Did Brian ruin Heroes and Villains by adding the "Bicycle Rider" chorus?

[Jukka]

Word?  Word!  Brother... Or is that bro'? I was agreeing with you.  Never mind... 

Shoulda been Bro' Records!

[Custom Machine]

To me the Bicycle Rider chorus is an essential part of Heroes and Villains.  Don't mind the inclusion of the Cantina section except for the spoken segment "You're under arrest!" which I find so irritating that I've actually gone to the trouble of editing it out so that I can listen to H&V without having the flow of the song interrupted by that jarring segment.

[lance]

It doesn't need the chorus on the album...but it does on the single.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

If any of you naysayers can construct a  piece of music which changes and develops as much as the H&V single, which contains wildly conflicting sections and yet retains a perfect sense of structure throughout, then I'd love to hear it. I would wager though that it's the bloody armchair pundits with the least amount of talent who think they know better than a master of his art.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that anyone who doesn't think the H&V single is sheer perfection is a fucking moron, but I certainly wouldn't disagree with anyone who did have the vision and audacity to make a bold statement like that

[buddhahat]

I love the BR section. It always represented the Villainous part of H&V to me - the dark counterpoint to the more comedic up tempo sections. A literal interpretation I know, but it works for me. Some of the Heroes sections he worked on definitely evoke silent-movie villainous cad.

[shangaijoeBB]

Yes, he did.

[Gohi]

i really can't fathom why anyone would think Heroes & Villains is better without the chorus. You're under arrest, folks. 

[soniclovenoize]

If any of you naysayers can construct a  piece of music which changes and develops as much as the H&V single, which contains wildly conflicting sections and yet retains a perfect sense of structure throughout, then I'd love to hear it. I would wager though that it's the bloody armchair pundits with the least amount of talent who think they know better than a master of his art.

Wow seriously?

[JK]

To expand on my "No":

 The "Bicycle Rider" section is the part of the song that grabbed me first back in '67. Like hell Brian ruined it.

[Jukka]

Just to make it clear, I'm not condemning the single version (I admit, "ruin" is a bit too strong word here). That's the Heroes and Villains I first fell in love with, and one of the key tracks that got me hooked on this band in the first place. But, as I mentioned earlier, the "three-minute musical comedy" thing he had originally in mind DID work just fine! It didn't need no chorus to be a great song. It's great, action-packed and fun. Biff! Pow! Bang! Zap! The finished Smile would have had enough melancholy bits to balance out it's perkiness (one song doesn't need to contain all the emotions).

I'm not saying I know better than Brian what to do with his songs. Just saying that he didn't necessarily need to tinker with it endlessly like he did. He got it right in early 1967. Such a shame he didn't see it.

Funny thing is, when I first heard the cantina version, I was like "yeah, this is great"! I didn't even notice it doesn't have the familiar chorus until after maybe 20 listens! That goes to prove that it did have the flow and momentum a great song needs. I still think it would have been a hit. Top 12 at least.

[Summertime Blooz]

Tbh, I think the 'cantina section' is the boring part. I agree the chorus could be considered tedious, but if he shortened it there would be no problem, but because he goes 2x D#m G#m it loses it's momentum. Which is why I mixed out of my mix!

I think you got it right. (But I wouldn't eliminate either section)

[Fall Breaks]

Just to make it clear, I'm not condemning the single version (I admit, "ruin" is a bit too strong word here). That's the Heroes and Villains I first fell in love with, and one of the key tracks that got me hooked on this band in the first place. But, as I mentioned earlier, the "three-minute musical comedy" thing he had originally in mind DID work just fine! It didn't need no chorus to be a great song. It's great, action-packed and fun. Biff! Pow! Bang! Zap! The finished Smile would have had enough melancholy bits to balance out it's perkiness (one song doesn't need to contain all the emotions).

I'm not saying I know better than Brian what to do with his songs. Just saying that he didn't necessarily need to tinker with it endlessly like he did. He got it right in early 1967. Such a shame he didn't see it.

Funny thing is, when I first heard the cantina version, I was like "yeah, this is great"! I didn't even notice it doesn't have the familiar chorus until after maybe 20 listens! That goes to prove that it did have the flow and momentum a great song needs. I still think it would have been a hit. Top 12 at least.

It was the same for me. I had heard the Cantina version for many years before realizing there was no Bicycle Rider part!

[Don Malcolm]

H&V was the albatross and the phoenix sprung from the same nest, all the versions, fragments, etc. are part of something much larger and complex swirling around in the madness of the agonizingly extended SMILE moment. The arc that the versions go through is akin to an almost cinematic shift from brightly lit sunshine to night & shadow (following up on buddahat's very fine insight). The chorus adds an emotional weight and depth that gives the song an extra dimension. Paul Williams thought that Brian's greatest achievement was to finally put together a coherent, cohesive version of the song after all of that "birth trauma." Methinks there's a good bit of truth (and wisdom) in that viewpoint...

[Zack]

I'm a cantina version fan all the way.  I think the "three score and five" bit is the best part of the song and the "la la la la la" is just the song treading water for a while.

[Jukka]

I'm a cantina version fan all the way.  I think the "three score and five" bit is the best part of the song and the "la la la la la" is just the song treading water for a while.

Heh, I've always thought that's the "hit singalong nesteet-thing-to-chorus-hook" part!

[sockittome]

I love both versions!  They are both perfect in their own ways.  I just can't imagine hearing the Cantina version on the radio, especially out of context with other BBs songs of that era.
In my world:

Smiley version-single

Cantina version-album

....which invites the question, would the Cantina version have made an appropriate opener to Smiley Smile?  I realize that for commercial reasons they needed that established single to kick off the album, but I ask the question from a creative point of view.  Thoughts, anyone?

[Bicyclerider]

I disagree. I think for the most part the songs as compositions were essentially finished. It was during the recording process that BW went back re-recording sections/replacing sections. I believe that in almost every case at the beginning of sessions for heroes/worms/cabin/child/wonderful/wind chimes/surfs up/master painter-sunshine/vegatables/look/holidays BW could have sat down and played through the whole tune for the assembled musicians. Maybe the words weren't completely finalised but i think they were at the very least mostly there.
The Heroes version played for Humble Harv shows there was (at least initially) a clear plan.
I wish there were some composing demos knocking around.

Do you really think that "Barnyard" and "I'm In Great Shape" are a part of the song "Heroes and Villains?" They are completely individual songs, albeit part of the original conception of the "Heroes and Villains" suite, but completely individual compositions, no matter how short they are.

Yes I do believe they are part of Heroes - at least according to Van dyke who says they were written as part of the song from the very beginning.  See Dominic's book for Van's description.

I think the chorus, stolen from another song where it fits perfectly, definitely slows the momentum and hurts the song but ultimately made it slightly more commercial (I suspect the fact there was the slow section in GV and it was so successful may have influenced the use of it, but as a chorus it was underwhelming, it would have been better as a standalone section or a fade) - remember, this single was a failure commercially in comparison to other BB hits.  I also prefer the version on Hawthorne that restores the original instrumentation (bass, percussion) and mixes out/lowers the organ overdub.  It's more smile and less smiley in that mix.

[Bicyclerider]

If any of you naysayers can construct a  piece of music which changes and develops as much as the H&V single, which contains wildly conflicting sections and yet retains a perfect sense of structure throughout, then I'd love to hear it. I would wager though that it's the bloody armchair pundits with the least amount of talent who think they know better than a master of his art.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that anyone who doesn't think the H&V single is sheer perfection is a fucking moron, but I certainly wouldn't disagree with anyone who did have the vision and audacity to make a bold statement like that

Troll alert.  Stupidest argument ever?  If we can't write music as good as Brian we can't prefer an earlier version of the song to the later released version?  You need to go back to your armchair and read a book on logic and maybe etiquette before sharing more of your great insights with us.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

If any of you naysayers can construct a  piece of music which changes and develops as much as the H&V single, which contains wildly conflicting sections and yet retains a perfect sense of structure throughout, then I'd love to hear it. I would wager though that it's the bloody armchair pundits with the least amount of talent who think they know better than a master of his art.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that anyone who doesn't think the H&V single is sheer perfection is a fucking moron, but I certainly wouldn't disagree with anyone who did have the vision and audacity to make a bold statement like that

Troll alert.  Stupidest argument ever?  If we can't write music as good as Brian we can't prefer an earlier version of the song to the later released version?  You need to go back to your armchair and read a book on logic and maybe etiquette before sharing more of your great insights with us.

 

Yeah, I was in a bad mood. It was funny though.

The funniest bit was when you got offended, and went all like Hannah Montana, like, stupidest post ever, like OMG! Troll alert.

[SMiLE-addict]

I disagree completely. To me, the first chorus and the bicycle rider choruses are the best part of the song!

[The Foot Fetish Man]

Here Here!  I can't take the mix.  All those beautiful sessions and intricate instrumentation-- and we get that horrible mix.  I've asked the question here a few times before but can never get a good answer: how did that mix result from those sessions?  Was it just a matter of recording a recording of a recording?  How could anybody not notice how muddy the finished product sounded.  Or did they?  Whenever I bring it up, nobody echoes my complaint.

Maybe Brian was never concerned about overall sound quality in general? (shrug)
After all, even with one good ear he HAD to have noticed the intrusive bass notes that are present on PS's "I'm Waiting For the Day" that sounds like he used a tape that wasn't properly erased.

[sockittome]

Here Here!  I can't take the mix.  All those beautiful sessions and intricate instrumentation-- and we get that horrible mix.  I've asked the question here a few times before but can never get a good answer: how did that mix result from those sessions?  Was it just a matter of recording a recording of a recording?  How could anybody not notice how muddy the finished product sounded.  Or did they?  Whenever I bring it up, nobody echoes my complaint.

Maybe Brian was never concerned about overall sound quality in general? (shrug)
After all, even with one good ear he HAD to have noticed the intrusive bass notes that are present on PS's "I'm Waiting For the Day" that sounds like he used a tape that wasn't properly erased.

....and the chatter in Here Today and other songs, various coughs, clunky edits, and the list goes on.  You've got to wonder why Brian would take so much care in detail with writing, arranging, recording, etc. only to let weird anomalies like this slide in the mixing/mastering process.

[DonnyL]

Maybe Brian was never concerned about overall sound quality in general? (shrug)
After all, even with one good ear he HAD to have noticed the intrusive bass notes that are present on PS's "I'm Waiting For the Day" that sounds like he used a tape that wasn't properly erased.

....and the chatter in Here Today and other songs, various coughs, clunky edits, and the list goes on.  You've got to wonder why Brian would take so much care in detail with writing, arranging, recording, etc. only to let weird anomalies like this slide in the mixing/mastering process.

Sound 'quality' is not really the issue here -- these are errors that Brian (and others, like Chuck Britz) let slide due to things like time constraints, label deadlines, etc. ... and (I think) moments of inspiration. If you got a perfect mix that had a small technical error (that may not have even been heard until later), sometimes you'd let it slide. Brian was very tuned in to sound quality, but decisions were made based on the standards of the day. And these imperfections -- which may be so obvious in today's digital age -- were not as noticeable on vinyl, particularly Capitol's pressings, which were usually EQ'd pretty heavily. I'm sure the mistakes were noted and BW and the engineers, etc. agreed "no one will notice it on vinyl". Or that they just added to the vibe. And seriously, people did not listen with such critical ears in those days ... not sure the Kingsmen's "Louie Louie" would become a hit if released today.

... though I do agree that the multi-track working methods of the mid to late '60s favored artistic preference and convenience of workflow over sound quality in general. But things like the mistakes left in were really just errors, not sound quality issues. Though there were some decisions made that legitimately affected sound quality, like the the entire instrumental track being dubbed to just one track on an 8-track master. Those were conscious decisions made, where the workflow was considered over sound quality.

Personally, I think the imperfections give a certain humanity and character.

[Phoenix]

It's all the same.  I've said for years: Cantina version, minus the Barnshine fade = part one.  Single version, from first chorus on = part two.  Once Brian decided to trim things down to a standard length single, he combined the two by putting the opening of part one at the start of part two.  Voila!  Since hitting on that idea, every other version sounds incomplete or, in the case of the 2004 construction, wrong, to me.

[Ron]

I dont' feel he ruined it.  It has a strange vibe to it but that's what he was going for.  If he wanted it to not have a chorus, he would have left it like that, or if he wanted a properly written chorus he would have written one.  He wanted it to sound like the single (pretty much) did.  It was meant to sound different than anything before. 

It's easy for us to listen to songs like that and say "Oh, well if this was like this, it woud flow better" but he wasn't trying to make it the best sounding, best structured song he ever did.  He wanted it to be jarring and for the Chorus to kill the momentum a bit.  No musician is trying to make every song they record better than the last one, most musicians try to make each song sound different than the last one.