Was there any evidence "Wind Chimes" was Air?

[Emily]

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.

It's certainly the case that a lot of the 60s teen magazines ran stories that were very obviously generated by PR. Beatles or Beach Boys "likes and dislikes", "a day in the life of", "what is your fave really like?" - type stories frequently have evident errors and little to do with the reality of the subject. I haven't read a "Bop" or "Tiger Beat" from any other era, but I assume that at that level of reportage, not much has changed.
I think with Derek Taylor it would be hard to identify what's true and what's not. Though a motive for saying something's ready to go one week then scrapped the next is hard to suss (for me).

[guitarfool2002]

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.

And, just as I spelled out above, "one of the people who would know" will remain anonymous, and whatever you say here as related to you by that person should be taken as fact, unimpeachable and definite? Should the expectation then be numerous posters demanding you reveal the source so they can judge it as well, and possibly use any manner of changing standards to discredit the source, and thus the information itself?

Again...my so-called "source" has been on the table and in the published public record for over a decade, and in several outlets including published works, not posts on message boards. If no one can find it or wants to find it, that's not my problem.

So it's settled because your source/person says it's settled, and the information is then relayed here with no details...why not demand the source be named then have that source run through the ringer of scrutiny and possible discreditation as seems to be par for the course with everyone from Van Dyke Parks to Jules Siegel to Al Jardine?

[guitarfool2002]

I think with Derek Taylor it would be hard to identify what's true and what's not. Though a motive for saying something's ready to go one week then scrapped the next is hard to suss (for me).

Not only hard to suss out, but potentially damaging to his clients regarding their label, and beyond that, refuted by the fact that Brian was still doing "Smile sessions" in the studio less than two weeks after the announcement.

As previously said, it makes no sense.

[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.

And, just as I spelled out above, "one of the people who would know" will remain anonymous, and whatever you say here as related to you by that person should be taken as fact, unimpeachable and definite? Should the expectation then be numerous posters demanding you reveal the source so they can judge it as well, and possibly use any manner of changing standards to discredit the source, and thus the information itself?

Again...my so-called "source" has been on the table and in the published public record for over a decade, and in several outlets including published works, not posts on message boards. If no one can find it or wants to find it, that's not my problem.

So it's settled because your source/person says it's settled, and the information is then relayed here with no details...why not demand the source be named then have that source run through the ringer of scrutiny and possible discreditation as seems to be par for the course with everyone from Van Dyke Parks to Jules Siegel to Al Jardine?

I asked Mike. 

[drbeachboy]

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.

And, just as I spelled out above, "one of the people who would know" will remain anonymous, and whatever you say here as related to you by that person should be taken as fact, unimpeachable and definite? Should the expectation then be numerous posters demanding you reveal the source so they can judge it as well, and possibly use any manner of changing standards to discredit the source, and thus the information itself?

Again...my so-called "source" has been on the table and in the published public record for over a decade, and in several outlets including published works, not posts on message boards. If no one can find it or wants to find it, that's not my problem.

So it's settled because your source/person says it's settled, and the information is then relayed here with no details...why not demand the source be named then have that source run through the ringer of scrutiny and possible discreditation as seems to be par for the course with everyone from Van Dyke Parks to Jules Siegel to Al Jardine?

Personally, I don't see any similarities with you holding back the name of a published magazine or book and Andrew withholding the name of a source who may not want their name mentioned. Did the publisher ask to remain anonymous?

EDIT: Now that Andrew has revealed his source, it is your turn.

[guitarfool2002]

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.

And, just as I spelled out above, "one of the people who would know" will remain anonymous, and whatever you say here as related to you by that person should be taken as fact, unimpeachable and definite? Should the expectation then be numerous posters demanding you reveal the source so they can judge it as well, and possibly use any manner of changing standards to discredit the source, and thus the information itself?

Again...my so-called "source" has been on the table and in the published public record for over a decade, and in several outlets including published works, not posts on message boards. If no one can find it or wants to find it, that's not my problem.

So it's settled because your source/person says it's settled, and the information is then relayed here with no details...why not demand the source be named then have that source run through the ringer of scrutiny and possible discreditation as seems to be par for the course with everyone from Van Dyke Parks to Jules Siegel to Al Jardine?

I asked Mike. 

Good, so now the process can begin. Have an exact quote to offer or was the answer along the lines of "it wasn't me".

Next logical question: Then who was it?

Potential next step: Ask the sources of the sources that were my "sources" where they sourced the info in the first place.   Gotta keep the ball rollin', right?

[guitarfool2002]

EDIT: Now that Andrew has revealed his source, it is your turn.

Check your bookshelf, or library, chances are they may be there.

[drbeachboy]

EDIT: Now that Andrew has revealed his source, it is your turn.

Check your bookshelf, or library, chances are they may be there.

I don't care that much to dig, plus I am at work. Not all of us have the free time. Don't share. Fight & argue instead of passing info and making the thread more interesting.

[SMiLE Brian]

Ask Mike to explain this after months of denials that Noven Jansi was making fan videos. http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23327.msg557562.html#msg557562

[Andrew G. Doe]

Craig, you asked me for my source, stating it would remain anonymous. I called your bluff. I've told you. Now I'm asking you for the published source you won't, perhaps because you can't, reveal. Put up or shut up time.

[guitarfool2002]

EDIT: Now that Andrew has revealed his source, it is your turn.

Check your bookshelf, or library, chances are they may be there.

I don't care that much to dig, plus I am at work. Not all of us have the free time. Don't share. Fight & argue instead of passing info and making the thread more interesting.

That's on my shoulders now? I put out the info into the discussion that was relative, with dates and specific article references from 1967, on a topic which touched on a contradiction that has been questioned for years regarding the "scrapped" article by Taylor and opened the discussion, and offered what some have offered as an explanation why Taylor's words contradicted Brian's words and activities at that time. Instead of researching and looking deeper into the actual issue to get their own perspective, some chose instead to demand I reveal my "source", tried to parse various words and phrases to shift the attention away from discussing the actual topic, tried to suggest I was doing this with a "blame Mike" agenda, and others attempted to find any and every way to eliminate the possibility that what I posted could have happened depending on who was talking.

Why is that? What would be so potentially negative anyway?

To that end, so far we have Mike Love telling Andrew something thus far unspecified to refute that he told Derek Taylor about scrapping Smile.

That's it for that, the follow-up questions will be in another post.

[guitarfool2002]

Craig, you asked me for my source, stating it would remain anonymous. I called your bluff. I've told you. Now I'm asking you for the published source you won't, perhaps because you can't, reveal. Put up or shut up time.

Peter Carlin's book. Domenic Priore's book. Various interviews and articles related. All readily available for over a decade. Let the parsing and discrediting begin (?)...

Might be prudent to ask *them* who their sources were for the info instead of hammering away here.

And - in all seriousness - did you ask Mike who Taylor's source was in 1967 if it wasn't him? Did he happen to say whether he was working with Taylor to promote that May 67 tour?

[Andrew G. Doe]

Having a hard time trying to understand how a denial that he told Taylor the album was scrapped can be in any way unspecific.

And failing.  

[guitarfool2002]

Now I've put up these "sources", we should get their take on it since they published the info, and compare notes. If Mike says it wasn't him, then who was it?

[Andrew G. Doe]

Which of Dom's books ? And I have asked both he and PAC.

[guitarfool2002]

Which of Dom's books ? And I have asked both he and PAC.

Domenic's "Smile - The Story Of Brian Wilson's Lost Masterpiece" was the book, there are interviews too with Dom where he says the same things. Carlin makes mention of the Taylor release and reasons to suggest Brian didn't even know of it.

It would be good to know where they got the info.

[Cam Mott]

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.

I gave several sources for my interpretation, Micha, ol' pal.  

I see that first person testimony, land and album and union and Capitol documents don't stack up to second hand opinion and fan ears and fan opinions and fan timelines and unattributed biographies and what-not but I keep pushing anyway.

[Andrew G. Doe]

From the Carlin book (UK hardback, p. 120):

"If Taylor's distinction between "destroyed" and "scrapped" seems unclear, Brian must have felt the same way. In fact, there's reason to suggest that Brian didn't even know Taylor had announced the demise of Smile, a release that may have been authorised by other factions of The Beach Boys."

"May have been"... and a vague reference to "other factions". Further, the bibliography for Catch A Wave lists LLVS, making it entirely possible that Carlin's source was Priore.

From Dom's book, (UK paperback, p. 114):

"Mike Love, though Derek Taylor, told a counter-productive story to Disc & Music Echo...".

Specific enough for sure, but the problem is, Mike has this very day denied he said any such thing to Taylor... and the article itself makes no attribution.

As for the 4/29/67 report of 12 tracks being finished, "Vegetables" (sic) being the next single and the album being on a rush release schedule, again, no attribution as to who was the source, but - to me at least, you may disagree - talk of a rush release and all tracks being completed smack of a frantic record company trying to pressure someone into delivering product. But, as I stated, that's just me.

[SMiLE Brian]

Mike is legacy building in 2016, not so back in the 1960s when this whole smile saga was fresh and new.

[Bicyclerider]

Shouldn't we be able to ask Peter about his source?  He's on the board isn't he?

I don't consider Dom a reliable source as he lets his bias influence what he reports as "facts." 

[filledeplage]

From the Carlin book (UK hardback, p. 120):

"If Taylor's distinction between "destroyed" and "scrapped" seems unclear, Brian must have felt the same way. In fact, there's reason to suggest that Brian didn't even know Taylor had announced the demise of Smile, a release that may have been authorised by other factions of The Beach Boys."

"May have been"... and a vague reference to "other factions". Further, the bibliography for Catch A Wave lists LLVS, making it entirely possible that Carlin's source was Priore.

From Dom's book, (UK paperback, p. 114):

"Mike Love, though Derek Taylor, told a counter-productive story to Disc & Music Echo...".

Specific enough for sure, but the problem is, Mike has this very day denied he said any such thing to Taylor... and the article itself makes no attribution.

As for the 4/29/67 report of 12 tracks being finished, "Vegetables" (sic) being the next single and the album being on a rush release schedule, again, no attribution as to who was the source, but - to me at least, you may disagree - talk of a rush release and all tracks being completed smack of a frantic record company trying to pressure someone into delivering product. But, as I stated, that's just me.

Would Taylor have been susceptible to a "frantic record company" and prepare such a press release, as he is getting ready to move on to "greener pastures?" (Monterey)  On that Saturday, 4/29/67 they had 2 shows in 2 different states.  NY and NJ. Just because Taylor was "done" - didn't mean the project was "done."

Without familiarity with Disc and Echo, "the story within a story" loses accountability and cred for me.  A "Mike" story told through Taylor?  Seriously.  I just laughed at the whole concept.  

If there was session time booked and fulfilled by the touring band, after they got back from Europe after this "scrapped" project announcement, it conflicts with this announcement.  It would seem that if the project was scrapped, so, too, would be the future scheduled sessions, going forward from the "scrapped" announcement.  I'm unconvinced.  

Further, at  that precise early May '67 tour, we have comments by Brian, Mike and Bruce concerning dissatisfaction about the type of promotion of the live concerts in Europe which were promoting them as a surf band, and not including Brian's new work.   I think those quotes are in either Badman or Rusten.  I quoted them in some other contentious thread.  



 

[Andrew G. Doe]

Shouldn't we be able to ask Peter about his source?  He's on the board isn't he?

I did - he didn't remember it. I'm pretty sure it came from LLVS.

[Cam Mott]

Craig, you asked me for my source, stating it would remain anonymous. I called your bluff. I've told you. Now I'm asking you for the published source you won't, perhaps because you can't, reveal. Put up or shut up time.

Peter Carlin's book. Domenic Priore's book. Various interviews and articles related. All readily available for over a decade. Let the parsing and discrediting begin (?)...

Might be prudent to ask *them* who their sources were for the info instead of hammering away here.

And - in all seriousness - did you ask Mike who Taylor's source was in 1967 if it wasn't him? Did he happen to say whether he was working with Taylor to promote that May 67 tour?

Since Taylor was in LA and Brian was in LA and Brian was the album's producer: Brian.

[Cam Mott]

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.  

Red herring.

There was a SMiLE and then there was something different called Smiley Smile. With all due respect to your ears, one became the other at some point and imo the evidence points to the point where a  bonafide SMiLE song was changed to a bonafide Smiley Smile song. Imo insistence that our ideas about production trump the fact that Vegetable is an actual track on Smiley is the red herring. Since it is the beginning of Smiley Smile it also evolved on as a Smiley track to the released version. Is the released version of Vegetables not Smiley enough for anybody?

[18thofMay]

I am sticking with the 18th of May, can't be arsed changing my thingy and the arguments about this have been going on since ET phoned home. Oh and another thing Smile was going to be the songs we all know + an elements suite at the end with the heroes theme linking the 4 parts together, that's the part Brian never finished, the sequencing and the segueing (is that a word?).