Was there any evidence "Wind Chimes" was Air?

[Andrew G. Doe]

Basically what I was saying was that there are better sources now than badman though his book has some great photos!

Badman also shamelessly plagiarised other BB authors & researchers without giving them due credit - indeed, in many case, any credit at all. I think his crowning moment was in the "earky years" section, which started out by detailing the early history of Hawthorne... Hawthorne, Putnam County, Florida.  

Andrew - I don't read Badman in a linear fashion; I look for windows of time and compare them to firsthand knowledge/ concert dates and have found some errors, but what I am looking at for this particular time at issue Spring of 1967, and seems pretty accurate going day-to-day looking for the inconsistencies.  And compare that with other sources, including 10452.  

My biggest beef with the book is the use of the un-redacted time sheets.  Big problem.    

Spring 1967 concerts not listed in Badman, or listed incorrectly (research by Ian):

March
18 - Masonic Auditorium, Davenport IA* [w/Keith, The Casinos and Harpers Bizarre]
19 - Music Hall, Kansas City MO* [w/Keith, The Casinos and Harpers Bizarre]
21 - Assembly Center, Tulsa OK*  [w/Keith, The Casinos and Harpers Bizarre]

April
14 - Civic Center, Charleston WV* [w/Jim & Jean, The Casinos, The Collegiates and The Left Banke]
15 - University of Virginia, Charlottesville VA*
15 - Coliseum, Washington DC* [w/The Casinos, Jim and Jean, The Chartbusters, The Minus IV and Weam Redcoats]
17 - Geneva College, Beaver Falls PA* [w/The Pickle Brothers]
18 - State Farm Arena, Harrisburg PA*
19 - Defiance College, Defiance OH* [w/Jim & Jean and The Casinos]
20 - Eastern Kentucky State University, Richmond KY*
21 - Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Blacksburg VA* [w/The Happenings]
22 - University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana IL* [w/The Pickle Brothers, Jim & Jean and The Casinos]
23 - Memorial Auditorium, Canton OH* [w/Jim and Jean, The Buckinghams and Terry Knight & The Pack]
23 - Cincinnati Gardens, Cincinnati OH# [w/The Pickle Brothers, The Buckinghams and The Casinos]
24 - Civic Theater, Akron OH* [w/Jim and Jean, The Buckinghams and Terry Knight & The Pack]
25 - Westchester County Center, White Plains NY* [w/The Buckinghams, Jim & Jean, The Chain Reaction, The Teardrops and Satan's Helpers]
26 - Long Island Arena, Commack NY [w/The Buckinghams and Jim & Jean]
27 - Community War Memorial, Rochester NY* [w/Tommy James & The Shondells, Jim & Jean and The Buckinghams]
29 - Symphony Hall, Newark NJ* [w/The Buckinghams, Jim & Jean and The Doughboys]
29 - Union College, Schenectady NY* [w/The Buckinghams, The Casinos and Jim &  Jean]

May
12 - Grona Lund, Stockholm, Sweden*
13 - Messuhalli, Helsinki, Finland* [w/Jormas and Topmost]
14 - Vara TV taping, Amsterdam, Netherlands*
17 - Sporthalle, Cologne, West Germany* [w/Small Faces, The Smoke and David Garrick]
19 - Berliner Sportpalast, Berlin* [w/Small Faces, The Smoke and David Garrick]

And that's just three months. Anything listed on 10452 up to December 1976 with an asterisk are shows that were either wrong (date/venue/both) or not listed at all. Any show that he lists that isn't in 10452 never happened. Bigger problem.

As Ian stated, Badman does have some great photos. That's about the only good thing I have to say for it.

[Ian]

I do of course have all the magazines from that time-including British, German, Dutch, etc...and referred to many in the book-but if you like I will look through them again when I have a chance

[Cam Mott]

Might I also suggest, sparked by seeing Ian Rusten join the conversation, a look at whatever interviews, reviews, and articles exist from May 1967 that are not covered in sources mentioned here like LLVS or general online sources. I know some do exist, as they have been referenced by collectors on this board in years past. The band after finishing up the UK leg of the May 67 tour traveled further into Europe and ended the tour in Germany before returning to the US. If there are any interviews or articles which appeared in any publications from those countries which the band appeared, or anything featuring comments from the band members published to promote those shows (even if they need to be translated into English), I think whatever exists would add to the available resources.

It could also add further context to the band's mindset after the Taylor piece appeared, especially if they commented on their "next album" or Smile in any way in those weeks after Taylor declared the album scrapped.

In the June 3 iss of D&ME, Taylor is still talking about Brian's recent problems which he attributes to his "prolonged talks" with Brian "and those near to him". I mean he had prolonged talks with Brian about his problems, not that the talks caused his problems.

"Talking of harm in print Jonathan King was very rough on the Beach Boys. He knew what he was doing of course, and I trust one of his aims was to provoke Brian Wilson into making more music for his group. If that were a result then the attack would be valuable. However, I fear that Wilson's confidence is gravely damaged. After prolonged talks with him and those near to him, I still don't know what by. That his talent is barely mined is certainly true. He cannot be written-out at age 24; anyone young knows that. But it is equally true that he is not at peace with himself. I hope everything works out."  [D&ME 6/3/67 p18]

He also calls Roger Easterby "the Beach Boys' spokesman in England" which I take to be a joke around Easterby's announcement in NME that H&V was not the single.

[guitarfool2002]

I do of course have all the magazines from that time-including British, German, Dutch, etc...and referred to many in the book-but if you like I will look through them again when I have a chance

Time permitting, of course - That would be great and most helpful, for those who might not have the book handy and also if any pieces that did not make it into the book might have any bits of pertinent information or statements related to this topic at hand. It's hard to believe a band on tour would not comment on an article such as Taylor's May 6th piece that declared their album dead, essentially. At some point they had to be made aware what Taylor wrote, and from what I posted here so far, the interviews in the UK after the NME show suggest they were either unaware or were simply not commenting on Taylor's information.

A quick question: Is there a firm date that can be proven for the release of the "Then I Kissed Her/Mountain Of Love" single in the UK? I've seen both an April date and a May date listed previously.

[Cam Mott]

A quick question: Is there a firm date that can be proven for the release of the "Then I Kissed Her/Mountain Of Love" single in the UK? I've seen both an April date and a May date listed previously.

Yesterday: "...the April 28th release date of the single was announced in an article in the April 22 issue of D&ME."

[Micha]

Dennis was interviewed the day of the Dublin show while waiting for Carl to fly in from the US to play that first show of the tour in Dublin. He defends the art of it, explains why they didn't release Heroes: "Oh, we got a little frightened. We've got a lot of songs recorded, but we got nervous about whether they were good enough. We've got afraid to put anything out unless it comes up to a certain standard. We're not just putting out singles to sell thousands and earn money."

Bruce was interviewed at a later show on the same leg of the show by the same Keith Altham who wrote the piece published April 29 saying Smile was being readied. After expressing his anger over releasing Then I Kissed Her as a single, he says: "I've got some tapes at home of the new tracks to be on the "Smile" LP which would blow your mind. All the ideas are new and Brian is coming up with fantastic ideas all the time"

Mike in that same article, same interview, after also commenting on the EMI single decision says: "The reason for the hold up with the new single has simply been that we wanted to give our public the best and the best isn't ready yet."

Carl's interviews from roughly the same time suggest Brian was working in the studio.

So add all of that up, the "word" from the band members ranges from Bruce suggesting Smile would be coming out, Dennis saying it will come out when it's ready, and Mike saying something similar.

This same week those interviews were given, Taylor writes that the album was scrapped.

This is IMHO a stronger indication that no member of the touring band was the source for Taylor's announcement than Mike 50 years later denying it was him. Very obviously they did either not know about the article or collectively chose to ignore the article unless asked about it. Given the lack of coordination in the whole SMiLE project I tend rather to the former than the latter.

The question is why were they (the Beach Boys) either blissfully unaware or ignoring the matter entirely when talking to Altbach after the Poll Winners show?

Lack of coordination.

Jan/Feb - Mainly work on H&V for single release, employing sectional/modular recording style which worked so well for GV.

If I'm not mistaken, the only part of GV that was recorded as a section instead of a new version of the whole song was the organ bridge.

[Micha]

2 - who died and made you Queen of the Board ?

3 - you're using Badman as a credible source. Think again.

I think you could just as well tell her that in a less condescending and arrogant tone. If you don't know how to, see Ian's posting. But, as it seems on most internet discussions, asking to treat others respectfully is asking too much.

[Andrew G. Doe]

It's hard to believe a band on tour would not comment on an article such as Taylor's May 6th piece that declared their album dead, essentially. At some point they had to be made aware what Taylor wrote, and from what I posted here so far, the interviews in the UK after the NME show suggest they were either unaware or were simply not commenting on Taylor's information.

The interviews very strongly suggest that the band were in the dark regarding Taylor's May 6th statement. Far from not commenting, they were actively promoting the album they thought was still forthcoming.

[Cam Mott]

Maybe Taylor wasn't joking about Roger Easterby being the Boys' spokesman for the tour.  In the June 10 iss of D&ME is an article without byline about a "rumor" titled "BEACH BOY BRUCE QUITTING?" which quotes a
"Roger Easterby, of the Arthur Howes office, which promoted the Beach Boys tour". 
So there is the PR guy for the May tour, Roger Easterby. It also claims "All Five Beach Boys have now returned to America and are busy recording a follow-up single".

Also in the June 10 issue is an interview (no byline) with Bruce where is asked: "And what of ‘Heroes and Villains’? "I think it will still be issued as a single," said Bruce, probably in a couple of records time. "After all, Brian is such a perfectionist that he even scrapped  'God Only Knows' once - and then decided perhaps it wasn’t so bad after all!"

The July 1 issue of D&ME has a piece by Bob Farmer, "Come on, Beach Boys - Let's Get Vibrating", which says "And last week Bruce Johnston, speaking to British Agent Arthur Howes, said: "We still have no plans for a new single."

In the July 15 issue of D&ME is "New York Dateline by Nancy Lewis:  “I’ve had a report from West Coast folks that the Beach Boys’ new disc, ‘Heroes and Villains’ is finally completed. I was told that Brian Wilson immediately made copies of the final tape and took them around to the Los Angeles radio stations even before the record company had it!  Apparently the ‘B’ side of the disc is most unusual. Titled ‘You’re Welcome’, it reportedly has only vocal harmonies - no instrumentation - and the only lyrics are those two words in the title.”

July 22 issue Taylor reports: “Brian Wilson, newly - inspired after an alarming lull in musical output, is now recording the  Beach Boys in an eight-track studio built in his own home in Bel-Air, a district so special that the speed limit is 25 miles an hour.  "Heroes and Villains," famous these many months as a title without a tune, was finally worked out in this new studio and it is a very fine piece of construction, dissimilar from earlier versions which Brian discarded.  It will be number one in Britain. I should apologize to Roger Easterby whose forecast that it would turn out to be the
next Beach Boys' single I dis¬missed. I should apologize But I won’t. I will just say I’m sorry. Good old Roger. There's still a lot of fight left in the British lion.”

August 12 D&ME, no byline:

We Can Afford To Gamble Says Beach Boy Bruce:

"The Beach Boys are busy again." This news must come as great joy to millions of people, and it's therefore a little ironic that the speaker, Bruce Johnston, is currently in England on a week's holiday!

"The hold-ups were really all the' fault of these legal proceed¬ings with our American record company," he said, collapsing into an arm chair at London's Waldorf Hotel. 

"All this time Brian has been thinking and writing, and now we have a whole stack of new material waiting to be recorded." First of these is "Heroes And Villains," due out on August 25, to be followed by a brand new album, probably in October. "Only two of the original tracks on 'Heroes' were kept," said Bruce.  "Brian completely re-wrote the rest and as soon as it was finished we rushed it out."

'Heroes' worth waiting for

Did Bruce feel the wait had been too long, and that "Heroes And Villains" was worth it?
"The Beach Boys can afford to gamble with records now," he replied. "This may be a strange record to some---it's not to me. Just listen to it a few more times, and it will creep up on you. The 'B' side wasn't meant as a joke (it lasts just over a minute and consists solely of the word 'welcome'). We were going to open our show with it, just as a way of welcoming people to the theatre, but we never got round to it.
"We recorded it before we left for Europe earlier this year, marching round the studio banging drums and singing." Is this waiting for Beach Boys records likely to happen again? "No, I'm sure it won't. All our problems are now solved, and we'll be regulating our concert appearances to ensure we have enough time to make records."
How about the continuing stories that Bruce is an unhappy man, with a desire to leave the group?
"Sure," he said cynically. "That's why I'm sitting here spending all this time telling you about the Beach Boys and all the work they're doing!
"No . . . I'm very happy with the group, and am really looking forward to getting back on the road with them in the autumn.  "Sure, it's a fact that I am a loner. All the others are married and naturally they like to spend their free time with their wives and children. But then I always did like peace and solitude, which explains why I'm always popping up at places by myself.”  "If there's time I'd like to do some more record production and possibly a solo single, but the group is still the main thing."

[Cam Mott]

It looks to me like Easterby was the PR guy, through promoter Arthur Howe's office, for that Summer tour and Taylor is just a journalist (PRing for Monterey Pop) with a close relationship with the band and his info comes mostly from prolonged talks with Brian, and the Boys are either in the dark on some things or are rallying behind Brian reassuring people they still plan to release a single and album.

I think Priore has swung and missed with a conspiracy theory.

[guitarfool2002]

Cam - It's the quotes and statements specifically from May 67 that I think are most relevant to figuring this out, most of what you posted were after June into the summer of '67 after a lot had changed. After the band got home from the tour, there was obviously a major development within the band's dynamic both personally and their working methods for the near future. Taylor mentioned "restructure the attitude and atmosphere at recording sessions", and immediately after they ditched pro studios and recorded in Brian's house, they changed the entire sound of the band including instrumentation for what became Smiley Smile and became a self-contained band again, more or less, and "produced by The Beach Boys" replaced "produced by Brian Wilson" for the first time...as we all know.

Note the mention of the lawsuit and legal details as far as holding up certain releases too.

But it's May 67 that is the key - Before the band returned to the US, while they were still on tour, did any of them mention the issue of the Smile album being scrapped in any interview or article? I've repeated myself too much already, but I cannot imagine an article appearing that claimed their next album was scrapped was not at least referenced, confirmed, or refuted outright by one of the band members in the days and weeks after the article came out.

[filledeplage]

It looks to me like Easterby was the PR guy, through promoter Arthur Howe's office, for that Summer tour and Taylor is just a journalist (PRing for Monterey Pop) with a close relationship with the band and his info comes mostly from prolonged talks with Brian, and the Boys are either in the dark on some things or are rallying behind Brian reassuring people they still plan to release a single and album.

I think Priore has swung and missed with a conspiracy theory.

Roger Easterby - manager and producer of Vanity Fare, from wiki "They played local clubs and were spotted by Roger Esterby who became their manager and producer...Vanity Fare achieved a UK hit single with their first release, a cover of 'I Live For The Sun' (originally recorded by The Sunrays in 1965.)" This was released in 1968.  Interesting.

While looking at these print media articles I think it is important to divide them into the audience they were written for. A teen magazine is targeted for 11-16 year olds.  A teen magazine that is owned by a record company is advancing it's agenda.  

A trade magazine, such as Variety, is intended to be for serious industry-type readers.  Others, such as newspaper reviews are maybe in the middle, depending on the journalist.    

JMHO

" "

[Emily]

While it's true that the touring band members' later comments sound like they were unaware of the D&ME 'scrapped' report, it still seems facile to use ignorance as an explanation - not that I have a better one. They were in the country in which that was printed, no doubt surrounded by UK industry folk; and from Cam's post above, we can see that soon thereafter, at least, D&ME was regularly hooked in to the BB PR machine, such as it was. Does anyone have any information on the contemporary circulation and reader demographics of D&ME? Does anyone have earlier clippings (or evidence of a lack of earlier clippings) that would show whether D&ME was active to the BB tip before early May?
I agree with GG2002 that, while it's possible, it's extremely unlikely that nobody mentioned so dramatic a report to the band, or that D&ME journalists didn't ask them about it, seeing as they were right there. it's a simple explanation for something so bizarre, but would not be the explanation identified by Occam's Razor because it's not a logical explanation.

[guitarfool2002]

While it's true that the touring band members' later comments sound like they were unaware of the D&ME 'scrapped' report, it still seems facile to use ignorance as an explanation - not that I have a better one. They were in the country in which that was printed, no doubt surrounded by UK industry folk; and from Cam's post above, we can see that soon thereafter, at least, D&ME was regularly hooked in to the BB PR machine, such as it was. Does anyone have any information on the contemporary circulation and reader demographics of D&ME? Does anyone have earlier clippings (or evidence of a lack of earlier clippings) that would show whether D&ME was active to the BB tip before early May?
I agree with GG2002 that, while it's possible, it's extremely unlikely that nobody mentioned so dramatic a report to the band, or that D&ME journalists didn't ask them about it, seeing as they were right there. it's a simple explanation for something so bizarre, but would not be the explanation identified by Occam's Razor because it's not a logical explanation.

Yes. And going further, was there any follow-up or even a response that followed Taylor's proclamation in the weeks after it was published, specifically May 1967 up to the first or second week of June, 1967? Did any other writer pick it up and repeat the information in another article or publication? Did any other journalist pick up on the Taylor article and ask the band or someone connected to the band about it? Even more bizarre, did anyone else publish or say anything to address the issue at all? The album everyone had been waiting for, for months, had just been declared scrapped...and no one noticed or bothered to address it afterward?

For decades Taylor's article and specifically the line he wrote that used the word "scrapped" was repeated and reprinted as the final word on Smile, as almost the Rosetta Stone of that aspect of the story. Was it weighed more heavily (or accurately) than it actually was taken at the time it appeared? Seriously, if that news hit the music press wouldn't someone have followed up or commented in the weeks after it appeared? You'd think...

[filledeplage]

While it's true that the touring band members' later comments sound like they were unaware of the D&ME 'scrapped' report, it still seems facile to use ignorance as an explanation - not that I have a better one. They were in the country in which that was printed, no doubt surrounded by UK industry folk; and from Cam's post above, we can see that soon thereafter, at least, D&ME was regularly hooked in to the BB PR machine, such as it was. Does anyone have any information on the contemporary circulation and reader demographics of D&ME? Does anyone have earlier clippings (or evidence of a lack of earlier clippings) that would show whether D&ME was active to the BB tip before early May?
I agree with GG2002 that, while it's possible, it's extremely unlikely that nobody mentioned so dramatic a report to the band, or that D&ME journalists didn't ask them about it, seeing as they were right there. it's a simple explanation for something so bizarre, but would not be the explanation identified by Occam's Razor because it's not a logical explanation.

Yes. And going further, was there any follow-up or even a response that followed Taylor's proclamation in the weeks after it was published, specifically May 1967 up to the first or second week of June, 1967? Did any other writer pick it up and repeat the information in another article or publication? Did any other journalist pick up on the Taylor article and ask the band or someone connected to the band about it? Even more bizarre, did anyone else publish or say anything to address the issue at all? The album everyone had been waiting for, for months, had just been declared scrapped...and no one noticed or bothered to address it afterward?

For decades Taylor's article and specifically the line he wrote that used the word "scrapped" was repeated and reprinted as the final word on Smile, as almost the Rosetta Stone of that aspect of the story. Was it weighed more heavily (or accurately) than it actually was taken at the time it appeared? Seriously, if that news hit the music press wouldn't someone have followed up or commented in the weeks after it appeared? You'd think...

GF - Yes, Rosetta Stone - that took on a life of it's own.  This scenario where none of these authors/journalists seem to be able to account as to what went down, in May of 1967.  

First, I think it likely was a back-channel operation which "worked around" the band.  

Second, that would remain...probably unpublished, and would be likely uncovered by connecting-the-dots.

Emily - I do not think that anyone in this band, was disingenuous.  Quite the opposite.

Check out - Youtube Gaumont Palace!

If you look at the modest on-the-twinbeds pushed together (how unlike any Paris, France interview could there be?)

OMG - not in a sumptuous giant-windowed velvet-draped salon, or function room in a Paris restaurant...but on 2 beds pushed together in Paris!  You are going to get candor in that setting.  They were still upset over being thrown under the bus by the record company.

Or, Dennis with Peter Fornatale.  Dennis just spit it all out.  He did not appear to sugar coat anything.  And here are consistent accounts from each of them.  

Were they in the dark?  I bet they were.  Where their passion (their music) lies, I think you will find absolute candor.  Otherwise, they are human like the rest of us.  The music, however, was no joke.  

JMHO, of course!
  

[Cam Mott]

Cam - It's the quotes and statements specifically from May 67 that I think are most relevant to figuring this out, most of what you posted were after June into the summer of '67 after a lot had changed. After the band got home from the tour, there was obviously a major development within the band's dynamic both personally and their working methods for the near future. Taylor mentioned "restructure the attitude and atmosphere at recording sessions", and immediately after they ditched pro studios and recorded in Brian's house, they changed the entire sound of the band including instrumentation for what became Smiley Smile and became a self-contained band again, more or less, and "produced by The Beach Boys" replaced "produced by Brian Wilson" for the first time...as we all know.

Note the mention of the lawsuit and legal details as far as holding up certain releases too.

But it's May 67 that is the key - Before the band returned to the US, while they were still on tour, did any of them mention the issue of the Smile album being scrapped in any interview or article? I've repeated myself too much already, but I cannot imagine an article appearing that claimed their next album was scrapped was not at least referenced, confirmed, or refuted outright by one of the band members in the days and weeks after the article came out.

OK.

The June 3 is about May even back into April and the session with McCartney when Taylor starts talking about Brian's problems with releases from the "prolonged talks" with Brian in LA.

The June 10 quote is about the May period showing Taylor wasn't even the Boys' or tour's PR guy but Roger Easterby was instead.

Why would they refute the announcement if it was true? That is pretty good evidence that it was no surprise or at least untrue to any Beach Boy.

[Emily]

Late 66 – a lot of Smile sessions.
Jan-Early-mid April – sporadic recording focusing on H&V and Vega-tables
Mid April – begin US tour
Mid-Late april – no sessions
April 29 – “smile being readied” article
May – Europe tour
Early may – isolated "scrapped" comment but lots of comments by the band that they are still working on it.
Mid-late May -  recording gradually restarts
June – band back; recording in earnest
July – taylor – “"In one inspired decision, (Nick) Grillo and the Beach Boys were able to a. Make use of Brian Wilson's new house, b. restructure the attitude and atmosphere at recording sessions and c. remove the problem of availability of commercial studios. They built their own 8-track studio in the Spanish house."
-all data from this thread or AGD’s site. http://esquarterly.com/bellagio/gigs67.html
_____________________________
It’s illogical, but not impossible, that a touring band member would say it was “scrapped” then give interviews saying they are still working on it.
It’s illogical, but not impossible, that BW would say it was “scrapped” then continue working on it.
It’s illogical that Derek Taylor would have a) made up the “scrapped” thing or b) reported it on the word of a non-Beach Boy without seeking confirmation from a Beach Boy.
_____________________________
Suppose this: the different factors (no two people will ever agree on the proportions) that contribute to the shift from Smile to Smiley Smile come to a head in March-April. This is when BW’s thinking really starts to shift. In mid April the band goes on the road and Brian stops recording. A PR piece – Smile is near completion – is put out to ward off rumors.
BW is fallow for a bit. Tells Taylor the project is “scrapped” because the project he had in mind was scrapped. He tentatively goes back to work to try to find a way to rebuild his work into a new project, ultimately Smiley Smile.
The touring BBs realize, probably correctly, that saying it’s “scrapped” is really bad PR and work on shifting the message to “still working on it,” thinking that whatever does eventually come out can be treated and marketed as the culmination of what’s been worked on all along, rather than the result of a scrapping and restarting.
When they get back from the tour, the turn-over from the original project and the group’s previous working patterns to the new project and the group’s new working pattern is completed.
Is this logical?

edit for clarity

[filledeplage]

Cam - It's the quotes and statements specifically from May 67 that I think are most relevant to figuring this out, most of what you posted were after June into the summer of '67 after a lot had changed. After the band got home from the tour, there was obviously a major development within the band's dynamic both personally and their working methods for the near future. Taylor mentioned "restructure the attitude and atmosphere at recording sessions", and immediately after they ditched pro studios and recorded in Brian's house, they changed the entire sound of the band including instrumentation for what became Smiley Smile and became a self-contained band again, more or less, and "produced by The Beach Boys" replaced "produced by Brian Wilson" for the first time...as we all know.

Note the mention of the lawsuit and legal details as far as holding up certain releases too.

But it's May 67 that is the key - Before the band returned to the US, while they were still on tour, did any of them mention the issue of the Smile album being scrapped in any interview or article? I've repeated myself too much already, but I cannot imagine an article appearing that claimed their next album was scrapped was not at least referenced, confirmed, or refuted outright by one of the band members in the days and weeks after the article came out.

OK.

The June 3 is about May even back into April and the session with McCartney when Taylor starts talking about Brian's problems with releases from the "prolonged talks" with Brian in LA.

The June 10 quote is about the May period showing Taylor wasn't even the Boys' or tour's PR guy but Roger Easterby was instead.

Why would they refute the announcement if it was true? That is pretty good evidence that it was no surprise or at least untrue to any Beach Boy.

Cam - The band had all made "affirmative" statements, uniformly, with unbridled enthusiasm, in support of Smile.  Those comments are "their" (the band's) position. 

Why would they comment on a press release that would make their earlier statements about Smile, appear to completely contradict their statements, while on this tour, so close in time? 

Someone else is feeding the press contrary information. 

And, yes, Taylor was busy with Monterey. Easterby does PR in 1967, and in 1968, has a band, Vanity Fare, the very next year singing I Live For The Sun?  From Murry's step-band?   

[Andrew G. Doe]

This "just in".

Mike has "no idea" who told Taylor Smile was "scrapped". His only "involvement" with Smile was "singing" on it.

Similarly, Bruce has no idea either.

There's one more "avenue of investigation" I'm "exploring".

Film at eleven.

[Andrew G. Doe]

July – taylor – “"In one inspired decision, (Nick) Grillo and the Beach Boys were able to a. Make use of Brian Wilson's new house, b. restructure the attitude and atmosphere at recording sessions and c. remove the problem of availability of commercial studios. They built their own 8-track studio in the Spanish house."

Just to be exact on this point, no studio was actually constructed at 10452 for some good time yet: what the band did was rent an 8-track from Wally Heider, and record in various rooms (and, of course, the empty swimming pool). I recall someone visiting the house and noting the mixing desk was on the kitchen table and that cables were running all over the place. The addest of hoc.

[filledeplage]

This "just in".

Mike has "no idea" who told Taylor Smile was "scrapped". His only "involvement" with Smile was "singing" on it.

Similarly, Bruce has no idea either.

There's one more "avenue of investigation" I'm "exploring".

Film at eleven.

This "just in." (Quotes stay outside the end of the sentence, in the U.S. - not so for others)

Mike has "no idea" who told Taylor, that Smile was "scrapped."  His only "involvement" with Smile was singing on it.  (no need for emphasis)

Similarly, Bruce has no idea, either.

There's one more "avenue of investigation" I'm "exploring." (exploring is a loaded word with many meanings)

Film at eleven.

Nice there is still some humor/humour...

 

[Paul J B]

Umm...is it just me or is this thread rather pointless? There are now pages and pages of of debate, arguments and insults about getting to the bottom of somebody making a "Smile is scrapped" comment decades ago. People make erroneous comments everyday that end up in print. People print things that were never really said everyday. People say things that are not true intentionally and unintentionally. I don't see how anyone seriously thinks this is some mystery that will be solved. This thread is making as much sense to me as the one about a guy writing a book about Brian's druggie years that he is offering up for free on this message board in an attempt to get it published.

[Micha]

We are the society for putting things on top of other things.

[DonnyL]

Let me preface this by saying I have not read this entire thread (got confused trying to follow it), but ...

The way I've always understood the transition from Smile to Smiley was that it was natural and seamless. I feel like the "scrapped" bit was an exaggerated media angle.

I think Smiley in many ways WAS Smile, as intended for fall 1967. Looking at contemporary interviews, the group kind of seems to address the two projects interchangeably in some ways, and I think this was a decent way to go with the PR.

The biggest difference during this period was not Smile to Smiley specifically, it was Brian's changes in production methods. I think Smiley was an artifact of that change rather than the reason for it.

All this is to say that rather than some big deal about Smile being cancelled, the approach of the day seems to have been "We're doing it this way instead".

Quite frankly, the whole "lost album" thing was mostly revisionist rock-critic stuff that made for great myth-making (in true Beach Boys style). I personally much prefer Smiley, and the late '60s-early '70s Smile tracks that colored the subsequent albums.

[Emily]

Let me preface this by saying I have not read this entire thread (got confused trying to follow it), but ...

The way I've always understood the transition from Smile to Smiley was that it was natural and seamless. I feel like the "scrapped" bit was an exaggerated media angle.

I think Smiley in many ways WAS Smile, as intended for fall 1967. Looking at contemporary interviews, the group kind of seems to address the two projects interchangeably in some ways, and I think this was a decent way to go with the PR.

The biggest difference during this period was not Smile to Smiley specifically, it was Brian's changes in production methods. I think Smiley was an artifact of that change rather than the reason for it.

All this is to say that rather than some big deal about Smile being cancelled, the approach of the day seems to have been "We're doing it this way instead".

Quite frankly, the whole "lost album" thing was mostly revisionist rock-critic stuff that made for great myth-making (in true Beach Boys style). I personally much prefer Smiley, and the late '60s-early '70s Smile tracks that colored the subsequent albums.

I almost agree. A lot of actual work was scrapped though. So whether it's one project or two, along the way a there was a decision to toss out a lot of existing effort and replace it with new stuff.