Was there any evidence "Wind Chimes" was Air?

[Cam Mott]

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 agree. To me SMiLE started transitioning like in January and sometime between then and April 4 SMiLE stopped and Smiley began.  The first Smiley sessions sound more like the recent SMiLE recordings because that's still how and where he was recording at the time (studios & Wrecking Crew). The later Smiley tracks sound the way they do because that's how and where they were recording at that time (improvised home studio and just themselves).  

[Cam Mott]

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. 

I think I disagree. Their statements aren't contrary to the scrapped announcement, they are in line with the announcement. The music wasn't ready.

There seems to be a presumption that the announcement has to be premature or false because the Boys didn't react in the way some think they should have.

[guitarfool2002]

Something happened in those few weeks between when the Beach Boys returned home from Europe, did almost a week of sessions at Western and Sound Recorders on Vegetables that song where they left off in April, then suddenly they were running cables in Brian Wilson's living room and kitchen with rented gear. It was more than a suggestion that they make the record in Brian's house, whatever the "attitude and atmosphere" aspect might have been.

The problem with the month prior to that is the Beach Boys didn't seem to react at all, Brian was doing business as usual like he had been more or less, cutting tracks in the studio with the same people and sounds, everyone operating as if the word that the project had been scrapped had never been published.

So we assume the project they were all talking about as if it were still being worked on and coming out, and were still in fact working on, had in reality already been "scrapped" sometime in April or earlier, or had been "scrapped" based on Derek Taylor's information as he published it, even though the band seemed to be unaware where that info came from, and Brian was still in the same studios with the same people he had been using the whole time, creating similar sounds to the point where *many* have speculated "Love To Say DaDa" was the missing "Air" element of that suite.

Find the logic in that scenario, and consider it's not even a scenario, it's how it played out as far as the timeline we all have available to study.

How do some think they should have reacted? How about any reaction at all to the news their album was dead in the water?

[guitarfool2002]

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.

Cool. Note whose name they didn't mention as the source.

"No idea" who told Taylor the album was scrapped, direct from two Beach Boys who were there. I assume having no idea who told Taylor excludes Brian as Taylor's source as well. Assuming too, that at least a trans-Atlantic phone call to Bel Air once they did get word of Taylor's article would have been made to ask something as simple as "what's going on?"...

[Micha]

Note whose name they didn't mention as the source.

Like--- everybody in the world?
 

I assume having no idea who told Taylor excludes Brian as Taylor's source as well.

You have made up your mind what has happened and twist your perception of any info to suit what you believe. All that Mike's and Bruce's answers show is that they don't really give a hoot about this issue.

[guitarfool2002]

Note whose name they didn't mention as the source.

Like--- everybody in the world?
 

I assume having no idea who told Taylor excludes Brian as Taylor's source as well.

You have made up your mind what has happened and twist your perception of any info to suit what you believe. All that Mike's and Bruce's answers show is that they don't really give a hoot about this issue.

But, as it seems on most internet discussions, asking to treat others respectfully is asking too much.

Good advice to follow. Try it.

[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.

Cool. Note whose name they didn't mention as the source.

"No idea" who told Taylor the album was scrapped, direct from two Beach Boys who were there. I assume having no idea who told Taylor excludes Brian as Taylor's source as well.

You're making an entirely unwarranted assumption. "No idea" means just that. As Micha rightly points out, certainly doesn't exclude Brian, however much you might want it to

Assuming too, that at least a trans-Atlantic phone call to Bel Air once they did get word of Taylor's article would have been made to ask something as simple as "what's going on?"...[/quote]

Suddenly the air is thick with flying assumptions. Let's stick to what we know: an article published in early May from the band's press officer states Smile is scrapped. Fact. And as far as anyone knows, none of the band ever commented on it, nor did any subsequent interviewer ask them about it. Maybe, as unlikely as it seems, they simply didn't read it. Possibly, someone did read it, thought "Brian's at it again" and promptly forgot about it. Fact, no-one knows, and at this late remove, probably never will. But if you're looking for who may have told Taylor - assuming anyone did and he didn't just pull it out of thin air, and remember, he's got previous in this - there are certain suspects with both the knowledge, the motive and the ability. Did Taylor say "Brian told me..." ? No. But it didn't say it wasn't Brian either.

And yes, this has become the BB equivalent of the vexed theological topic of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?".

[guitarfool2002]

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.

Cool. Note whose name they didn't mention as the source.

"No idea" who told Taylor the album was scrapped, direct from two Beach Boys who were there. I assume having no idea who told Taylor excludes Brian as Taylor's source as well.

You're making an entirely unwarranted assumption. "No idea" means just that. As Micha rightly points out, certainly doesn't exclude Brian, however much you might want it to

Assuming too, that at least a trans-Atlantic phone call to Bel Air once they did get word of Taylor's article would have been made to ask something as simple as "what's going on?"...

Suddenly the air is thick with flying assumptions. Let's stick to what we know: an article published in early May from the band's press officer states Smile is scrapped. Fact. And as far as anyone knows, none of the band ever commented on it, nor did any subsequent interviewer ask them about it. Maybe, as unlikely as it seems, they simply didn't read it. Possibly, someone did read it, thought "Brian's at it again" and promptly forgot about it. Fact, no-one knows, and at this late remove, probably never will. But if you're looking for who may have told Taylor - assuming anyone did and he didn't just pull it out of thin air, and remember, he's got previous in this - there are certain suspects with both the knowledge, the motive and the ability. Did Taylor say "Brian told me..." ? No. But it didn't say it wasn't Brian either.

And yes, this has become the BB equivalent of the vexed theological topic of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?".

When did you lose your passion for researching and peeling back layer after layer to possibly answer a lingering question? Whatever I may wish, hope, or desire to be the answer (and to suggest that is playing down to Micha's level of discourse as of late)...it means nothing in terms of actually finding an answer. Which is precisely what I thought you actually enjoyed about this whole game called the history of The Beach Boys.

If Brian was or wasn't the source, I could care less. I'd like to know how all this came together, and make some sense of it for the sake of the history. If you cannot understand that or choose to level claims instead, that's your burden to carry as a historian who quit the pursuit before finding the answer no one else has found. Go on suppositions instead.

But - Did it not stand out that neither Mike, nor Bruce, had as definitive an answer as some posters in this thread who say if not insist it was Brian Wilson who tipped off Taylor?

Andrew. Base level, common sense and logic. If you found out your fellow band member who had been producing the album you and your band mates have been touting and talking up to the UK press apparently has decided to scrap the album - That album you just announced he was home working on, which you had been working on for months - Do you honestly think not one of them would have tried to confirm with that band member the news as printed in a UK weekly paper?

Or, if they did in fact know as posters like Cam Mott have suggested that Brian scrapped it sometime in March or April (which I don't buy at all but will use just for this example), wouldn't someone along the line have mention that Brian told Taylor? Or that he made it known earlier that the album was not happening?

Seriously, I thought researching an unanswered or lingering question was the whole point, not closing the book based on nothing but assumptions and falling short of a definitive answer when it's this close in the name of shutting down the discussions.

[Andrew G. Doe]

It's not anything like close. Precisely two names have been eliminated. I'm pursuing another avenue of possible opportunity. As for the rest, I'll get back to it when I've spare time tomorrow afternoon... but I lost a good slice of my passion for the band in general following the shenanigans of recent months, and that's all I'm saying about that.

[Matt Bielewicz]

I think all sides of this debate are somewhat futile at this remove (like trying to count angels on a pin, as Andrew says). The word of Mike and Bruce nearly five decades on cannot surely be said to count for much, and I really don't mean that as a slight on them, merely that we all know how fallible the human memory can be even a couple of years later, particularly over contentious periods of history such as SMiLE. The one thing we can safely conclude from the contemporary accounts coming out of the group in Spring 1967 is that the situation was very fluid and prone to changing very fast (hence "all 12 tracks are ready to go" being the PR message one week, and "the album is SCRAPPED" coming out a few days later). It must have been pretty confusing what was going on even if you were in the group during that period. Add to that the fact that most of the group was on tour then and away from what was happening (or not happening) in California. Even if we had on record detailed inteviews from each of the Beach Boys about what was going on during that time, which of course we don't, I'm not sure one could get a completely clear picture of what was happening to SMiLE. Now, nearly half a century later, the quest for such clarity from fragmentary press reports written by third-party PR people and the half-rememberings of septuagenarians 49 years later is surely pretty hopeless?

The memory often cheats... particularly around big, important turning points, even if there's no particular agenda or axe to grind. The author Douglas Adams used to say he came up with the idea for his best-selling book The Hitch-Hikers Guide To The Galaxy while lying drunk in a field (on a hitch-hiking tour of Europe) in Innsbruck in 1971, but by the late 80s he was happy to admit that he couldn't actually remember the original inspiration at all. All he could remember was that he had told that story about lying in a field in Innsbruck in interviews so many times, that he felt it must have originally been the truth, but he couldn't be sure. He knew he went hitch-hiking in 1971, and he knew he went to Innsbruck, but he couldn't remember any more detail, just his memory of telling the story so many times.

Now imagine being Mike. You've been asked to pore over the SMiLE album and how it didn't come out so many times by journalists... for 49 years. Could anyone have retained a clear memory of the events, unsullied by the memory of the subsequent disappointing course of events and personal disasters in the Beach Boys' camp?

I would submit (although this is of course speculation like anyone else's) that you would gradually arrive at a version of what happened in your head, and it would be that which you would then trot out when called upon to do so by the press, or whoever. I'm not even saying that version would be wrong or distorted, although I think it could be.

And just for emphasis — I am not bashing Mike here. I think anyone would do the same; I think it's human nature. Hell, I think I HAVE done the same, about various important events in my life. Sometimes, it can be a shock when you compare your version of events to that of someone else you know who lived through the same things...! And of course, this can be particularly so in the case of chaotic fast-changing events where a lot of people had different opinions about what was happening, even back when they were actually happening.

[Cam Mott]

It seems to me the mistake being made is an assumption that the announcement was a surprise to any of the Boys.  An assumption from none of them reacting the way it is thought they should to this supposed surprise.  

The May announcement wasn't a surprise to any of them is a reason. They already knew is a reason, as in Brian's witness to KHJ of the Boys' (negative) reaction when he revealed he was junking Surf's Up and other SMiLE songs.

The Boys would know who told them but apparently wouldn't necessarily know who told Taylor. It is Taylor's announcement and he named who his info about Brian's continuing problems with SMiLE came from in his June 3 column and it was from "prolonged talks" with Brian.

Taylor said his April/May info came from prolonged talks with Brian (and it was all about Brian's feelings and quandary) and Brian says he told the Boys he was scrapping the SMiLE songs (and they weren't in favor).  

[The_Holy_Bee]

Interesting to see how the debate has progressed. A few thoughts, for what they're worth, and out of order:

It seems to me the mistake being made is an assumption that the announcement was a surprise to any of the Boys.  An assumption from none of them reacting the way it is thought they should to this supposed surprise.  

The May announcement wasn't a surprise to any of them is a reason. They already knew is a reason, as in Brian's witness to KHJ of the Boys' (negative) reaction when he revealed he was junking Surf's Up and other SMiLE songs.

Here's the full quote, often employed in Ancient Times (c. 2002) to support the other side of the argument (ie. the band almost broke up because Brian wanted to put 'those songs' on an album, despite any close reading of the text):

"The song "Surf's Up" that I sang on 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... because... I, don't know why... for some reason, didn't want to put them on the album.  And the group nearly broke up, actually broke up for good after that." [1968]

Back that up with the sessionography issues I've been harping on about a few pages back: Brian could theoretically have gotten the leads recorded for a number of album tracks in early '67 (DYLW, CE, CFTM), but he didn't. For almost a full month (March '67) no recording took place at all, despite the fact the Boys were in town and had recently been willing to go through two month's work of sessions on one individual track (H&V), for a single release that kept being postponed, and then (for three months) cancelled. This all implies - much as I believe the straightforward testimony of VDP that 'certain members' of the band were opposed to the work he and Brian were doing, and that this was instrumental in Brian not completing the record - that the final decision was Brian's, and that other members of the group weren't necessarily aware of this decision initially. And, indeed, were upset by the amount of money and time devoted to a record that would never see the shelves when the decision was made clear to them. The quotes given by both GF from April/May - 'our best isn't ready yet' - and Cam from June and later (ie. Mike not knowing that the album's title had changed; that he was 'just a singer' on the project) are actually in accord when viewed through this prism.

Let's stick to what we know: an article published in early May from the band's press officer states Smile is scrapped. Fact. And as far as anyone knows, none of the band ever commented on it, nor did any subsequent interviewer ask them about it. Maybe, as unlikely as it seems, they simply didn't read it. Possibly, someone did read it, thought "Brian's at it again" and promptly forgot about it. Fact, no-one knows, and at this late remove, probably never will. But if you're looking for who may have told Taylor - assuming anyone did and he didn't just pull it out of thin air, and remember, he's got previous in this - there are certain suspects with both the knowledge, the motive and the ability. Did Taylor say "Brian told me..." ? No. But it didn't say it wasn't Brian either.

Fact. Or, indeed, facts. Which isn't to say there aren't alternative interpretations of the data, but nothing quoted above is anything other than fact. The prerogative of the debater is to disprove it, using other data. But I probably don't need to point that out.

I agree. To me SMiLE started transitioning like in January and sometime between then and April 4 SMiLE stopped and Smiley began.  The first Smiley sessions sound more like the recent SMiLE recordings because that's still how and where he was recording at the time (studios & Wrecking Crew). The later Smiley tracks sound the way they do because that's how and where they were recording at that time (improvised home studio and just themselves).  

I agree that January seems like the practical point of transition. Conceptually I'd say mid-to-late December was more likely the moment of abandonment for the original conception, but that might just be me. I'd argue, further, that a large part of the reason general opinion holds the April sessions as still part of 'Smile' proper is because for so long we've had a more musically realised 'Vegetables', etc, that hail from those dates, as opposed to the poor orphaned 'demo' that all data from '66 suggests was at one point considered the definitive article. The TSS box certainly endorses those later 'single release' sessions as being for an authentic 'Smile' version of the song. On what historical basis, outside of convenience, I think remains unclear, if not deliberately so.

But to go back to the OP (OMP):

- Water (in 1966, at least) was water sounds that the Vosse Posse recorded on their Nagra reels

And to Matt B's response (which I, incidentally, agreed with):

[/Weeeeeeellll... we don't know that, either. With the other Elements, you've got something, however sketchy... But we don't know ANYTHING at all about Water.

I bought the kindle version of Carlin, recently, as a result of this thread. A great, thoroughly researched read, though some of the Smile stuff did strike me as a little assumptive (it's taken as a matter of course, for instance, that the 'Bicycle Rider' chorus was part of H&V when Van Dyke and Brian first worked on it, and only later was recycled into 'Worms'. All the period evidence suggests the opposite, unless I'm missing something important, which is quite possible.) But it does have this statement from Mike Vosse - not a period recollection, perhaps, but surely worth note in relation to the thread-starting discussion of the Elements:

'The next day he gave me a really nice Nagra tape recorder, a big reel-to-reel job that you could use to record in sync with a motion picture camera, and sent me out to go around town and record water sounds. He explained that part of the new album would be a suite of elements, and so he wanted as many variations of how water can sound as I could come up with. He said, 'Take your time, go to oceans, streams, whatever.' So I did, and it was exhilarating! I'd come by to see him every day, and he'd listen to my tapes and talk about them. I was just fascinated that he would hear things every once in a while and his ears would prick up and he'd go back and listen again. And I had no idea what he was listening for!"

That's a direct connection, made by a key participant, between 'The Elements' and the Fusion-recalled/'Bob Gordon's Real Trip' water recordings, if I'm not mistaken?

To finish up on this note, here's Anderle talking to Paul Williams in 1968:

'We were aware, he made us aware, of what fire was going to be, and what water was going to be; we had some idea of air.'

[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.

Cool. Note whose name they didn't mention as the source.

"No idea" who told Taylor the album was scrapped, direct from two Beach Boys who were there. I assume having no idea who told Taylor excludes Brian as Taylor's source as well.

You're making an entirely unwarranted assumption. "No idea" means just that. As Micha rightly points out, certainly doesn't exclude Brian, however much you might want it to

Assuming too, that at least a trans-Atlantic phone call to Bel Air once they did get word of Taylor's article would have been made to ask something as simple as "what's going on?"...

Suddenly the air is thick with flying assumptions. Let's stick to what we know: an article published in early May from the band's press officer states Smile is scrapped. Fact. And as far as anyone knows, none of the band ever commented on it, nor did any subsequent interviewer ask them about it. Maybe, as unlikely as it seems, they simply didn't read it. Possibly, someone did read it, thought "Brian's at it again" and promptly forgot about it. Fact, no-one knows, and at this late remove, probably never will. But if you're looking for who may have told Taylor - assuming anyone did and he didn't just pull it out of thin air, and remember, he's got previous in this - there are certain suspects with both the knowledge, the motive and the ability. Did Taylor say "Brian told me..." ? No. But it didn't say it wasn't Brian either.

And yes, this has become the BB equivalent of the vexed theological topic of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?".

˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜

GF - Andrew's arithmetic is worse than mine.  There are four (two who cannot respond - Dennis and Carl.)  

Sticking to some "facts" (I am using that very word very loosely and without confidence) there are not one, but two PR people involved; Taylor and Easterby.  

Conduct of the parties is key, here, because we don't have reliable words upon which to rely.  I looked at a couple of SMiLE (2011) Sessions videos earlier - the black and white sessions on YouTube, for promos.  I looked for facial expressions when singing, Carl, working with Brian at the piano, and the general level of enthusiasm which appears high.  

1 - And, I looked at them for evidence of attitude towards the project, with the filter of "Do these guys like or love" what they are doing?  

2-  Do they look as they are just "going through the motions?"

3 - Are they blowing off the reporters with regard the release of Smile, because they have something to hide (actual knowledge of the scrapped project?)
     If they had something to hide or keep quiet, there would not be positive enthusiasm for the project and release.  Are their responses measured and scripted?  I think not. They
     appear to have the same unified position expressed in their own styles and perspectives.

This is reminding me of that old Venn diagram, with two circles with the entire band in the center, with factions on either side. They seem to have a "constant" in the center,  meaning they are still going forward with this project, and there are other forces who are changing the status quo from outside the inner circle.  

Singing on this work is hardly passive participation.  It it the match for the vision Brian had as he wrote for those voices.  

Andrew #432 - "The interviews very strongly suggest that the band were in the dark regarding Taylor's 6th statement.  Far from not commenting, they were actively promoting the album they thought was still forthcoming."

Actions that indicate they are all on the same page.  This is consistent.

Andrew - #456 - "But if you are looking for who may have told Taylor - assuming anyone did and he didn't just pull it out of thin air, and remember he's got previous (I don't know what that means) in this - there are certain suspects with both the knowledge, the motive and the ability."

Key words Andrew used here are "knowledge, motive and ability."  

But would Easterly be working under Taylor's name or credentials, for purposes of this tour?

This has nothing whatever to do with logic or theories. Someone had the power and desire to pull the plug.  And if we look to those interviews and videos, for the position of the band, their attitude going forward, to release this album appears to be consistently positive.  Why would they chuck months of labor on their first Brother album?    

JMHO  

[Jim V.]

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.

No "way" Andrew? Be sure to "alert" us to the "findings" of your "investigation."

However, I do find the need to "question" what this "film at eleven" is.

[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.

No "way" Andrew? Be sure to "alert" us to the "findings" of your "investigation."

However, I do find the need to "question" what this "film at eleven" is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_at_11

Hope that link works, dear.   

[Paul J B]

I think all sides of this debate are somewhat futile at this remove (like trying to count angels on a pin, as Andrew says). The word of Mike and Bruce nearly five decades on cannot surely be said to count for much, and I really don't mean that as a slight on them, merely that we all know how fallible the human memory can be even a couple of years later, particularly over contentious periods of history such as SMiLE. The one thing we can safely conclude from the contemporary accounts coming out of the group in Spring 1967 is that the situation was very fluid and prone to changing very fast (hence "all 12 tracks are ready to go" being the PR message one week, and "the album is SCRAPPED" coming out a few days later). It must have been pretty confusing what was going on even if you were in the group during that period. Add to that the fact that most of the group was on tour then and away from what was happening (or not happening) in California. Even if we had on record detailed inteviews from each of the Beach Boys about what was going on during that time, which of course we don't, I'm not sure one could get a completely clear picture of what was happening to SMiLE. Now, nearly half a century later, the quest for such clarity from fragmentary press reports written by third-party PR people and the half-rememberings of septuagenarians 49 years later is surely pretty hopeless?

Very well said. I tried to convey this yesterday but you did a much better job.

[filledeplage]

I think all sides of this debate are somewhat futile at this remove (like trying to count angels on a pin, as Andrew says). The word of Mike and Bruce nearly five decades on cannot surely be said to count for much, and I really don't mean that as a slight on them, merely that we all know how fallible the human memory can be even a couple of years later, particularly over contentious periods of history such as SMiLE. The one thing we can safely conclude from the contemporary accounts coming out of the group in Spring 1967 is that the situation was very fluid and prone to changing very fast (hence "all 12 tracks are ready to go" being the PR message one week, and "the album is SCRAPPED" coming out a few days later). It must have been pretty confusing what was going on even if you were in the group during that period. Add to that the fact that most of the group was on tour then and away from what was happening (or not happening) in California. Even if we had on record detailed inteviews from each of the Beach Boys about what was going on during that time, which of course we don't, I'm not sure one could get a completely clear picture of what was happening to SMiLE. Now, nearly half a century later, the quest for such clarity from fragmentary press reports written by third-party PR people and the half-rememberings of septuagenarians 49 years later is surely pretty hopeless?

Very well said. I tried to convey this yesterday but you did a much better job.

When I read that, I found it kind of shocking.  They are not senile.  They have amazing memories of events that took place in that era.  Prague Spring. 

That was such an unusual era, and set of events with Carl being arrested, released, Inside Pop, etc., that it seems very unlikely that they would not remember such an event as the scrapping of their first Brother album.   

[Bicyclerider]

Brian had previously "scrapped" Good Vibrations and thought about offering it to an R&B group - and reversed himself.  Brian was set on Heroes as the next single - then it was on hold for a few records and Vegetables was the single - then he scrapped that version of Vegetables and completed the Heroes single.

The point is the Beach Boys knew Brian's mood swings and indecision concerning the music he was making.  If they read the article about Smile being scrapped, I don't think they would comment on it because they knew that could be temporary and Brian could change his mind, again.  The weird thing to me is why, after the publication of the article in the UK and they continuing to tour there, why some journalist wouldn't have asked them about the scrapped pronouncement.  Were the journalists also unaware of this brief paragraph in the article about the tour?  And if they were unaware, it's not a stretch to think the Boys never saw it either.

[Paul J B]

I think all sides of this debate are somewhat futile at this remove (like trying to count angels on a pin, as Andrew says). The word of Mike and Bruce nearly five decades on cannot surely be said to count for much, and I really don't mean that as a slight on them, merely that we all know how fallible the human memory can be even a couple of years later, particularly over contentious periods of history such as SMiLE. The one thing we can safely conclude from the contemporary accounts coming out of the group in Spring 1967 is that the situation was very fluid and prone to changing very fast (hence "all 12 tracks are ready to go" being the PR message one week, and "the album is SCRAPPED" coming out a few days later). It must have been pretty confusing what was going on even if you were in the group during that period. Add to that the fact that most of the group was on tour then and away from what was happening (or not happening) in California. Even if we had on record detailed inteviews from each of the Beach Boys about what was going on during that time, which of course we don't, I'm not sure one could get a completely clear picture of what was happening to SMiLE. Now, nearly half a century later, the quest for such clarity from fragmentary press reports written by third-party PR people and the half-rememberings of septuagenarians 49 years later is surely pretty hopeless?

Very well said. I tried to convey this yesterday but you did a much better job.

When I read that, I found it kind of shocking.  They are not senile.  They have amazing memories of events that took place in that era.  Prague Spring. 

That was such an unusual era, and set of events with Carl being arrested, released, Inside Pop, etc., that it seems very unlikely that they would not remember such an event as the scrapping of their first Brother album.   

I totally disagree. You folks are trying to get to the bottom of a who said what to some guy 50 years ago. Good luck with that! It has nothing to do with being senile. I'm no celebrity or rock star nor would I ever want to be....the whirlwind insane lifestyle those people live is hard to imagine. Why do you think the vast majority DO end up using drugs? Go Go Go, sign this sign that, talk to this guy talk to that guy....they are NOT going to remember most of what they said to someone last year let alone 50 years back. You are just plain wrong on this.

[filledeplage]

I think all sides of this debate are somewhat futile at this remove (like trying to count angels on a pin, as Andrew says). The word of Mike and Bruce nearly five decades on cannot surely be said to count for much, and I really don't mean that as a slight on them, merely that we all know how fallible the human memory can be even a couple of years later, particularly over contentious periods of history such as SMiLE. The one thing we can safely conclude from the contemporary accounts coming out of the group in Spring 1967 is that the situation was very fluid and prone to changing very fast (hence "all 12 tracks are ready to go" being the PR message one week, and "the album is SCRAPPED" coming out a few days later). It must have been pretty confusing what was going on even if you were in the group during that period. Add to that the fact that most of the group was on tour then and away from what was happening (or not happening) in California. Even if we had on record detailed inteviews from each of the Beach Boys about what was going on during that time, which of course we don't, I'm not sure one could get a completely clear picture of what was happening to SMiLE. Now, nearly half a century later, the quest for such clarity from fragmentary press reports written by third-party PR people and the half-rememberings of septuagenarians 49 years later is surely pretty hopeless?

Very well said. I tried to convey this yesterday but you did a much better job.

When I read that, I found it kind of shocking.  They are not senile.  They have amazing memories of events that took place in that era.  Prague Spring. 

That was such an unusual era, and set of events with Carl being arrested, released, Inside Pop, etc., that it seems very unlikely that they would not remember such an event as the scrapping of their first Brother album.   

I totally disagree. You folks are trying to get to the bottom of a who said what to some guy 50 years ago. Good luck with that! It has nothing to do with being senile. I'm no celebrity or rock star nor would I ever want to be....the whirlwind insane lifestyle those people live is hard to imagine. Why do you think the vast majority DO end up using drugs? Go Go Go, sign this sign that, talk to this guy talk to that guy....they are NOT going to remember most of what they said to someone last year let alone 50 years back. You are just plain wrong on this.

Paul JB - that is exactly the opposite.  This whole myth of the destruction or scrapping of Smile was propaganda dropped in the laps of the band.  For me (and I am only speaking for myself) something never fit right with it. It didn't make any sense to have this enormous build-up with Inside Pop, and drop Smile all at the same time. 

After some robust debate (some contentious, but very productive) and digging, for inconsistencies in stories or articles, with no really negative and counter productive talk about drugs, and just the music, we know a lot more from exchanging on this forum. 

We know, now, there was more than one publicist was involved.  We know that the tour was a TIKH tour.  We know that the public statements about the tour by the band including Brian, Mike and Bruce were negative and that the public statements from all the band were uniformly positive.  We know what they said in Paris (Gaumont.)  We know what Dennis said to Peter Fornatale.  We know how happy they look during the recording of Smile.  It does not square in any credible manner (for me) with the nonsense that was advanced by their PR people.

So, I am thinking (just for myself) that there is real progress debunking this blame-game, that was spread to perhaps every member of the band, where they were blameless.  The stories out there are inconsistent and don't pass the smell-test.  (Mine, anyway) JMHO       

[guitarfool2002]

Back that up with the sessionography issues I've been harping on about a few pages back: Brian could theoretically have gotten the leads recorded for a number of album tracks in early '67 (DYLW, CE, CFTM), but he didn't. For almost a full month (March '67) no recording took place at all, despite the fact the Boys were in town and had recently been willing to go through two month's work of sessions on one individual track (H&V), for a single release that kept being postponed, and then (for three months) cancelled. This all implies - much as I believe the straightforward testimony of VDP that 'certain members' of the band were opposed to the work he and Brian were doing, and that this was instrumental in Brian not completing the record - that the final decision was Brian's, and that other members of the group weren't necessarily aware of this decision initially. And, indeed, were upset by the amount of money and time devoted to a record that would never see the shelves when the decision was made clear to them. The quotes given by both GF from April/May - 'our best isn't ready yet' - and Cam from June and later (ie. Mike not knowing that the album's title had changed; that he was 'just a singer' on the project) are actually in accord when viewed through this prism.

The issue of "no recording took place at all" for almost a full month was addressed a few pages ago.

For all of this, you cannot ignore the lawsuit and its implications over the recording process. If the band went public after filing a lawsuit which also included the notion of wanting to break their contract with Capitol, another article already published how the lawsuit was holding up any new releases. And it was suggested too that the Heroes single at this time may have been used as a bargaining chip in the negotiations, as well as the decision to have Vegetables as a single and drop hints in the press.

A lawsuit against a label such as this might also impact the budgeting and funding of the sessions.

Question, more in theory: Would a label continue funding recording sessions for a band in the weeks after that band announced they were suing the label and wanted to get out of their contract?

Question, more in fact: Who paid for the April sessions such as Vegetables? Did Capitol pay for that studio time or did the band pay the studio bills and book the sessions without Capitol? Is there documentation to answer that question specific to the Vegetables sessions in April?


And such definitive statements are being made when there are potentially articles from May 67 that have not been entered into the discussion as of yet, which may (or may not) shed more light on what the band was saying in light of the announcement, or saying about an album or single release in general.

I don't understand the rush to close all the books and move on when there are still potentially articles or interviews direct from May 67 which have not been considered up to this point, like those Ian Rusten mentioned a few days ago. *Why* is there a rush to shut this down or make a definitive factual statement when all the available evidence has still not been presented or made available for more people to see and read? That's upsetting in a way. Again, why is this the case here?

[CenturyDeprived]

We know, now, there was more than one publicist was involved.  We know that the tour was a TIKH tour.  We know that the public statements about the tour by the band including Brian, Mike and Bruce were negative and that the public statements from all the band were uniformly positive.  We know what they said in Paris (Gaumont.)  We know what Dennis said to Peter Fornatale.  We know how happy they look during the recording of Smile.  It does not square in any credible manner (for me) with the nonsense that was advanced by their PR people.

So, I am thinking (just for myself) that there is real progress debunking this blame-game, that was spread to perhaps every member of the band, where they were blameless.  The stories out there are inconsistent and don't pass the smell-test.  (Mine, anyway) JMHO        

Regarding the footage: firstly, the footage of the Boys was surely staged. They knew the cameras were rolling. Of course they were gonna put on smiles. Just like a photo session. Doesn't mean they never smiled during the album, but it proves zilch about the general frame of mind. I bet there were no smiles when Mike confronted Van about Cabinessence lyrics... unless you might count nervous smiles ("smiles" that I've seen both Mike and Brian make over the years) as actual "happy" smiles?

Secondly, I believe the footage in question you are referring to is Good Vibrations, right? This is a song where Mike already (presumably) had songwriting input at the time this was filmed, so right off the bat, he (just for one) was likely going to be happier working on that tune, more so than tunes that were EVEN MORE “out there”. Not that GV wasn’t “out there” too, but there were much more extreme examples of “out there”  songs on that project that would have probably led to irksome facial expressions at the very least.

Bottom line: it’s preposterous IMO to judge that video as some sort of barometer for the final story of how Brian’s bandmates were or weren’t giving him bad vibes. Ditto for session tapes. Those are but a glimpse of the interactions the guys had together at the time.

How about you address the possibility of microagressions?  I politely ask you to not ignore this request. Microagressions are not negligible, and I don’t know why a small contingent of people illogically insist it’s impossible that they could have repeatedly been unloaded on Brian in all sorts of small ways that could have built up over the course of the project.

I’m not saying that’s the entire reason it was scrapped either – however, cumulative bandmate microagressions aimed at Brian about the SMiLE project are just not something that can be written off as absolutely not in any way, shape or form relevant to his frame of mind at the time.  That makes no sense. A project that took an eternity to work on (and never got completed) involving all sorts of weird stuff, animal noises, non-commercial songs, etc. was of COURSE gonna make some bandmates pissed and non-supportive AT SOME POINTS ALONG THE WAY. People don't hold emotions like that in 100%; those emotions were gonna leak out. They were and are human, and in the case of at least one band member, not necessarily the likely recipient of the 1966 Tact Award®.

[mike moseley]

you can never get to the bottom of it

you're talking about a dude who kept changing his mind  + normal human miscommunication

[SMiLE Brian]

CD and GF are ruling thread with logic/truth!

[CenturyDeprived]

CD and GF are ruling thread with logic/truth!

Thanks, SMiLE Brian. One thing you will NEVER find certain posters actually addressing with a 10-foot pole is how it’s completely illogical to state that bandmate microagressions absolutely, unequivocally didn’t happen WHATSOEVER, and/or if they did happen, they had ZERO effect on Brian’s state of mind.  (*Everyone* knows this extremist ideology is bogus, but some don't want to admit it because it hurts their all-important "cause").  What a laugh to either support this theory directly, or indirectly by ducking the question.

No, those posters will deflect, avoid, or just completely opt out of actually addressing this.  The term chickensh*t comes to mind.

Despite his amazing strength, Brian has proven he can be a very sensitive guy, and is not 100% immune to bandmate microagressions like that. Especially intermingled with familial microagressions.

Hell, who would be immune? Not many people.