gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680601 Posts in 27601 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 29, 2024, 03:40:00 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Fall Breaks & Back to Winter  (Read 18820 times)
yonderhillside
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 178



View Profile
« Reply #50 on: January 23, 2016, 07:11:55 AM »

I wish that the Boys had put out a time-buying album in the wake of Pet Sounds, in the way Party!! bought Brian some time before Pet Sounds was completed. I agree with the idea that Smiley is Smile even though it's miles from Smile. Another back to basics album, with Mike's lyrical input, even, that took minimal time to string together but spent plenty of weeks on the charts, could have bought Brian a whole extra several months to bring Smile to fully realised maturation. That might even have eased the band's feeling that Brian was getting along without them …


Wasn't there, more or less, an initial plan to have Smiley Smile be exactly that, the Party! of Smile, and then release a version of Smile in later '67 omitting H&V and GV and maybe other tracks? In all honesty I think I just saw that in this, or perhaps a different thread.
Logged
LostArt
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 914



View Profile
« Reply #51 on: January 23, 2016, 07:17:53 AM »

I posted what follows about a year ago, but in an unfinished form.  Bought the original in September '67 and was perplexed and disappointed. This is the way I hear "Smiley" in 2016 and am amazed and delighted.


I have, filed away somewhere, an article entitled “Smiley Smile is Smile,” written by I can’t remember who and don’t know when, but posted somewhere on-line sometime around the year 2000, plus or minus 4 or five years before or after.

OK, so there’s my bow to the citation gods, but what follows is not really about that article.

Well, yes it is, insofar as what I’m about here takes the idea that Smiley was not merely a poor substitute, but in fact a perfectly logical, internally consistent, culmination of the Smile project. And that as released was poorly mastered, improperly sequenced and, despite the fact that all the pieces were readily at hand, inexplicably incomplete.

For those who haven't read the essay, here is a link to "Smiley Smile IS Smile"...

http://earcandy_mag.tripod.com/rrcase-2.htm

« Last Edit: January 23, 2016, 07:23:35 AM by LostArt » Logged
LostArt
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 914



View Profile
« Reply #52 on: January 23, 2016, 07:21:48 AM »

I wish that the Boys had put out a time-buying album in the wake of Pet Sounds, in the way Party!! bought Brian some time before Pet Sounds was completed. I agree with the idea that Smiley is Smile even though it's miles from Smile. Another back to basics album, with Mike's lyrical input, even, that took minimal time to string together but spent plenty of weeks on the charts, could have bought Brian a whole extra several months to bring Smile to fully realised maturation. That might even have eased the band's feeling that Brian was getting along without them …


Wasn't there, more or less, an initial plan to have Smiley Smile be exactly that, the Party! of Smile, and then release a version of Smile in later '67 omitting H&V and GV and maybe other tracks? In all honesty I think I just saw that in this, or perhaps a different thread.

There was a memo from someone at Capitol (?) mentioning a 10 track Smile album to be released post Smiley.  Cam and others here know more about this, I'm sure.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #53 on: January 23, 2016, 08:12:17 AM »

Opinions are a dime a dozen. In this case, Smiley Smile *is* Smile? Nope. Never bought into that. That's unrealistic. Just listen to the tracks.

There was indeed a memo from '67 reprinted in LLVS that was indeed about a release of other Smile tracks post-Smiley, and the memo was about the booklets considering some of the titles in the original Smile booklet had already been released on Smiley. Nothing, obviously, ever came of this plan.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #54 on: January 23, 2016, 08:14:49 AM »

Keep in mind there was also a plan in Fall 1967 to have a collection of live tracks from the previous two years included on the Wild Honey album, but that too, obviously, never happened. For as much weight and value as the various memos and notes and tracklists might carry, they are basically a snapshot of a moment in time, or a plan on the table that particular week or even day. Plans change often in the business of making and releasing albums.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #55 on: January 23, 2016, 08:17:59 AM »

That might explain why Gettin Hungry was promoted and released as a "Brian Wilson and Mike Love" release instead of the Beach Boys.

That doesn't change the fact that it was on of side two of the Beach Boys album that followed Pet Sounds, where like the rest of the songs, it was credited to the Beach Boys.

My understanding is Brian and Mike wanted to release it as a single, and the other guys didn't, so they did it as "Brian and Mike". For the B-side, they picked a song that showcased their two-part harmony singing.

Only a slightly less bizarre WTF action than recording Teeter Totter Love a few months prior.

I find it hard to understand how either Brian or Mike would have wanted this tune released as a single. IMO, it seems like an act of desperation that Mike talked Brian into, since Mike has in years since, unlike Brian, gone on and on and on about the importance of the boy girl theme, how that theme was HIS idea for Good Vibrations ... It seems in character for him to remind the public of that fact in general, hence the unusual GH credit seem like a logical extension of that reminder.

Or, as it is established that Brian was the album and song's Producer, he wanted to remind the fans that even though they had a new label and their last single "only" went to #12, the Brian/Mike #1 making duo was still on the team. IMO.

You actually don't think Mike would have been a cheerleader for that type of credit?  That Mike *wouldn't* have wanted such a credit?  It was probably Brian's way of talking himself into the fact that the previous years' worth of work with VDP was a failure, not entirely dissimilar to Brian having Mike do that Heroes and Villains promo with the spoken word section about it being a nuclear bomb. The GH credit seems to be more about making a peacekeeping gesture, or trying to somehow smooth a rough patch over with Mike.  It is consistent with the type of talking Brian did where he called much of his experimental work "inappropriate".  A way to cover up his experimental "failure".
Logged
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: January 23, 2016, 08:35:06 AM »

That might explain why Gettin Hungry was promoted and released as a "Brian Wilson and Mike Love" release instead of the Beach Boys.

That doesn't change the fact that it was on of side two of the Beach Boys album that followed Pet Sounds, where like the rest of the songs, it was credited to the Beach Boys.

My understanding is Brian and Mike wanted to release it as a single, and the other guys didn't, so they did it as "Brian and Mike". For the B-side, they picked a song that showcased their two-part harmony singing.

Only a slightly less bizarre WTF action than recording Teeter Totter Love a few months prior.

I find it hard to understand how either Brian or Mike would have wanted this tune released as a single. IMO, it seems like an act of desperation that Mike talked Brian into, since Mike has in years since, unlike Brian, gone on and on and on about the importance of the boy girl theme, how that theme was HIS idea for Good Vibrations ... It seems in character for him to remind the public of that fact in general, hence the unusual GH credit seem like a logical extension of that reminder.

Or, as it is established that Brian was the album and song's Producer, he wanted to remind the fans that even though they had a new label and their last single "only" went to #12, the Brian/Mike #1 making duo was still on the team. IMO.

You actually don't think Mike would have been a cheerleader for that type of credit?  That Mike *wouldn't* have wanted such a credit?  It was probably Brian's way of talking himself into the fact that the previous years' worth of work with VDP was a failure, not entirely dissimilar to Brian having Mike do that Heroes and Villains promo with the spoken word section about it being a nuclear bomb. The GH credit seems to be more about making a peacekeeping gesture, or trying to somehow smooth a rough patch over with Mike.  It is consistent with the type of talking Brian did where he called much of his experimental work "inappropriate".  A way to cover up his experimental "failure".

Mike may have been in favor of Brian's desire for GH but that is a far cry from what you are hypothesizing.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #57 on: January 23, 2016, 08:41:13 AM »

Several notable peacekeeping gestures were made in 1967.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #58 on: January 23, 2016, 08:45:02 AM »

Several notable peacekeeping gestures were made in 1967.

Brian broke his promise to Mike by not recording the Pet Sounds follow up with him as the primary lyricist. I don't see how GH's credit, or the entire songwriting of the WH album, weren't - at least in part - both peacekeeping gestures, and Brian's attempt to make things up to Mike for Brian's pesky habit of breaking promises.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2016, 08:46:43 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: January 23, 2016, 08:51:46 AM »

Several notable peacekeeping gestures were made in 1967.

Brian broke his promise to Mike by not recording the Pet Sounds follow up with him as the primary lyricist. I don't see how GH's credit, or the entire songwriting of the WH album, weren't - at least in part - both peacekeeping gestures, and Brian's attempt to make things up to Mike for Brian's pesky habit of breaking promises.

Or just Brian's desire to work with Mike on the music Brian wanted to make.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #60 on: January 23, 2016, 08:57:32 AM »

Several notable peacekeeping gestures were made in 1967.

Brian broke his promise to Mike by not recording the Pet Sounds follow up with him as the primary lyricist. I don't see how GH's credit, or the entire songwriting of the WH album, weren't - at least in part - both peacekeeping gestures, and Brian's attempt to make things up to Mike for Brian's pesky habit of breaking promises.

Or just Brian's desire to work with Mike on the music Brian wanted to make.

Is there a source for the way that song came together which you're referencing, Cam? Or is it just your take on it?
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #61 on: January 23, 2016, 08:59:27 AM »

Several notable peacekeeping gestures were made in 1967.

Brian broke his promise to Mike by not recording the Pet Sounds follow up with him as the primary lyricist. I don't see how GH's credit, or the entire songwriting of the WH album, weren't - at least in part - both peacekeeping gestures, and Brian's attempt to make things up to Mike for Brian's pesky habit of breaking promises.

Or just Brian's desire to work with Mike on the music Brian wanted to make.

I'm not saying it's impossible that Brian had that desire rekindled… But don't you think Brian also felt he had to make things up to Mike for breaking promises? Do you in any way assume that Mike was quiet about reminding Brian of that fact?

 Seriously here… You don't think that Brian could have remotely for the slightest moment felt a sense of obligation? You think it's clear cut and black-and-white like that? Let's all admit there are shades of gray here. Maybe a sense of obligation wasn't the deciding factor, but let's not pretend that it's something that didn't exist in any way shape or form whatsoever.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2016, 09:11:47 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: January 23, 2016, 09:22:10 AM »

Several notable peacekeeping gestures were made in 1967.

Brian broke his promise to Mike by not recording the Pet Sounds follow up with him as the primary lyricist. I don't see how GH's credit, or the entire songwriting of the WH album, weren't - at least in part - both peacekeeping gestures, and Brian's attempt to make things up to Mike for Brian's pesky habit of breaking promises.

Or just Brian's desire to work with Mike on the music Brian wanted to make.

I'm not saying it's impossible that Brian had that desire rekindled… But don't you think Brian also felt he had to make things up to Mike for breaking promises? Do you in any way assume that Mike was quiet about reminding Brian of that fact?

 Seriously here… You don't think that Brian could have remotely for the slightest moment felt a sense of obligation? You think it's clear cut and black-and-white like that? Let's all admit there are shades of gray here. Maybe a sense of obligation wasn't the deciding factor, but let's not pretend that it's something that didn't factor in whatsoever.

Considering the reported previous history of Brian's keeping of promises to Mike, I have no reason to think it was a reason or a concern. Especially since Mike has said he was in fact very supportive of PS and we have actual recordings of Mike being supportive of SMiLE and also since Brian and Mike seem to have shared the same concerns with the particular SMiLE tracks Brian self-admittedly unilaterally dumped for his reasons. So to me these long touted conjectures are red herrings. IMO I think it much more likely that Brian realized that most of their greatest commercial success was in collabs with Mike and that was a strength to play to, especially with a new label. We can agree to disagree.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #63 on: January 23, 2016, 09:25:35 AM »

Cam, is there a source for your info on how Gettin Hungry came together, or is it just your own conjecture?
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: January 23, 2016, 09:29:47 AM »

Cam, is there a source for your info on how Gettin Hungry came together, or is it just your own conjecture?

I don't believe I gave any info on how GH came together and I clearly id-ed my conjecture about it I think. Was there something in particular?
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #65 on: January 23, 2016, 09:33:13 AM »

Cam, is there a source for your info on how Gettin Hungry came together, or is it just your own conjecture?

I don't believe I gave any info on how GH came together and I clearly id-ed my conjecture about it I think. Was there something in particular?

Or just Brian's desire to work with Mike on the music Brian wanted to make.

It sounds like you knew who pitched the song and how it came together with a comment like this. Wondering if you had seen or heard another source that detailed the song's origins.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #66 on: January 23, 2016, 09:38:33 AM »

Several notable peacekeeping gestures were made in 1967.

Brian broke his promise to Mike by not recording the Pet Sounds follow up with him as the primary lyricist. I don't see how GH's credit, or the entire songwriting of the WH album, weren't - at least in part - both peacekeeping gestures, and Brian's attempt to make things up to Mike for Brian's pesky habit of breaking promises.

Or just Brian's desire to work with Mike on the music Brian wanted to make.

I'm not saying it's impossible that Brian had that desire rekindled… But don't you think Brian also felt he had to make things up to Mike for breaking promises? Do you in any way assume that Mike was quiet about reminding Brian of that fact?

 Seriously here… You don't think that Brian could have remotely for the slightest moment felt a sense of obligation? You think it's clear cut and black-and-white like that? Let's all admit there are shades of gray here. Maybe a sense of obligation wasn't the deciding factor, but let's not pretend that it's something that didn't factor in whatsoever.

Considering the reported previous history of Brian's keeping of promises to Mike, I have no reason to think it was a reason or a concern. Especially since Mike has said he was in fact very supportive of PS and we have actual recordings of Mike being supportive of SMiLE and also since Brian and Mike seem to have shared the same concerns with the particular SMiLE tracks Brian self-admittedly unilaterally dumped for his reasons. So to me these long touted conjectures are red herrings. IMO I think it much more likely that Brian realized that most of their greatest commercial success was in collabs with Mike and that was a strength to play to, especially with a new label. We can agree to disagree.

Why does someone even make such a promise to somebody else in the band? Because that other person has made it clear that this is what their demands/requests are. For peacekeeping. For emotional reassurance. A confident, secure collaborator doesn't need to hear that kind of promise made to them. Just the same as 2012 - Mike currently mentions the broken promise ad naseum because he feels it's OWED to him because Brian PROMISED. Same as in 1967.

The 2012 broken promise wasn't a non-issue to Mike. It's VERY important for him to remind the world of how unacceptable it was for that promise to be broken. He's not repeatedly mentioning it for no reason. Mike has made it clear post 2012 how the TWGMTR promise was a KNOWN THING that was expected to be honored, right?

Even if Brian decided that he wanted to back to basics and write an album with Mike again (either in 1967 or 2012), doesn't mean that the knowledge of this expectation was somehow magically off Brian's radar.  
« Last Edit: January 23, 2016, 09:54:47 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: January 23, 2016, 09:43:09 AM »

Cam, is there a source for your info on how Gettin Hungry came together, or is it just your own conjecture?

I don't believe I gave any info on how GH came together and I clearly id-ed my conjecture about it I think. Was there something in particular?

Or just Brian's desire to work with Mike on the music Brian wanted to make.

It sounds like you knew who pitched the song and how it came together with a comment like this. Wondering if you had seen or heard another source that detailed the song's origins.

No, it's an extension of CD's speculating and later I expanded on it and called it my opinion.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: January 23, 2016, 09:56:07 AM »

Several notable peacekeeping gestures were made in 1967.

Brian broke his promise to Mike by not recording the Pet Sounds follow up with him as the primary lyricist. I don't see how GH's credit, or the entire songwriting of the WH album, weren't - at least in part - both peacekeeping gestures, and Brian's attempt to make things up to Mike for Brian's pesky habit of breaking promises.

Or just Brian's desire to work with Mike on the music Brian wanted to make.

I'm not saying it's impossible that Brian had that desire rekindled… But don't you think Brian also felt he had to make things up to Mike for breaking promises? Do you in any way assume that Mike was quiet about reminding Brian of that fact?

 Seriously here… You don't think that Brian could have remotely for the slightest moment felt a sense of obligation? You think it's clear cut and black-and-white like that? Let's all admit there are shades of gray here. Maybe a sense of obligation wasn't the deciding factor, but let's not pretend that it's something that didn't factor in whatsoever.

Considering the reported previous history of Brian's keeping of promises to Mike, I have no reason to think it was a reason or a concern. Especially since Mike has said he was in fact very supportive of PS and we have actual recordings of Mike being supportive of SMiLE and also since Brian and Mike seem to have shared the same concerns with the particular SMiLE tracks Brian self-admittedly unilaterally dumped for his reasons. So to me these long touted conjectures are red herrings. IMO I think it much more likely that Brian realized that most of their greatest commercial success was in collabs with Mike and that was a strength to play to, especially with a new label. We can agree to disagree.

Why does someone even make such a promise to somebody else in the band? Because that other person has made it clear that this is what their demands/requests are. For peacekeeping. For emotional reassurance. Just the same as 2012 - Mike currently mentions the broken promise ad naseum because he feels it's OWED to him because Brian PROMISED. Same as in 1967.

The 2012 broken promise wasn't a non-issue to Mike. It's VERY important for him to remind the world of how unacceptable it was for that promise to be broken. He's not repeatedly mentioning it for no reason.

Even if Brian decided that he wanted to back to basics and write an album with Mike again (either in 1967 or 2012), doesn't mean that the knowledge of this expectation was somehow off Brian's radar.  Mike has made it clear post 2012 how the promise was a KNOWN THING that was expected to be honored.

Someone who is having their way?  

And it doesn't mean any of it was either.

Since Mike was supportive of PS the promise was null I suppose and even if it were still in effect (which I doubt), since they seem to agree over the SMiLE tracks dumped, the promise was null again or kept, depending. If there were anything to apologize for I would think it would be Brian's claim that the band nearly broke up over Brian decision to dump some of the SMiLE songs. Those weren't Mike songs so I'm having trouble figuring out what Brian "owed" Mike for.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2016, 09:58:35 AM by Cam Mott » Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #69 on: January 23, 2016, 10:06:18 AM »

Several notable peacekeeping gestures were made in 1967.

Brian broke his promise to Mike by not recording the Pet Sounds follow up with him as the primary lyricist. I don't see how GH's credit, or the entire songwriting of the WH album, weren't - at least in part - both peacekeeping gestures, and Brian's attempt to make things up to Mike for Brian's pesky habit of breaking promises.

Or just Brian's desire to work with Mike on the music Brian wanted to make.

I'm not saying it's impossible that Brian had that desire rekindled… But don't you think Brian also felt he had to make things up to Mike for breaking promises? Do you in any way assume that Mike was quiet about reminding Brian of that fact?

 Seriously here… You don't think that Brian could have remotely for the slightest moment felt a sense of obligation? You think it's clear cut and black-and-white like that? Let's all admit there are shades of gray here. Maybe a sense of obligation wasn't the deciding factor, but let's not pretend that it's something that didn't factor in whatsoever.

Considering the reported previous history of Brian's keeping of promises to Mike, I have no reason to think it was a reason or a concern. Especially since Mike has said he was in fact very supportive of PS and we have actual recordings of Mike being supportive of SMiLE and also since Brian and Mike seem to have shared the same concerns with the particular SMiLE tracks Brian self-admittedly unilaterally dumped for his reasons. So to me these long touted conjectures are red herrings. IMO I think it much more likely that Brian realized that most of their greatest commercial success was in collabs with Mike and that was a strength to play to, especially with a new label. We can agree to disagree.

Why does someone even make such a promise to somebody else in the band? Because that other person has made it clear that this is what their demands/requests are. For peacekeeping. For emotional reassurance. Just the same as 2012 - Mike currently mentions the broken promise ad naseum because he feels it's OWED to him because Brian PROMISED. Same as in 1967.

The 2012 broken promise wasn't a non-issue to Mike. It's VERY important for him to remind the world of how unacceptable it was for that promise to be broken. He's not repeatedly mentioning it for no reason.

Even if Brian decided that he wanted to back to basics and write an album with Mike again (either in 1967 or 2012), doesn't mean that the knowledge of this expectation was somehow off Brian's radar.  Mike has made it clear post 2012 how the promise was a KNOWN THING that was expected to be honored.

Someone who is having their way?  

And it doesn't mean any of it was either.

Since Mike was supportive of PS the promise was null I suppose and even if it were still in effect (which I doubt), since they seem to agree over the SMiLE tracks dumped, the promise was null again or kept, depending. If there were anything to apologize for I would think it would be Brian's claim that the band nearly broke up over Brian decision to dump some of the SMiLE songs. Those weren't Mike songs so I'm having trouble figuring out what Brian "owed" Mike for.


Does that trouble figuring out what Brian "owed" Mike for extend to 2012? Hasn't Mike made it crystal clear that he was owed a 2012 Brian-Mike collaboration in a certain manner due to a promise of songwriting that was made?

And "the promise was null"... why do you think a promise was made in the first place? Someone doesn't just make a collaboration promise like that to someone for no reason at all. Even if you think the promise became invalid, it WAS made, and for a reason or two.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2016, 10:10:43 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #70 on: January 23, 2016, 10:07:20 AM »

Cam, have you ever made a list of what were "band" decisions and what were "Brian" decisions? There has to be a logic behind how you manage to compartmentalize these issues into one or the other depending on your take on the situation at hand. Once I remember you were suggesting the Maharishi tour in '68 was in the "Brian" decision column.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: January 23, 2016, 10:17:06 AM »

I posted what follows about a year ago, but in an unfinished form.  Bought the original in September '67 and was perplexed and disappointed. This is the way I hear "Smiley" in 2016 and am amazed and delighted.


I have, filed away somewhere, an article entitled “Smiley Smile is Smile,” written by I can’t remember who and don’t know when, but posted somewhere on-line sometime around the year 2000, plus or minus 4 or five years before or after.

OK, so there’s my bow to the citation gods, but what follows is not really about that article.

Well, yes it is, insofar as what I’m about here takes the idea that Smiley was not merely a poor substitute, but in fact a perfectly logical, internally consistent, culmination of the Smile project. And that as released was poorly mastered, improperly sequenced and, despite the fact that all the pieces were readily at hand, inexplicably incomplete.

An incomplete album, the pieces of which can now be brought together to reveal a coherent artistic statement, on a par with Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, which must remain the benchmark against which all others are measured.

Guitars have been almost wholly removed, producing a minimalist aesthetic that is nevertheless “musical” – these guys were not simply producing an aural account of their hash parties – although the sweet, dreamy aroma of hashish does indeed permeate

The 1967 production is muddy, the 2012 Stereo Remaster reveals, not a stoned out indulgence, but rather a masterwork.

Here then is Smiley as I believe it should have, and could have, been released:


 1. Well, You’re Welcome (Smile Sessions)
 2. Heros and Villains (2001 Stereo Mix) edit sections sequence from 1,2,3,4 to 1,3,2,4
 3. Wonderful (2012 Stereo)
 4. Gettin' Hungry (2012 Stereo) edit out 1st instru section to “I wake up in the morning…”
 5. You're With Me Tonight (Previously Unreleased)(Hawthorne)
 6. With Me Tonight (2012 Stereo)
 7. She's Goin' Bald (2012 Stereo)
 8. Whistle In (2012 Stereo)
 9. Good Vibrations (Concert Rehearsal) (Previously Unreleased) (Hawthorne)
10. Mama Says (2000 Wild Honey)
11. Vegetables (Stereo Extended Mix) (Previously Unreleased) (Hawthorne)
12. Wind Chimes (2012 Stereo)
13. Fall Breaks And Back To Winter (Woody Woodpecker Symphony) (2012 Stereo)
14. Cool, Cool Water (Track)/ Water [Stereo Mix] (Unsurpassed Masters)
15. Little Pad (2012 Stereo) edit out
16. Surf's Up (1967 Solo Version)(Bonus Track)(Smile Sessions)
17. Cabin Essence (Smile Sessions)
18. Cabin Essencence Tag (Unsurpassed Masters)

Running Time: 42:22


Well, You’re Welcome serves as a doormat greeting, inviting us to enter the Smiley reverie - and down the rabbit hole. Released as the flip-side to Heros and Villains.

Heros and Villains launches the listener off on a trip to the frontiers of the American psyche, circa 1967 and is thus perhaps best understood metaphorically. It’s start/stop structure has always bothered me, so rearranging the sections yields a nice flowing shuffle before introducing the music-box motif.

Carl’s whispering lead into Wonderful flows easily out of the dancing fade out of Heros as we turn inward, entering a kind of Alice in Wonderland scenario, with its veiled references and sexual allusions, the “god vibrations” interlude something like the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party.
 
Getting’ Hungry may have served as something of a joking jolt following the “whispering winds” on Side Two but when placed after Wonderful on Side One takes on a different, I don’t know, accent – Wood blocks over a repetitive whirligig organ line - tension and release, tension and release. Lop off the first section so the song begins with Mike intoning the words “Well I wake up in the morning…” The bass note that accompanies his first syllable is the same as the na-na-na-na-na that ends Wonderful. I see the claustrophobia of the work-a-day office world alternating with landscapes drawn from a spaghetti western – trippy.

You’re With Me Tonight “with a smile” provides a nice little break in the unfolding stream of melo-dramas, a peak of the band at work in the studio reminiscent of earlier such appearances. And, of course, the ensuing little ditty conjures visions of, how shall we say – oral contraception?
“On and on she go down-be-do-down – on and on you go.” Hmmm…

She’s Goin’ Bald – Psychedelic Coasters – what are they doing here I forget. Is it Little Egypt or Along Came Jones? I get dizzy just thinking of this tune.

Coming up for air - Whistle In – “remember the day-ay, remember the night-night, all day long” – WTF??? – what does it mean? Whatever, this sweet little chant bookends Well, You’re Welcome. Between the two are five boy-meets-girl songs, the standard subject of a pop-tune, all psychedelicized to reveal whole other dimensions of meaning. Hendrix said the BBs reminded him of a psychedelic barbershop quartet (quintet?) He must have been referring to Smiley.

The single most important change in this reconfiguration is the removal of the studio hit single version of Good Vibrations at the heart of the song cycle. The dry rehearsal in its place fits perfectly the minimalist aesthetic of the album, enlightening all that has preceded it and all that will follow. The boy/girl theme is elevated to the plane of cosmic consciousness – sex as the dance of the universe.                            

Mama Says’ childhood admonitions serves here as a grounding and short interlude between what might have been sides one and two had the album been fully realized.

Side Two leaves girl/boy concerns behind on a meander thru a Wonderland of psychic landscapes - The Elements. A 16 beat bass-note (from Hawthorne, appended here) provides a nice, and again, minimalist, intro to the suite – earth, air, fire and water - Vegetables, Wind Chimes, Fall Breaks and Cool Water. Lyrical content, such as it is, takes second place here to what can only be described as musical equivalents to impressionist paintings – gurgling, gulping, whooping, wavering, babbling, ornamental vocal filigree – interspersed, inter-cut and overlaying the barest of instrumentations – bass notes, woodblocks, bells. Who knew that Fall Breaks and Back to Winter (Woody Woodpecker Symphony) is in fact the legendary lost Fire from Smile, reduced to the flickering flame of a candle? And can anyone tell me the aural inspiration for Cool, Cool Water the purist of psychedelic vocal soundscapes? Was there an experimental “classical” composer working with such voicings whose work served as a model for these?

We surface, finally, within landfall and the refuge of a Little Pad “…in Hawaii,” but press on to the finale with, first, the portentous Surf’s Up, which pulls together, elevates and deepens all that has preceded, followed by the mysterious, majestic Cabinessence, which recapitulates and thus encloses all that intervened within the Americana theme initiated by Heros and Villains at the outset of the song cycle - a trip to the frontiers of the American psyche, circa 1967.

Nothing tops Cabinessence, which is perhaps the supreme masterwork in the Beach Boys’ catalogue.

Except perhaps a snippet of the fading vocal tag, minus vocals, that miraculously reveals a delicate Arabesque dancing as thru a window.

From all the above it can be seen that Smiley Smile was Smile, or the logical culmination of the experiments and explorations of the Smile sessions reduced to the barest minimum. The record suffered, however, by the fact that it was poorly mastered, improperly sequenced and, despite the fact that all the pieces were readily at hand, inexplicably incomplete.

To sum up:

The remastered 2012 stereo version of Smiley Smile reveals a beauty and delicacy that was lost or obscured in the muddy 67 release.

Of the missing pieces –

Well, You’re Welcome was complete, released as a flip-side but withheld from the album.

Good Vibrations rehearsal was in the can.

Alternate Vegatables was in the can.?

Mama Says is a Smile leftover released in this configuration on Wild Honey. But I’m not sure when this version was recorded.

Cool Water Chant is from the Wild Honey sessions, but hadn’t it first appeared during the Smile sessions.

Surf’s Up, from the WH sessions, works beautifully as a solo vocal/piano piece and took how long to record – 3 minutes?

Cabinessence was largely complete as the session tapes demonstrate, and might have been completed in relatively short order.

As for the sequencing – the record is a mess as released and thus incomprehensible. The addition of the missing pieces almost compel the sequencing outlined above to reveal – Smile - as it might have been.

TM - I think you are really on to something.  I always have believed that Smiley was the snapshot, of what should have been a double LP.  What I think is missing from your lineup is Our Prayer which I would have placed at the end, rather than the beginning and used Country Air, Can't Wait Too Long, Plymouth Rock and  Little Pad.  And, like you, I bought it when it was released.  Someone here suggested a Smiley sessions version - I would love that.  

But, I still think the artwork was all wrong for the release in the midst of all the psychedelic art work.  I think it was abstract but not psychedelic. And, I won't apologize for it's lack of curb appeal.  It does support the philosophy of "Don't judge a book by it's cover."  Wink
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #72 on: January 23, 2016, 10:25:24 AM »

It's nice to speculate and hypothesize but in terms of reality, just listen to the Smile Sessions box set and then listen to Smiley Smile and similarities go out the window very fast. It's all in the sounds on those respective recordings and the way they were created. Smiley Smile was its own creation with its own specific mood and outlook. It came from a different place. It is not Smile. I thought that had been more than sufficiently demonstrated by 2016 and with all we've been able to hear.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: January 23, 2016, 10:34:56 AM »

It's nice to speculate and hypothesize but in terms of reality, just listen to the Smile Sessions box set and then listen to Smiley Smile and similarities go out the window very fast. It's all in the sounds on those respective recordings and the way they were created. Smiley Smile was its own creation with its own specific mood and outlook. It came from a different place. It is not Smile. I thought that had been more than sufficiently demonstrated by 2016 and with all we've been able to hear.
GF - it is not so far from speculation.  Some of those tracks were released, or leaked out on various LPs,  pretty close in time to Smiley and a double LP in 1967, with a better cover than that green blob, might have given them all a run for their money. 

Who would have known the difference?  And while it does not have the comprehensiveness of Smile as released in 2011, the listeners would have been none the wiser.   Wink

And, GF, I am thinking from the listener's point of view and not the creator's. 
Logged
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: January 23, 2016, 10:38:25 AM »

Cam, have you ever made a list of what were "band" decisions and what were "Brian" decisions? There has to be a logic behind how you manage to compartmentalize these issues into one or the other depending on your take on the situation at hand. Once I remember you were suggesting the Maharishi tour in '68 was in the "Brian" decision column.

Generally, while Brian was the Producer (or whoever was Producer) he made those decisions is my opinion. Otherwise things were generally group decisions, probably often with deference to Brian (or Carl) I'm guessing. I think other Boys have spoken to things being a vote and democratic though I can't put a finger on any off the top of my head.

I remember there was a dispute as to whether Brian was devoted to the Maha' and how early but as far as I remember I've always assumed the Maha' tour was a group decision.  Can you point me to that claim in case I need to retract?
« Last Edit: January 23, 2016, 10:41:19 AM by Cam Mott » Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
gfx
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 1.224 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!