Priore's Claim that The Beatles heard Smile tapes in early 1967

[chaki]

Howie just blew my mind in a way by describing how un "hip" it would have been to be using The Wrecking Crew in the late 60s. We never think in those terms. Kind of puts the Smile saga in perspective.

Also Macca is way more obsessed with Little Richard than anything else.

[Niko]

Howie just blew my mind in a way by describing how un "hip" it would have been to be using The Wrecking Crew in the late 60s. We never think in those terms. Kind of puts the Smile saga in perspective.

Also Macca is way more obsessed with Little Richard than anything else.

It's a really interesting perspective that I'd never put any thought into. It could explain why Brian wanted to give all of his gold records to Hal Blaine - he felt that he didn't deserve them because he wasn't the one actually playing the music.

[clack]

Howie just blew my mind in a way by describing how un "hip" it would have been to be using The Wrecking Crew in the late 60s. We never think in those terms. Kind of puts the Smile saga in perspective.

Also Macca is way more obsessed with Little Richard than anything else.

Some of the younger Wrecking Crew guys (Leon Russell, Jim Gordon, Mac Rebennack etc) grew their hair long and became in-demand sidemen for the rock royalty of era (Clapton, Stones, etc), so that's only partly true.

[Howie Edelson]

No, it's actually fully true.

Locate photos of Russell and Gordon from the Smile era and you'll see as much.
Big difference from what people looked like and who (and why) they were playing for in late-'66 and, say, July 1970.

But guys like Gordon and Russell ALSO got hip to the the "homespun" movement.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

“So, John, what was the secret of the Beatles?”

He said, “Very easy. May I illustrate it with a song? You ever hear ‘Why Don’t We Do It In the Road’ by the Beatles?”

“Yeah, I’ve heard it.”

“That was our message to Canned Heat, because we didn’t think they had enough humor, so it was basically taking the idea of a Canned Heat song and doing it with more humor.” And he said, “The Beatles stopped being a group when we stopped trying to upgrade and rewrite and reinterpret and reinvent our favorite records of the moment.”

Interesting quote and like a lot of Lennon's quotes, I take it with a bit of grain of salt. Intriguingly, the example he gives is WDWDIITR which was only a year earlier.

As far as The Beatles having stopped upgrading, rewriting, reinterpreting, and reinventing their favourite records of the moment in 1969, I think this is somewhat true. I think that it was probably around mid to late 1968 when The Beatles, John especially, began to romanticize or feel nostalgic about the 1956-1962 era. There's a Rolling Stone article during the White Album era when John is going through his old 45s - he picks out Angel Baby by Rosie & The Originals especially (a great song by the way). I think by '68, Lennon was seeing 1956-62 as a real artistic movement - raw, unadorned, simple and thus authentic. John, quite literally in 1968, was now into the stripped down and so he returned to the old rock and roll. The music played during the Get Back session reflected this renewed interest. A lot of the songs they did during those sessions were old Cavern/Hamburg songs.

That being said, The Beatles were still inspired by contemporaries. I think George especially was keeping that flame alive - listening to Bob Dylan, The Band, Delaney and Bonnie, etc. But John also name checked Neil Young and CCR in a 1970 interview, and I think that CCR had some influence on the band, in particular on Oh! Darling (though that bears a striking resemblance to Fats Domino songs like Coquette). Sun King, meanwhile, borrow the style of Fleetwood Mac's Albatross. So there were still songs that emulated the contemporary music but definitely by the late 60s, The Beatles had turned back to the early years.

[Moon Dawg]

Don't get me wrong, I love and respect George Martin, and as an orchestrator to McCartney's ideas (which includes Lennon's) he was immensely valuable. But I believe that WAY too much credit has been given to him over the years. Geoff Emerick was the true star behind the boards for that LP -- but it was all due to the ears and imaginations of Lennon/McCartney. Martin and Emerick were just as much technicians for hire as the Wrecking Crew were (e.g. no sheet music, no music.)

And as far as doing it all, McCartney could, too. Given the proper technology, McCartney could've performed very inch of Pepper's basic tracks and vocals. Brian could not have done that for any of his LP's. Not a tit for tat -- just a fact. Yes, McCartney would bring in an outside orchestrator like Mike Leander or Martin, but I'd say 85 percent of all those parts were based on McCartney top lines give to them (the most glaring example "Martha My Dear.") Both Lennon and Harrison -- publicly and privately -- always took umbrage at the fact that Martin was so quick to take credit for the group's innovations. Harrison particularly had nothing but scorn for Emerick.

The Beatles' TRUE producer was McCartney.
Not that Lennon or Harrison would ever dare admit it.

Re: Brian, I DON'T believe he could do it all, which is why -- I believe -- he felt the need to morph Smile into Smiley.
Emotional and professional troubles aside, I think he realized that "bringing it all back home" and actually PLAYING the music yourself (playing and singing, just like The Beatles) was truly the way to realize music in 1967.
I've always believed that a part of Smile's demise was that having a bunch of (albeit talented) middle-aged dudes playing your music just wasn't cool.

I think that the end of Smile , rather than the beginning of it, was when Brian Wilson, a guy from the 1950's -- smashed hard into the 1960's.

 Interesting comments. I can buy Paul as the group's true producer post-Epstein but not before. Maybe beginning with the SGT PEPPER sessions. Paul was always into that trite musical hall stuff, right? 

[Misterlou]

Don't get me wrong, I love and respect George Martin, and as an orchestrator to McCartney's ideas (which includes Lennon's) he was immensely valuable. But I believe that WAY too much credit has been given to him over the years. Geoff Emerick was the true star behind the boards for that LP -- but it was all due to the ears and imaginations of Lennon/McCartney. Martin and Emerick were just as much technicians for hire as the Wrecking Crew were (e.g. no sheet music, no music.)

And as far as doing it all, McCartney could, too. Given the proper technology, McCartney could've performed very inch of Pepper's basic tracks and vocals. Brian could not have done that for any of his LP's. Not a tit for tat -- just a fact. Yes, McCartney would bring in an outside orchestrator like Mike Leander or Martin, but I'd say 85 percent of all those parts were based on McCartney top lines give to them (the most glaring example "Martha My Dear.") Both Lennon and Harrison -- publicly and privately -- always took umbrage at the fact that Martin was so quick to take credit for the group's innovations. Harrison particularly had nothing but scorn for Emerick.

The Beatles' TRUE producer was McCartney.
Not that Lennon or Harrison would ever dare admit it.

Re: Brian, I DON'T believe he could do it all, which is why -- I believe -- he felt the need to morph Smile into Smiley.
Emotional and professional troubles aside, I think he realized that "bringing it all back home" and actually PLAYING the music yourself (playing and singing, just like The Beatles) was truly the way to realize music in 1967.
I've always believed that a part of Smile's demise was that having a bunch of (albeit talented) middle-aged dudes playing your music just wasn't cool.

I think that the end of Smile , rather than the beginning of it, was when Brian Wilson, a guy from the 1950's -- smashed hard into the 1960's.

 Interesting comments. I can buy Paul as the group's true producer post-Epstein but not before. Maybe beginning with the SGT PEPPER sessions. Paul was always into that trite musical hall stuff, right? 

I don't think I can buy Paul as their producer at all, although I imagine he influenced the production process, kind of like a passenger sometimes telling the driver when to turn, etc. It reminds me of that zinger that Mark Zuckerberg (the character playing him) flings at the Winklevoss twins in the film The Social Network: “If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you’d have invented Facebook." If Paul was the producer of the Beatles, wouldn't he be listed as the producer? Wouldn't he have insisted upon that credit?

Let's not forget the words of one George Martin, honoring Brian at the Radio City Music Hall tribute: "you could compare it (what Brian did) to the combined song-writing talents of John and Paul, the performing talents of George and Ringo, along with my work in the control room. Quite simply, he did it all." Enough said.

[Howie Edelson]

No. George Martin was kept on as a stabilizing force.

He was absent for half of the "White Album" -- nearly never there for the Saville Row sessions in January/February '69, and essentially always followed McCartney's direction. How do people STILL not know how it went down with the Beatles' sessions by now? McCartney arranged all the stuff, whether it was his, or "Sexy Sadie," or "Old Brown Shoe," -- or any of it. He brought the flesh and color that brought the sonic pictures to life. He made all the songs RECORDS. Listen to Lennon's solo stuff -- it's all bare. Listen to me, it's not all bare ALWAYS because his mother was dead -- it was bare because the dude who filled all that space was gone.

There had to be a fifth "impartial" person in the studio for the work to get done. Martin was that person.
I love George Martin, but if it wasn't for Paul McCartney, you wouldn't know George Martin from George Maharis.

[joshferrell]

[Chocolate Shake Man]

"Of course, George Martin was a great help in translating our music technically when we needed it, but for the cameraman to take credit from the director is a bit too much." - John Lennon

[ChicagoAnn]

I have trouble believing anything Kim Fowley says. He screwed over many people, including a few I knew personally. Yeah, he formed The Runaways. He was the poster child for the excesses of the 70s. And a liar.

[The Shift]

Did I step into the wrong board?

[Mike's Beard]

I have trouble believing anything Kim Fowley says. He screwed over many people, including a few I knew personally. Yeah, he formed The Runaways. He was the poster child for the excesses of the 70s. And a liar.

He also liked to drug, beat and rape underage girls.

[Andrew G. Doe]

So the point is, January 1967 - Listen to that Penny Lane tape and consider if McCartney had been playing different chords it could have sounded like a Smile outtake minus the ADT-flanging-warbling (which Brian wasn't really doing in the studio). Yes, of course McCartney and Brian could have been listening to some of the same electronic composers who had been working with tape loops and manipulating sound via tape machines and effects, but doesn't it sound at least similar to a Smile outtake to hear McCartney at work in early '67? Where else in the Beatles history previous to this was there such a sound being attempted, and at this point Brian had already done work like this months prior.

McCartney said he was trying to get a "Beach Boys-y" sound on that song. If you listen to just the backing track, it just SCREAMS "Wouldn't It Be Nice."

YES! Exactly! Anyone can hear it, and anyone who cannot feel free to ask and some of us would be more than happy (thrilled, perhaps) to point out some specifics to listen for. But it's all there in the grooves, as I already laid out and as is laid out above confirmed by Paul's own thoughts on the topic. Penny Lane is the influence McCartney got from Wouldn't It Be Nice being worn on its sleeve, end of story. As that pasta sauce commercial used to say, "It's In There", just listen for it.

Ummm... first you say "Penny Lane" might sound like a Smile outtake, now you're saying it was influenced by a track from another album entirely. Which kinda  - well, totally, actually - invalidates your original comment. One or the other, please: can't be both.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Going back to the original topic of this thread (if anyone cares any more - not sure even I do, but since when has that ever stopped me  ), but here are the relevant passages from Dom's book:

"The master tapes, for the time being, were oddly enough being stored catercorner from the Capitol Records parking lot (and across from KFWB) at Armen Steiner's Sound Labs [actually Sound Recorders - Sound Labs was 1971-80] studio on the northeast corner of Yucca and Argyle, near Hollywood and Vine." (p. 112, UK Sanctuary paperback)

""Derek Taylor was planted over here as a scout for The Beatles, to see what was going on on the West Coast..." noted Van Dyke Parks. "... I think Derek Taylor facilitated The Beatles listening to Smile before the advent of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Before that started, they heard Smile in part - the first eight-track - up at Armen Steiner's studio on Yucca and Argyle... We walked into the place and heard The Beatles had been there. We knew the nest had been found and Brian was very sad. So we didn't go back there: we took the tapes and Brian got an eight-track." (p. 116)

""There was enough smoke to think there was a fire," Van Dyke clarified. "But the only conspicuous offense Brian and I recall was that The Beatles had heard the tapes of Smile at Armen Steiners'." (p. 117)

No transatlantic phone calls... no smuggled acetates - Taylor got The Beatles (note, not a Beatle, or some Beatles but The Beatles: the four Fabs) into Sound Recorders to hear the actual session tapes.

Except... it never happened as claimed here. Couldn't have. No-one was in the right place at the right time. This old thread -

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,7209.100.html

- outlines why.

[Smilin Ed H]

There is something to be said about the fact though that The Beatles were not adverse to incorporating elements of the music that inspired them into their own music. And Your Bird Can Sing on the Beatles Anthology sounds like it might as well be on one of the first two Byrds albums. And indeed, George's If I Needed Someone is merely a re-casting of The Belles of Rhymney. Michelle, meanwhile, incorporates elements of Nina Simone, Drive My Car takes the bass line from Otis Redding's Respect. And while I have no evidence like I do with the others, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Stevie Wonder's Uptight wasn't the central influence on Got To Get You Into My Life. The truth is, The Beatles did quite often try very much to sound like other music, often cribbing from music from 1956-1962, but also from their contemporaries.

And let's not forget the influence of Peter Sellers and Spike Milligan...

[Howie Edelson]

Neither John Lennon nor Ringo Starr were in the U.S. during 1967.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

So the point is, January 1967 - Listen to that Penny Lane tape and consider if McCartney had been playing different chords it could have sounded like a Smile outtake minus the ADT-flanging-warbling (which Brian wasn't really doing in the studio). Yes, of course McCartney and Brian could have been listening to some of the same electronic composers who had been working with tape loops and manipulating sound via tape machines and effects, but doesn't it sound at least similar to a Smile outtake to hear McCartney at work in early '67? Where else in the Beatles history previous to this was there such a sound being attempted, and at this point Brian had already done work like this months prior.

McCartney said he was trying to get a "Beach Boys-y" sound on that song. If you listen to just the backing track, it just SCREAMS "Wouldn't It Be Nice."

YES! Exactly! Anyone can hear it, and anyone who cannot feel free to ask and some of us would be more than happy (thrilled, perhaps) to point out some specifics to listen for. But it's all there in the grooves, as I already laid out and as is laid out above confirmed by Paul's own thoughts on the topic. Penny Lane is the influence McCartney got from Wouldn't It Be Nice being worn on its sleeve, end of story. As that pasta sauce commercial used to say, "It's In There", just listen for it.

Ummm... first you say "Penny Lane" might sound like a Smile outtake, now you're saying it was influenced by a track from another album entirely. Which kinda  - well, totally, actually - invalidates your original comment. One or the other, please: can't be both.

Excuse me? Are you suggesting that a song cannot be influenced by more than one source?

[Andrew G. Doe]

Nope, just suggesting that I'm listening to the sound of someone changing horses in mid-stream.  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Nope,

But that's exactly what you say in your above reply.

just suggesting that I'm listening to the sound of someone changing horses in mid-stream.  

Part of this conversation from Reply #8 in this thread has been the point that McCartney didn't take from Smile because he "had so much magic pouring out of him in 1966/1967, that he didn’t need to crib ideas." In other words, McCartney could not have taken anything from Smile because he didn't take anything from anyone by this time, not even Pet Sounds which was his passing interest. Very, very early on this thread, this conversation switched from Paul was not influenced by Smile to Paul was not influenced by anything.

With that point being made as a counter-argument, a quotation from Paul saying that Penny Lane was influenced by the Beach Boys sound is pretty significant, no?

[Andrew G. Doe]

My point is that Craig started out by saying the "PL" outtakes sounded like Smile outtakes (if you stripped off the studio trickery and assumed Macca was playing something else entirely) then changed his mind to agree delightedly with Dauber that the track was inspired by "WIBN". Now, as his original point was that Paulie was possibly cribbing something from "Smile" in general, having heard the tapes (which was comprehensively debunked over six years ago), agreeing the "WIBN" is all over "PL" is... well, shall we say somewhat self-defeating ?

[guitarfool2002]

My point is that Craig started out by saying the "PL" outtakes sounded like Smile outtakes (if you stripped off the studio trickery and assumed Macca was playing something else entirely) then changed his mind to agree delightedly with Dauber that the track was inspired by "WIBN". Now, as his original point was that Paulie was possibly cribbing something from "Smile" in general, having heard the tapes (which was comprehensively debunked over six years ago), agreeing the "WIBN" is all over "PL" is... well, shall we say somewhat self-defeating ?

Let's get the correct quotes and info on the table first. I said that apart from the similar sound and groove of the actual piano part, musically, the Penny Lane tape shared the same studio effects (heavy tape delay, reverb, etc) except one, and that was the warble via ADT which was a Beatles sonic trademark at the time.

Use the listening test - Play that Penny Lane excerpt for an unbiased observer then play the similar Smile tapes with Brian at the piano and see if they think the two sound similar: Effects, feel, sound, groove, rhythm, etc. Then while you have a willing listener to take part in the test, play them Kokomo next to the No Pier Pressure songs that some claimed hearing a similarity. See which holds up. If any at all.

I've been saying for years on this board especially that Penny Lane was McCartney's take on Wouldn't It Be Nice. I was the first to bring it up again in this discussion, with some examples to listen for, and if you search this board you'll find similar things I've said for years with more examples to listen for. I'm agreeing further with someone agreeing with me, and ultimately we're agreeing with what Paul himself has said. Read the thread, Andrew.

And do not misstate my words or attribute something to me which I didn't say. Where for f***'s sake did I say Paul had "cribbed", stolen, or in any way ripped off Smile material? I went out of my way to explain in depth the things, only to have someone misquote it and misstate it...for the purpose of what, Andrew? What's the point?

I said simply, Derek Taylor was a common thread between the two bands. That's it. Is there a possibility he was asked at any time from either band what the other was working on? Is that so ridiculous as I already laid it out as to suggest at some point these questions were asked and answers were given? Yeah, The Beatles have this new thing called a Mellotron, Brian, it's like an orchestra in a keyboard! And Paul,  Brian was in the studio doing these sounds where he'd tape the piano strings, lay a blanket on top, and have the guy put this echo effect on it! Outta site, man!"....or things like that. These people TALKED to each other, musicians traded notes and ideas and soaked up influences from those around them. Basic info there, rock history 101.

The stuff about Taylor and acetates and tape dubs was tongue in cheek...but WAIT! I already explained that too. I even put a "smiley face" thing next to it. I guess that was lost too.

Read the thread, Andrew, and get things right before calling them out. Especially someone's words words when they're archived and available and sitting here right above what we're reading now. Sloppy, man, sloppy. I'll talk and debate, but not if I'm asked to debate things I never said, as in McCartney stealing Smile ideas. Never said that.

[SenorPotatoHead]

You two ought to host a Crossfire type rock and roll podcast show!    
It would be entertaining as hell  

[Andrew G. Doe]

As Howie succinctly observed, there is no point, because the original premise of this thread has been debunked, not that it was ever valid in the first place: Smile didn't inform Pepper. The/a/some Beatles never listened to the tapes. The rest is frippery, tail-chasing and ego-buffing, in which I have played my full part. As for being misquoted and the like, I've had that for something like thirty years: you get used to it.

[guitarfool2002]

I'd do it. I love to talk about this stuff, and plan to do more of it on this thread. It's fascinating to me how songs come together, especially ones which are rightfully considered classics. It's threads like this that can be launched into some good, informational discussions and debates to share and learn things that maybe some readers have not heard before. Getting into the process of making a classic record, how and why they made certain choices or did certain things, and where they may have gotten the ideas from is one of the best parts of music history, at least for me. I live for it. I listen constantly. I teach it. What's been fun, just to give one example, has been introducing some of my students through the years who have been into Green Day to The Kinks. It's cool to see younger musicians hear "Picture Book" or "Do It Again" for the first time after playing "Warning" or "Walking Contradiction" from the Green Day albums, and open up a whole new world of listening and discovering different artists and albums through the influences.

The only thing I'd expect here is that the debates center on things that were actually said and not something other than that. I'd rather talk about the actual topics and not have to defend against things that were never said. That's not much to ask.