BWPS: How much input did Brian have?

[JRauch]

By the way, one thing that bothers me about this whole discussion (generally), is that most people assume that the SEQUENCE of a SMiLE'66/67 would have been a lot better than what we have now. Of course it could be, but how do you know that? Maybe, just maybe it would have been inferior.

[Cam Mott]

Imo, BWPS is finished but SMiLE remains unfinished.

[Rocker]

I think I have to make something clear for myself. I said that Smile '66 would be different. But still I think BWPS is one of the greatest works ever. I also don't think that Smile '66 would be better, just different.
But we have to say that the hype was always about Smile '66/'67, because that album got so much promotion and didn't come out. Not Smile '71(or around that time), Smile '88 or BWPS. So when we're talking about Smile, it's the unfinished album of the 60s. BWPS is another album in a way. That's my point of view.

[Old Rake]

By the way, one thing that bothers me about this whole discussion (generally), is that most people assume that the SEQUENCE of a SMiLE'66/67 would have been a lot better than what we have now. Of course it could be, but how do you know that? Maybe, just maybe it would have been inferior.

Yup, and furthermore: WHICH Smile would have been superior? The one from October '66? November '66? January '67? March '67? July '67? Smiley Smile? Because the conception of the album changed so much from beginning to end. Its ridiculous to assume there was a GRANDE PLAN involved back then which remained constant across the months, because it didn't. There's no "historical accuracy" regarding the lineup to follow, really, apart from vague notions, I'm sure.

[Jonas]

Yup, and furthermore: WHICH Smile would have been superior? The one from October '66? November '66? January '67? March '67? July '67? Smiley Smile?

[rb]

That reminds me - I must have chili for dinner tonight...

[Cam Mott]

By the way, one thing that bothers me about this whole discussion (generally), is that most people assume that the SEQUENCE of a SMiLE'66/67 would have been a lot better than what we have now. Of course it could be, but how do you know that? Maybe, just maybe it would have been inferior.

Yup, and furthermore: WHICH Smile would have been superior? The one from October '66? November '66? January '67? March '67? July '67? Smiley Smile?

The March '67 one.

[Old Rake]

By the way, one thing that bothers me about this whole discussion (generally), is that most people assume that the SEQUENCE of a SMiLE'66/67 would have been a lot better than what we have now. Of course it could be, but how do you know that? Maybe, just maybe it would have been inferior.

Yup, and furthermore: WHICH Smile would have been superior? The one from October '66? November '66? January '67? March '67? July '67? Smiley Smile?

The March '67 one.

How does that one go?

[Bicyclerider]

"There's no "historical accuracy" regarding the lineup to follow"

Well there's the back cover track list - and I think we all believe Brian approved that list even if he didn't physically write it.  Then  there's the historical accounts of Vosse, Anderle, Williams, Siegel, and now Van Dyke and Brian.  None of these give us an exact sequence for 66/67, because the project never got that far back then, but they give us suggestions of what was talked about and planned for a 67 Smile, and we can use those accounts to highlight differences between what 67 Smile could have been versus what BWPS is.  Why do we care?  Because we're BB/Smile obsessives who like to think and speculate about these things.  Because we believe Smile and BWPS are important works of twentieth century music that reward in depth analysis and theorizing.  Because if BWPS isn't a recreation of what a 67 Smile would have been, as Brian, Darian, and others involved with it have gone on record saying, then that raises the question what WOULD a 67 Smile have been?  If Brian never knew what Smile 67 would have been like, how could he say that BWPS isn't what  is would have been like?

[Reverend Joshua Sloane]

I think I would prefer hearing Brian and Van doing their interpretation of the album soley at the the piano rather than all of the studio recordings. I listen to the "Heroes/Barnyard/Great Shape" demo more than the sessions themselves. They're more animated.

[the captain]

Yes, but that was almost 40 years ago...when Brian could sing. There's a reason for the backing band to handle vocals. Brian can't. That would have been awesome, though, in 1966 or 1967. Absolutely priceless.

[Jonas]

Yes! I absolutely love that piano demo...

[Rocker]

Yes! I absolutely love that piano demo...

I love every solo-piano demos from Brian in the 60s and part of the 70s. Though there are not that many.....

[Jeff Mason]

Imo, BWPS is finished but SMiLE remains unfinished.

BWPS = the composition, the published version of Smile that can be covered and performed.  Smile = the production as envisioned in 1966.  I could agree with that.  But if you tell me that Brian can't finish his own compositions and call it Smile, I have a bone to pick with you.

[Andrew G. Doe]

"There's no "historical accuracy" regarding the lineup to follow"

Well there's the back cover track list - and I think we all believe Brian approved that list even if he didn't physically write it. 

Ummmmm... no we don't. When Peter showed it to Brian for the first time, BW declared he'd never seen it before. And in this instance, I believe him.

[Rocker]

"There's no "historical accuracy" regarding the lineup to follow"

Well there's the back cover track list - and I think we all believe Brian approved that list even if he didn't physically write it. 

Ummmmm... no we don't. When Peter showed it to Brian for the first time, BW declared he'd never seen it before. And in this instance, I believe him.

Also this list doesn't claim to be the final oder I believe.

[Bicyclerider]

It strains credibility to think that the album producer wouldn't be required to sign off on the back cover track list before it was finished by the art department.  I for one do not believe Brian never saw the back cover (which has the list).  If he dictated the list and someone else (Carl) wrote it down, maybe he never did see the written list - but that doesn't mean he didn't come up with it and/or approve it.

Brian not remembering something I can certainly believe.

The track list is a historical artifact that gives us one lineup, at a particular moment in time, of the Smile album.  I never said it gave us the sequence, if you read my post I specifically note that point.

[Dancing Bear]

Has BWPS made any "best albums ever" list yet? Has it been performed as a "cantata" by anyone anywhere?

The cd was cute, but it was just a curious recorded by the original composer 35 years after the fact.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Many years ago, I went to the local record store and spotted an album titled "Golden Greats Of The Sixties". I couldn't believe how many great songs were packaged together on one album. It had a shiny album cover, 17 great songs, and a budget price - this was a no-brainer. I quickly purchased the album and sped home to play it.

When I first started playing the album, I noticed that something was wrong. The songs were the same, in fact, they were well recorded. The notes, arrangements, and instruments were all the same. Even the lyrics were the same. But the singers sounded differently; not only differently but not as good. What was going on here!

I picked up the album cover, and on the back, near the bottom, in small print, it said "These are new stereo recordings performed by the original artists". What!?

Now I was really mad. I felt that I had been taken. Why would somebody do something like this, and who is to blame? Was it the artist (or the artist's wife), or was it the record company. At first I blamed the record company who put this sham together. Is the record company excused because they included the disclaimer about the "new" recordings?

Then I got mad at the artist(s). Why would an artist with any pride do this. Was their recording career at such a dead end that they had to re-record their own songs? Were they so obsessed with the money that they would cash in like this? What artistic merit did they gain from this? The real art was found in the original productions. Didn't they have enough respect for the original recordings to leave them be? Then I noticed that all of the artists on the album were has-beens, and I felt kind of sorry for them. I guess we all do questionable things when we are desperate.

Needless to say, I didn't listen to "Golden Greats Of The Sixties" very much. I don't care for "new stereo recordings performed by the original artists". When I want to hear the real versions, I'll put on the original recordings, the way the songs were originally intended to sound, with the original vocals, with the original backing tracks, with the original vibe, and even with the original scratches and tape hiss.

[Aegir]

I have a three-disc 60s compilation from like 10 years ago that had "new stereo recordings".. THIRTY YEARS AFTER THE FACT!!! Ugh.

[Reverend Joshua Sloane]

There's some Ronnettes stuff like that.

[MDC]

Has BWPS made any "best albums ever" list yet? Has it been performed as a "cantata" by anyone anywhere? .

Go to metacritic.com -  It's the best reviewed album of the past several years based on their formula for averaging out major reviews

[jazzfascist]

What I don't understand is why that MATTERS to people. Is it good? Is it listenable? Your milage varies, but I'd say absolutely, yes, it is. It is a listenable, coherent, cogent rendition of a composition partially written in 1966 and partially written in 2004 in the style of 1966. It is a recorded performance of "SMILE: THE COMPOSITION."

I don't particularly like it. It sounds like three medleys of Smile music strung superficially together without any big idea behind it, and if you read Darian's description of how it was put together in the tour programme, that 's more or less how it went down. I guess that's why you still partially obsess about the historical facts, even though the answers are probably lost forever.

Søren

[endofposts]

Many years ago, I went to the local record store and spotted an album titled "Golden Greats Of The Sixties". I couldn't believe how many great songs were packaged together on one album. It had a shiny album cover, 17 great songs, and a budget price - this was a no-brainer. I quickly purchased the album and sped home to play it.

When I first started playing the album, I noticed that something was wrong. The songs were the same, in fact, they were well recorded. The notes, arrangements, and instruments were all the same. Even the lyrics were the same. But the singers sounded differently; not only differently but not as good. What was going on here!

I picked up the album cover, and on the back, near the bottom, in small print, it said "These are new stereo recordings performed by the original artists". What!?

Now I was really mad. I felt that I had been taken. Why would somebody do something like this, and who is to blame? Was it the artist (or the artist's wife), or was it the record company. At first I blamed the record company who put this sham together. Is the record company excused because they included the disclaimer about the "new" recordings?

Then I got mad at the artist(s). Why would an artist with any pride do this. Was their recording career at such a dead end that they had to re-record their own songs? Were they so obsessed with the money that they would cash in like this? What artistic merit did they gain from this? The real art was found in the original productions. Didn't they have enough respect for the original recordings to leave them be? Then I noticed that all of the artists on the album were has-beens, and I felt kind of sorry for them. I guess we all do questionable things when we are desperate.

Needless to say, I didn't listen to "Golden Greats Of The Sixties" very much. I don't care for "new stereo recordings performed by the original artists". When I want to hear the real versions, I'll put on the original recordings, the way the songs were originally intended to sound, with the original vocals, with the original backing tracks, with the original vibe, and even with the original scratches and tape hiss.

Those collections exist because the artists don't own the rights to their own material.  Sometimes the old masters, too, are held back by the original owners and all that exists are the rerecordings.  For example, many of Spector's records were held out of rerelease, so the Ronettes would have no choice but to rerecord if they wanted to get their old music out.  Many artists have these types of collections, even people like Johnny Cash.  You sometimes have to look very carefully to determine if it's released on the original record label, which will usually tip you off if it's a redo or not.  Some don't even give that much info on the CD or record cover.  I don't consider what Brian did to be anything like that.  For starters, it's called "Brian Wilson Presents Smile," so there is no misrepresentation, you know what it is when you buy it.  Secondly, there is no "Smile"!  Except for bootlegs.  It was never released.   If you don't happen to care for BWPS, fine.  But you can't compare it to labels that put out old hit records and don't give you what you were expecting.

[I. Spaceman]

I'll put on the original recordings, the way the songs were originally intended to sound, with the original vocals, with the original backing tracks, with the original vibe, and even with the original scratches and tape hiss.

When you locate the original recordings of Smile with the original vocals and backing tracks, please let us know, K? A few of us would like to hear it too.