Was there any evidence "Wind Chimes" was Air?

[Bicyclerider]

This makes no sense.  Brian and Derek are in L.A.  Mike is in the UK, POSSIBLY giving tour reports to Derek Taylor.  He tells Derek Smile is scrapped maybe.  Derek wouldn't call up Brian to confirm that?  He would go with what Mike says, with no additional confirmation?  Does Capitol understand it's scrapped?

The next illogicality is, why would Mike say it was scrapped?  Whether Mike wanted it scrapped or not, how does making a public statement that it's scrapped help the Beach Boys PR or help the bottom dollar, his primary concern?

None of it adds up.

[guitarfool2002]

Talk about arrogant...now the implication is it's me who made this up out of thin air in 2016 despite it being out there in numerous places for over a decade? Not my fault no one remembers it or can't find it whatever the case.

What's the issue anyway if Mike was Taylor's source to trigger such a reaction? In this same thread we had Cam Mott suggesting Smile was dead in the water relative to Brian moving into the new house, and even Andrew's Bellagio timeline lists "Smile Session" entries for April and May after that move, perhaps getting those basic facts sorted out would be on the to-do list as well.

[guitarfool2002]

This makes no sense.  Brian and Derek are in L.A.  Mike is in the UK, POSSIBLY giving tour reports to Derek Taylor.  He tells Derek Smile is scrapped maybe.  Derek wouldn't call up Brian to confirm that?  He would go with what Mike says, with no additional confirmation?  Does Capitol understand it's scrapped?

The next illogicality is, why would Mike say it was scrapped?  Whether Mike wanted it scrapped or not, how does making a public statement that it's scrapped help the Beach Boys PR or help the bottom dollar, his primary concern?

None of it adds up.

That's the point, right? It doesn't add up, it doesn't make sense. What didn't make sense from a few pages ago was the timing of the two UK weekly articles publishing columns basically within a week of each other where Brian tells the NME writer the new album - 12 tracks - is being readied for rush promotion. Then Taylor reports the album was scrapped.

Big disconnect, right?

Logically, what could have happened to cause such a contradiction between what Brian told NME and what Taylor wrote? And beyond that, if Taylor's info was accurate, what was Brian doing recording "DaDa" with the Wrecking Crew while the Beach Boys were playing in Germany, just over a week after Taylor's column declared the project dead?

That's the heart of this, how did all of the contradictions happen as they played out, not only in the UK music press but in Brian's own schedule of recording as well.

And again, consider who in the touring band would have been most likely to be Taylor's point man for the publicity of this European tour? carl had his hands full and missed shows because of it. Two BRI voting members left - Dennis or Mike. Worth considering.

[Bicyclerider]

Wasn't May when Brian had a nervous breakdown and was hospitalized?  I think Peter Reum has put that out there.  Could Brian have been in the hospital when this "scrapped" business came up, and Mike assumed it was scrapped because Brian had a breakdown (a big logical leap which I don't think he would make, but maybe . . . ).  Derek couldn't reach Brian because he was in the hospital?  Still strange he wouldn't get confirmation from someone else in the Beach Boys camp before going public with such a statement.

As for the sudden reversal from one week to the next - all 12 tracks are complete, then the album is scrapped, then possibly for ILTSDD it's back on . . . isn't that typical Brian?  record a track for a section of a song, listen to it, scrap it, then later record something to replace it?  The album's almost finished, no, i'm scrapping it, no, maybe I can do this . . .  sounds like classic Brian.

[Andrew G. Doe]

One - if it's out there and has been for decades, why not cut the drama and just tell us where to look.

Two - the session dates on Bellagio are taken from verified sources such as AFM contract, or given to me by c-man.

Three - an assumption is just that, until supported by documentation.

Four - logic and The Beach Boys have never enjoyed any lasting relationship.  

[guitarfool2002]

Wasn't May when Brian had a nervous breakdown and was hospitalized?  I think Peter Reum has put that out there.  Could Brian have been in the hospital when this "scrapped" business came up, and Mike assumed it was scrapped because Brian had a breakdown (a big logical leap which I don't think he would make, but maybe . . . ).  Derek couldn't reach Brian because he was in the hospital?  Still strange he wouldn't get confirmation from someone else in the Beach Boys camp before going public with such a statement.

As for the sudden reversal from one week to the next - all 12 tracks are complete, then the album is scrapped, then possibly for ILTSDD it's back on . . . isn't that typical Brian?  record a track for a section of a song, listen to it, scrap it, then later record something to replace it?  The album's almost finished, no, i'm scrapping it, no, maybe I can do this . . .  sounds like classic Brian.

You've see photos of Brian at the sessions for DaDa and heard his voice running the DaDa sessions...two weeks after those sessions he was back at Sound Recorders then at Western working on Vegetables, With Me Tonight, and Cool Cool Water.

If there is a gap in the timeline regarding Brian and where he was at this time, it would be mid-April to mid-May 67. Point is, though, he was back at it working like he had been on Smile (pro studios, Wrecking Crew, etc), he had told NME the album would be ready for rush promotion, and Taylor's statement completely contradicted both the subsequent actions and the words from Brian at this same time.

Taylor was a pro - would he make something up out of thin air, or would it be more logical to assume he reported what he got from his source (or point man) within the band he was being paid to promote?

It makes no sense, right?

[guitarfool2002]

One - if it's out there and has been for decades, why not cut the drama and just tell us where to look.

Two - the session dates on Bellagio are taken from verified sources such as AFM contract, or given to me by c-man.

Three - an assumption is just that, until supported by documentation.

Four - logic and The Beach Boys have never enjoyed any lasting relationship.  

1. The fact that it has been out there for at least a decade in multiple sources yet seems to have been either ignored or completely overlooked is what puzzles me, considering this is an environment where the legitimacy of a "source" is often challenged on things as trivial as spelling errors or typos, or other even more nonsensical standards. It's also kind of fun to see sources being demanded in this case, when the world of BB's history exists in an atmosphere that trades weekly in citing "unnamed sources" or "those who would know" as fact without revealing said sources. Most times when a source is in fact revealed, it becomes an issue of trying to find ways to discredit the source (as noted above)  rather than the information itself.

2. Right, so when Cam Mott in this discussion says Smile was already scrapped before the April sessions, and the timelines list them all up to June 1967 as a "Smile Session" on the timeline, why not put a challenge to Cam since his theory is directly contradicted by the info on the Bellagio site?

3. Does this include asking someone a question or asking for a clarification, i.e. "did this really happen?", that person answers the question, but it stays off the record and unpublished yet is mentioned in a discussion as confirmation? A lot of these situations have happened through the years and posted on message boards or blogs, but are technically unpublished and thus "unsupported by documentation", so do they factor in as well?

4. Yes indeed!

[Micha]

What didn't make sense from a few pages ago was the timing of the two UK weekly articles publishing columns basically within a week of each other where Brian tells the NME writer the new album - 12 tracks - is being readied for rush promotion. Then Taylor reports the album was scrapped.

Big disconnect, right?

Logically, what could have happened to cause such a contradiction between what Brian told NME and what Taylor wrote? And beyond that, if Taylor's info was accurate, what was Brian doing recording "DaDa" with the Wrecking Crew while the Beach Boys were playing in Germany, just over a week after Taylor's column declared the project dead?

Considering Brian's mental state as reported by Jules Siegel you have to expect illogical behavior from Brian at the time. Saying it's finished, two weeks later say it's scrapped, then start recording again. To me this looks like just like another try in the old "blame Mike for everything" game. Something at fault? MIKE LOVE!!!

[Micha]

when Cam Mott in this discussion says Smile was already scrapped before the April sessions, and the timelines list them all up to June 1967 as a "Smile Session" on the timeline, why not put a challenge to Cam

Actually I did, a few pages ago, and I did so because he based his claim solely on Al Jardine's memory, and human memories always prove to be faulty. His claim is to me no more plausible than yours. At least we know Cam's source, the Al interview. I don't think a lot of people agree with Cam on this matter.

[guitarfool2002]

What didn't make sense from a few pages ago was the timing of the two UK weekly articles publishing columns basically within a week of each other where Brian tells the NME writer the new album - 12 tracks - is being readied for rush promotion. Then Taylor reports the album was scrapped.

Big disconnect, right?

Logically, what could have happened to cause such a contradiction between what Brian told NME and what Taylor wrote? And beyond that, if Taylor's info was accurate, what was Brian doing recording "DaDa" with the Wrecking Crew while the Beach Boys were playing in Germany, just over a week after Taylor's column declared the project dead?

Considering Brian's mental state as reported by Jules Siegel you have to expect illogical behavior from Brian at the time. Saying it's finished, two weeks later say it's scrapped, then start recording again. To me this looks like just like another try in the old "blame Mike for everything" game. Something at fault? MIKE LOVE!!!

In another recent Smile related discussion here, it was suggested that Jules Siegel's article was biased with hints of or even outright sexism because of his description of Carole Kaye at a session and other factors, therefore it shouldn't be considered as legitimate in terms of a source or historical record of the events he reported. Should we go down that path and also strike Jules' article and info from the record moving forward?

Whatever bias you bring to the discussion is your issue to deal with in terms of looking at the information that exists or finding ways to dismiss or discredit it.

[Micha]

What didn't make sense from a few pages ago was the timing of the two UK weekly articles publishing columns basically within a week of each other where Brian tells the NME writer the new album - 12 tracks - is being readied for rush promotion. Then Taylor reports the album was scrapped.

Big disconnect, right?

Logically, what could have happened to cause such a contradiction between what Brian told NME and what Taylor wrote? And beyond that, if Taylor's info was accurate, what was Brian doing recording "DaDa" with the Wrecking Crew while the Beach Boys were playing in Germany, just over a week after Taylor's column declared the project dead?

Considering Brian's mental state as reported by Jules Siegel you have to expect illogical behavior from Brian at the time. Saying it's finished, two weeks later say it's scrapped, then start recording again. To me this looks like just like another try in the old "blame Mike for everything" game. Something at fault? MIKE LOVE!!!

In another recent Smile related discussion here, it was suggested that Jules Siegel's article was biased with hints of or even outright sexism because of his description of Carole Kaye at a session and other factors, therefore it shouldn't be considered as legitimate in terms of a source or historical record of the events he reported.

Well, that was not an opinion I agree with. But I see there's no use arguing with neither you or Cam. I don't believe your claim if you won't back it up, and I see you won't and rather display an air of superiority.

[guitarfool2002]

What didn't make sense from a few pages ago was the timing of the two UK weekly articles publishing columns basically within a week of each other where Brian tells the NME writer the new album - 12 tracks - is being readied for rush promotion. Then Taylor reports the album was scrapped.

Big disconnect, right?

Logically, what could have happened to cause such a contradiction between what Brian told NME and what Taylor wrote? And beyond that, if Taylor's info was accurate, what was Brian doing recording "DaDa" with the Wrecking Crew while the Beach Boys were playing in Germany, just over a week after Taylor's column declared the project dead?

Considering Brian's mental state as reported by Jules Siegel you have to expect illogical behavior from Brian at the time. Saying it's finished, two weeks later say it's scrapped, then start recording again. To me this looks like just like another try in the old "blame Mike for everything" game. Something at fault? MIKE LOVE!!!

In another recent Smile related discussion here, it was suggested that Jules Siegel's article was biased with hints of or even outright sexism because of his description of Carole Kaye at a session and other factors, therefore it shouldn't be considered as legitimate in terms of a source or historical record of the events he reported.

Well, that was not an opinion I agree with. But I see there's no use arguing with neither you or Cam. I don't believe your claim if you won't back it up, and I see you won't and rather display an air of superiority.

It wasn't my claim a decade ago.

[Micha]

So give me a source, I'll look it up and think about it.

[Emily]

What didn't make sense from a few pages ago was the timing of the two UK weekly articles publishing columns basically within a week of each other where Brian tells the NME writer the new album - 12 tracks - is being readied for rush promotion. Then Taylor reports the album was scrapped.

Big disconnect, right?

Logically, what could have happened to cause such a contradiction between what Brian told NME and what Taylor wrote? And beyond that, if Taylor's info was accurate, what was Brian doing recording "DaDa" with the Wrecking Crew while the Beach Boys were playing in Germany, just over a week after Taylor's column declared the project dead?

Considering Brian's mental state as reported by Jules Siegel you have to expect illogical behavior from Brian at the time. Saying it's finished, two weeks later say it's scrapped, then start recording again. To me this looks like just like another try in the old "blame Mike for everything" game. Something at fault? MIKE LOVE!!!

I don't have any information outside of this thread, but while I don't think it's established in this thread that it was Mike Love, I think it's pretty unlikely that the sole source of such extreme contradiction twice and so close together was Brian Wilson. Maybe it was, but it just seems like it was more confusion than just in his head.

[Micha]

I don't have any information outside of this thread, but while I don't think it's established in this thread that it was Mike Love, I think it's pretty unlikely that the sole source of such extreme contradiction twice and so close together was Brian Wilson. Maybe it was, but it just seems like it was more confusion than just in his head.

We may never know. There's obviously people who think they know, but I don't.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Ah, it's smoke & mirrors time again.

[filledeplage]

What didn't make sense from a few pages ago was the timing of the two UK weekly articles publishing columns basically within a week of each other where Brian tells the NME writer the new album - 12 tracks - is being readied for rush promotion. Then Taylor reports the album was scrapped.

Big disconnect, right?

Logically, what could have happened to cause such a contradiction between what Brian told NME and what Taylor wrote? And beyond that, if Taylor's info was accurate, what was Brian doing recording "DaDa" with the Wrecking Crew while the Beach Boys were playing in Germany, just over a week after Taylor's column declared the project dead?

Considering Brian's mental state as reported by Jules Siegel you have to expect illogical behavior from Brian at the time. Saying it's finished, two weeks later say it's scrapped, then start recording again. To me this looks like just like another try in the old "blame Mike for everything" game. Something at fault? MIKE LOVE!!!

In another recent Smile related discussion here, it was suggested that Jules Siegel's article was biased with hints of or even outright sexism because of his description of Carole Kaye at a session and other factors, therefore it shouldn't be considered as legitimate in terms of a source or historical record of the events he reported. Should we go down that path and also strike Jules' article and info from the record moving forward?

Whatever bias you bring to the discussion is your issue to deal with in terms of looking at the information that exists or finding ways to dismiss or discredit it.

GF - I was discussing that sexism that maybe was not picked up on by others, and will gladly own it.  Jules was supposedly "embedded" with the band at that time, purportedly enjoying enormous access.  First, my issue was inaccuracy as to what Carole's role was, (which was a big boo-boo,)  and second, was an obvious bias with his characterization of Carole Kaye.  

Is it a legit source?  Now, I don't know.  He was an observer/bystander, and not a participant as were the band members.  Photos or other accounts could jog their memories.

And for who was where?  There are the session sheets, concert dates,  but there could also be travel logs or other kinds of itineraries.  

But could Taylor have taken it upon himself to declare the project "scrapped" based on some off-hand remark?  

Could Taylor  just have "run with it" and gone off to whatever his next project was and not looked back?  So,  I guess that is where the disconnect is.  

[Micha]

Was there any evidence that Wind Chimes was air?

[Bicyclerider]

Smile may have been scrapped in reality from January or even December, based on what Brian was doing in the studio, and not doing . . . my complaint with Cam's logic is his evidence that Vegetables was not a Smile session is totally unconvincing, as the sessions - particularly the tag session - and the ILTSDD session - are exactly in the mode of Smile recordings as they were conducted since August 66, they are logged with the Smile project number, use the same studio musicians, etc.  The very idea of a line demarcating Smile and Smiley is itself a red herring.  

[Cam Mott]

"Often put down in their early years, now vastly and widely appreciated in so many, many ways, the Beach Boys and I met in 1966 and worked together for two years. They paid me $750 a month for publicity and all sorts of help and they loaned me five thou when I had a crisis. Such generosity, but Christ, they were hard work. The basis of the band was the three Wilson brothers, Brian, Dennis and Carl, and their cousin Mike Love; but there was a fifth, Al Jardine, at that time not a full-sharing financial partner; and there was a sixth, Bruce Johnston, stand-in for Brian during stage performances, not yet certain of his role (he left in 1972). And they were anxious to bring everything much more together and win a wider following among the cognoscenti. They were on the threshold of releasing "Pet Sounds" and the next single was to be 'Good Vibrations'. “ Derek Taylor - As Time Goes By

"A man called Alan Pariser attended the Monterey Jazz Festival, which was quite an established event, and while smoking a marijuana cigarette, he considered the possibility of thousands and thousands of pop fans pouring out on the grounds, instead of these rather stuffy jazzophiles in corduroy trousers.
"He went to people with money, and raised I think $50,000 'seed money' to put on a pop festival at the Monterey Fairgrounds in Northern California, to be held sometime during the summer of l967, now known as the Summer of Love.
"In January of that mild winter, he asked me if I would publicize it. Well, I had just decided to drop out of being a Hollywood press agent, which is the lowest form of life, and go home to England. It was a time for dropping out."  Derek Taylor

My memory is 50% I guess.  

It sounds like his memory is 50% as the two quotes are contradictory (the two years from 66 would indicate 68) and another source (which I'll find when I'm at my computer) indicates that he didn't move back to England until fall 67 at the earliest. I suppose if he was deciding to leave in mid-winter 66-67 he may not have actually made the move until late 67, though.

I wonder if taking on Monterey Pop had something to do with it?  I don't know.

[Cam Mott]

Where was it said Taylor was in England? It would be foolish to say that (if it was said) since his column *actually* was headlined: BEACH BOYS fly in for a hot tour - and this is why there's no single to launch it..."

And the sub-heading reads as follows: "DEREK TAYLOR reporting from Hollywood as the Big Tour hits Britain"

Direct from the page in Disc & Music Echo May 6, 1967 issue where the Taylor article appeared.

Cam, I have no idea what you saw or where you're looking at to post that wording, but the actual page reads exactly as posted above.

And that is also why no mention was made that Taylor was with the band in the UK, when the actual page reads as it does.

Cam - Who ever said he was in England touring with the BB's? He was working in LA as a freelance music publicist and also working (alongside Michael Vosse, btw) in organizing Monterey Pop. He was work for hire.

Cam - Both NME and Disc & Music Echo were weekly UK music newspapers. If something happened in the music world, it would be reported in the next week's issue. Simple as that. There was no delay (for the big stuff...) beyond a week's time, like other weekly papers or mags.

1. I got it from the same May 6 1967 issue of D&ME.

2. You did, which you have now explained.  I confirmed that he was in LA also.

3. They were weekly and presumably most of the information in them comes from 4 to 11 days or more prior to publication, as I have pointed out several times in this thread. But it is not a given, and even if Taylor learned about it 4 to 11 days prior to May 6 that doesn't mean the decision was made in that timeframe, it could have been much earlier and just kept mum for some reason (like a lawsuit perhaps).

We don't need all of that though because we KNOW a recording was started on April 4 and on through June on a track with a title and a master number and lyrics that is on the Smiley Smile album and is shown no where as a SMiLE title.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Was there any evidence that Wind Chimes was air?

About as much as there is for the Macca session being for "The Elements".  

[AndrewHickey]

Taylor was a pro - would he make something up out of thin air, or would it be more logical to assume he reported what he got from his source (or point man) within the band he was being paid to promote?

It makes no sense, right?

Not taking any sides in the wider discussion, but Taylor was a pro precisely *because* he made stuff up out of thin air. Take his story about how he was hired for the Beatles:

I was pleased when George's Daily Express column fell to me, but I started on the wrong foot. I did a real ghosting job. George's father was a bus driver, so I invented a conversation between his father and him in typical popular-newspaper style. It went like this: 'So my dad said to me, "don't worry about me, son, you stick to your guitar and I'll carry on driving the big green jobs."'

I went down to London to deliver George's first column and I was asked by Brian, 'Oh, would you read it out for the boys? I'd like them to hear it.' So I had to take this column out of my pocket and, as if George had written it, I started reading it: '...stick to your guitar and I'll carry on driving the big green jobs.' And George said, 'What are big green jobs?' I said, 'Um, buses - Liverpool buses.' George said, 'I didn't know they were called "big green jobs".' John said, 'I didn't know they were, either.' I said, 'Well, I don't know that they are.' I had just made it up. Which, of course, is what happens on newspapers and that's why all these things sound so phoney.

Anyway, the long and short of it was, after I'd passed the test by admitting that I'd made up 'big green jobs', George said, 'I'll help you write the column - we can do it together.'

Then there's the time he was working for the Byrds, who had been booked to play a small club but were refusing to play it because now they were big stars, and their manager was worried they'd be sued by the promoter. He went to see the promoter and made up a lie about the band being sick, and was so convincing that not only did the promoter send back the contract, torn in two, he sent them a home-made cake with "Get Well, Byrds" iced onto it. (That story's in Johnny Rogan's book on the Byrds)

So while Derek Taylor had *many* admirable qualities, he was also someone who would quite happily lie his face off if it made a story more interesting, would benefit his clients in some way, or was easier than checking the facts. I don't think "Derek Taylor wouldn't have made it up" can be taken as read -- though I also don't see a strong reason *for* him to have made that up.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Just asked one of the people who would know about Mike dropping Derek the nod about the scrapping of Smile, and they're adamant it never happened. So, guess that's settled.

[Emily]

"Often put down in their early years, now vastly and widely appreciated in so many, many ways, the Beach Boys and I met in 1966 and worked together for two years. They paid me $750 a month for publicity and all sorts of help and they loaned me five thou when I had a crisis. Such generosity, but Christ, they were hard work. The basis of the band was the three Wilson brothers, Brian, Dennis and Carl, and their cousin Mike Love; but there was a fifth, Al Jardine, at that time not a full-sharing financial partner; and there was a sixth, Bruce Johnston, stand-in for Brian during stage performances, not yet certain of his role (he left in 1972). And they were anxious to bring everything much more together and win a wider following among the cognoscenti. They were on the threshold of releasing "Pet Sounds" and the next single was to be 'Good Vibrations'. “ Derek Taylor - As Time Goes By

"A man called Alan Pariser attended the Monterey Jazz Festival, which was quite an established event, and while smoking a marijuana cigarette, he considered the possibility of thousands and thousands of pop fans pouring out on the grounds, instead of these rather stuffy jazzophiles in corduroy trousers.
"He went to people with money, and raised I think $50,000 'seed money' to put on a pop festival at the Monterey Fairgrounds in Northern California, to be held sometime during the summer of l967, now known as the Summer of Love.
"In January of that mild winter, he asked me if I would publicize it. Well, I had just decided to drop out of being a Hollywood press agent, which is the lowest form of life, and go home to England. It was a time for dropping out."  Derek Taylor

My memory is 50% I guess.  

It sounds like his memory is 50% as the two quotes are contradictory (the two years from 66 would indicate 68) and another source (which I'll find when I'm at my computer) indicates that he didn't move back to England until fall 67 at the earliest. I suppose if he was deciding to leave in mid-winter 66-67 he may not have actually made the move until late 67, though.

I wonder if taking on Monterey Pop had something to do with it?  I don't know.

That makes sense. Maybe we're supposed to read into his second quote that he'd decided to leave in January but then decided to stick around for Monterey. (?)