Smile's Likely Commercial Performance (or lack of) in 1967?

[harrisonjon]

Compare Smile with other albums of 1967 that have a high artistic reputation. How many of these were very big sellers at the time?

http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/rs/albums1967-07.php

Smile is probably more abstract lyrically and more unorthodox structurally than most of the albums on that list. It's also less "loud/rocky" ("Fire" notwithstanding) than the trend in that list (Hendrix, Cream). Thus my gut feeling is that it would be a big leap to expect the US youth market of 1967 to have embraced Smile to the extent of, say, giving it a long stay in the Top 10. I'm not saying that it would have charted as low as Sunflower, as the band had not yet been dismissed as harshly as would occur later, but I think it wouldn't have peaked somewhere between Pet Sounds (#10) and Wild Honey (#24) but probably better than Smiley Smile (#41).

[NateRuvin]

I think given the fact that Good Vibrations had done so well, and Brian was the hottest producer in LA, recently passing up Spector, SMiLE would've done very well. I think, and maybe I'm being too over the top, it would've been heralded as the greatest record of the rock era. The way Sgt Pepper is held.
Personally, I am a HUGE Beatles fan- but I think the stuff Brian, Tony Asher, VDP, and hell, even some of Mike's lyrics, were better than what Lennon and McCartney were doing in 66-67

[filledeplage]

Compare Smile with other albums of 1967 that have a high artistic reputation. How many of these were very big sellers at the time?

http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/rs/albums1967-07.php

Smile is probably more abstract lyrically and more unorthodox structurally than most of the albums on that list. It's also less "loud/rocky" ("Fire" notwithstanding) than the trend in that list (Hendrix, Cream). Thus my gut feeling is that it would be a big leap to expect the US youth market of 1967 to have embraced Smile to the extent of, say, giving it a long stay in the Top 10. I'm not saying that it would have charted as low as Sunflower, as the band had not yet been dismissed as harshly as would occur later, but I think it wouldn't have peaked somewhere between Pet Sounds (#10) and Wild Honey (#24) but probably better than Smiley Smile (#41).

Thanks very much for including the link.  It brought home the intense competition that year and some of what the band was up against.  Most of these bands were at the top of their game.  

But Christgau was so harsh and referred to Smiley as "product-on-demand."  And yet, he liked Wild Honey, in a back-handed way. But, concedes that there "isn't a wasted second on it."

How well they sold would be easy enough to find out...  I bought only BB's, Buffalo Springfield who toured in 1967, with the BB's.  Completed my to-that-date BB LP collection back to Surfin' Safari, that year.

Also, some not on the heavy hitter list  for RS. Kids didn't seem to have that much disposable income in 1967, in high school, unless they were old enough for a work permit to get a job.

Thanks again!  

[adamghost]

I think timing matters more than the music in the grooves in this case.  A SMILE in January or February '67 hot on the heels of GV, with the cantina version of HV as the single, would probably have done extremely well, at least at first (unlike PS, it's hard to hear any follow up singles there - YMMV - so it may not have had legs, but I think it would have sold well out of the box).  Later in the year, after momentum of GV, non-show at Monterey (unless that gets changed too) and release of SGT. PEPPERS, the landscape would have changed so much and I think the moment would likely have passed by then.  JMO.

[harrisonjon]

It also depends on how he followed it up I guess. Smile 2 or something like Friends but with Wrecking Crew arrangements?

[The Cincinnati Kid]

Let's wait for Mujan to tell you. 

[Lonely Summer]

I do think 1967 was a transitional year, as the biggest selling act of the year was the Monkees; but in general, it was the beginning of the end for bands that played, shall we say, sweeter sounds (the Beatles excepted..and Bee Gees). The Lovin' Spoonful were on their way out: the Byrds continued to record, but never regained their initial popularity. It was the last hurrah for bands like Herman's Hermits, Dave Clark 5; Paul Revere and the Raiders would never be as popular as they had been in 66-67. Smile was lacking in heavy guitar sounds, extended jams, but it may have been just trippy enough to sway the 'hip' crowd. It sure seems that a lot of the hipsters bought into the "Brian is a genius" myth. The real problem would have been the Beach Boys inability to reproduce the music live. It may have necessitated bringing in sidemen a couple years earlier than they did.

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

Let's wait for Mujan to tell you. 

The previous posters have more or less said it already, but I'll reiterate. Pet Sounds was top 10 and the sales were underreported so it did even better than we think. GV was #1. The Capitol hype for SMiLE was huge and it was the beginning of the Brian is a genius campaign. The group was just voted best in the world by a popular British magazine. Surfs Up was demoed on TV where it was presented as the future of pop music. Yes, the album is very abstract and far out but that was in vogue come 1966 and especially 1967. It was the kind of music that was literally perfect for the time. There is no way in hell SMiLE would have bombed, or even been a disappointment. If released in January, or even as late as early May, I think it had a solid shot at going #1. At least as good a chance as any previous Beach Boys album. Probably better, given all the unprecedented preamble.

Saying it was "too weird" just doesn't make sense to me. People would have bought it on the Beach Boys name alone. Any old fans turned off by the new sound would be replaced by those that loved it as was the case with the Beatles. Pointing to Forever Changes or other arty albums as proof it would have flopped is misguided. In this case, Love was unknown outside of Southern California. They almost never toured. Other underground psychedelic classics have similar stories. Pointing to Smiley is also misguided. That came out in September, long after the GV boost had died, the Capitol hype ended, the Boys no-showed at Monterey and ruined their reputation and so on. Smiley was also rerecorded in a really weird, stripped down, stoned style that was completely against the trend. The people wanted wild psychedelic arrangements and burning guitars played by cool, vaguely dangerous men like Hendrix. Or sexy bad boys(girls) with an air of mystery to them like Jim Morrison and Grace Slick. At least by that point they did. Smiley wasn't cool in a way that SMiLE would have been, and came out at the worst possible time where SMiLE had everything possible going for it.

As for the argument that SMiLE would have flopped because vocal groups were going out...I'd agree. Post Monterey. Honestly I think the turning point was Hendrix and Janis Joplins debuts there. Before that, I don't think it would have mattered much. They still could've gotten away with not playing on their own album/not having that badass guitar shredding on their album in the first half of 1967. The Beatles managed just fine with the same "handicaps" in May. And yes, I do actually think the Boys were about on the same level of respect at the time that they too would have pulled it off.

In short, this "SMiLE would have flopped" myth is completely ridiculous and needs to die. End of story.

[harrisonjon]

Thanks to all above. Great replies.

[beatnickle]

Damn...... what a year for music. Probably the most most creative year in rock history.

[DonnyL]

I think history would have been much the same ... I don't think we can take Smile out of time and ignore the events the lead up to it, nor can we say what followed would not have played out similarly even if it had been released.

So I'd say regardless of release date, it would have done better than Smiley but not as good as Pet Sounds commercially.

[The Demon]

Yes, the album is very abstract and far out but that was in vogue come 1966 and especially 1967.

For the Beach Boys it is, but not compared to music that is actually abstract or "far out."  It's different enough to make pop fans feel progressive, but it's not very unusual.  Not that it matters, but in the realm of pop music Zappa and Song Cycle were certainly more abstract.  Smile sounds like a simple version of Song Cycle.  It's Brian's Song Cycle, just like Song Cycle is Van's Smile.  But the influence is Gershwin more than Ives.  Mrs. O'Leary's Cow sounds like Van's idea, but simple, like Brian's music.  No way would the Beach Boys have gone further in Van's direction and released something made to sound like a recording of the Titanic sinking, which Song Cycle has. 

Smile should be celebrated as a great pop album expanding on what the Beach Boys had done before, because that's what it is.  People like Brian or the Beatles have a huge influence within the narrow realm of rock music.  We're not talking Da Vinci or people who have had a large influence on how humans see themselves or their world, or anything like that.

[Crow]

I agree if it had come out in January right on the heels of GV it could have done well. Especially with HV being finished. However I think they needed to perform at Monterey. And as a follow up to SMiLE - something I've thought a lot about - an album wiyh songs like Can't wait too long, Time to get alone etc... would have been amazing....

[harrisonjon]

What would they have played at Monterrey (assuming Smile was 5-6 months old by then) and how would they have presented the material? The outfits they were wearing in 1967 would not have suited Monterrey.

[SenorPotatoHead]

Smile would have kicked butt and taken names (of your favorite vegetables, of course  )   
Seriously, I think Mujan is spot on in the above assessment.   

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

Yes, the album is very abstract and far out but that was in vogue come 1966 and especially 1967.

For the Beach Boys it is, but not compared to music that is actually abstract or "far out."  It's different enough to make pop fans feel progressive, but it's not very unusual.  Not that it matters, but in the realm of pop music Zappa and Song Cycle were certainly more abstract.  Smile sounds like a simple version of Song Cycle.  It's Brian's Song Cycle, just like Song Cycle is Van's Smile.  But the influence is Gershwin more than Ives.  Mrs. O'Leary's Cow sounds like Van's idea, but simple, like Brian's music.  No way would the Beach Boys have gone further in Van's direction and released something made to sound like a recording of the Titanic sinking, which Song Cycle has. 

Smile should be celebrated as a great pop album expanding on what the Beach Boys had done before, because that's what it is.  People like Brian or the Beatles have a huge influence within the narrow realm of rock music.  We're not talking Da Vinci or people who have had a large influence on how humans see themselves or their world, or anything like that.

If anything that just strengthens my argument more. That it was weird enough to be seen as trippy and cool but not so weird as to alienate people and undersell.

Personally, I place it between Pepper and Zappa's condemnation of Pepper, WOIIFTM on the weirdness scale. Not quite as fragmentary and alienating as the latter but far more experimental and progressive than the former.

As for your last sentence...well, it certainly impacted me on that level but I know I'm in the minority on that one.

[Lonely Summer]

Let's wait for Mujan to tell you. 

The previous posters have more or less said it already, but I'll reiterate. Pet Sounds was top 10 and the sales were underreported so it did even better than we think. GV was #1. The Capitol hype for SMiLE was huge and it was the beginning of the Brian is a genius campaign. The group was just voted best in the world by a popular British magazine. Surfs Up was demoed on TV where it was presented as the future of pop music. Yes, the album is very abstract and far out but that was in vogue come 1966 and especially 1967. It was the kind of music that was literally perfect for the time. There is no way in hell SMiLE would have bombed, or even been a disappointment. If released in January, or even as late as early May, I think it had a solid shot at going #1. At least as good a chance as any previous Beach Boys album. Probably better, given all the unprecedented preamble.

Saying it was "too weird" just doesn't make sense to me. People would have bought it on the Beach Boys name alone. Any old fans turned off by the new sound would be replaced by those that loved it as was the case with the Beatles. Pointing to Forever Changes or other arty albums as proof it would have flopped is misguided. In this case, Love was unknown outside of Southern California. They almost never toured. Other underground psychedelic classics have similar stories. Pointing to Smiley is also misguided. That came out in September, long after the GV boost had died, the Capitol hype ended, the Boys no-showed at Monterey and ruined their reputation and so on. Smiley was also rerecorded in a really weird, stripped down, stoned style that was completely against the trend. The people wanted wild psychedelic arrangements and burning guitars played by cool, vaguely dangerous men like Hendrix. Or sexy bad boys(girls) with an air of mystery to them like Jim Morrison and Grace Slick. At least by that point they did. Smiley wasn't cool in a way that SMiLE would have been, and came out at the worst possible time where SMiLE had everything possible going for it.

As for the argument that SMiLE would have flopped because vocal groups were going out...I'd agree. Post Monterey. Honestly I think the turning point was Hendrix and Janis Joplins debuts there. Before that, I don't think it would have mattered much. They still could've gotten away with not playing on their own album/not having that badass guitar shredding on their album in the first half of 1967. The Beatles managed just fine with the same "handicaps" in May. And yes, I do actually think the Boys were about on the same level of respect at the time that they too would have pulled it off.

In short, this "SMiLE would have flopped" myth is completely ridiculous and needs to die. End of story.

Very well stated, thank you.

[DonnyL]

Let's not forget they were still wearing striped shirts on the back cover.

This idea of Smile being perceived as ultra-hip is probably not reasonable. And ultra-hip doesn't neccessarily mean commercially successful. I think the 'normal' BB fans might have felt it to be kinda out there, while the many 'hip' listeners may have been reluctant to embrace it, as it's still the relativey square Beach Boys. I do think it's a stretch to think it would have performed much differently than any of their other records. I think as a lost album, the credibility and hip factor were increased, to the point that lead us to this conversation today.

[Les P]

Let's not forget they were still wearing striped shirts on the back cover.

This is a little off topic, I suppose...but many have speculated that striped shirts would have been laughable at Monterey, so I am curious:  did Derek Taylor ever advise the BBs to ditch them as unhip?  True, he was PR and not manager, but he knew what was happening on both sides of the Atlantic.

And on topic, I think Smile would have done much better than Smiley and at least as well as Pet Sounds, based on GV and presumably another Top 20 single (probably H&V).  And it seems to me that GV, H&V, Vegetables and Wonderful all could potentially have been performed in simple arrangements at Monterey.

[Cam Mott]

I think if SMiLE had been released it would probably have been too much of the head and not enough of the heart, as their previous work had been, and it would have maybe not flopped but wouldn't have been a home run either and wouldn't have done much better or worse than Smiley.

[SenorPotatoHead]

Let's not forget they were still wearing striped shirts on the back cover.

Actually, they were checked shirts, not striped. 

[SenorPotatoHead]

I think if SMiLE had been released it would probably have been too much of the head and not enough of the heart, as their previous work had been, and it would have maybe not flopped but wouldn't have been a home run either and wouldn't have done much better or worse than Smiley.

Surf's Up, Wonderful and Our Prayer are a few (IMO) which scream heart to me - even if the lyrics to the first two were/are "challenging".

[Lee Marshall]

Woulda been G I G A N T I C A L L Y huge...and successful.  Would have been one of the top 2 lps of the year.  NO doubt.  Would have undone the future...and not just for the Beach Boys.

My biggest regret ever in terms of music is that we had to wait for this specific music to reach us for as long as we did.  The fan interest in it...and in sequencing it...was [and still is] impressive.

Brian needed help during the first 1/2 of 1967.  There was none forthcoming...until Darian Sahanaja.  BWPS was magic.  A gift from the great beyond.  It was a real blessing to hear it finished.  It was a KEY lifetime highlight to experience it live.  Back in 1967 it would have owned the world...and the world would have been glad of it and would have been a better place because of it.

Nowadays...circa the 21st century?  The context has obviously changed entirely and the setting didn't provide the landing strip for BWPS or the Beach Boys Smile Box to arrive as it would have 48 years ago.  The continuity of space and time was ruined by the constant ticking of the clock.

All I know is...the 'world' was as ready for it THEN as I was.  Thanks to Pet Sounds, to some degree, and to Good Vibrations, even more significantly, the group's fan-base had expanded and grown.  I never forgot about the forthcoming album.  Many did though as you have to keep coming with material in that competitive atmosphere.  The boys weren't on the airwaves or the charts.  Many more didn't even know Smile was coming but radio and the record buying public were certainly ready for change and change the music world most certainly did.  The 'Boy's would have helped to lead the way...for years to come.  If.

 It took years for people to realize, across the board, that Pet Sounds was the icon that it is.  Smile would have cemented the group's place at the helm of where things might have gone.

[instead...we got Smiley Smile ]

[jeffh]

The "hip"crowd would have "gotten"it. The "average" fan would have said "eh, wtf ?" It would have tanked. The average fan then wanted to hear about the sand and the surf, and cars from the Boys. I'm old, 67, I was there.

[Lee Marshall]

Sorry Jeff...I really have to say that I think you are wrong on this.  I thought you said you were "there"?  The average fan didn't type-cast the Beach Boys.  They liked Pet Sounds and its hits...and they liked Good Vibrations even more...and in the UK they voted the BBs the best group of 1966...in the 1967 vote.

The average fan over the course of 1967 took a song from the 'Their Satanic Majesties Request' lp and took it to the top of the Top 40/Top 50 singles charts.  They adopted the Doors as something meaningful, they accepted a new direction from Eric Burdon and the Animals, they continued to follow the Beatles with wild abandon, Donovan was hip, the Rascals and the Hollies were going psychedelic with the Stones.  Procol Harum were taking artistic lyrics and sounds on a 'trip'.  The Airplane took flight.  Frank Zappa was OH SO cool [amd HE was anti drugs BIG TIME].  Hendrix and Cream were important.  And John Cowsill's 'group' made the charts.  [and then...I almost forgot...there was the influence of Dylan...on the fans and on the other musicians and lyricists]

The times indeed had - a - changed.  The Beach Boys [and their music] would have been an even bigger part of it had Smile seen the light of day...and the day-glo at night.  The 'hip crowd' was pretty big...and growing.  I know.  I TOO was there.

Collectively?  We were heading for Woodstock not Los Vegas.