My Last (?) Crack at the SMiLE Jigsaw

[Julia]

I think Little Pad is a rewrite of DYLW - obviously a very loose one.

I could maybe see the "dreamy Hawaiian section" being a reworking of the timpani Worms verse melody now that you mention it. The vocal scat section possibly too--but Im not good at identifying instruments or notes on listen like many here, so if I'm wrong I'm wrong.

But I also think it's Brian paying homage to his original conception of Water (or one of the competing ideas for it). If Fire was expressly linked to a place and time in US history it stands to reason the other Elements would've been too. Veggies and IIGS ("fresh clean/zen air...") or Country Air are the midwest breadbasket and tornado alley, Hawaii is water.

Notice the water drop sounds during the "sure would like to have a little pad in Hawaii..." It's not definitive evidence but I've always maintained Brian would've used those sampled Vosse recordings. There's even very brief sawing sounds to my ears during the "by the sea that's where I'll build a pad" with repeated water dripping--a reference to Workshop? (Which I've sometimes wondered could've been Earth, and almost certainly would've linked Fire to whatever element came next.) I think there's something to this, and I wonder if it wasn't one of the things Brian remembered in 2003 when trying to restore the Water element? Like he knew it was supposed to be Hawaiian themed and Dada had become CCW so he used its melody with new lyrics from Van to do that concept justice. If not for that, I wonder if he wouldn't have just stuck CCW in the setlist and called it a day. Although I hate to use BWPS as a source, sometimes there was a genuine memory from '66 managing to cut through the decades of Priore/bootleg haze, I think...

[zaval80]

IMO Milward's not far off the mark here, the second medley on "Abbey Road" is basically this, bits of "songs" thrown together (and now that it is known that the "bonus", "Her Majesty", was originally a part of that medley, it's even more fitting).

I'm sure the book has other positive qualities and I can't pretend to know the goals or constraints of the author. I'm only reviewing each book in the context of how accurate and revelatory the info on SMiLE is.

What I've meant was, Milward saying "a suite of songs" was perfectly expectable from him or understandable since the time "Abbey Road" came out. Maybe he wasn't that aware of "SMiLE-speak" Sometimes writers do not seem to describe things in a more straightforward way, so it's always useful to think, if something catches attention, what does he mean under the words he used, could it be just his way of designating something already known in other terms. (Not just the writer, but it could be somebody the writer quotes, too.)

[mike s]

I think the opening 'if I only etc' is a reworking of the opening of DYLW - loose but you can sing the LP bit over the DYLW section - rhythmically it fits.

I think Little Pad is a rewrite of DYLW - obviously a very loose one.

I could maybe see the "dreamy Hawaiian section" being a reworking of the timpani Worms verse melody now that you mention it. The vocal scat section possibly too--but Im not good at identifying instruments or notes on listen like many here, so if I'm wrong I'm wrong.

But I also think it's Brian paying homage to his original conception of Water (or one of the competing ideas for it). If Fire was expressly linked to a place and time in US history it stands to reason the other Elements would've been too. Veggies and IIGS ("fresh clean/zen air...") or Country Air are the midwest breadbasket and tornado alley, Hawaii is water.

Notice the water drop sounds during the "sure would like to have a little pad in Hawaii..." It's not definitive evidence but I've always maintained water would've used those sampled Vosse recordings. There's even very brief sawing sounds to my ears during the "by the sea that's where I'll build a pad" with repeated water dripping--a reference to Workshop? (Which I've sometimes wondered could've been Earth, and almost certainly would've linked Fire to whatever element came next.) I think there's something to this, and I wonder if it wasn't one of the things Brian remembered in 2003 when trying to restore the Water element? Like he knew it was supposed to be Hawaiian themed and Dada had become CCW so he used its melody with new lyrics from Van to do that concept justice. If not for that, I wonder if he wouldn't have just stuck CCW in the setlist and called it a day. Although I hate to use BWPS as a source, sometimes there was a genuine memory from '66 managing to cut through the decades of Priore/bootleg haze, I think...

[Julia]

I'm finding some more books lately, gonna give the rundowns...

In The Beach Boys by Dean Anthony (which wasn't on that earlier list) SMiLE gets a few paragraphs. Nothing new to the likes of us except VDP says he met Brian "during Pet Sounds" (which doesn't contradict the May '66 date but I can't recall seeing Van say it in these exact words before.) The project's failure is attributed to the BBs distrusting Van's lyrics and commercial sensibilities. Veggies is said to be a co-production with Paul McCartney (false, but too enticing of a story to die). I like the description of Smiley as "pretty spooked out stuff." That's all there is to say, it's a very bare bones account--possibly the second most simplified version of the tale I've seen in a published book (the worst is yet to come...).

The Beach Boys (Rock and Roll Hall of Famers) by Mark Holcomb is next, and another I can cross of my reading list (so 7 more to go). The basic "Brian bought Van a car" story is relayed without the detail of the cop, Van is mentioned as being offended by the sanbox. They're said to have written "over twenty songs" together. Bizarrely, the author claims "[the songs] lacked the political awareness and activism central to [the youth] movement. They were mostly expressions of Brian's innermost thoughts and fears." This would be an accurate description of Pet Sounds but in what way is SMiLE's racial commentary (Worms, CE), or celebration of youth rebellion against a decadent system (SU), advocacy for vegetarianism (VT) or acknowledgement of women's struggles (Wonderful) not perfectly in-line with the perspectives of the New Left?

Brian helping the guys rehearse a live version of GV is mentioned including his bow on stage, but the taxi cab anecdote is missing.

Holcomb mentions working at Gold Star but no other studio and claims that SMiLE "was still not ready for the vocal tracks." Both are misleading statements. He relays the tension between VDP and the group, claiming Van was "fired" (exact word) because he wouldn't explain his lyrics. Mike isn't singled out as the main antagonistic force--"Mike, Al and Carl constantly pressured [Brian] not to change the BB formula." The *April* release of Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane is said to have been the moment Brian gave up. Nevermind the single was released in mid-February and Vosse was there to witness Brian's reaction (so he heard it in Feb or early March). Now, I've come to the conclusion SMiLE in its "original" conception was dead by around March based on the sessionography and some other sources, so SFF being the final blow is possible--but it wouldn't have happened in April in any case. Either way, while the SFF incident is brought up sometimes in SMiLE discussions, it's actually rarely cited in the published literature as I recall, so it's interesting this book makes that specific connection.

Capitol is said to have announced on May 2 that SMiLE was canceled. I'd have to look back through my notes when Taylor announced the cancellation according to other sources, but a quick review of the wikipedia just now says it was actually May 6. The Monterey no-show is mentioned but he quotes Hendrix as saying "You heard the last of surfing music,” (which is not the lyric to the song Third Stone From the Sun--IE this book got it wrong).

When talking about the Heroes single, Holcomb describes it against the "originally conceived [...] seven minute epic" no mention of 12 minutes or the other various cuts of the song. The KHJ DJ initially refusing to play the song is mentioned.

Capitol is said to have released the second "best of" comp to "salvage the band's reputation" as opposed to a quick cash in. Also apparently they "demanded an album assembled from the wreckage of SMiLE" as opposed to "still wanted an album ASAP and Brian obliged with what he could from what he had" which I feel is more accurate. Every BB is claimed to have participated, where elsewhere I've read Bruce refused to have anything to do with it. Besides that, all we get of SS is that it was recorded in Bellagio, the home studio, and production credited to the BB. This tangent is yet again christened with Carl's "bunt instead of a grand slam" quote.

I also found another book I didn't know about before, The Beach Boys Center Stage by William Sanford, but it's not even worth mentioning except to say I've seen it. It is by far the shortest, worst written, least informative account of the SMiLE sessions I've seen. 4 paragraphs of sentences an elementary school kid could've written (small word count, simple vocab, no analysis or depth) one of which is just background info on hippies. Among other things, VDP isn't even mentioned nor is Heroes (Veggies and SU are but how in the hell can you talk about SMiLE and not mention fucking Heroes and Villains?!!?) and the author claims the album was made in 1967 rather than primarily 1966. Smiley isn't mentioned either--the book skips straight to Wild Honey. May I officially present to you, ladies and gentlemen, the single worst source of SMiLE info ever published.

This is a link to the 7 books I'm still looking for: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,28647.msg687570.html#msg687570

What I've meant was, Milward saying "a suite of songs" was perfectly expectable from him or understandable since the time "Abbey Road" came out. Maybe he wasn't that aware of "SMiLE-speak" Sometimes writers do not seem to describe things in a more straightforward way, so it's always useful to think, if something catches attention, what does he mean under the words he used, could it be just his way of designating something already known in other terms. (Not just the writer, but it could be somebody the writer quotes, too.)

Ah, I understand what you mean now. Yes, that's very likely. Not everyone is as persnickety or lawyer-ly in their use of language as I.