Van Dyke Barks

[Komera]

Brian on the other hand...  I've seen quite a few places where he's described as simply having a savant-ish ability.  My own original opinion of him was "as close to a savant as you'll get without actually being a savant".  That has since been amended to "probably has a bit of Asperger syndrome".  That is, enough autism to mess up his social abilities.  One of the key signs of Asperger is a lack of empathy (in this case, meaning the ability to understand what a person is experiencing from their frame of reference).  I don't think Brian actually understands how much he hurt Mike's feelings by going with Asher and then Van for lyrics.  Another trait of Asperger is a failure to react appropriately to social interaction.  Saw that plenty from Brian in the 70s.  That old RS article, Saving Brother Brian, it mentions Landy having to teach Brian how to interact with people (again).

I don't think Asperger explains Brian's weirdness.

I've thought he might have Asperger's too (and maybe it would be more obvious before the bad medications, etc.), though of course I'm not a psychologist and I don't know him.  But, based on what I've read of his social skills, his confidence/interest in limited areas (music), some of the ritualistic behavior (playing "Be My Baby" every morning), or possible stimming (the Linda Rondstadt story about working out a vocal arrangement while playing an unrelated pattern on the piano), it wouldn't surprise me.  Many people with Asperger's would take issue with the "lack of empathy," though.  It may appear that way to Neurotypicals on the outside, but that is not how many of them feel.  You seem to define the word better than some, but I'd say he had empathy, even if his social skills made it show differently.  He did cowrite "God Only Knows," after all.  There are many neurotypicals who would not express their souls and human emotions like Brian Wilson has.

I didn't mean to imply that people with Asperger don't understand emotions.  Because Brian clearly does know that Mike's feelings were wounded.  I'm just not particularly convinced he knows HOW MUCH Mike was hurt.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

That Smiley couldn't break the top 40 is a good indication that Smile wouldn't have sold huge amounts.

Bullshit. Smiley didn't come out until September, nearly a year after it's intended release and about 6 months after the hype died. By then, the Beach Boys had missed Monterey and were starting to be considered uncool. Everyone knew SMiLE, the much anticipated supposed masterwork was scrapped. Anyone who did buy it was probably severely disappointed that it not only didn't sound like the psychedelic rock that was dominating but it didn't sound like the Beach Boys either. I imagine word of mouth was probably disastrous.

Sorry but the success or failure of the two are completely unrelated. Too many variables had changed for us to be able to use Smiley as a comparison.

If people had wanted to buy the next Beach Boys album they would have, be it in early '67 or September. H&V not making the top 10 was a good indication that the established fanbase was divided by Brian's new direction. For all it's on the surface weirdness, Good Vibrations was at it's core still a pop song. Nothing else on Smile/Smiley had that balance and sales suffered.
The hype machine in GV's wake would have undoubedly sold more copies of Smile but nothing on a huge scale.

Some would, yes. Some DID. Those are the ones who bought Smiley. But the more casual fans, the curious people who may have bought SMiLE just from reading about all the hype, the non-fans who heard and loved GV on the radio, the hip counterculture kids who wanted to hear how a surfer band would tackle psychedelia, etc...all THOSE people, those potential buyers and new audiences were lost. Thats what you dont seem to get. Yes, they had a core group of fans whod buy anything Beach Boys, but SMiLE was a big chance to change with the times and reach out to new people in a way Smiley wasnt. And again, Id argue a significant number of people who loved the Boys gave up on them before Smiley came out or else just after. Between scrapping SMiLE, cancelling on Monterey, and then releasing this seemingly lazy album that sounds NOTHING like Pepper or the Doors or Jimi or any of the other cool psychedelic music...they must have seemed like a band spiraling out of control to most of their old fans. A bunch of out-of-touch dinosaurs who ought to make way for the new generation of rock stars. Im sure a lot of their lesser fans just straight-up forgot about them in the long span of time between GV and Smiley. After experiencing Pepper, Hendrix lighting a guitar on fire at Monterey, all these new experimental bands like the Airplane and Pink Floyd coming out...Im sure for a lot of them it was like "Beach Boys? Beach Boys who?" and when no big singles came off the new album that was the death knell.

Honestly, this seems completely logical to me. No one factor could explain the failure of Smiley, but all of those all at once? Absolutely. It has nothing to do with SMiLE being uncommercial. SMiLE is irrelevant to why Smiley failed. SMiLE would have debuted under totally different circumstances so we cant base how it would have charted off Smiley's performance.

Clearly the band failing to strike while the iron was hot did them no favours but it doesn't automatically mean Smile would have sold zillions while Smiley didn't.
Also you seem to be making the assumption that everyone would have loved Smile when in reality many were turned off by Smiley. We'll never know for sure and they very well could have but to say it's an open/shut case that Smile would have been massive and gained the band a whole new fanbase is revisionist speculation.
It's also worth noting that the Beach Boys would have probably had a much better chance of selling their new type of music after The Beatles had opened up the doors for psychedelic music in the mainstream with Pepper.

Many people were turned off by Smiley because it was completely different to what was hip at the time. SMiLE would have fit perfectly with what was hip tho, that's the difference. That's what you don't seem to get. Maybe SMiLE would have been big after Pepper too. I think so, but not as big as if it came out in January. Again tho, you can't factor Smiley into this. Smiley failed after Pepper because it was the antithesis to Pepper and every other big album of the summer. Not because it was different from their old stuff, but because it was the wrong kind of different

[SBonilla]

Ok, maybe this doesn't fit this thread, I'll throw this out, anyway.

Van Dyke Parks recently posted a link via his Twitter about Vaughn Monroe's 1948 hit BALLERINA.  He noted how the bar was raised for string arranging on that recording. He's right. It's quite an amazing arrangement. Right before the vocal comes in, there is a short quote of Holiday For Strings. A little later, after 'whirl, ballerina, whirl' you hear the spiral of strings. Jimmy Haskell had to have had that in mind when he scored the strings for Ode To Billy Joe. There are musical twists and turns at every other bar. This is all interesting and nice.
But, I noticed something else. I went back to the beginning of the tune. The second chord of the intro is a Neapalitan chord. This gives the arrangement a Spanish tinge. OK.

Listening further, again, "Dance ballerina, dance."
Wait a minute. Dance ballerina, dance?  Hm.  Could that lyric be the inspiration/reference for "Dance Margarita (don't you know that I love you), dance?"
Maybe not, But, to me, it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYVNuxcDcnE

[drbeachboy]

That Smiley couldn't break the top 40 is a good indication that Smile wouldn't have sold huge amounts.

Bullshit. Smiley didn't come out until September, nearly a year after it's intended release and about 6 months after the hype died. By then, the Beach Boys had missed Monterey and were starting to be considered uncool. Everyone knew SMiLE, the much anticipated supposed masterwork was scrapped. Anyone who did buy it was probably severely disappointed that it not only didn't sound like the psychedelic rock that was dominating but it didn't sound like the Beach Boys either. I imagine word of mouth was probably disastrous.

Sorry but the success or failure of the two are completely unrelated. Too many variables had changed for us to be able to use Smiley as a comparison.

If people had wanted to buy the next Beach Boys album they would have, be it in early '67 or September. H&V not making the top 10 was a good indication that the established fanbase was divided by Brian's new direction. For all it's on the surface weirdness, Good Vibrations was at it's core still a pop song. Nothing else on Smile/Smiley had that balance and sales suffered.
The hype machine in GV's wake would have undoubedly sold more copies of Smile but nothing on a huge scale.

Some would, yes. Some DID. Those are the ones who bought Smiley. But the more casual fans, the curious people who may have bought SMiLE just from reading about all the hype, the non-fans who heard and loved GV on the radio, the hip counterculture kids who wanted to hear how a surfer band would tackle psychedelia, etc...all THOSE people, those potential buyers and new audiences were lost. Thats what you dont seem to get. Yes, they had a core group of fans whod buy anything Beach Boys, but SMiLE was a big chance to change with the times and reach out to new people in a way Smiley wasnt. And again, Id argue a significant number of people who loved the Boys gave up on them before Smiley came out or else just after. Between scrapping SMiLE, cancelling on Monterey, and then releasing this seemingly lazy album that sounds NOTHING like Pepper or the Doors or Jimi or any of the other cool psychedelic music...they must have seemed like a band spiraling out of control to most of their old fans. A bunch of out-of-touch dinosaurs who ought to make way for the new generation of rock stars. Im sure a lot of their lesser fans just straight-up forgot about them in the long span of time between GV and Smiley. After experiencing Pepper, Hendrix lighting a guitar on fire at Monterey, all these new experimental bands like the Airplane and Pink Floyd coming out...Im sure for a lot of them it was like "Beach Boys? Beach Boys who?" and when no big singles came off the new album that was the death knell.

Honestly, this seems completely logical to me. No one factor could explain the failure of Smiley, but all of those all at once? Absolutely. It has nothing to do with SMiLE being uncommercial. SMiLE is irrelevant to why Smiley failed. SMiLE would have debuted under totally different circumstances so we cant base how it would have charted off Smiley's performance.

Clearly the band failing to strike while the iron was hot did them no favours but it doesn't automatically mean Smile would have sold zillions while Smiley didn't.
Also you seem to be making the assumption that everyone would have loved Smile when in reality many were turned off by Smiley. We'll never know for sure and they very well could have but to say it's an open/shut case that Smile would have been massive and gained the band a whole new fanbase is revisionist speculation.
It's also worth noting that the Beach Boys would have probably had a much better chance of selling their new type of music after The Beatles had opened up the doors for psychedelic music in the mainstream with Pepper.

Many people were turned off by Smiley because it was completely different to what was hip at the time. SMiLE would have fit perfectly with what was hip tho, that's the difference. That's what you don't seem to get. Maybe SMiLE would have been big after Pepper too. I think so, but not as big as if it came out in January. Again tho, you can't factor Smiley into this. Smiley failed after Pepper because it was the antithesis to Pepper and every other big album of the summer. Not because it was different from their old stuff, but because it was the wrong kind of different

What would you equate Smile to from that time that was popular? I mean, it wasn't Hendrix, nor the Doors. Certainly not Cream. It was not Bubblegum and it was not Top 40. So, I ask who would this have appealed to directly? I grew up during that time an honestly, I don't think any of my friends would have bought it. They were into Hendrix, Cream etc. While it may have sold well based on it's advanced publicity, I just don't think it was electric enough to compete with what the hip crowd in America were listening. It may have done better in GB and rest of Europe, similarly to Pet Sounds. I still think it would have been great music passed over by the masses.

[filledeplage]

That Smiley couldn't break the top 40 is a good indication that Smile wouldn't have sold huge amounts.

Bullshit. Smiley didn't come out until September, nearly a year after it's intended release and about 6 months after the hype died. By then, the Beach Boys had missed Monterey and were starting to be considered uncool. Everyone knew SMiLE, the much anticipated supposed masterwork was scrapped. Anyone who did buy it was probably severely disappointed that it not only didn't sound like the psychedelic rock that was dominating but it didn't sound like the Beach Boys either. I imagine word of mouth was probably disastrous.

Sorry but the success or failure of the two are completely unrelated. Too many variables had changed for us to be able to use Smiley as a comparison.

If people had wanted to buy the next Beach Boys album they would have, be it in early '67 or September. H&V not making the top 10 was a good indication that the established fanbase was divided by Brian's new direction. For all it's on the surface weirdness, Good Vibrations was at it's core still a pop song. Nothing else on Smile/Smiley had that balance and sales suffered.
The hype machine in GV's wake would have undoubedly sold more copies of Smile but nothing on a huge scale.

Some would, yes. Some DID. Those are the ones who bought Smiley. But the more casual fans, the curious people who may have bought SMiLE just from reading about all the hype, the non-fans who heard and loved GV on the radio, the hip counterculture kids who wanted to hear how a surfer band would tackle psychedelia, etc...all THOSE people, those potential buyers and new audiences were lost. Thats what you dont seem to get. Yes, they had a core group of fans whod buy anything Beach Boys, but SMiLE was a big chance to change with the times and reach out to new people in a way Smiley wasnt. And again, Id argue a significant number of people who loved the Boys gave up on them before Smiley came out or else just after. Between scrapping SMiLE, cancelling on Monterey, and then releasing this seemingly lazy album that sounds NOTHING like Pepper or the Doors or Jimi or any of the other cool psychedelic music...they must have seemed like a band spiraling out of control to most of their old fans. A bunch of out-of-touch dinosaurs who ought to make way for the new generation of rock stars. Im sure a lot of their lesser fans just straight-up forgot about them in the long span of time between GV and Smiley. After experiencing Pepper, Hendrix lighting a guitar on fire at Monterey, all these new experimental bands like the Airplane and Pink Floyd coming out...Im sure for a lot of them it was like "Beach Boys? Beach Boys who?" and when no big singles came off the new album that was the death knell.

Honestly, this seems completely logical to me. No one factor could explain the failure of Smiley, but all of those all at once? Absolutely. It has nothing to do with SMiLE being uncommercial. SMiLE is irrelevant to why Smiley failed. SMiLE would have debuted under totally different circumstances so we cant base how it would have charted off Smiley's performance.

Clearly the band failing to strike while the iron was hot did them no favours but it doesn't automatically mean Smile would have sold zillions while Smiley didn't.
Also you seem to be making the assumption that everyone would have loved Smile when in reality many were turned off by Smiley. We'll never know for sure and they very well could have but to say it's an open/shut case that Smile would have been massive and gained the band a whole new fanbase is revisionist speculation.
It's also worth noting that the Beach Boys would have probably had a much better chance of selling their new type of music after The Beatles had opened up the doors for psychedelic music in the mainstream with Pepper.

Many people were turned off by Smiley because it was completely different to what was hip at the time. SMiLE would have fit perfectly with what was hip tho, that's the difference. That's what you don't seem to get. Maybe SMiLE would have been big after Pepper too. I think so, but not as big as if it came out in January. Again tho, you can't factor Smiley into this. Smiley failed after Pepper because it was the antithesis to Pepper and every other big album of the summer. Not because it was different from their old stuff, but because it was the wrong kind of different

Mujan - with all due respect, there was little deception about Smiley.  People knew it wasn't the full project. There was no "Surf's Up" track.  And it doesn't consider or take into consideration the maelstrom the band was in.  With Brian off the road, Carl was doing a lot of the parts.  Carl was under the supervision of the courts for "draft evasion."  It had to have been very stressful for the whole band.  

And, the fact that it wasn't released doesn't mean it would have sold "zillions" - we don't know that.  It is more coulda, woulda, shoulda...utter speculation.

Smiley is in the mix.  It was and is a snapshot of the project.

Who is to say what is "hip?" People just filtered in and out whatever they heard and then decided what they liked and what they felt was relevant.

And a lot did buy Smiley did so because of GV...and maybe Heroes, less so.  There was a sublime beauty (Windchimes) that is undeniable. Comparing it to Sgt. Pepper is unfair.  The Beatles were never subjected to the record company disrespect that The Beach Boys were.  It built from Pet Sounds and the damage was cumulative.  They did get a slight break with Darlin' and Wild Honey.  To their credit they did not allow he non-release of Smile and the rest of  the events  along the way, on their journey to define them.  

But I've always wondered whether releasing an live album of some of those era's tracks might have been better than the studio albums. At least in the intermediate, to take some of the heat off the band and continue the momentum.  For example some of the 1966-1967 concert tracks that have found their way out there, that people just seem delighted to have.  It felt like a really long time between really good live BB albums.

[filledeplage]

Ok, maybe this doesn't fit this thread, I'll throw this out, anyway.

Van Dyke Parks recently posted a link via his Twitter about Vaughn Monroe's 1948 hit BALLERINA.  He noted how the bar was raised for string arranging on that recording. He's right. It's quite an amazing arrangement. Right before the vocal comes in, there is a short quote of Holiday For Strings. A little later, after 'whirl, ballerina, whirl' you hear the spiral of strings. Jimmy Haskell had to have had that in mind when he scored the strings for Ode To Billy Joe. There are musical twists and turns at every other bar. This is all interesting and nice.
But, I noticed something else. I went back to the beginning of the tune. The second chord of the intro is a Neapalitan chord. This gives the arrangement a Spanish tinge. OK.

Listening further, again, "Dance ballerina, dance."
Wait a minute. Dance ballerina, dance?  Hm.  Could that lyric be the inspiration/reference for "Dance Margarita (don't you know that I love you), dance?"
Maybe not, But, to me, it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYVNuxcDcnE

Interesting...very interesting...

[Don Malcolm]

Thanks, Olmec Donald, for reminding us why VDP needs to be respected despite his many personal foibles (which have been glaringly apparent since the beginning of his career, when, as we should all remember, he was a child actor...early fame in any form has a huge chance to warp personalities and perspectives). VDP is a wonderfully accomplished musician with nary a commercial bone in his body, and I'm sure it's extremely difficult for him to be considered BW's "caddy" on a project like SMILE when it's clear that he was more of a creative force than any of BW's previous collaborators.

It's very distressing to watch (read: read!) the variations of high-school-level finger wagging and jockeying for moral high ground that overwhelms the genuine attempt of many (including lots buried here in this thread...) to understand the complex, messy reality that collided during the SMILE era and that continues to have repercussions nearly a half-century later. All this meta-condescension is utterly useless and does not lead to more knowledge or greater understanding. If we were in an auditorium together, much of this posturing behavior would be inhibited by the physical presence of others, and the discussion would be a lot more civil. Even though it's tempting to hide behind this electronic wall where we don't have to see the effect of unkind words on others, let's try going back in time and simulating the idea that we are all in the same room, and that we don't want to hurt, annoy or anger anyone just because we're physically insulated from retribution.

I think those who are angered or annoyed with what VDP has posted should confront him with it and remind him of this fact--and that he almost certainly wouldn't say any of this to Brian's face. We all need to rediscover these boundaries and try to put the "social media toothpaste" back in the tube.

[Mike's Beard]

Many people were turned off by Smiley because it was completely different to what was hip at the time. SMiLE would have fit perfectly with what was hip tho, that's the difference. That's what you don't seem to get. Maybe SMiLE would have been big after Pepper too. I think so, but not as big as if it came out in January. Again tho, you can't factor Smiley into this. Smiley failed after Pepper because it was the antithesis to Pepper and every other big album of the summer. Not because it was different from their old stuff, but because it was the wrong kind of different

I don't think you can compare Smile to what was selling at the time though, certainly not VDP's lyrical themes and the music had as much one foot in the past as it did the future. The Beatles could pull it off because, well they're THE BEATLES and John and Paul could have recorded themselves farting into a mic for 40 minutes and people would have fallen over themselves to buy it.
Nothing outside of GV screams commercial success to these ears by 1967 standards. It sounds like you've bought a little too much into the David Leaf thinking of 'if only Brian had completed Smile they would have taken over the world' line of thinking. Maybe they would have but I think it's much more likely that it would have been a cult success similar to what the likes of what Zappa was achieving at the time.
In 1967 The Byrds put out The Notorious Byrd Brothers which I think overall hangs as a much better record than Smile. It could have easily been scrapped as the band was falling apart at the time. Just imagine if it had, it would be very easy to speculate that had it been released it would have been a smash as it's a Summer of Love era masterpiece. The fact that it was released and sold squat shows that you can't always predict what would sell.

[Moon Dawg]

  "Good Vibrations" was #1 worldwide in Dec 66. IF SMiLE had come out even by say March 67, a solid hit would have been quite likely. But  rock music was turned upside down Jan-Sept 67. Hendrix, Cream, the Doors, Jefferson Airplane, SGT PEPPER, and Monterey all changed the game. Crucial months went by, all The Beach Boys delivered was...BEST OF VOL 2 (July).

  SMILEY undoubtedly pleased a few listeners but just as certainly turned off scores more. It's a classic album, but also the biggest anticlimax in the history of rock & roll. I still believe a Spring 1967 SMiLE would have sold well.

[Moon Dawg]

Many people were turned off by Smiley because it was completely different to what was hip at the time. SMiLE would have fit perfectly with what was hip tho, that's the difference. That's what you don't seem to get. Maybe SMiLE would have been big after Pepper too. I think so, but not as big as if it came out in January. Again tho, you can't factor Smiley into this. Smiley failed after Pepper because it was the antithesis to Pepper and every other big album of the summer. Not because it was different from their old stuff, but because it was the wrong kind of different

I don't think you can compare Smile to what was selling at the time though, certainly not VDP's lyrical themes and the music had as much one foot in the past as it did the future. The Beatles could pull it off because, well they're THE BEATLES and John and Paul could have recorded themselves farting into a mic for 40 minutes and people would have fallen over themselves to buy it.
Nothing outside of GV screams commercial success to these ears by 1967 standards. It sounds like you've bought a little too much into the David Leaf thinking of 'if only Brian had completed Smile they would have taken over the world' line of thinking. Maybe they would have but I think it's much more likely that it would have been a cult success similar to what the likes of what Zappa was achieving at the time.
In 1967 The Byrds put out The Notorious Byrd Brothers which I think overall hangs as a much better record than Smile. It could have easily been scrapped as the band was falling apart at the time. Just imagine if it had, it would be very easy to speculate that had it been released it would have been a smash as it's a Summer of Love era masterpiece. The fact that it was released and sold squat shows that you can't always predict what would sell.

 You do make a good point about NOTORIOUS. It's relative commercial failure seems hard to figure, but like The Beach Boys, the changes of 1967 seemed to put The Byrds in commercial eclipse.

[Cam Mott]

Many people were turned off by Smiley because it was completely different to what was hip at the time. SMiLE would have fit perfectly with what was hip tho, that's the difference. That's what you don't seem to get. Maybe SMiLE would have been big after Pepper too. I think so, but not as big as if it came out in January. Again tho, you can't factor Smiley into this. Smiley failed after Pepper because it was the antithesis to Pepper and every other big album of the summer. Not because it was different from their old stuff, but because it was the wrong kind of different

Many people, me included, see Smiley as seemingly ahead of it's time.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

Many people were turned off by Smiley because it was completely different to what was hip at the time. SMiLE would have fit perfectly with what was hip tho, that's the difference. That's what you don't seem to get. Maybe SMiLE would have been big after Pepper too. I think so, but not as big as if it came out in January. Again tho, you can't factor Smiley into this. Smiley failed after Pepper because it was the antithesis to Pepper and every other big album of the summer. Not because it was different from their old stuff, but because it was the wrong kind of different

Many people, me included, see Smiley as seemingly ahead of it's time.

I would agree. I'm just talking about how most people in 1967 would have perceived it

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The main thing to remember though is that we simply cannot speculate on how well Smile would have done chart wise based on the chart success of Smiley Smile. As much as I like the album, it can sound amateurish in comparison not only to Pet Sounds but also to a lot of other albums making big waves at the time. I remember after buying the album when I was around 17 or so and putting it on for friends, one of which was a big Pet Sounds fan. None of us had heard it before. By the time we got to Little Pad, I got the request to turn the album off. The album is simply a whole other animal in comparison to Smile. I don't think these guys would have been so quick to shut those songs off.

On a side note, one only needs to take a cursory glance at the scholarly work being done in the humanities now to see that "I" is in frequent use. Most people that I know in academics, myself included, encourage students to use it rather than discourage them.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Many people were turned off by Smiley because it was completely different to what was hip at the time. SMiLE would have fit perfectly with what was hip tho, that's the difference. That's what you don't seem to get. Maybe SMiLE would have been big after Pepper too. I think so, but not as big as if it came out in January. Again tho, you can't factor Smiley into this. Smiley failed after Pepper because it was the antithesis to Pepper and every other big album of the summer. Not because it was different from their old stuff, but because it was the wrong kind of different

Many people, me included, see Smiley as seemingly ahead of it's time.

I would agree

[Cam Mott]

Many people were turned off by Smiley because it was completely different to what was hip at the time. SMiLE would have fit perfectly with what was hip tho, that's the difference. That's what you don't seem to get. Maybe SMiLE would have been big after Pepper too. I think so, but not as big as if it came out in January. Again tho, you can't factor Smiley into this. Smiley failed after Pepper because it was the antithesis to Pepper and every other big album of the summer. Not because it was different from their old stuff, but because it was the wrong kind of different

Many people, me included, see Smiley as seemingly ahead of it's time.

I would agree. I'm just talking about how most people in 1967 would have perceived it

Didn't Brian give Michael Vosse the impression that he thought the time for SMiLE had passed, he heard Strawberry Fields Forever (or something) in February and thought that the Beatles had beat him to "it" or something like that? And according to Anderle, Parks and Wilson were "clashing" over the lyrics being too sophisticated and the music not being sophisticated enough and couldn't work together "around February".  According to Taylor in early May: “BUT ALAS…Brian Wilson began to stare at the glittering ships of tape and as the day of the launch became nearer than a date on the never-never calendar, he gazed at his plans and he turned his mind’s ear inwards and the longer he stared and the more he heard, the clearer it became that he was now in his jet age, building steamships."

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

The main thing to remember though is that we simply cannot speculate on how well Smile would have done chart wise based on the chart success of Smiley Smile. As much as I like the album, it can sound amateurish in comparison not only to Pet Sounds but also to a lot of other albums making big waves at the time. I remember after buying the album when I was around 17 or so and putting it on for friends, one of which was a big Pet Sounds fan. None of us had heard it before. By the time we got to Little Pad, I got the request to turn the album off. The album is simply a whole other animal in comparison to Smile. I don't think these guys would have been so quick to shut those songs off.

On a side note, one only needs to take a cursory glance at the scholarly work being done in the humanities now to see that "I" is in frequent use. Most people that I know in academics, myself included, encourage students to use it rather than discourage them.

Exactly this. Thank you !

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

With all due respect, could you or someone else please tell me whats so great about Pepper? I asked this in depth in another thread where the subject came up between us both but you didnt answer. Aside from influencing other people, is that really the gist of it--that its watered down psychedelia? And thats somehow good because it got the masses interested in that kinda music? Again, not to sound snotty but I really dont see the supposed brilliance.

It's difficult to explain what's great about the Beatles without rolling out tired old cliches. Also, as a disclaimer, Pepper is no where near my favourite album but here's my take fwiw:

LSD culture demanded a new type of music. This posed a massive challenge for established groups - how to adapt whilst still maintaining one's identity and without alienating an existing fanbase. The Rolling Stones and The Beach Boys were two casualties from the summer of love. However much one might love Smile/Satanic Majesties they were problematic albums for both bands (an understatement in the BB's case). With Pepper, The Beatles managed to create:

a) an album of great pop songs. With A Little Help From My Friends would've been a standard were it written by any band. Most of the songs are so freakin hummable and tuneful that (like most Beatles output) they've become sort of folk songs, school hymns, musical equivalent of the establishment - i.e boring and to be railed at. But that doesn't diminish the brilliance of the music as pop music.

b) but the songs weren't just simple constructions. A Day In The Life is complex and ambitious. It should be a pompous disaster but the marriage of Lennon & McCartney's two disparate songs via the mounting crescendo is genius - it flows, tells a story, feels natural, building to the climax of that one ominous chord. Imagine how many heads were blown by that piano note at the end?! What does it mean? I don't know, but it's ambiguous, open to interpretation - pop music as art. The genius of the song is in its structure and organisation.

We may well hear more interesting, complex music from the Smile sessions but the point is Brian and VDP never managed to organise it into a cohesive statement the way The Beatles and George Martin did with Pepper. A Day In The Life is the flashpoint of the album - the rest of it really is just great pop music for me building to that incredible moment. Surf's Up is the equivalent song from Smile and I see it fulfilling the same sort of function with its (gentler) crescendo and profound release at the end. If only they'd built and finished the album to house that masterpiece.

Mujan, I share your frustrations as do most of us. We hear Cabinessence, SU, H&V, Good Vibrations and marvel at the technicolour brilliance that simultaneously feels like a saturday morning cartoon and the great American novel - high and low art in perfect synthesis. If only they'd organised this stuff into an album it would've been the greatest art pop masterpiece* in the history of music, right? But the question is: Can it be organised in a way that does justice to the potential of those songs? In a way that cements all the bands' prior achievements whilst simultaneously looking forward and influencing other bands in its wake? Brian and VDP didn't manage it. However that really is what Sgt Pepper did for The Beatles imo and that is why I hold the album in such high regard, despite having many other Beatles albums that I actually prefer to listen to.


* critical, not commercial 

Fair enough. I still disagree, but I can see what you're saying. For what it's worth, I do think Pepper is a good album, it's just that its so unquestionably praised that I feel it's past time somebody dare to criticize it. Not so much as in the emperor has no clothes so much as "yes, he has clothes...but are they really any better than the rest?"

I dont see why Pepper should be so hailed and not SMiLE or Satanic Majesties except that Pepper came first and happened to be the one that got the attention. Their Satanic is just as good, I would say. I prefer 2000 Light Years from Home and She's A Rainbow to anything on Pepper, in fact. And I dont see why ADITL should be considered such a triumph of Lennon and McCartney. As you say, its two seperate songs stictched together by the crescendo of music. Id argue the two songs arent particularly meaningful or go with each other well. Just a guy reading some weird story in the news and a guy going about his morning routine. The orgasm of music was Paul's idea, but from what I understand he literally just told George Martin "hey, lets do this" and George made it happen. So I dont understand why that should earn so much praise and claims of the Beatles' genius. In one of the weakest SMiLE tracks, Brian did everything ADITL does and did it better. In My Only Sunshine, he combines two different tracks together to say something very profound about loss of faith. Yet, it's done very subtly, so much so that just about everyone including myself dismissed it as just a throwaway. ADITL, with all its "fancy" pomps and frills, falls flat in my opinion.

But at the end of the day, we wont convince each other. And this mini-debate is off topic from what we were discussing in the first place. SMiLE would have at least sold respectably just from GV and the advertising alone. There really is no question of that. You could argue whether it would have been a smash hit or modest one, but to say it would have outright flopped is just straight-up incorrect.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

Many people were turned off by Smiley because it was completely different to what was hip at the time. SMiLE would have fit perfectly with what was hip tho, that's the difference. That's what you don't seem to get. Maybe SMiLE would have been big after Pepper too. I think so, but not as big as if it came out in January. Again tho, you can't factor Smiley into this. Smiley failed after Pepper because it was the antithesis to Pepper and every other big album of the summer. Not because it was different from their old stuff, but because it was the wrong kind of different

Many people, me included, see Smiley as seemingly ahead of it's time.

I would agree. I'm just talking about how most people in 1967 would have perceived it

Didn't Brian give Michael Vosse the impression that he thought the time for SMiLE had passed, he heard Strawberry Fields Forever (or something) in February and thought that the Beatles had beat him to "it" or something like that? And according to Anderle, Parks and Wilson were "clashing" over the lyrics being too sophisticated and the music not being sophisticated enough and couldn't work together "around February".  According to Taylor in early May: “BUT ALAS…Brian Wilson began to stare at the glittering ships of tape and as the day of the launch became nearer than a date on the never-never calendar, he gazed at his plans and he turned his mind’s ear inwards and the longer he stared and the more he heard, the clearer it became that he was now in his jet age, building steamships."

Youre correct. Im curious tho, what this has to do with my thoughts on Smiley

[Cam Mott]

That Brian apparently didn't think SMiLE would sell; it wasn't timely or competitive and the lyrics  were too sophisticated, even in February.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

That Smiley couldn't break the top 40 is a good indication that Smile wouldn't have sold huge amounts.

Bullshit. Smiley didn't come out until September, nearly a year after it's intended release and about 6 months after the hype died. By then, the Beach Boys had missed Monterey and were starting to be considered uncool. Everyone knew SMiLE, the much anticipated supposed masterwork was scrapped. Anyone who did buy it was probably severely disappointed that it not only didn't sound like the psychedelic rock that was dominating but it didn't sound like the Beach Boys either. I imagine word of mouth was probably disastrous.

Sorry but the success or failure of the two are completely unrelated. Too many variables had changed for us to be able to use Smiley as a comparison.

If people had wanted to buy the next Beach Boys album they would have, be it in early '67 or September. H&V not making the top 10 was a good indication that the established fanbase was divided by Brian's new direction. For all it's on the surface weirdness, Good Vibrations was at it's core still a pop song. Nothing else on Smile/Smiley had that balance and sales suffered.
The hype machine in GV's wake would have undoubedly sold more copies of Smile but nothing on a huge scale.

Some would, yes. Some DID. Those are the ones who bought Smiley. But the more casual fans, the curious people who may have bought SMiLE just from reading about all the hype, the non-fans who heard and loved GV on the radio, the hip counterculture kids who wanted to hear how a surfer band would tackle psychedelia, etc...all THOSE people, those potential buyers and new audiences were lost. Thats what you dont seem to get. Yes, they had a core group of fans whod buy anything Beach Boys, but SMiLE was a big chance to change with the times and reach out to new people in a way Smiley wasnt. And again, Id argue a significant number of people who loved the Boys gave up on them before Smiley came out or else just after. Between scrapping SMiLE, cancelling on Monterey, and then releasing this seemingly lazy album that sounds NOTHING like Pepper or the Doors or Jimi or any of the other cool psychedelic music...they must have seemed like a band spiraling out of control to most of their old fans. A bunch of out-of-touch dinosaurs who ought to make way for the new generation of rock stars. Im sure a lot of their lesser fans just straight-up forgot about them in the long span of time between GV and Smiley. After experiencing Pepper, Hendrix lighting a guitar on fire at Monterey, all these new experimental bands like the Airplane and Pink Floyd coming out...Im sure for a lot of them it was like "Beach Boys? Beach Boys who?" and when no big singles came off the new album that was the death knell.

Honestly, this seems completely logical to me. No one factor could explain the failure of Smiley, but all of those all at once? Absolutely. It has nothing to do with SMiLE being uncommercial. SMiLE is irrelevant to why Smiley failed. SMiLE would have debuted under totally different circumstances so we cant base how it would have charted off Smiley's performance.

Clearly the band failing to strike while the iron was hot did them no favours but it doesn't automatically mean Smile would have sold zillions while Smiley didn't.
Also you seem to be making the assumption that everyone would have loved Smile when in reality many were turned off by Smiley. We'll never know for sure and they very well could have but to say it's an open/shut case that Smile would have been massive and gained the band a whole new fanbase is revisionist speculation.
It's also worth noting that the Beach Boys would have probably had a much better chance of selling their new type of music after The Beatles had opened up the doors for psychedelic music in the mainstream with Pepper.

Many people were turned off by Smiley because it was completely different to what was hip at the time. SMiLE would have fit perfectly with what was hip tho, that's the difference. That's what you don't seem to get. Maybe SMiLE would have been big after Pepper too. I think so, but not as big as if it came out in January. Again tho, you can't factor Smiley into this. Smiley failed after Pepper because it was the antithesis to Pepper and every other big album of the summer. Not because it was different from their old stuff, but because it was the wrong kind of different

What would you equate Smile to from that time that was popular? I mean, it wasn't Hendrix, nor the Doors. Certainly not Cream. It was not Bubblegum and it was not Top 40. So, I ask who would this have appealed to directly? I grew up during that time an honestly, I don't think any of my friends would have bought it. They were into Hendrix, Cream etc. While it may have sold well based on it's advanced publicity, I just don't think it was electric enough to compete with what the hip crowd in America were listening. It may have done better in GB and rest of Europe, similarly to Pet Sounds. I still think it would have been great music passed over by the masses.

I think Cabin Essence and CIFOTM would sound right at home rubbing elbows with the likes of Pink Floyd's Flaming, White Rabbit, and anything on Pepper. A finished Elements, even just the Fire we have now would sound fine alongside Hendrix's Third Stone From the Sun, Interstellar Overdrive and other freakout instrumentals. The social critiques in Surf's Up and Worms work well beside Zappa's We're Only In It For the Money and The United States of America. Admittedly, those last two were from a year later and the USA wasnt a hit, but all the same.

Not every great album in 1967 was electric, although Ill grant you that most were. Surrealistic Pillow was arguably the most iconic American album of the summer of love. Thats most acoustic sounding. Very folksy. The two big rockers are Grace Slick's, new to the band. Admittedly, those are the two most memorable and the two singles. Still, GV and Id say Cabin Essence rock just as hard as those in their own way. Ive always thought CE should have been the next single, not Heroes. Heroes was a poor choice that never would have sold as well, and the endless noodling of an uncommercial song to make it commercial was nothing but a waste of time.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

That Brian apparently didn't think SMiLE would sell; it wasn't timely or competitive and the lyrics  were too sophisticated, even in February.

And he was wrong. Psychedelic music became the big thing that spring, the summer of love was a cultural milestone built on it, and it continued throughout the sixties and evolved into progressive rock in the early seventies.

Brian was a genius but everyone makes bad calls. Everyone is their own harshest critic. And this is one of those times. To abandon an incredible masterwork just because another group had a good song is just senseless. Especially since GV came first and was just as far out there as Strawberry.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

That Smiley couldn't break the top 40 is a good indication that Smile wouldn't have sold huge amounts.

Bullshit. Smiley didn't come out until September, nearly a year after it's intended release and about 6 months after the hype died. By then, the Beach Boys had missed Monterey and were starting to be considered uncool. Everyone knew SMiLE, the much anticipated supposed masterwork was scrapped. Anyone who did buy it was probably severely disappointed that it not only didn't sound like the psychedelic rock that was dominating but it didn't sound like the Beach Boys either. I imagine word of mouth was probably disastrous.

Sorry but the success or failure of the two are completely unrelated. Too many variables had changed for us to be able to use Smiley as a comparison.

If people had wanted to buy the next Beach Boys album they would have, be it in early '67 or September. H&V not making the top 10 was a good indication that the established fanbase was divided by Brian's new direction. For all it's on the surface weirdness, Good Vibrations was at it's core still a pop song. Nothing else on Smile/Smiley had that balance and sales suffered.
The hype machine in GV's wake would have undoubedly sold more copies of Smile but nothing on a huge scale.

Some would, yes. Some DID. Those are the ones who bought Smiley. But the more casual fans, the curious people who may have bought SMiLE just from reading about all the hype, the non-fans who heard and loved GV on the radio, the hip counterculture kids who wanted to hear how a surfer band would tackle psychedelia, etc...all THOSE people, those potential buyers and new audiences were lost. Thats what you dont seem to get. Yes, they had a core group of fans whod buy anything Beach Boys, but SMiLE was a big chance to change with the times and reach out to new people in a way Smiley wasnt. And again, Id argue a significant number of people who loved the Boys gave up on them before Smiley came out or else just after. Between scrapping SMiLE, cancelling on Monterey, and then releasing this seemingly lazy album that sounds NOTHING like Pepper or the Doors or Jimi or any of the other cool psychedelic music...they must have seemed like a band spiraling out of control to most of their old fans. A bunch of out-of-touch dinosaurs who ought to make way for the new generation of rock stars. Im sure a lot of their lesser fans just straight-up forgot about them in the long span of time between GV and Smiley. After experiencing Pepper, Hendrix lighting a guitar on fire at Monterey, all these new experimental bands like the Airplane and Pink Floyd coming out...Im sure for a lot of them it was like "Beach Boys? Beach Boys who?" and when no big singles came off the new album that was the death knell.

Honestly, this seems completely logical to me. No one factor could explain the failure of Smiley, but all of those all at once? Absolutely. It has nothing to do with SMiLE being uncommercial. SMiLE is irrelevant to why Smiley failed. SMiLE would have debuted under totally different circumstances so we cant base how it would have charted off Smiley's performance.

Clearly the band failing to strike while the iron was hot did them no favours but it doesn't automatically mean Smile would have sold zillions while Smiley didn't.
Also you seem to be making the assumption that everyone would have loved Smile when in reality many were turned off by Smiley. We'll never know for sure and they very well could have but to say it's an open/shut case that Smile would have been massive and gained the band a whole new fanbase is revisionist speculation.
It's also worth noting that the Beach Boys would have probably had a much better chance of selling their new type of music after The Beatles had opened up the doors for psychedelic music in the mainstream with Pepper.

Many people were turned off by Smiley because it was completely different to what was hip at the time. SMiLE would have fit perfectly with what was hip tho, that's the difference. That's what you don't seem to get. Maybe SMiLE would have been big after Pepper too. I think so, but not as big as if it came out in January. Again tho, you can't factor Smiley into this. Smiley failed after Pepper because it was the antithesis to Pepper and every other big album of the summer. Not because it was different from their old stuff, but because it was the wrong kind of different

Mujan - with all due respect, there was little deception about Smiley.  People knew it wasn't the full project. There was no "Surf's Up" track.  And it doesn't consider or take into consideration the maelstrom the band was in.  With Brian off the road, Carl was doing a lot of the parts.  Carl was under the supervision of the courts for "draft evasion."  It had to have been very stressful for the whole band.  

And, the fact that it wasn't released doesn't mean it would have sold "zillions" - we don't know that.  It is more coulda, woulda, shoulda...utter speculation.

Smiley is in the mix.  It was and is a snapshot of the project.

Who is to say what is "hip?" People just filtered in and out whatever they heard and then decided what they liked and what they felt was relevant.

And a lot did buy Smiley did so because of GV...and maybe Heroes, less so.  There was a sublime beauty (Windchimes) that is undeniable. Comparing it to Sgt. Pepper is unfair.  The Beatles were never subjected to the record company disrespect that The Beach Boys were.  It built from Pet Sounds and the damage was cumulative.  They did get a slight break with Darlin' and Wild Honey.  To their credit they did not allow he non-release of Smile and the rest of  the events  along the way, on their journey to define them.  

But I've always wondered whether releasing an live album of some of those era's tracks might have been better than the studio albums. At least in the intermediate, to take some of the heat off the band and continue the momentum.  For example some of the 1966-1967 concert tracks that have found their way out there, that people just seem delighted to have.  It felt like a really long time between really good live BB albums.

I know people knew Smiley wasnt SMiLE. Ive brought up that very point before as a reason why Smiley wouldnt have been well accepted. But c'mon man, even if they knew it wasnt SMiLE, no one could have known Smiley would sound like...well...that. They probably assumed it would sound something like the pre-Pet Sounds albums. Something not quite as advanced, but still fun and rockin and with the trademarked vocal harmonies. Who would have ever thought the Beach Boys would have released something with virtually no "harmonization" and no happy go lucky lyrics/sound?

Yeah, Im speculating when I say SMiLE would have been a hit, but its INFORMED speculation. Using the facts to make an educated guess. Looking at the factors at play like Captiol's intense marketing, the recent #1 single, the public voting them the best group, Brian being acknowledged as a genius for the first time, the fact that psychedelic music itself was starting to get popular, etc all point to at least a modest hit if not a #1 million seller. To just say "oh, but Smiley didnt sell well so SMiLE wouldnt. Case closed." is ignoring all the nuances and trying to point to a quick answer where there is none. It ignores the fact that Smiley was anti-psychedelic, came out months later, wasnt nearly so hyped, the band missed out on Monterey, the cancellation of SMiLE probably made them look bad, and so on. You're comparing apples to oranges and then accusing ME of baseless speculation. Then when I point this out, you're acting like I personally dont like Smiley when I do.

Yes, Smiley is a snapshot of the project...or, what it became FIVE MONTHS later (8, if you're talking about the January release date) but thats just it, it was such a long stretch of time that everything changed. Half a year during the most turbulent year in pop music is an eternity, and Smiley is a VERY different album than SMiLE. The two may be related in terms of how one project evolved into the other, but NOT in how they would have been accepted by the public. End of story.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

Many people were turned off by Smiley because it was completely different to what was hip at the time. SMiLE would have fit perfectly with what was hip tho, that's the difference. That's what you don't seem to get. Maybe SMiLE would have been big after Pepper too. I think so, but not as big as if it came out in January. Again tho, you can't factor Smiley into this. Smiley failed after Pepper because it was the antithesis to Pepper and every other big album of the summer. Not because it was different from their old stuff, but because it was the wrong kind of different

I don't think you can compare Smile to what was selling at the time though, certainly not VDP's lyrical themes and the music had as much one foot in the past as it did the future. The Beatles could pull it off because, well they're THE BEATLES and John and Paul could have recorded themselves farting into a mic for 40 minutes and people would have fallen over themselves to buy it.
Nothing outside of GV screams commercial success to these ears by 1967 standards. It sounds like you've bought a little too much into the David Leaf thinking of 'if only Brian had completed Smile they would have taken over the world' line of thinking. Maybe they would have but I think it's much more likely that it would have been a cult success similar to what the likes of what Zappa was achieving at the time.
In 1967 The Byrds put out The Notorious Byrd Brothers which I think overall hangs as a much better record than Smile. It could have easily been scrapped as the band was falling apart at the time. Just imagine if it had, it would be very easy to speculate that had it been released it would have been a smash as it's a Summer of Love era masterpiece. The fact that it was released and sold squat shows that you can't always predict what would sell.

"The Beatles could pull it off because, well they're THE BEATLES and John and Paul could have recorded themselves farting into a mic for 40 minutes and people would have fallen over themselves to buy it. "

THANK YOU. That's my point, when people go on and on praising the brilliance of Pepper and using its sales figures as proof of how great it was. The Beatles had a built-in audience and hype machine that no other band ever had. Hence how a decent album which aped the techniques Brian pioneered with Pet Sounds got all the praise in the world while far better ones were ignored.

Anyway, its not that I think they would have taken over the world if they released SMiLE. Brian still would have succumbed to his illness eventually. They still would have released some subpar material eventually. But maybe they would have gotten more respect. Sold more albums. Been thought of as equals to the Beatles. They wouldnt be thought of as that summer group that also released that one great album (with SMiLE being something only the hardcore fans bothering to learn about.)

I think SMiLE would have been a cut above the cult classics like In the Court of the Crimson King, Forever Changes, Zappa and the USA. Why? Because an established band was releasing it. A band that had just recently put out a million selling single. If some newcommers released SMiLE, yeah, itd probably fly under the radar to all but the most dedicated music buffs. But no way the next BBs release coming off a recent hit album and single would just go unnoticed.

[stack-o-tracks]

For quite a while I've wanted to start a grindcore band that plays covers of Beach Boys songs and call it "Dyke Parks Van"


Clever, right?

[stack-o-tracks]

Funny how this guy is all completely obsessed with this unreleased hodgepodge of music and can't comprehend how people think that one Beatles album is as great as it's cracked up to be.


Huge Beach Boys fan here, not really into the Beatles at all. I think they're overrated as all hell. But I still dig the Sergeant Pepper album over the tracks that belonged to the abortion known as Smile.....



Comparing the success of Good Vibrations to the success of Heroes & Villains, I don't think the general public were ever ready for a Van Dyke Parks as lyricist for The Beach Boys album..... Regardless of how great you think Smile woulda coulda been had it been a thing that actually exists....