouldn't be enough for a B side. Part 4 is the the dum dum whistle distortion section as it was called above. The way Brian was talking about these parts, to me, does not suggest that there was any of this A-side/B-side business going on at this point.

This has been discussed before and may seem like a cop out answer but Brian did structure songs as part 1, 2, 3 etc. as you point out. However in this instance as well as parts within songs, parts 1 & 2 also refer to the two sides in my opinion and this is where it gets confusing. What else would explain a label like 'Tag to Part 1'? Does anyone really believe that Heroes Intro was an intro to the A Side? Makes more sense that it was an intro to side B of a two sided single imo.

You're applying sense and logic to The Beach Boys, and worse, applying it to Smile. Along with the existence of a tape of the second movement of "Surf's Up", the "H&V" two-sided single theory is one of the bigger, and more persistent red herrings in BB history. There is no hard proof for either and precious little circumstantial evidence.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I think if you accept the two sided Heroes theory it makes more sense of a lot of the odd sections such as those dit dit parts. They seem to me like a showcase of the Beach Boys vocal acrobatics - riffs on the Heroes theme that would've been perfect B side material: nothing more, nothing less.

Well, I don't fully accept that theory. Again, this just doesn't jive with him by early 1967 referring to sections as Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4. Part 2 does have some vocal acrobatics stuff like Gee but it also has the DYLW riff in it and the Cantina section. Part 3 has some of the "doo doo Heroes and Villains" parts but it certainly wouldn't be enough for a B side. Part 4 is the the dum dum whistle distortion section as it was called above. The way Brian was talking about these parts, to me, does not suggest that there was any of this A-side/B-side business going on at this point.

This has been discussed before and may seem like a cop out answer but Brian did structure songs as part 1, 2, 3 etc. as you point out. However in this instance as well as parts within songs, parts 1 & 2 also refer to the two sides in my opinion and this is where it gets confusing. What else would explain a label like 'Tag to Part 1'? Does anyone really believe that Heroes Intro was an intro to the A Side? Makes more sense that it was an intro to side B of a two sided single imo.

In that case what do Parts 3 and 4 refer to?

Well, parts 3 & 4 of the a side, or perhaps the b side! I'm just saying I think with Heroes & Villains there are times where 'part 1 and 'part 2' refer to the a and b sides of the song, and then there are times when they simply refer to parts within the song. I told you it was a cop out answer!  

Fair enough. I'd like to hear what AGD might have to say about this H&V I and H&V II and the master numbers. That might help clear a lot of this up.

EDIT: OK, now that AGD has spoken, I am still curious what he has to say about Cam's point.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Makes more sense that it was an intro to side B of a two sided single imo.

Why?

I'm not saying I disagree, but using the words "making sense" in reference to H&V just seems sorta wrong. Nothing makes sense.

[Cam Mott]

I understand the confusion over "H&V" and "H&V II" and "part 1" and "part 2" and "side 2" and the other section labels in H&V but the key is the master numbers. H&V was its own master with its own master number and own parts 2 and 3 and bridges and intros and fades etc.. H&V II was its own different master with its own different master number and its own different parts and intro and fade and prelude etc..

Two different masters for two different sides of a single both numbering and labeling their internal parts with similar systems. The master numbers are the organizing thing.

OK good. That makes more sense. In that case, then, what counts as H&V I and what counts as H&V II? Where can I find that out?

I don't remember the numbers but like in January H&V had shaken down to two separate master with two separate master number. One master is called simply H&V and the other master is called H&V Part/Side II. OK, looked them up. That which is recorded for the H&V master number #57020 would be edited into the H&V master for side 1. That which is recorded for the H&V Part/Side II master number 57045 would be edited into the H&V Part/Side II master for side 2.

Note: Besides the evidence of the two titles and two master numbers, the H&V Part II master #57045 was also noted as "side 2" on a tape, which very highly elevates the case for the 2 sided single imo, especially in light of two eyewitness who have stated H&V was or was at some point a two sided single. Chuck Britz and Michael Vosse as I remember.

[buddhahat]

Makes more sense that it was an intro to side B of a two sided single imo.

Why?

I'm not saying I disagree, but using the words "making sense" in reference to H&V just seems sorta wrong. Nothing makes sense.

Fair enough - that's my hunch and I shouldn't promote it as anything else. Tag to Part 1 seems more suggestive of a two sided heroes though. Then there's the brian edit that sequences gee plus several dit dit sections. That has to be the most solid evidence for a two parted heroes right there. I find it hard to believe Brian would've planned those repetitive dit dit sections to have sat within the a-side single. That would've left little room for any of the other main sections. Didn't Chuck Britz also confirm the 2 sided theory?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

On the box as they are recording the “Part II” variations towards  the end there’s brief discussion of the next part, but then that part never comes. Why is that? Did they never record it? And if so…why? Why get so close to completion then quit? And that question comes up a lot when talking about Smile. The tape always ends just when there seems to be something important coming up (see also: instructions to players about talking between verses in Dada).

Why did he re-record the H&V fade when the re-record sounds just like the damn original (aside from Carl's scat)?

[EgoHanger1966]

If these words were to appear at the end, are they saying that the entire wild west story was merely the fantasy of a simple farmer, who fell down in the pig pen and bumped his head and dreamed the song during 2 and a half minutes of unconciousness or something? Will he leave his hat on next time to cushion the blow?

I doubt this is what Brian and VDP were thinking, but I really like this theory. Clever.

[Mitchell]

Interesting that the "harpsichord bit" that we have dates to the Smiley sessions... Was there an earlier version on a non-electric harpsichord? This would imply so... (forgiveness if I'm ignorant of certain Smile pieces)

[buddhahat]

On the box as they are recording the “Part II” variations towards  the end there’s brief discussion of the next part, but then that part never comes. Why is that? Did they never record it? And if so…why? Why get so close to completion then quit? And that question comes up a lot when talking about Smile. The tape always ends just when there seems to be something important coming up (see also: instructions to players about talking between verses in Dada).

Why did he re-record the H&V fade when the re-record sounds just like the damn original (aside from Carl's scat)?

Maybe it was just a quick solution - need a fade to the b side. Just reconfigure the fade to the a side in a subtly different way. So A side has false barnyard fade and b side has the Carl scat version.

There is also that cool little section that sounds  like a cross between the slow bit from rhapsody in blue and western theme. I think it's one of the part 2 sections on TSS where Brian plays the part on piano and is followed by the boys harmonising. Anyway I wonder if this section fulfilled a similar function in that it was a side 2 mirror part to Western theme. I.e. a 'prelude to fade' for the b side.

Edit: actually from memory of recording dates I have a feeling that Western Theme most likely was planned as the prelude to the scat fade so scrub that last theory!

[SMiLE Brian]

I love that the acetates have reopened the H&V sequencing debate.

Its fun to imagine the song going a thousand different ways.

[Tricycle Rider]

Its fun to imagine the song going a thousand different ways

Not if your initials are B.W.  

[Andrew G. Doe]

There are two people who would know for certain if "H&V" was ever going to be a double sided single. Have either of them ever said a word about that possibility ?

[FatherOfTheMan Sr101]

I'm pretty sure Brian did. I forget where.

[leggo of my ego]

If these words were to appear at the end, are they saying that the entire wild west story was merely the fantasy of a simple farmer, who fell down in the pig pen and bumped his head and dreamed the song during 2 and a half minutes of unconciousness or something? Will he leave his hat on next time to cushion the blow?

I doubt this is what Brian and VDP were thinking, but I really like this theory. Clever.

Most people who fall down and pass out in a pigpen never get up again. Haven't you ever heard the saying "He died and hogs ate him"?

Pigs will eat anything, quite quickly too.

[leggo of my ego]

If I understand andy correctly, IIGS probably does not have the distortion at the end, I take it as a butt cut edit before the distortion into butt cut edits of the next two sections. Yes? No? Anybody tried that as an approximation? Could a couple of or all versions of the IIGS instru track [sans Harv demo] be layered to simulate a version with fuller instrumentation? You know by someone not me, someone with the appropriate skills. Would that work?

This was my interpretation of his description of the transition from IIGS to the 'boys and girls' section (though I added the vocals to the harpsichord section): https://soundcloud.com/robert-borszich/im-in-decent-shape/s-334m0

It's seems to work really well - though it's probably not even close to what Andy was talking about.

  I think I see why my soundcloud files keeping getting deleted...dont use the real song titles / band names.

got it. 

[bgas]

If these words were to appear at the end, are they saying that the entire wild west story was merely the fantasy of a simple farmer, who fell down in the pig pen and bumped his head and dreamed the song during 2 and a half minutes of unconciousness or something? Will he leave his hat on next time to cushion the blow?

I doubt this is what Brian and VDP were thinking, but I really like this theory. Clever.

Most people who fall down and pass out in a pigpen never get up again. Haven't you ever heard the saying "He died and hogs ate him"?

Pigs will eat anything, quite quickly too.

Sure , but right after he bumped his head, the tin man and the scarecrow picked him up and carried him to bed, so he'd wake up healthy wealthy and wise.

[KittyKat]

Are there any message boards that discuss what Billy Joel really intended with "We Didn't Start the Fire," or how many parts there really are to "Uptown Girl"?

[leggo of my ego]

If these words were to appear at the end, are they saying that the entire wild west story was merely the fantasy of a simple farmer, who fell down in the pig pen and bumped his head and dreamed the song during 2 and a half minutes of unconciousness or something? Will he leave his hat on next time to cushion the blow?

I doubt this is what Brian and VDP were thinking, but I really like this theory. Clever.

Most people who fall down and pass out in a pigpen never get up again. Haven't you ever heard the saying "He died and hogs ate him"?

Pigs will eat anything, quite quickly too.

Sure , but right after he bumped his head, the tin man and the scarecrow picked him up and carried him to bed, so he'd wake up healthy wealthy and wise.

Ah yes the Wizard of Oz scene of Dorothy falling in the pigpen - you see how quick he got her out of there!

Toto would have been one bite for a big sow. 

[ash]

There are two people who would know for certain if "H&V" was ever going to be a double sided single. Have either of them ever said a word about that possibility ?

Sometimes it appears that trying to get a straight answer about Smile out of those two is like trying to find out who killed the Kennedys (no it wasn't you and me) or recutting The Magnificent Ambersons back to it's original state. I love Van Dyke's  work with  and without Brian but not even a Babel fish will work  let alone google translate.
I say call in Derren Brown and sit Brian and Van down at a piano with 10 questions and roll tape.

That aside i do have a double sided single of Like A Rolling Stone by Bob Dylan on CBS which is labelled part 1 and part 2. Think it's a uk or us demo/promo given out to journalists, radio stations and the like. Mind you, doesn't mean Like a Rolling Stone was a 2 sided single. I think CBS thought the length of the record would freak radio stations out - like editing the solo out of House Of The Rising Sun. I haven't heard it for ages but it just fades out after 2 or 3 verses. Weird.


I am not convinced Heroes would have been 2 sided either but there appear to have been at least 6 or 7 different variations ranging from 2.45 to between 6 and 7 minutes possibly closer to 6 minutes (erm.. or 5 ).  The only certainty is verse 1 and 2 and that BW couldn't complete it to his or our satisfaction. The frequently mentioned 5 or 6 (or 7 ? aaarrgghhh) minute version and a complete Great Shape version are what i always wanted to hear. I have suspected for many years (as others have here) that the Great Shape version was the same as Cantina with those 2 sections swapped and Barnyard as the fade ...or at least close to that.
BTW didn't Alan say they had a slightly longer version of the released 45 before the box set came out ? yikes

[Al Jardine: Pick Up Artist]

I am a HUGE advocate for the two-sided single theory, basically 1:1 like we got on the 2CD TSS. And I also think that the album mix would be similar to what we got on TSS. The only thing I feel that doesn't stand up to that is the H&V chorus and Bicycle Rider in DYLW, but I definitely do not think the exploding cantina fits as a final version for an album.

I actually had a long, long thought out thing I was going to write but it flew out of my brain. The separate Barnshine and H&V fades have also always bothered me, but I guess it makes sense if Barnshine goes after Sunshine and H&V fade on the single. But that doesn't hold up, as the exploding cantina clearly uses the Barnshine fade. I also don't like how sides 1&2 both use the same fade (albeit different).

On topic with the thread I think that IIGS was just an early cantina and probably followed Worms like on TSS. In fact, I feel like the first bit of TSS is quite accurate except for Barnyard. I feel like it was probably trashed, not even combined with IIGS which would explain its absence from the back cover.

Dammit Brian, why the f*** did you make this sh*t so confusing. And dammit SOT compilers, why was the Can't Wait Too Long fade listed as a an H&V thing? Was it really?