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, 09:08:34 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 21 Go Down Print
Author Topic: SMiLE was ready in 1967 - discuss  (Read 37264 times)
sloopjohnb72
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 206


View Profile
« Reply #175 on: July 23, 2022, 06:18:12 PM »

Also, check out the middle section of Smiley Wind Chimes, and the reverb that gets applied throughout. By Dennis' last "tinkling" they sound like they're at the bottom of a well.
Logged
Joshilyn Hoisington
Honored Guest
******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 3307


Aeijtzsche


View Profile
« Reply #176 on: July 23, 2022, 06:24:26 PM »

Craig...  you do know that they didn't record (or keep, anyway) many group vocals for Smile, right?  And that Mark added reverb to the extant vocals in his 2011 mixes?  How can you possibly compare a finished album with a largely background vocal-less unfinished album?

Quote
You'll have to ask the fans and the writers who were hammering the band in 1967 what they heard in the band's live performances that didn't sound enough like the records.

He's asking you!  If you assert it, you have to have an answer.  I'm also curious if you have a collection of the contemporary materials that derided the band's on-stage sound?  I don't doubt that there were some comments, but I'm concerned that you're overselling the "hammered in the press" thing.  Not that it matters in the slightest to the argument, but I would be edified by seeing an example of the band getting hammered.

I meant the vocal sound they had previously that became their trademark going back to at least 1964. I also said vocals and group vocals referring to Smile, referring obviously to what did exist. And I also explained in detail the differences in instrumentation too. Most of my Smile listening came well before the 2011 box set BTW, so I'm not referencing reverb or other sonic traits added digitally on later releases.

I gave an answer, and in detail too. Why would I base a comparison on album tracks they'd never perform live anyway? And I'm being honest, I wasn't at any of the shows, I don't know what exactly they were complaining about, but there were complaints.

I'll find a few examples for you.

But how can you know what the backing vocals on your Platonic "Smile" album would have sounded like?  How do you know that Brian wouldn't have used a lot less reverb in many instances?

And like Sloop says above, Smiley is not without reverb.  And if you respond with something like "yes, but it's more of a general vibe than an absolute" you've just made my point for me.
Logged
Joshilyn Hoisington
Honored Guest
******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 3307


Aeijtzsche


View Profile
« Reply #177 on: July 23, 2022, 06:30:21 PM »

Quote
The Beach Boys were using the studio as an instrument too much so he... enlisted the help of engineers to create new studio techniques (the pitched-but-not-sped-up She's Goin' Bald vocals) and increased the dynamic contrast between the hard-edited sections of songs?

It's actually a kind of interesting point; if there is a concrete distinction to be made between the Smile sessions and the Smiley Smile sessions, I think it's entirely fair to say that the Smiley Smile sessions were much more "produced" than the earlier Dumb Angel and 66->67 stuff.  In some ways, it's completely a by-product of Brian settling into the home studio, but I think the increasingly default use of 8-track contributes as well.  Dumb Angel and the core Smile productions are very much products of the 3-track age, and what ends up on Smiley is a lot more 8-tracky.  But again, it's not like one day they stopped recording on 4-track and only recorded on 8-track.  Marimba version of Wind chimes is such a great example of a very Smiley style production ethic on what is considered a very Smile track, because it was assembled via 8-track instead of recorded as a band making a master take.

And of course, we can easily see that Brian's interested in sound effects start on things like the Great Shape tape explosion, and come to fruition with the Eltro.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2022, 06:31:30 PM by Joshilyn Hoisington » Logged
sloopjohnb72
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 206


View Profile
« Reply #178 on: July 23, 2022, 06:32:41 PM »

Quote
The Beach Boys were using the studio as an instrument too much so he... enlisted the help of engineers to create new studio techniques (the pitched-but-not-sped-up She's Goin' Bald vocals) and increased the dynamic contrast between the hard-edited sections of songs?

It's actually a kind of interesting point; if there is a concrete distinction to be made between the Smile sessions and the Smiley Smile sessions, I think it's entirely fair to say that the Smiley Smile sessions were much more "produced" than the earlier Dumb Angel and 66->67 stuff.  In some ways, it's completely a by-product of Brian settling into the home studio, but I think the increasingly default use of 8-track contributes as well.  Dumb Angel and the core Smile productions are very much products of the 3-track age, and what ends up on Smiley is a lot more 8-tracky.  But again, it's not like one day they stopped recording on 4-track and only recorded on 8-track.  Marimba version of Wind chimes is such a great example of a very Smiley style production ethic on what is considered a very Smile track, because it was assembled via 8-track instead of recorded as a band making a master take.

And of course, we can easily see that Brian's interested in sound effects start on things like the Great Shape tape explosion, and come to fruition with the Eltro.

Exactly. And much of that also comes with Brian being in a position where he enjoys layering the instruments himself without the help of other musicians. But as you say, there are hints of that throughout Smile, such as Wind Chimes. It's clear that it was all eventually leading up to a full project based around that style of production.
Logged
sloopjohnb72
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 206


View Profile
« Reply #179 on: July 23, 2022, 06:35:50 PM »

Another interesting production technique Brian settles on is the use of a basic track as a silent click to be heard while overdubbing, but not to be mixed in the song. Wind Chimes is a great example, where everything is overdubbed on top of his loose piano performance, but the piano itself is silenced in the mix. This is something he'll keep doing during Wild Honey, especially with some off-mic drumming as a guide. But that's largely thrown out the window with Friends, when he returns to live band tracks as he'd done on Pet Sounds and some of Smile.
Logged
Joshilyn Hoisington
Honored Guest
******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 3307


Aeijtzsche


View Profile
« Reply #180 on: July 23, 2022, 06:47:25 PM »

Yeah, and I think it's important to notice that Brian's personal involvement in the tracking is actually a really great example of the creeping Smiley ethic that slowly overtakes the Dumb Angel ethic -- On Pet Sounds, Brian outsourced all the playing to the Studio players (save That's Not Me and a short piano o/d on the title track) but almost from the beginning of the Dumb Angel/Smile project, Brian starts to take back some instrumental responsibility (And I think he used Van as a sort of proxy for himself, in a weird way.)  Carl also very slowly gets more involved that he had been for about a year or so.  We have these really small, assembly-line type productions in Great Shape, Wonderful (1&2), Wind Chimes (2), that are just Brian or Van (or Dorothy the harpist) and a bass and/or some other minimal instrumentation.  Then Brian keeps pushing in that direction until we get to the Heroes and Vegetables stuff that is just Brian essentially doing everything himself on 8-track.
Logged
sloopjohnb72
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 206


View Profile
« Reply #181 on: July 23, 2022, 06:53:35 PM »

Yeah, and I think it's important to notice that Brian's personal involvement in the tracking is actually a really great example of the creeping Smiley ethic that slowly overtakes the Dumb Angel ethic -- On Pet Sounds, Brian outsourced all the playing to the Studio players (save That's Not Me and a short piano o/d on the title track) but almost from the beginning of the Dumb Angel/Smile project, Brian starts to take back some instrumental responsibility (And I think he used Van as a sort of proxy for himself, in a weird way.)  Carl also very slowly gets more involved that he had been for about a year or so.  We have these really small, assembly-line type productions in Great Shape, Wonderful (1&2), Wind Chimes (2), that are just Brian or Van (or Dorothy the harpist) and a bass and/or some other minimal instrumentation.  Then Brian keeps pushing in that direction until we get to the Heroes and Vegetables stuff that is just Brian essentially doing everything himself on 8-track.

It really is a slow, smooth transition into something very different. Smile and Smiley Smile are a lot more similar than people realize, and Smile and Pet Sounds are pretty damn different. It's that distinct Baldwin + detuned piano texture that just makes everyone think there was some bizarre 180 in Brian's production methods.
Logged
Joshilyn Hoisington
Honored Guest
******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 3307


Aeijtzsche


View Profile
« Reply #182 on: July 23, 2022, 06:57:02 PM »

Unfinished Smile is much more similar to Smiley Smile than it is to Pet Sounds.  If Pet Sounds is the culmination of the impulse of Today and SDSN, Smiley is the culmination of the Dumb Angel and Smile material.
Logged
Joshilyn Hoisington
Honored Guest
******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 3307


Aeijtzsche


View Profile
« Reply #183 on: July 23, 2022, 07:14:27 PM »

I had a classics professor who introduced me to the idea of sort of "eternal cycle" of civilisation, especially as reflected in art, and how it's this cyclical thing where ordered society sort of gradually gets more and more decadent until it fizzles out and everybody wants to go back to being ordered again.  (This is an extreme oversimplification.)

So take western music -- Medieval music was ordered and simple, and gradually the complexity grew until we got to the high Baroque, with fugues of such complexity it can hardly be fathomed, and music dripping with "affekt."  But people got tired of all that complexity and emotion, and so we transition via the Rococo to a classical period of Mozart and Haydn, light, ordered, reserved music.  This order gradually gains complexity, until the Bel Canto era when vocal lines were melismatic and virtuosic again.  But this time, the underlying music continues to buttress the vocal lines with virtuosity per se, and more and more emotion is allowed to creep in.  Suddenly we find ourselves in the arena of Wagner and Puccini.  But people got tired of coming out of the opera house sobbing, and started to feel emotionally manipulated, so the reaction was 20th century serialism -- back to very ordered, simple, and sort of "crisp" music.

Anyway, I always have thought that the Beach Boys are a perfect microcosmic example of this grander cycle.  Surf music is their Medieval music, All Summer long was like their Renaissance which presages Today and Summer Days blossoming into Pet Sounds.  Then, Dumb Angel and Smile mark the descent into decadence, with the ultimate expression of decadence being Smile Smile.  Then the cycle is reborn with the simple, ordered Wild Honey.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #184 on: July 23, 2022, 07:31:57 PM »

I'm also curious if you have a collection of the contemporary materials that derided the band's on-stage sound?  I don't doubt that there were some comments, but I'm concerned that you're overselling the "hammered in the press" thing.  Not that it matters in the slightest to the argument, but I would be edified by seeing an example of the band getting hammered.

A few random comments from 66 and the rest from 67, for your edification. There are more, I just can't recall where I have them.













Note especially the last article, the Bruce interview. Quote: "Despite full houses everywhere, The Beach Boys came in for some pretty severe criticism in this country, both for their stage act, and for releasing an old song as their new single"

The excerpts above are just to show there was criticism, mostly from fans (and Spencer Davis), and it was a general question surrounding the band going back to the 1966 tour about their live sound. It's the same rap, the vocals were there, but the backing wasn't.

There is at least one interview I cannot find where it's either Carl or Dennis (probably Carl) addressing the criticism they received on this 1967 UK/Europe tour but I just can't find it. Anyone know if this interview?
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 #185 on: July 23, 2022, 07:44:33 PM »

Craig...  you do know that they didn't record (or keep, anyway) many group vocals for Smile, right?  And that Mark added reverb to the extant vocals in his 2011 mixes?  How can you possibly compare a finished album with a largely background vocal-less unfinished album?

Quote
You'll have to ask the fans and the writers who were hammering the band in 1967 what they heard in the band's live performances that didn't sound enough like the records.

He's asking you!  If you assert it, you have to have an answer.  I'm also curious if you have a collection of the contemporary materials that derided the band's on-stage sound?  I don't doubt that there were some comments, but I'm concerned that you're overselling the "hammered in the press" thing.  Not that it matters in the slightest to the argument, but I would be edified by seeing an example of the band getting hammered.

I meant the vocal sound they had previously that became their trademark going back to at least 1964. I also said vocals and group vocals referring to Smile, referring obviously to what did exist. And I also explained in detail the differences in instrumentation too. Most of my Smile listening came well before the 2011 box set BTW, so I'm not referencing reverb or other sonic traits added digitally on later releases.

I gave an answer, and in detail too. Why would I base a comparison on album tracks they'd never perform live anyway? And I'm being honest, I wasn't at any of the shows, I don't know what exactly they were complaining about, but there were complaints.

I'll find a few examples for you.

But how can you know what the backing vocals on your Platonic "Smile" album would have sounded like?  How do you know that Brian wouldn't have used a lot less reverb in many instances?

And like Sloop says above, Smiley is not without reverb.  And if you respond with something like "yes, but it's more of a general vibe than an absolute" you've just made my point for me.

I never said it was without reverb entirely, I said compared to the previous releases and even some of the more complete Smile tracks, Smiley is bone dry in comparison, and that's true. I'm basing it on the examples we have of all the vocals on the Smile material, do you think I'm that naive about this as to discuss imaginary things instead of what I've been listening to for decades? I listened to all the available Smile material that was circulating prior to the box set in 2011, and then some, as did you, and those are my main reference points. A lot of those session fragments are raw tracks, many unmixed even as a rough or reference mixdown, and without effects unless the effects were recorded with the track. I don't try to state as fact what I think Brian would have done, so no I don't know and I never said I did.

The vocals sound different, they're much more dry, and not as full in tone as they were recorded and mixed for Smiley. That's my opinion, and anyone can listen and form their own opinions on the existing Smile vocals, the vocal tracks the band was known for before Smile, and what's on Smiley Smile.
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
Joshilyn Hoisington
Honored Guest
******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 3307


Aeijtzsche


View Profile
« Reply #186 on: July 23, 2022, 07:53:25 PM »

Quote
do you think I'm that naive about this as to discuss imaginary things instead of what I've been listening to for decades?

I think you like to argue for the sake of arguing so much that you end up arguing about nothing!

Quote
I don't try to state as fact what I think Brian would have done, so no I don't know and I never said I did.

What is your point then?  That Smiley's vocals had more reverb than Pet Sounds and thus Smile had a fixed end date?

Thanks for the clips.  It seems to me that at least Bruce wasn't too bothered by the criticism -- he seems to understand that they needed to expand the stage act a little bit, and regrets their first attempts to do so didn't work out.  They learned from this and did work up a better stage show.  It seems to me that the bands reaction to the criticism was less to give Smile a fixed end date so they could make an album of hypothetically stage-reproducible songs, and more to develop a touring band by gradually hiring sidemen.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2022, 07:55:45 PM by Joshilyn Hoisington » Logged
Don Malcolm
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 1108



View Profile
« Reply #187 on: July 23, 2022, 08:03:40 PM »

A number of brilliant folks here, who are IMO in danger of getting lost in the trees rather than taking in the forest.

First principle: what are the reasons why SMILEY SMILE had to happen? It was not a project that started totally fresh; it had distinct antecedents and it was partially connected to something sprawling, complex, and increasingly controversial. There are many wonderful musical insights and observations in the last page or so of posts, but almost all of them are getting away from the historical realities that prompted this most unusual circumstance.

In May '67 it became clear to Brian and the band that they had to do something else, or the impasse they'd reached was going to tear everything apart. When a new recording setup came into play, it was up to Brian to figure out how to transpose it into a set of new arrangements and recording techniques that had only been partially in play in his most recent projects.

Instead of trying to generalize about these techniques and use that as a framework for differentiating (or tying together) the "Wrecking Crew SMiLE" from the "deceptively simple SMILEY"--all of which is interesting as hell and signals a high level of musical acumen--let's simply posit that one of the things that snapped Brian back into coherence after he'd floundered for several months is that he had to figure out how to do a number of things in this new-fangled recording environment. Each of the new songs (or revisions of previously recorded songs, or snippets borrowed to make a new song) had a different set of challenges and requirements in order to be completed as satisfactorily--and as quickly--as possible.

That last point should not be discounted: this was first and foremost emergency work, plain and simple--because so much time had elapsed, and so many raised eyebrows existed in so many places by May '67 that things simply needed to just get done. In a sense, having to refigure/rejigger this material in rapid mode may have helped to forestall Brian's collapse for another fourteen months or so because he had to focus so intently on cranking it out ASAP. Putting this back into actual historical perspective, it took a not-inconsiderable amount of sang froid on Brian's part to do all of that at that exact moment, because while SMILEY was being worked on, the Beatles' SGT PEPPER was taking the world by storm. And he had to know that the band was going to take a hit whenever SMILEY made it out into the world, and that there was probably going to have to be another project close on its heels to help limit the damage that was going to be done.

Brian needing to assimilate and synthesize all those issues in a compressed time frame is probably the most amazing part of this entire period. (And you can occasionally hear some strain in that, when you hear him on some of the booted SMILEY session tapes.) All of the techniques described in the previous posts, the listings of instruments utilized in arranging/recording the songs, and the differing approaches to recording the vocals suggest that Brian found a way to get everyone through a process that had just as much chance at going haywire as the one he'd just "sealed in a can."

Now all of that borrowed-from-Jacob-Burkhardt cyclical art/civilization theory stuff aside, of course SMILEY is going to sound more like SMILE and vice-versa: the overlap in material explains this, not a theory of art that doesn't quite have room for romanticism because when the art historians of the second half of the nineteenth century got into theorizing they were already caught up in the overwrought. The symphony was giving way to grand/grandiose opera, which was a sad development, since the sonata form applied to an orchestra had morphed into something ordered but flexible. GV, as the quintessential "pocket symphony" is the grand moment of romanticism stemming from Pet Sounds, as Brian races maybe just a bit too quickly through the stylistic permutations for his own good. Certain of the SMiLE tracks simply couldn't be reworked, they are singular artifacts of the "Wrecking Crew" style production process--and it's that fact that makes me find it highly plausible that Brian was hoping to get back to that material on his own once he'd figured out a path through the forest for the band. That echoes GF's observation that he was still looking to make more "orchestral" music even as he was scaling things down for the band. Keep in mind that his process for getting through WILD HONEY was very similar to what had been the case for SMILEY.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #188 on: July 23, 2022, 08:14:54 PM »

Quote
do you think I'm that naive about this as to discuss imaginary things instead of what I've been listening to for decades?

I think you like to argue for the sake of arguing so much that you end up arguing about nothing!

Quote
I don't try to state as fact what I think Brian would have done, so no I don't know and I never said I did.

What is your point then?  That Smiley's vocals had more reverb than Pet Sounds and thus Smile had a fixed end date?

Thanks for the clips.  It seems to me that at least Bruce wasn't too bothered by the criticism -- he seems to understand that they needed to expand the stage act a little bit, and regrets their first attempts to do so didn't work out.  They learned from this and did work up a better stage show.  It seems to me that the bands reaction to the criticism was less to give Smile a fixed end date so they could make an album of hypothetically stage-reproducible songs, and more to develop a touring band by gradually hiring sidemen.

That first point is unfair and uncalled for, but I'll take it. I've laid out my opinions and examples here and from the first post I made on the May/June 67 time frame, I said the studio versus live sound issue was a factor to consider. Not that it was the main factor, but one to consider alongside everything else. The examples and quotes are listed on these pages, along with my own opinions. If people read them and agree, fine, if they read them and disagree, fine. But to say I'm arguing about nothing is really uncalled for and not cool. Ok?

My point is having a discussion about topics which are still open and unresolved. To try to suggest it comes down to reverb on Smiley's vocals is again ridiculous and uncalled for. But I'll take it in stride and reply accordingly. No, that's not my point...thanks for dismissing everything else I've contributed to the discussion in one comment.

When examples were asked for, they were given. If your opinion is "right" in your own mind, that won't change. But you're not the only person reading, and there have been cases where someone has said "this is fact" when it is not. That includes Keith Badman's book and the dodgy dates too, I suppose.  LOL
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 #189 on: July 23, 2022, 08:16:36 PM »

Also, check out the middle section of Smiley Wind Chimes, and the reverb that gets applied throughout. By Dennis' last "tinkling" they sound like they're at the bottom of a well.

That's true, and it adds to the eerie and darker quality of the Smiley take that isn't present on any of the Smile versions.
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 #190 on: July 23, 2022, 08:26:07 PM »

A number of brilliant folks here, who are IMO in danger of getting lost in the trees rather than taking in the forest.

First principle: what are the reasons why SMILEY SMILE had to happen? It was not a project that started totally fresh; it had distinct antecedents and it was partially connected to something sprawling, complex, and increasingly controversial. There are many wonderful musical insights and observations in the last page or so of posts, but almost all of them are getting away from the historical realities that prompted this most unusual circumstance.

In May '67 it became clear to Brian and the band that they had to do something else, or the impasse they'd reached was going to tear everything apart. When a new recording setup came into play, it was up to Brian to figure out how to transpose it into a set of new arrangements and recording techniques that had only been partially in play in his most recent projects.

Instead of trying to generalize about these techniques and use that as a framework for differentiating (or tying together) the "Wrecking Crew SMiLE" from the "deceptively simple SMILEY"--all of which is interesting as hell and signals a high level of musical acumen--let's simply posit that one of the things that snapped Brian back into coherence after he'd floundered for several months is that he had to figure out how to do a number of things in this new-fangled recording environment. Each of the new songs (or revisions of previously recorded songs, or snippets borrowed to make a new song) had a different set of challenges and requirements in order to be completed as satisfactorily--and as quickly--as possible.

That last point should not be discounted: this was first and foremost emergency work, plain and simple--because so much time had elapsed, and so many raised eyebrows existed in so many places by May '67 that things simply needed to just get done. In a sense, having to refigure/rejigger this material in rapid mode may have helped to forestall Brian's collapse for another fourteen months or so because he had to focus so intently on cranking it out ASAP. Putting this back into actual historical perspective, it took a not-inconsiderable amount of sang froid on Brian's part to do all of that at that exact moment, because while SMILEY was being worked on, the Beatles' SGT PEPPER was taking the world by storm. And he had to know that the band was going to take a hit whenever SMILEY made it out into the world, and that there was probably going to have to be another project close on its heels to help limit the damage that was going to be done.

Brian needing to assimilate and synthesize all those issues in a compressed time frame is probably the most amazing part of this entire period. (And you can occasionally hear some strain in that, when you hear him on some of the booted SMILEY session tapes.) All of the techniques described in the previous posts, the listings of instruments utilized in arranging/recording the songs, and the differing approaches to recording the vocals suggest that Brian found a way to get everyone through a process that had just as much chance at going haywire as the one he'd just "sealed in a can."

Now all of that borrowed-from-Jacob-Burkhardt cyclical art/civilization theory stuff aside, of course SMILEY is going to sound more like SMILE and vice-versa: the overlap in material explains this, not a theory of art that doesn't quite have room for romanticism because when the art historians of the second half of the nineteenth century got into theorizing they were already caught up in the overwrought. The symphony was giving way to grand/grandiose opera, which was a sad development, since the sonata form applied to an orchestra had morphed into something ordered but flexible. GV, as the quintessential "pocket symphony" is the grand moment of romanticism stemming from Pet Sounds, as Brian races maybe just a bit too quickly through the stylistic permutations for his own good. Certain of the SMiLE tracks simply couldn't be reworked, they are singular artifacts of the "Wrecking Crew" style production process--and it's that fact that makes me find it highly plausible that Brian was hoping to get back to that material on his own once he'd figured out a path through the forest for the band. That echoes GF's observation that he was still looking to make more "orchestral" music even as he was scaling things down for the band. Keep in mind that his process for getting through WILD HONEY was very similar to what had been the case for SMILEY.

Fantastic thoughts, Don, thank you. And Brian did get back to making more grandiose music in October 1967 with Redwood and Time To Get Alone, along with some of the other examples we've mentioned on earlier pages. The modular writing and song construction with "Been Way Too Long/Can't Wait Too Long". His return to and revisiting of "Surf's Up" by way of a beautiful solo rendition which I don't think has ever been fully explained. "Cool Cool Water". I think he struck a balance in all of these ways, but slightly missed the mark, on Friends. The home studio was operational, he had a blend of some of his old session players and the core band making the tracks, the whole band was contributing, and he was still trying things that were more refined than Smiley Smile, more diverse than Wild Honey, some quirky production ideas from Smile, etc.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2022, 08:39:56 PM by guitarfool2002 » 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
Joshilyn Hoisington
Honored Guest
******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 3307


Aeijtzsche


View Profile
« Reply #191 on: July 23, 2022, 08:42:53 PM »

Craig, I'm dismissing your arguments on their merits because they are not very good arguments -- it's not personal, although I do think that you just enjoy being argumentative.  Which is OK.  I went to law school, there are lots of people like you that will subtly change a subject just to keep the joy of arguing going.  I understand the thrill of the adrenaline and all that.

There is the statement of the original post:

There was a "Smile" that was more or less close to being releasable in 1967.

That position was superseded by this assertion:

That there was one Smile and that it officially stopped being worked on at a fixed date.  After that date, there was a totally different project started from scratch.

Justification for this assertion has been put forward:

Smiley was started as a new project because the band had to be able to sound like their records onstage.
Smiley involved a totally different method of working
Smiley was less involved musically / had simpler production / had markedly different production techniques

But the historical record does not back any of that up.

The band did not perform any song from Smiley Smile regularly onstage, other than the two most complicated recordings, and never had any intention of doing so.
It was a gradual and subtle shift in working methods from the Pet Sounds style of music and production, easily traceable by looking at personnel, track use, and Brian's roughs.
Smiley was demonstrably not simpler musically, and in fact was in some ways more advanced in it's production techniques that earlier material, despite any perception of unusual simplicity.


Don, I appreciate your more subtle approach to the question.  I think you're probably right that there were circumstances that forced things along more urgently that was ideal.  And obviously, making the decision to do the home studio was a huge event.  But I don't think we can know for certain whether the home studio's limitations and the time pressure affected Brian's aesthetic sensibilities.  It's very possible that they did and that he made internal adjustments and concessions because of it.  But that's speculation, whereas the tape and contemporary materials are not, and the those things show pretty objectively that Smile and Smiley Smile are part of the same artistic impulse by any metric.

Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #192 on: July 23, 2022, 08:52:58 PM »

Craig, I'm dismissing your arguments on their merits because they are not very good arguments -- it's not personal, although I do think that you just enjoy being argumentative.  Which is OK.  I went to law school, there are lots of people like you that will subtly change a subject just to keep the joy of arguing going.  I understand the thrill of the adrenaline and all that.

There is the statement of the original post:

There was a "Smile" that was more or less close to being releasable in 1967.

That position was superseded by this assertion:

That there was one Smile and that it officially stopped being worked on at a fixed date.  After that date, there was a totally different project started from scratch.

Justification for this assertion has been put forward:

Smiley was started as a new project because the band had to be able to sound like their records onstage.
Smiley involved a totally different method of working
Smiley was less involved musically / had simpler production / had markedly different production techniques

But the historical record does not back any of that up.

The band did not perform any song from Smiley Smile regularly onstage, other than the two most complicated recordings, and never had any intention of doing so.
It was a gradual and subtle shift in working methods from the Pet Sounds style of music and production, easily traceable by looking at personnel, track use, and Brian's roughs.
Smiley was demonstrably not simpler musically, and in fact was in some ways more advanced in it's production techniques that earlier material, despite any perception of unusual simplicity.


Don, I appreciate your more subtle approach to the question.  I think you're probably right that there were circumstances that forced things along more urgently that was ideal.  And obviously, making the decision to do the home studio was a huge event.  But I don't think we can know for certain whether the home studio's limitations and the time pressure affected Brian's aesthetic sensibilities.  It's very possible that they did and that he made internal adjustments and concessions because of it.  But that's speculation, whereas the tape and contemporary materials are not, and the those things show pretty objectively that Smile and Smiley Smile are part of the same artistic impulse by any metric.



Just to single this out:

There is the statement of the original post:

There was a "Smile" that was more or less close to being releasable in 1967.

That position was superseded by this assertion:

That there was one Smile and that it officially stopped being worked on at a fixed date.  After that date, there was a totally different project started from scratch.

Justification for this assertion has been put forward:

Smiley was started as a new project because the band had to be able to sound like their records onstage.
Smiley involved a totally different method of working
Smiley was less involved musically / had simpler production / had markedly different production techniques

But the historical record does not back any of that up.


What historical record are you referring to, because it was Carl who said they started from scratch, various band members who said they went into the Smiley sessions with a different mindset, including Brian, and that it had simpler production, a definite choice that was made. The first one is my opinion, I've covered that already. The other two are found in quotes and comments coming from the band members themselves, and not just the October 1967 Carl interview I reposted earlier from the LA Times.

I was stating and reposting here what the band said, on the historical record, about Smiley Smile, and the quotes are available from many sources. So is the issue you have more with them and what they have said rather than my opinions, which compared to the band's own words are just one fan's opinions?
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
Joshilyn Hoisington
Honored Guest
******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 3307


Aeijtzsche


View Profile
« Reply #193 on: July 23, 2022, 08:57:25 PM »

Quote
What historical record are you referring to?

Contents of the multitrack and mono tapes
AFM sheets
Capitol Worksheets
Internal documentation
Tape Boxes
The Beach Boys Archives Database

Hearsay is much messier.
Logged
Joshilyn Hoisington
Honored Guest
******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 3307


Aeijtzsche


View Profile
« Reply #194 on: July 23, 2022, 09:02:18 PM »

I'd also like to add that I normally wouldn't get involved in this kind of discussion (because, clearly, it's not a great look on me), except here I think that to misunderstand how we ended up with Smiley Smile is to misunderstand the quintessence of Brian Wilson.  His entire artistic temperament can be understood by analyzing the very deliberate line of development he was making, and I think that missing that misses Brian's raison d'etre.  So I think it's important that we get it right.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2022, 09:11:08 PM by Joshilyn Hoisington » Logged
Galaxy Liz
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 96


View Profile
« Reply #195 on: July 24, 2022, 01:38:03 AM »

Well, by "Smile", what exactly do you mean? What exact sequence of songs are you referring to, and what exact structure of each song?

The next album by the Beach Boys was never scrapped. It was continually changing. If you're asking if the exact moment Brian scrapped that list of 12 songs in favor of the 11 songs on Smiley Smile is known, well, that moment simply doesn't exist. We can know when lots of little changes were made, though. For example, Do You Like Worms was no longer a song by December 27, at the latest. The tape evidence suggests that the song had been chopped up on or before that date, with the chorus being removed to after the opening Heroes verse (where it would be "Heroes and Villains part 2" for the next month), and the verse was removed to the Prayer reel, where Da Da would immediately be recorded onto (it was possibly going to be used as an intro here). For another example, My Only Sunshine was no longer on the album by February 10, when Brian replaced the group vocals with his own voice, and used it as the fadeout to Heroes and Villains. Small little changes like these are traceable, as Smile turns from one thing into another. The album is a completely different entity in Brian's mind with each week, and to refuse to see it that way is to intentionally misunderstand Brian's working methods of the time.


None of the recordings made for Smile were used on Smiley Smile so that marks a clear delineation where Smile stopped and Smiley Smile started.  Love to Say Dada was not used on Smiley Smile and MAY have been the last thing recorded for Smile.  Cool Cool Water was not Love to Say Dada.  It was the first thing Brian wrote in his new house and was only merged with the chant from Love to Say Dada in January 1970 for Sunflower.


The scrapping of Smile and the plan for Smiley Smile (then unnamed) must have been discussed when the group returned from the tour and what Brian may have been referring to when Bruce suggested using the album they had in the can - he made a remark about a big argument.   

So we don't know the exact date but somewhere between 19th May and 6th June negations took place and an agreement reached.

Crucially the Beach Boys were given credit as producers even though Brian produced it.  That means a pay off - they got money for producing the album even though they didn't and as Steve Desper said Beach Boys politics is follow the money.  They didn't want Smile.  Brian took it off them and paid them for it with the credit and by using some of the material but mostly changed, and delivering the album really quickly which was vital because they were behind with contractual obligations and Capitol were not paying enough royalties.

Lots of this is false info, so I think some things should be clarified again -

First of all, the "Love to Say Da Da chant" was recorded under the title Cool, Cool Water, in Brian's home studio. It either comes from the main Smiley Smile period, or possibly later during Wild Honey.

Second, LTSDD and CCW are the same song musically, which was first written in December 1966. The chord progression is identical, though the lyrical subject matter has changed. But there's no significant difference between that change and say, the significant restructure Wind Chimes went through from August-October 1966, or the massive changes Child is Father of the Man went through, or the big change in tone Wonderful went through from December to January... not to mention Heroes & Villains being completely rewritten and re-recorded just about every week in January-March 1967. So why does the distinct project "Smile" have to be abandoned some time between these two recordings, both of which were recorded in L.A. studios outside of Brian's house, and neither of which appeared on the list of Smile songs from 1966 OR Smiley Smile? Where on EARTH did that bizarre theory come from, and why is it being repeated so often?

It should also be noted that the Heroes verse was recorded October 20, 1966, the chorus was recorded in February 1967, and the last few sections of Vegetables were recorded in April 1967. So, if there must be a distinct switch from one album to another, based on what material appears on Smiley, I guess Smile had to be scrapped before October 20? Or if we're counting Good Vibrations, before February 17, 1966, during the Pet Sounds era? Or perhaps, Smile/Smiley Smile was a flowing project that went through dozens of changes over time, and didn't become productive again until Brian started re-recording things in his house.

Christian Matijas-Mecca. The Words and Music of Brian Wilson p96

““Cool Cool Water” was back under Brian’s hands in January 1970 as a vocal chant that emerged from the May 1967 track “I Love to Say Dada.” When Brian returned to this for Sunflower, he combined the chant from “Da Da” with the core of his original version of “Cool, Cool Water” to create an entirely new work.  On the 1993 Good Vibrations boxed set we had the first official release of “I Love to Say Dada” and the original fragment of “…Water,” and I can hear the relationship of these two works.  The song, as it appears on Sunflower, is a lighthearted, finger-snapping vocal callisthenic.  Its inclusion on the album was the work of Warners A&R manager, Lenny Waronker, who referred to this as representative of the ‘kind’ of work he liked to hear from Brian.

Timothy White Sunflower/Surf’s Up CD 2000 liner notes - Brian:  “I’m proud of "Cool, Cool Water" because that was a divinely inspired song. I had just moved into a new house on Bellagio Road in Bel Air, in March of 1967, and the first day I moved in, there was a piano there, and I went to the piano and wrote "Cool, Cool Water". I sat and wrote the gist of it, the basic song. It was finished much later of course.”

H&V was given to the radio station to be played on 11th July but Brian had held onto it for about a month so it was ready at the beginning of June.  It was a very long awaited single.  They had nothing else ready to release as a single so there was no choice but to release it despite it being part of Smile but perhaps Brian also hoped that it would be a success and give him support to release Smile after Smiley Smile as it seems was the plan at one time.

Vegetables differs from Vega-tables. Vegetables has different lyrics and was completely re-recorded for Smiley Smile.

Good Vibrations was released on 10th October 1966 at a time Smile was being made. Brian did not want Good Vibrations to be included on Smiley Smile.

The recent assertion that Smile wasn’t ever shelved and Smiley Smile just grew out of it seems to be a revisionist history to remove any element of blame from the band for not supporting Smile but it doesn’t do that anyway - if the project had changed that wouldn’t be surprising considering that Brian wasn’t working in a vacuum and was effected by the pressures being put upon him so any blame remains firmly in place. 

Some of the basic music was used in Smiley Smile but this is not surprising either and not the first time that a composer has re-used phrases of music: something Brian went on to do again and again.  He had a very short period to produce an album due to financial pressures so he used some pieces but he refused to allow them to use the music originally recorded for Smile so THIS is the shelving of Smile.  I don’t believe it was ever scrapped as such - even though Brian seems to have instructed Derek Taylor to issue a press release to say that it was - its not just a belief either since it was eventually released both in it’s composite parts and also reworked into BWPS - but that was just another progression wasn’t it!  If Smiley Smile is simply the final version of Smile it morphed in style, content, format and complexity and all that remained were some of the basic musical phrases so much so that if you play one after the other it is obvious that you have not  listened to the same album twice.  Further all the rest of the band continued to assert that Smile was still a possibility.  So if I’m wrong so was the group and the rock history written by many others.
Logged
Galaxy Liz
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 96


View Profile
« Reply #196 on: July 24, 2022, 01:49:39 AM »

Quote
You cannot state as fact that there is or was no dividing line between the two projects when the band themselves and most fans who can easily listen to what was done for Smile versus what was "started from scratch" for Smiley Smile make that separation between the two, and in the band's case they're on the record since 1967 saying as much. If the band and the creators saw them as different projects, do you purport to know something the band didn't know and Smile just seamlessly flowed into Smiley Smile and there was no difference?

That's your opinion, and it's fine to have that opinion and stick to it, but when you have music for Smile which sounds that much different than what's on Smiley Smile, and when the creation of that music changed as dramatically as it did from April into May '67 going into June, it's obvious there was a drastic change that involved more than moving sections around and swapping songs in and out. They started a new project in June 1967 with new parameters and working methods, remaking certain songs and adding new ones. I don't know how more basic of an observation that can be.


You're putting too much weight into the band's perceptions and giving fans too much power.  I would also say that the compulsion to think of Smile as its own, isolated phenomenon is to project a sort of Aristotelean hylomorphism onto this whole thing, when we're really playing a completely nominalist game.  There is simply no need to limit any particular recording to one absolute ontology; Wouldn't it Be Nice is part of Pet Sounds just as much as it it part of Stack-o-tracks.  Wonderful can be part of Smile just as much as it can be part of Smiley Smile.  Cabin Essence can be just as much a part of Dumb Angel as it was part of Smile.

In a sense, yes, we do know something different than the band did.  Unlike the band, we have a pretty nice set of retrospective data to analyze with the benefit of many extra years of context.  We can know exactly when Cabin Essence was no longer a candidate for the new album, for example.  We can track with a lot of accuracy the evolution of Heroes, seeing how different ideas were cannibalized in pursuit of a single, and how other songs were left behind as Brian demonstrably lost interest in them.

I think another major fallacy here is some kind of species of the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy; here, where one wrongly ascribes the change in sound to a deliberate delineation between one project and another, rather than attributing the change in sound to the change in sound per se that Brian was working towards all along.  It's that darned Baldwin organ; it's such a dramatically different sound that dominates the texture -- but if you take that away, it's, in my opinion, patently obvious that Brian was continually working incrementally towards reduced orchestration and simplified song structures.

I spend a lot of time transcribing the Beach Boys arrangements, and I think if I put up, say, the transcription of Wonderful Mark I, and the transcription of Wonderful as it came out on Smiley, you could see visually that the released version is more heavily orchestrated and more complexly structured than Mark I.

My point there is simply that swapping a harpsichord for a Baldwin does not automatically make something and less or more simple.

Incidentally, if anybody wants to see those Wonderful Transcriptions, I would share them.

Twaddle.  Post hoc ergo propter hoc?  I read reports of what they said at the time.  At the time they said they stopped recording Smile and started from scratch.  They also repeatedly said afterward that Smile may eventually be released.
Logged
Galaxy Liz
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 96


View Profile
« Reply #197 on: July 24, 2022, 01:52:35 AM »

And to get back to what this was originally about - when exactly in this list does the music become "reproduceable" by the touring band, where it wasn't before?

That wasn't what this was originally about - it was originally about Smile being ready in 1967 - according to you it was.
Logged
Galaxy Liz
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 96


View Profile
« Reply #198 on: July 24, 2022, 01:58:55 AM »

Quote
You cannot state as fact that there is or was no dividing line between the two projects when the band themselves and most fans who can easily listen to what was done for Smile versus what was "started from scratch" for Smiley Smile make that separation between the two, and in the band's case they're on the record since 1967 saying as much. If the band and the creators saw them as different projects, do you purport to know something the band didn't know and Smile just seamlessly flowed into Smiley Smile and there was no difference?

That's your opinion, and it's fine to have that opinion and stick to it, but when you have music for Smile which sounds that much different than what's on Smiley Smile, and when the creation of that music changed as dramatically as it did from April into May '67 going into June, it's obvious there was a drastic change that involved more than moving sections around and swapping songs in and out. They started a new project in June 1967 with new parameters and working methods, remaking certain songs and adding new ones. I don't know how more basic of an observation that can be.


You're putting too much weight into the band's perceptions and giving fans too much power.  I would also say that the compulsion to think of Smile as its own, isolated phenomenon is to project a sort of Aristotelean hylomorphism onto this whole thing, when we're really playing a completely nominalist game.  There is simply no need to limit any particular recording to one absolute ontology; Wouldn't it Be Nice is part of Pet Sounds just as much as it it part of Stack-o-tracks.  Wonderful can be part of Smile just as much as it can be part of Smiley Smile.  Cabin Essence can be just as much a part of Dumb Angel as it was part of Smile.

In a sense, yes, we do know something different than the band did.  Unlike the band, we have a pretty nice set of retrospective data to analyze with the benefit of many extra years of context.  We can know exactly when Cabin Essence was no longer a candidate for the new album, for example.  We can track with a lot of accuracy the evolution of Heroes, seeing how different ideas were cannibalized in pursuit of a single, and how other songs were left behind as Brian demonstrably lost interest in them.

I think another major fallacy here is some kind of species of the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy; here, where one wrongly ascribes the change in sound to a deliberate delineation between one project and another, rather than attributing the change in sound to the change in sound per se that Brian was working towards all along.  It's that darned Baldwin organ; it's such a dramatically different sound that dominates the texture -- but if you take that away, it's, in my opinion, patently obvious that Brian was continually working incrementally towards reduced orchestration and simplified song structures.

I spend a lot of time transcribing the Beach Boys arrangements, and I think if I put up, say, the transcription of Wonderful Mark I, and the transcription of Wonderful as it came out on Smiley, you could see visually that the released version is more heavily orchestrated and more complexly structured than Mark I.

My point there is simply that swapping a harpsichord for a Baldwin does not automatically make something and less or more simple.

Incidentally, if anybody wants to see those Wonderful Transcriptions, I would share them.

All music, all art in general is subject to the power of the "fans" and those who will experience and form opinions and perceptions about what they're experiencing. If the creator of the art says "I wanted to portray a deer running through the woods in this piece" and fans say "the artist was portraying a train racing through a mountain pass", which one gets more weight? Once the artist hands off the work to the public, it's subject to their perceptions and opinions of the work as much as what the artist may have intended.

The dividing line, when perhaps it goes too far, is when fans insist that artist was portraying a train in the mountains as a factual statement after the artist said specifically they were portraying a deer in the woods when they created the work. That's where the fan doesn't have more power because they're perceiving rather than actually creating the work, but if their opinion becomes internalized (and expressed) as fact in direct contradiction with the artist's own words, the balance of power becomes arrogance of opinion more than experiencing the work as it was intended by the artist.

Suggesting people listen to a half hour of Smile and then the Smiley Smile album and offer their perceptions of the overall sound and texture of the two is not giving any one element more weight over the other. It's simply asking for opinions and perceptions when comparing two works from the same artist created within the same year.

Not to editorialize, I'd rather hear the opinions firsthand and as new opinions, but the majority of people who have heard Smile and Smiley Smile through the last decades when both were made available have said one sounds more stripped down, lo fi, and less complex than the other. Is that like the fictional artist's fans saying he portrayed a train versus a deer, or is it fans giving their honest appraisal of what they hear and perceive? If those fans hear the two examples, Smile versus Smiley Smile, as two separate entities rather than a continuation of the same project, they would be in agreement with the artists who created the music in 1966-67.

Absolutely and Carl compared it to "a bunt instead of a grand slam" so clearly Carl saw Smile as something different to Smiley Smile.
Logged
Angela Jones
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 61


View Profile
« Reply #199 on: July 24, 2022, 02:13:56 AM »

 But people got tired of coming out of the opera house sobbing, and started to feel emotionally manipulated, so the reaction was 20th century serialism -- back to very ordered, simple, and sort of "crisp" music.

Anyway, I always have thought that the Beach Boys are a perfect microcosmic example of this grander cycle.  Surf music is their Medieval music, All Summer long was like their Renaissance which presages Today and Summer Days blossoming into Pet Sounds.  Then, Dumb Angel and Smile mark the descent into decadence, with the ultimate expression of decadence being Smile Smile.  Then the cycle is reborn with the simple, ordered Wild Honey.

And yet opera - including highly romantic opera like Madama Butterfly, Turandot, Tosca - still remains very popular. I don't mind feeling emotionally affected  by music (manipulated suggests a nefarious motivation!). In fact, if it is not moving me emotionally, it's not really doing its job. Some of the emotional responses can be soothing, calming, and others more passionate. SMiLE may show romanticism - nature, self-expression - but excessive indulgence in luxury? Not really. In fact surely that is more typical of the earlier songs about ownership of expensive cars and a fun-loving lifestyle.

And from Wikipedia: 'Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, better known for composing classical music, incorporated opera, concerto, symphony, sonata, and string quartets which introduced Romantic qualities to music of the time.'
« Last Edit: July 24, 2022, 05:38:19 AM by Angela Jones » Logged
gfx
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 21 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.526 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!