Was there any evidence "Wind Chimes" was Air?

[Jeff]

Excerpts from "The Beach Boys' Quickest Album" , LA Times, October 8th 1967:

"Well, the album didn't really head for any direction. We just decided to, or I should say Brian decided to, make a real simple album. So, with that in mind, we recorded it at his house and it's the quickest album we've ever done." (Carl Wilson quote)

That again confirms that recording for Smiley Smile (other than GV and bits of Vegetables and HV of course) only took place between June 3 and July 14--not earlier.  Shut Down Vol. II, for example, was recorded 1/1/64 to 2/20/64, barely longer than Smiley Smile.

[guitarfool2002]

Excerpts from "The Beach Boys' Quickest Album" , LA Times, October 8th 1967:

"Well, the album didn't really head for any direction. We just decided to, or I should say Brian decided to, make a real simple album. So, with that in mind, we recorded it at his house and it's the quickest album we've ever done." (Carl Wilson quote)

"You see, the whole thing is that 'Pet Sounds' was really an expanded type of musical thing. It's really quite a musical album and we got into a thing where we just wanted to ease up and make a simple album. It was a nice change. It's very hard on a person to keep on doing a 'Pet Sounds.'" (Carl Wilson quote)

Last year, when "Good Vibrations" was racking up its million-plus sales, Capitol had the follow-up album scheduled under the title of "Smile." The album jacket already had been printed, a picture of a shop which dispensed smiles. But the album never came out and the Beach Boys became embroiled in a royalty suit against Capitol. Rumors said that Brian, a perfectionist, had destroyed all the tapes for the LP. "We didn't scrap them," Carl said. "We just haven't used them yet. We did it all from scratch when we started again. We actually had finished the album but then a lot of things didn't turn out the way Brian liked. We all didn't agree on different types of things. We decided to do something new."

"If he gets an idea it's now and it's better than something from the past. I've seen it a hundred times. We've seen a lot of potentially great songs just be shelved. They come out maybe two or three years later, but they're in his mind somehow. If that particular idea seems to fit what he's working on at the time it will just come naturally." (Mike Love quote)

*This* is why I cannot understand wanting to shut this or similar discussions down. This is relevant info that cuts to the chase and gets to the core issues and questions some of us have been discussing.

Carl Wilson, in Fall 1967 after the release of Smiley Smile says the following (in bold and italics in my re-quote):

- They did not "scrap" Smile, despite what Taylor's May 6th article said.

- They had parts which they just haven't used yet, suggesting some of the Smile material may still see the light of day in some form (backed up by various Capitol memos from the months prior as well)

- They had finished the album in some way and at some point, which backs up the Altham piece from late April where he wrote the "12 tracks are finished"

- They did not all agree on some things...anyone's guess what those were.

- They decided to do something new, and started from scratch, exact words according to Carl. *Not* continue "Smile", not have what they were doing with Smile transition seamlessly into Smiley Smile as some are suggesting, but rather start from scratch and start something new. There isn't much of a way to parse or twist Carl's own description to suggest Smile just morphed into Smiley Smile by June 1967 without a definite start and end point when he says they "started from scratch" and recorded this new album which was Smiley Smile.

Further, Carl again suggests the actual "Smile" material was not scrapped and might still be coming out, i.e. "we just haven't used them yet".


So much for shutting down the discussion because everything we needed to see was already on the table.

Thanks for posting the quotes. It opened up a very large door to allow information to be entered into the discussion coming direct from a Beach Boy, and Carl the Beach Boy perhaps closest to the music besides Brian in 1967, who made these comments in the Fall of 1967 when it was still current business for the band.

And in light of what Carl said, consider taking an even closer look at what could have happened in the weeks between the Beach Boys returning home from the May 67 tour in Europe and the move to recording in Brian's house in mid June, and what during that time caused the entire focus and direction of the band and the Smile project to shift dramatically in such a relatively short period of time.

Carl Wilson in those quotes basically challenged a lot of the theories and explanations being offered throughout this thread and in a majority of Smile related discussions I've seen for the past several decades. Anyone looking for firsthand information, published information, direct sources, etc...add Carl Wilson, Fall 1967 to the primary sources.

[Emily]

Excerpts from "The Beach Boys' Quickest Album" , LA Times, October 8th 1967:

"Well, the album didn't really head for any direction. We just decided to, or I should say Brian decided to, make a real simple album. So, with that in mind, we recorded it at his house and it's the quickest album we've ever done." (Carl Wilson quote)

"You see, the whole thing is that 'Pet Sounds' was really an expanded type of musical thing. It's really quite a musical album and we got into a thing where we just wanted to ease up and make a simple album. It was a nice change. It's very hard on a person to keep on doing a 'Pet Sounds.'" (Carl Wilson quote)

Last year, when "Good Vibrations" was racking up its million-plus sales, Capitol had the follow-up album scheduled under the title of "Smile." The album jacket already had been printed, a picture of a shop which dispensed smiles. But the album never came out and the Beach Boys became embroiled in a royalty suit against Capitol. Rumors said that Brian, a perfectionist, had destroyed all the tapes for the LP. "We didn't scrap them," Carl said. "We just haven't used them yet. We did it all from scratch when we started again. We actually had finished the album but then a lot of things didn't turn out the way Brian liked. We all didn't agree on different types of things. We decided to do something new."

"If he gets an idea it's now and it's better than something from the past. I've seen it a hundred times. We've seen a lot of potentially great songs just be shelved. They come out maybe two or three years later, but they're in his mind somehow. If that particular idea seems to fit what he's working on at the time it will just come naturally." (Mike Love quote)

*This* is why I cannot understand wanting to shut this or similar discussions down. This is relevant info that cuts to the chase and gets to the core issues and questions some of us have been discussing.

Carl Wilson, in Fall 1967 after the release of Smiley Smile says the following (in bold and italics in my re-quote):

- They did not "scrap" Smile, despite what Taylor's May 6th article said.

- They had parts which they just haven't used yet, suggesting some of the Smile material may still see the light of day in some form (backed up by various Capitol memos from the months prior as well)

- They had finished the album in some way and at some point, which backs up the Altham piece from late April where he wrote the "12 tracks are finished"

- They did not all agree on some things...anyone's guess what those were.

- They decided to do something new, and started from scratch, exact words according to Carl. *Not* continue "Smile", not have what they were doing with Smile transition seamlessly into Smiley Smile as some are suggesting, but rather start from scratch and start something new. There isn't much of a way to parse or twist Carl's own description to suggest Smile just morphed into Smiley Smile by June 1967 without a definite start and end point when he says they "started from scratch" and recorded this new album which was Smiley Smile.

Further, Carl again suggests the actual "Smile" material was not scrapped and might still be coming out, i.e. "we just haven't used them yet".


So much for shutting down the discussion because everything we needed to see was already on the table.

Thanks for posting the quotes. It opened up a very large door to allow information to be entered into the discussion coming direct from a Beach Boy, and Carl the Beach Boy perhaps closest to the music besides Brian in 1967, who made these comments in the Fall of 1967 when it was still current business for the band.

And in light of what Carl said, consider taking an even closer look at what could have happened in the weeks between the Beach Boys returning home from the May 67 tour in Europe and the move to recording in Brian's house in mid June, and what during that time caused the entire focus and direction of the band and the Smile project to shift dramatically in such a relatively short period of time.

Hi Guitarfool2002,
I'm a little confused (or a lot). Are you suggesting that until the band returned from the tour, none of them, not the touring band nor BW, had any inkling that the direction would change and the recorded Smile music would be shelved and that they'd leave the professional studio and home record? That this was all decided within a week of the return of the band, out of the blue? Or are you not suggesting that and I'm reading you wrong?

[guitarfool2002]

Excerpts from "The Beach Boys' Quickest Album" , LA Times, October 8th 1967:

"Well, the album didn't really head for any direction. We just decided to, or I should say Brian decided to, make a real simple album. So, with that in mind, we recorded it at his house and it's the quickest album we've ever done." (Carl Wilson quote)

"You see, the whole thing is that 'Pet Sounds' was really an expanded type of musical thing. It's really quite a musical album and we got into a thing where we just wanted to ease up and make a simple album. It was a nice change. It's very hard on a person to keep on doing a 'Pet Sounds.'" (Carl Wilson quote)

Last year, when "Good Vibrations" was racking up its million-plus sales, Capitol had the follow-up album scheduled under the title of "Smile." The album jacket already had been printed, a picture of a shop which dispensed smiles. But the album never came out and the Beach Boys became embroiled in a royalty suit against Capitol. Rumors said that Brian, a perfectionist, had destroyed all the tapes for the LP. "We didn't scrap them," Carl said. "We just haven't used them yet. We did it all from scratch when we started again. We actually had finished the album but then a lot of things didn't turn out the way Brian liked. We all didn't agree on different types of things. We decided to do something new."

"If he gets an idea it's now and it's better than something from the past. I've seen it a hundred times. We've seen a lot of potentially great songs just be shelved. They come out maybe two or three years later, but they're in his mind somehow. If that particular idea seems to fit what he's working on at the time it will just come naturally." (Mike Love quote)

*This* is why I cannot understand wanting to shut this or similar discussions down. This is relevant info that cuts to the chase and gets to the core issues and questions some of us have been discussing.

Carl Wilson, in Fall 1967 after the release of Smiley Smile says the following (in bold and italics in my re-quote):

- They did not "scrap" Smile, despite what Taylor's May 6th article said.

- They had parts which they just haven't used yet, suggesting some of the Smile material may still see the light of day in some form (backed up by various Capitol memos from the months prior as well)

- They had finished the album in some way and at some point, which backs up the Altham piece from late April where he wrote the "12 tracks are finished"

- They did not all agree on some things...anyone's guess what those were.

- They decided to do something new, and started from scratch, exact words according to Carl. *Not* continue "Smile", not have what they were doing with Smile transition seamlessly into Smiley Smile as some are suggesting, but rather start from scratch and start something new. There isn't much of a way to parse or twist Carl's own description to suggest Smile just morphed into Smiley Smile by June 1967 without a definite start and end point when he says they "started from scratch" and recorded this new album which was Smiley Smile.

Further, Carl again suggests the actual "Smile" material was not scrapped and might still be coming out, i.e. "we just haven't used them yet".


So much for shutting down the discussion because everything we needed to see was already on the table.

Thanks for posting the quotes. It opened up a very large door to allow information to be entered into the discussion coming direct from a Beach Boy, and Carl the Beach Boy perhaps closest to the music besides Brian in 1967, who made these comments in the Fall of 1967 when it was still current business for the band.

And in light of what Carl said, consider taking an even closer look at what could have happened in the weeks between the Beach Boys returning home from the May 67 tour in Europe and the move to recording in Brian's house in mid June, and what during that time caused the entire focus and direction of the band and the Smile project to shift dramatically in such a relatively short period of time.

Hi Guitarfool2002,
I'm a little confused (or a lot). Are you suggesting that until the band returned from the tour, none of them, not the touring band nor BW, had any inkling that the direction would change and the recorded Smile music would be shelved and that they'd leave the professional studio and home record? That this was all decided within a week of the return of the band, out of the blue? Or are you not suggesting that and I'm reading you wrong?

Carl's quotes tell the story. Let's first take his words into account as they were said and published and consider the implications.

Separate from that, to your question: To me when Carl said they started from scratch, that's definitive. Starting from scratch is not Brian in mid-May 67 recording Dada as he had been recording nearly every other Smile related track since Fall 66. Factor in the other Taylor column where he mentions the attitude and atmosphere issues regarding the studio recording, cites Nick Grillo and the fact that they decided to move the recordings into Brian's house, and as reported that studio was ad hoc, and not at all designed or built with advance planning beyond renting the gear they needed. It seems like that window of time between the band returning from the tour, doing a week of sessions in pro studios, then "starting from scratch" in Brian's house with an ad hoc studio suggests it was not planned in advance and could possibly have happened in that window of time when it seems the plans shifted.

I'd rather focus on Carl's own words specifically and not get into theories of mine or whatever which could distract from what has just been revealed here via that fall 67 article...we now have primary source evidence from the closest band member to the music other than Brian spelling it out on the record, and published.

And Carl as that primary source is suggesting a history of events that would dispute many theories and even conclusions that have been offered both here and in the past. It's great to have it available.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Was "Smile" released as intended in 1967 ? No. Then it was scrapped. Carl is very obviously denying that the tapes were physically destroyed, as Brian had claimed.

[Emily]

Carl's quotes tell the story. Let's first take his words into account as they were said and published and consider the implications.

Separate from that, to your question: To me when Carl said they started from scratch, that's definitive. Starting from scratch is not Brian in mid-May 67 recording Dada as he had been recording nearly every other Smile related track since Fall 66. Factor in the other Taylor column where he mentions the attitude and atmosphere issues regarding the studio recording, cites Nick Grillo and the fact that they decided to move the recordings into Brian's house, and as reported that studio was ad hoc, and not at all designed or built with advance planning beyond renting the gear they needed. It seems like that window of time between the band returning from the tour, doing a week of sessions in pro studios, then "starting from scratch" in Brian's house with an ad hoc studio suggests it was not planned in advance and could possibly have happened in that window of time when it seems the plans shifted.

I'd rather focus on Carl's own words specifically and not get into theories of mine or whatever which could distract from what has just been revealed here via that fall 67 article...we now have primary source evidence from the closest band member to the music other than Brian spelling it out on the record, and published.

And Carl as that primary source is suggesting a history of events that would dispute many theories and even conclusions that have been offered both here and in the past. It's great to have it available.

Now this is punk rock. Thanks for opening my mind to entirely new angles of thought.

[Emily]

Is 'scrap' industry jargon or is it just plain English? If the latter, I wonder if the interviewer from the LA Times extract introduced the word in his exchange with Carl or if Carl did.

[guitarfool2002]

Was "Smile" released as intended in 1967 ? No. Then it was scrapped. Carl is very obviously denying that the tapes were physically destroyed, as Brian had claimed.

Parsing words? What Carl said is now available verbatim for all to read, and if they choose to interpret without parsing or clarifications after the fact 49 years later.

[The Old Master Painter]

TO GET BACK ON TOPIC....

To me, as more days pass by, the more I start to believe "Country Air" was conceptualized as Air in one point in time.... Think of it this way:

In 1967, a Capitol Records memo confrimed they were planning a SMiLE release post-Smiley Smile..... It's interesting because, during this point in time ("Wild Honey" Era):

- Brian records a few takes of Surf's Up, which was quite uncalled for and unprecedented

- Interesting to note: Brian recorded those Surf's Up takes after recording a demo of Country Air.

- Brian (I assume) recorded a quite SMiLE-like "Water Chant" during the same period

- Country Air is a piano-dominated piece of music

- It consists mainly of humming.... Suggesting unwritten lyrics(?)

- It is similair to Da-Da/Cool Water (think: "gotta get me some cool....")

[Cam Mott]

Last year, when "Good Vibrations" was racking up its million-plus sales, Capitol had the follow-up album scheduled under the title of "Smile." The album jacket already had been printed, a picture of a shop which dispensed smiles. But the album never came out and the Beach Boys became embroiled in a royalty suit against Capitol. Rumors said that Brian, a perfectionist, had destroyed all the tapes for the LP. "We didn't scrap them," Carl said. "We just haven't used them yet. We did it all from scratch when we started again. We actually had finished the album but then a lot of things didn't turn out the way Brian liked. We all didn't agree on different types of things. We decided to do something new."

"In truth, every beautifully designed, finely-wrought inspirationally-welded piece of music made these last months by Brian and his Beach Boy craftsmen has been SCRAPPED. Not destroyed, but scrapped. For what Wilson seals in a can and destroys is scrapped."  Derek Taylor

“The song 'Surf’s Up' that I sang for that documentary never came out on an album, and it was supposed to come out on the SMILE album, and that and a couple of other songs were junked……”  Brian Wilson

"No," was his emphatic answer. "I junked it. We junked them. I didn’t like where the music was coming from. I thought it was inappropriate for the Beach Boys and I junked it.”  Brian Wilson

“After I came down off the drugs and saw what I had done with Smile, I junked it.”  Brian Wilson

"I junked it. We junked them. I didn’t like where the music was coming from. I thought it was inappropriate for the Beach Boys and I junked it.”  Brian Wilson

“We never finished it, because a lot of that sh*t just bothered me - but half of it we didn’t finish anyway." Brian Wilson

"“We didn’t finish it because we had a lot of problems, inner group problems. We had time commitments we couldn’t keep, so we stopped."  Brian Wilson

[filledeplage]

Last year, when "Good Vibrations" was racking up its million-plus sales, Capitol had the follow-up album scheduled under the title of "Smile." The album jacket already had been printed, a picture of a shop which dispensed smiles. But the album never came out and the Beach Boys became embroiled in a royalty suit against Capitol. Rumors said that Brian, a perfectionist, had destroyed all the tapes for the LP. "We didn't scrap them," Carl said. "We just haven't used them yet. We did it all from scratch when we started again. We actually had finished the album but then a lot of things didn't turn out the way Brian liked. We all didn't agree on different types of things. We decided to do something new."

“The song 'Surf’s Up' that I sang for that documentary never came out on an album, and it was supposed to come out on the SMILE album, and that and a couple of other songs were junked……”  Brian Wilson

"No," was his emphatic answer. "I junked it. We junked them. I didn’t like where the music was coming from. I thought it was inappropriate for the Beach Boys and I junked it.”  Brian Wilson

“After I came down off the drugs and saw what I had done with Smile, I junked it.”  Brian Wilson

"I junked it. We junked them. I didn’t like where the music was coming from. I thought it was inappropriate for the Beach Boys and I junked it.”  Brian Wilson

“We never finished it, because a lot of that sh*t just bothered me - but half of it we didn’t finish anyway." Brian Wilson

"“We didn’t finish it because we had a lot of problems, inner group problems. We had time commitments we couldn’t keep, so we stopped."  Brian Wilson.

Cam - Carl's more or less prepared statement for the LA Times, sheds light on a couple of things.  

First - It supports the concept that the tapes were not destroyed.  Maybe it is a semantic.  Scrapped, side-lined, put-on-hold, whatever any of it means.

Second - It concedes that Surf's Up was the expected release.  During 1966, singles which were usually time-constrained to be under 3 minutes, started becoming longer. GV helped that out at about 3:36. There were longer versions, of other 45s (whether pulled deliberately from an LP) or had a long version, such as Light My Fire, that were pushing the boundaries, probably driving the advertisers crazy.  Surf's Up probably could have found a way in a BB version in that mix in 1967, since there was a sort of adaptation to the longer singles.  (This may have helped the newer fm stations justify doing LP's or more extended versions of singles.)

Third - It is a shame about the LP cover.  I still maintain that that was one of the worst things that could have been done.  Marketers go for primary colors.  We had Andy Warhol, and Peter Max, next to a medium green, and that cover was lost among the eye-popping LP artwork.  That cover likely cost them sales.  Taken alone as an artwork it is pretty, but among the sea of LP covers, it drowns.  If Smile was an American journey from Plymouth to Hawaii with all the stops in between it should have been a colorful map, with topography, events, such as the railroad construction, etc., that made it clear to the listener what it was all about.  You have to tell people what your story is.  

Fourth - If there was a preliminary 12-track that was ready to go in the Spring of 1967, the band left the States working under the assumption that it was a "go"  there was some serious misleading and falsehood, lies by omission, if you will, going on.  

Fifth - could have been, directly or indirectly, some new directive from the attorneys, advising against the release, at that time, if it was a critical stage in the litigation.  We don't know enough to make that assertion without timelines and what the relative positions of both sides were.  This was speculated about earlier, but seems a weak speculation.  But I was not there, and don't know.

Sixth - there is this constant statement that doesn't seem to change, over time, that Brian makes ( I am paraphrasing) that he sometimes thought some of his music was just for him, and not to be made public.  Could be that second-thought that people somehow get.

That is sort of an artist's prerogative to hold-in-reserve, almost a private collection, that is to remain personal, on one hand.  But, on the other hand, the band had sung on the tracks, and that issue might already have arisen.  Using words such as "God" for GOK was pushing the barrier, as would Our Prayer, which remains magnificent.

There is in some stuff I have read, pointing to Van Dyke being gone in March, well ahead of this tour by weeks.  He seems to already be doing work with another record company in March of 1967.

Was Carl's article a mop-up, for Taylor? Or Taylor's surrogate?  

GF is correct as well, to keep looking at this time window, to "dispassionately" unravel the mess.      

  

[Andrew G. Doe]

I've just checked to see if the definitions of parse, and parsing, have been changed from what I've always understood them to be, and they've not, thus I'm at a loss as to why Craig throws them at me in such a pejorative and confrontational manner.

[guitarfool2002]

Why not let Carl's words stand as they were published and let those reading it do so without the clarifications and other items added? I had a feeling this would happen...clarifying what he meant by the "scrap" line, etc. That is parsing. Let those reading read his words first before trying to tell anyone what Carl meant 49 years later.

Cam Mott served up a list of Brian quotes instead of commenting a single word of his own on what Carl said. No comments, Cam? Could it be because it looks like Carl in 1967 may have effectively shredded (or should I say scrapped?) some of the Smile theories Cam has been posting on this and other boards for over a decade? It's much harder to disprove Carl because he has a reputation among the fan base and both Carl and his word is held in high regard, so instead it's "well Carl said this, but Brian said this and here are a dozen quotes to back me up...". Says a lot about the whole ball of wax. How about addressing what Carl said?

Now Carl's statements were "more or less prepared"...Wait, how could that possibly be known enough what went into that interview in 1967 to even comment on it? It cannot, and we don't know what was prepared and what was Carl talking off the cuff, which is why I question even bringing it up unless it's to cast doubt on what he said or why he said it.  It means nothing to the point of applying what he did say to the discussions at hand and weighing them into the discourse.

We were asking for firsthand evidence from the Beach Boys, there it is. Carl Wilson, Fall 1967. Got what we asked for. If it doesn't support but instead serves to refute some popular theories and notions about Smile and Smiley Smile and the rest of it, it might be a case of "be careful what you wish for" since this (and possibly others we have not seen yet) information is exactly what some were asking for as the primary evidence possible to weigh these issues: Firsthand quotes from the Beach Boys themselves.

We now have it. Let's weigh it up based on what Carl said, not what we think he said or assume he said or speculate as to why he said it...take the words as they appear first.

[filledeplage]

Why not let Carl's words stand as they were published and let those reading it do so without the clarifications and other items added? I had a feeling this would happen...clarifying what he meant by the "scrap" line, etc. That is parsing. Let those reading read his words first before trying to tell anyone what Carl meant 49 years later.

Cam Mott served up a list of Brian quotes instead of commenting a single word of his own on what Carl said. No comments, Cam? Could it be because it looks like Carl in 1967 may have effectively shredded (or should I say scrapped?) some of the Smile theories Cam has been posting on this and other boards for over a decade? It's much harder to disprove Carl because he has a reputation among the fan base and both Carl and his word is held in high regard, so instead it's "well Carl said this, but Brian said this and here are a dozen quotes to back me up...". Says a lot about the whole ball of wax. How about addressing what Carl said?

Now Carl's statements were "more or less prepared"...Wait, how could that possibly be known enough what went into that interview in 1967 to even comment on it? It cannot, and we don't know what was prepared and what was Carl talking off the cuff, which is why I question even bringing it up unless it's to cast doubt on what he said or why he said it.  It means nothing to the point of applying what he did say to the discussions at hand and weighing them into the discourse.

We were asking for firsthand evidence from the Beach Boys, there it is. Carl Wilson, Fall 1967. Got what we asked for. If it doesn't support but instead serves to refute some popular theories and notions about Smile and Smiley Smile and the rest of it, it might be a case of "be careful what you wish for" since this (and possibly others we have not seen yet) information is exactly what some were asking for as the primary evidence possible to weigh these issues: Firsthand quotes from the Beach Boys themselves.

We now have it. Let's weigh it up based on what Carl said, not what we think he said or assume he said or speculate as to why he said it...take the words as they appear first.

GF  - I raised the issue of "primary sources," so I will own this.  I can close my eyes and be in October of 1967, in the era of that article. (Lucky me!   )

After the big build-up with Inside Pop, the TIKH tour, and the crash-and-burn that followed, (about which we know little, except in fragments) they needed someone from the band, who could give a measured statement, and I do think it was calculated and measured.  

Carl was credible and would have been the natural choice to deal with the press.  And yes, held in high regard. If he knew he would be queried about Smile, he would have collected his thoughts, with or without assistance, to face a hometown paper.  It coincides with the release of Smiley.  They may have contacted the band for an interview, and that is not unusual.

It does not sound to me as though Carl is explaining what happened, but responding, in some way, and using it, at the same time, to advance Smiley Smile.  

Carl is reassuring the public, that these epic recordings, such as Surf's Up, promoted on Inside Pop, were still intact.  That statement is not unimportant, but may have helped open-the-door to the myth of what was-in-the-can? (Carl validated the continuing existence of the music.) And, when were the listeners going to get it?  

This is debunking Taylor or his surrogate, and clearing up the record.

And that is huge, I think.  

Thanks to jj.  
    
It is on a higher level than a teeny bopper magazine.  It is not Brian's recipe for Egg-in-the-hole.  

[Andrew G. Doe]

Taylor never said anything about any tapes being destroyed. Rather, he explicitly states they were "sealed in a can".

[filledeplage]

Taylor never said anything about any tapes being destroyed. Rather, he explicitly states they were "sealed in a can".

Scrapped?  I guess that is a term-of-art in the music industry? Or a mis-statement?    

He said "SCRAPPED."

Why would Carl say, "We didn't scrap them."

"...the Beach Boys became embroiled in a royalty suit against Capitol.  Rumors said that Brian, a perfectionist, had destroyed all the tapes for the LP."

Carl was confirming their;

1- existence

2 - safety.

[Emily]

I will say, GF2002, that while I really appreciate the importance of this new information (thank you jiggityjars) - and that you've inspired me to use it for fresh look -  I don't really take Carl Wilson to be the word of God - absolute truth - more than average. One Beach Boys spokesperson strikes me as being so defensive it puts much of what he says in doubt; one is so cagey it does the same; and Carl Wilson is so diplomatic and careful in his wording that it does the same. Dennis Wilson strikes me as the most straightforward. That leave two others, but I won't characterize them right now.
That's not to say the 'new' Carl quotes shouldn't contribute to a rethinking; just I think they all need between-the-lines reading.

[Micha]

Speaking as someone whose first language isn't English and who has no real connection to the words "scrap" and "parse", I think that in that LA Times article Carl's definition of "to scrap" isn't the same as Taylor's. While Taylor makes a distinction between "to scrap" and "to destroy" (the recordings are scrapped, but not destroyed), Carl when he says the recordings aren't "scrapped" means to say "they're not destroyed". So I don't see a real contradiction between the two articles. Or maybe I just don't get anymore what this controversy is about.

[guitarfool2002]

In light of having Carl's comments posted here, if the focus is being narrowed to the point of the word "scrap" and what he could have meant by it rather than taking all of his comments into consideration, that suggests the larger meaning of and the larger context in which Carl's comments exist might be something that is not as welcome in the discussion especially if it directly contradicts some of the long-held theories as posted here and in the past. For all of the theories and speculations, and all of the various ways that the Smile saga has been told in the history of the band, we wanted more firsthand information from a band member, from that specific time, and we got it.

If the way he used the word "scrap" is the focus, if calling into doubt some other things he said in the same comments is the plan moving forward, I have to question what exactly is at play here. It's a Beach Boy giving his account of the events, firsthand in his own words. If his words instead backed up some of the theories that have become "the facts" as far as various Smile issues through the years (and in years to come), I doubt the focus would be on the word "scrap".

[Emily]

In light of having Carl's comments posted here, if the focus is being narrowed to the point of the word "scrap" and what he could have meant by it rather than taking all of his comments into consideration, that suggests the larger meaning of and the larger context in which Carl's comments exist might be something that is not as welcome in the discussion especially if it directly contradicts some of the long-held theories as posted here and in the past. For all of the theories and speculations, and all of the various ways that the Smile saga has been told in the history of the band, we wanted more firsthand information from a band member, from that specific time, and we got it.

If the way he used the word "scrap" is the focus, if calling into doubt some other things he said in the same comments is the plan moving forward, I have to question what exactly is at play here. It's a Beach Boy giving his account of the events, firsthand in his own words. If his words instead backed up some of the theories that have become "the facts" as far as various Smile issues through the years (and in years to come), I doubt the focus would be on the word "scrap".

I personally just brought up the word 'scrap' sort of as an aside - I was wondering if it's a term often used in the industry; if it was a coincidence in terminology with the older Taylor quote; or, most interestingly to me, if it was used because the interviewer made specific reference to the Taylor quote. I wondered if the rest of the piece from which this was excerpted would show that he was being asked specifically about Taylor's quote.
To debate the meaning of the word 'scrapped' seems kind of pointless. Clearly they didn't actually destroy the bulk of the work.
In terms of theorizing, I personally feel overwhelmed with seemingly contradictory information and am trying to filter out conventional wisdom and previous theories and put the historical pieces together in a way that's not contradictory but I'm not finding it easy.
My intent in my last comment was not to be dismissive of these new-to-us quotes, but just to remember that Carl Wilson, too, has an agenda.

[Cam Mott]

Why not let Carl's words stand as they were published and let those reading it do so without the clarifications and other items added? I had a feeling this would happen...clarifying what he meant by the "scrap" line, etc. That is parsing. Let those reading read his words first before trying to tell anyone what Carl meant 49 years later.

Cam Mott served up a list of Brian quotes instead of commenting a single word of his own on what Carl said. No comments, Cam? Could it be because it looks like Carl in 1967 may have effectively shredded (or should I say scrapped?) some of the Smile theories Cam has been posting on this and other boards for over a decade? It's much harder to disprove Carl because he has a reputation among the fan base and both Carl and his word is held in high regard, so instead it's "well Carl said this, but Brian said this and here are a dozen quotes to back me up...". Says a lot about the whole ball of wax. How about addressing what Carl said?

Now Carl's statements were "more or less prepared"...Wait, how could that possibly be known enough what went into that interview in 1967 to even comment on it? It cannot, and we don't know what was prepared and what was Carl talking off the cuff, which is why I question even bringing it up unless it's to cast doubt on what he said or why he said it.  It means nothing to the point of applying what he did say to the discussions at hand and weighing them into the discourse.

We were asking for firsthand evidence from the Beach Boys, there it is. Carl Wilson, Fall 1967. Got what we asked for. If it doesn't support but instead serves to refute some popular theories and notions about Smile and Smiley Smile and the rest of it, it might be a case of "be careful what you wish for" since this (and possibly others we have not seen yet) information is exactly what some were asking for as the primary evidence possible to weigh these issues: Firsthand quotes from the Beach Boys themselves.

We now have it. Let's weigh it up based on what Carl said, not what we think he said or assume he said or speculate as to why he said it...take the words as they appear first.

Didn't you, in the very first reply to jiggityjars posting, parse the words and tell us what they meant?

My comment is the question was were the tapes destroyed and Carl answered they were not saying: "scrapped". Taylor also said they were not destroyed, so they agreed.

Carl says SMiLE was finished and Altham agreed, Brian says it was never finished with which Taylor agreed.  Carl says Brian was making the calls so there is what Brian said. I don't know who was trying to stop discussion of this thread, you were asking for more witness instead.....you're welcome.

On to what did Carl mean by "start from scratch" and how did Carl calculate "the quickest".  Hopefully Ian will have something that also sheds more light.

Have you considered Carl as the theoretical scrapped announcement conspirator?  (mind blown)

[Emily]

Have you considered Carl as the theoretical scrapped announcement conspirator?  (mind blown)

I actually wondered that too (though it wasn't necessarily conspiratorial). If the LA Times interviewer didn't bring up the word 'scrapped', is it entirely coincidental that Carl Wilson used the same word? But that's getting a little too parsey and reading way too much into a verbal coincidence.

[Cam Mott]

Have you considered Carl as the theoretical scrapped announcement conspirator?  (mind blown)

I actually wondered that too (though it wasn't necessarily conspiratorial). If the LA Times interviewer didn't bring up the word 'scrapped', is it entirely coincidental that Carl Wilson used the same word? But that's getting a little too parsey and reading way too much into a verbal coincidence.

Not around these parts, Ma'am.   

[filledeplage]

Why not let Carl's words stand as they were published and let those reading it do so without the clarifications and other items added? I had a feeling this would happen...clarifying what he meant by the "scrap" line, etc. That is parsing. Let those reading read his words first before trying to tell anyone what Carl meant 49 years later.

Cam Mott served up a list of Brian quotes instead of commenting a single word of his own on what Carl said. No comments, Cam? Could it be because it looks like Carl in 1967 may have effectively shredded (or should I say scrapped?) some of the Smile theories Cam has been posting on this and other boards for over a decade? It's much harder to disprove Carl because he has a reputation among the fan base and both Carl and his word is held in high regard, so instead it's "well Carl said this, but Brian said this and here are a dozen quotes to back me up...". Says a lot about the whole ball of wax. How about addressing what Carl said?

Now Carl's statements were "more or less prepared"...Wait, how could that possibly be known enough what went into that interview in 1967 to even comment on it? It cannot, and we don't know what was prepared and what was Carl talking off the cuff, which is why I question even bringing it up unless it's to cast doubt on what he said or why he said it.  It means nothing to the point of applying what he did say to the discussions at hand and weighing them into the discourse.

We were asking for firsthand evidence from the Beach Boys, there it is. Carl Wilson, Fall 1967. Got what we asked for. If it doesn't support but instead serves to refute some popular theories and notions about Smile and Smiley Smile and the rest of it, it might be a case of "be careful what you wish for" since this (and possibly others we have not seen yet) information is exactly what some were asking for as the primary evidence possible to weigh these issues: Firsthand quotes from the Beach Boys themselves.

We now have it. Let's weigh it up based on what Carl said, not what we think he said or assume he said or speculate as to why he said it...take the words as they appear first.

Didn't you, in the very first reply to jiggityjars posting, parse the words and tell us what they meant?

My comment is the question was were the tapes destroyed and Carl answered they were not saying: "scrapped". Taylor also said they were not destroyed, so they agreed.

Carl says SMiLE was finished and Altham agreed, Brian says it was never finished with which Taylor agreed.  Carl says Brian was making the calls so there is what Brian said. I don't know who was trying to stop discussion of this thread, you were asking for more witness instead.  You're welcome.

On to what did Carl meant by "start from scratch" and how did Carl calculate "the quickest".  Hopefully Ian will have something that also sheds more light.

Have you considered Carl as the theoretical scrapped announcement conspirator?  (mind blown)

Cam - in one of the books (Rusten or Badman) I think - ( and apologize that don't have right now) there is a "hint" with (Anderle, I think but don't have the book to source ) of a move by Brian to be a solo artist.  And I wonder if Brian was being encouraged to do that, at that time.  I would imagine it would be well out of earshot of the band.  There were artists that were breaking away from the groups that they became famous with, such as Diana Ross with The Supremes just as an example.

Carl being the conspirator to scrap Smile?  With the feds chasing him for draft evasion?  Seriously?  At that time in October of 1967, Carl was becoming very respected in the anti-war context and was likely the go-to guy to do an interview.  

[mike moseley]

I agree with you - this is hair-splitting to the nth degree

I think its obvious 'scrapped' here means discarded

Speaking as someone whose first language isn't English and who has no real connection to the words "scrap" and "parse", I think that in that LA Times article Carl's definition of "to scrap" isn't the same as Taylor's. While Taylor makes a distinction between "to scrap" and "to destroy" (the recordings are scrapped, but not destroyed), Carl when he says the recordings aren't "scrapped" means to say "they're not destroyed". So I don't see a real contradiction between the two articles. Or maybe I just don't get anymore what this controversy is about.