gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680597 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 01:46:46 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Poll
Question: Rate Brian Wilson Presents SMiLE
5 - 126 (76.4%)
4 - 20 (12.1%)
3 - 7 (4.2%)
2 - 7 (4.2%)
1 - 1 (0.6%)
0 - 4 (2.4%)
Total Voters: 149

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Brian Wilson Presents SMiLE  (Read 120478 times)
Aegir
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4680



View Profile WWW
« Reply #50 on: June 06, 2006, 11:51:26 AM »

I only have two problems with SMiLE:

1) How they switch between Brian's and Jeff's voice with things like I'm In Great Shape and "columnated ruins domino"
2) It's too sterile, too normal. Smile '67 was effed up, crazy.. BWPS has none of that. It's a whole different atmosphere. Vegetables isn't even that weird on this. Giving "Holidays" and "Love to Say Da-Da" lyrics ruined the entire feel of the songs. I could go on and on.
Logged

Every time you spell Smile as SMiLE, an angel's wings are forcibly torn off its body.
Daniel S.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 896



View Profile
« Reply #51 on: June 06, 2006, 01:22:46 PM »

It seems like Darian, and whoever else was involved, didn't know what to leave out so they just tried to incorporate everything and have it "make sense." That's half of what ruined it for me. The other half is the production.
Logged

Let us all stay teenage gamblers listening to the radio.
I. Spaceman
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 2271

Revolution Never Again


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: June 06, 2006, 09:52:28 PM »

Where are you guys getting such an endless supply of crack?
Logged

Nobody gives a sh*t about the Record Room
Aegir
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4680



View Profile WWW
« Reply #53 on: June 07, 2006, 01:03:28 AM »

Newark.
Logged

Every time you spell Smile as SMiLE, an angel's wings are forcibly torn off its body.
Lorenschwartz
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: June 07, 2006, 03:09:25 PM »

Nevada
Logged
The Trader
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: June 11, 2006, 07:28:07 PM »

I think alot of you are missing the point of BWS04.

All you naysayers say that BWS04 lacks that sense of exploration  that permeate's the original SMiLE. but  the fact of the matter is that SMiLE means something totally different now than it did in 1967:

The original SMiLE is about an artist exploring new possibilities within popular music.

While BWS04 is the sound of an artist conquering personal demons that have haunted him for 37 years.

Atleast for me anyway.




(yay first post)
Logged
Lorenschwartz
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: June 11, 2006, 10:29:21 PM »

yaddayaddayaahhhh
Logged
Daniel S.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 896



View Profile
« Reply #57 on: June 11, 2006, 10:34:35 PM »



 LOL
Logged

Let us all stay teenage gamblers listening to the radio.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: June 12, 2006, 05:55:57 AM »


See, the thing is, I really don't believe this album in any way, shape or form resembles what Smile was supposed to be.

Nobody ever said it did...although I will now. It resembles it in several ways, shapes and forms. It has the same material, for one. It has the same composer. There. Two ways.

And you do a lot of whining about how awful it is. Funny, since it's easily the best BB-related newly recorded release in at least 30 years, and arguably closer to 40. If you hate synths, you better hate every single BB/BW disc from about 1970 on. I say get the f*** over it. It's great.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Lorenschwartz
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: June 15, 2006, 12:01:59 PM »


See, the thing is, I really don't believe this album in any way, shape or form resembles what Smile was supposed to be.

Nobody ever said it did...although I will now. It resembles it in several ways, shapes and forms. It has the same material, for one. It has the same composer. There. Two ways.

And you do a lot of whining about how awful it is. Funny, since it's easily the best BB-related newly recorded release in at least 30 years, and arguably closer to 40. If you hate synths, you better hate every single BB/BW disc from about 1970 on. I say get the foda over it. It's great.
hey, mr. vandross....i dont not like Synths, i love Sweet insanity, i don't like fakee Smiles!!!

i hope Van Dyke will gracefully exit the picture now.
Logged
L Ransford
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 84


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: June 15, 2006, 01:12:02 PM »

 I have been listening to "Got To Get You Into My Life" on The Beatles "Anthology 2." The rawness and the atmosphere is just incredible. I can never listen to "Revolver" again. Surely the finished Revolver is not what The Beatles intended. How could they think of adding horn parts to "Got To Get You Into My Life?" Is that what Paul originally intended?  I guess it was really George Martin's idea, him butting into The Beatles creative vision and all. How dare they take the ending of "Taxman" and splice the guitar solo in its place!
 All the laughing is missing on "And Your Bird Can Sing" that was on the earlier take. Don't you just hate the way they sing it "straight" on "Revolver?" They completely missed the comic aspects of the song they must have originally intended. Who do The Beatles think they are  tampering with their own work like that? I'm so gald Anthology preserved these raw sessions so I can figure out what they originally intended before they made those awful "finished" versions (and I can arrange them into the way the albums were really meant to be).
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: June 16, 2006, 12:25:36 PM »


See, the thing is, I really don't believe this album in any way, shape or form resembles what Smile was supposed to be.

Nobody ever said it did...although I will now. It resembles it in several ways, shapes and forms. It has the same material, for one. It has the same composer. There. Two ways.

And you do a lot of whining about how awful it is. Funny, since it's easily the best BB-related newly recorded release in at least 30 years, and arguably closer to 40. If you hate synths, you better hate every single BB/BW disc from about 1970 on. I say get the foda over it. It's great.
hey, mr. vandross....i dont not like Synths, i love Sweet insanity, i don't like fakee Smiles!!!

i hope Van Dyke will gracefully exit the picture now.

First of all, terribly clever on the "Mr. Vandross" thing. I've never heard that. Really. I haven't.

Second, since you can plainly see I wasn't quoting you or responding to you, you really don't have to answer to my post.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Lorenschwartz
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: June 16, 2006, 06:38:50 PM »

I have been listening to "Got To Get You Into My Life" on The Beatles "Anthology 2." The rawness and the atmosphere is just incredible. I can never listen to "Revolver" again. Surely the finished Revolver is not what The Beatles intended. How could they think of adding horn parts to "Got To Get You Into My Life?" Is that what Paul originally intended?  I guess it was really George Martin's idea, him butting into The Beatles creative vision and all. How dare they take the ending of "Taxman" and splice the guitar solo in its place!
 All the laughing is missing on "And Your Bird Can Sing" that was on the earlier take. Don't you just hate the way they sing it "straight" on "Revolver?" They completely missed the comic aspects of the song they must have originally intended. Who do The Beatles think they are  tampering with their own work like that? I'm so gald Anthology preserved these raw sessions so I can figure out what they originally intended before they made those awful "finished" versions (and I can arrange them into the way the albums were really meant to be).
Sarcasm..aint it a bitch
Logged
Daniel S.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 896



View Profile
« Reply #63 on: June 16, 2006, 06:46:47 PM »

L Ransford,

it's not as subjective as all that. 'Revolver' began and ended (was released) as a Beatles album.

'Smile' began and died as a Beach Boys album.

'Brian Wilson Presents Smile' is a totally different animal. Put any spin you want on it, but a facts a fact.
Logged

Let us all stay teenage gamblers listening to the radio.
L Ransford
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 84


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: June 17, 2006, 08:16:02 AM »

L Ransford,

it's not as subjective as all that. 'Revolver' began and ended (was released) as a Beatles album.

'Smile' began and died as a Beach Boys album.

'Brian Wilson Presents Smile' is a totally different animal. Put any spin you want on it, but a facts a fact.
Yes they are different. One is the composer's completed statement, and one is hours of unfinished session tapes.
Logged
Daniel S.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 896



View Profile
« Reply #65 on: June 17, 2006, 08:23:36 AM »

One is the composer's completed statement

No it isn't.  A lot of chefs in the kitchen. I remember reading an interview with Darian where he said that technically Brian wasn't even needed at the sessions for cutting the backing tracks. They just had him there for the cameras.

There are many things about BWPS that are inferior to the original tapes, but what I hate the most about BWPS is that it is not the logical conclusion of Brian's original intentions. It doesn't even come close, that's why the sequencing is so fodaed.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2006, 08:28:52 AM by Heywood Floyd » Logged

Let us all stay teenage gamblers listening to the radio.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: June 17, 2006, 08:47:22 AM »

I remember reading an interview with Darian where he said that technically Brian wasn't even needed at the sessions for cutting the backing tracks. They just had him there for the cameras.


Now, on THIS, I absolutely think you're correct. I believe Brian was largely useless for BWPS. And I believe anyone who thinks that he was a major part of putting together the music--in the years 2003-04--is kidding him- or herself. I believe that 95% of his input was contributed in 1966 or 1967, and that Darian and Mertens and maybe some of the others did the bulk of the work.

That doesn't mean that I don't love it, though. It was great music that deserved to be recorded and properly released. I think the people who put it together, played and sang on it did a great job of living up to a legend that they absolutely couldn't live up to. I'm sure anyone would rather have a completed 1967 album, but there isn't one. There wasn't one. There won't be one. Even a sessions box won't bring that about. (Don't get me wrong, I want a sessions box, too.) But BWPS is better than 99.8% of what is released, and it gets bashed because of sequencing quibbles or the use of keyboards instead of true harpsichord or tack piano? Please...
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Sheriff John Stone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5309



View Profile
« Reply #67 on: June 17, 2006, 09:30:12 AM »

L Ransford,

it's not as subjective as all that. 'Revolver' began and ended (was released) as a Beatles album.

'Smile' began and died as a Beach Boys album.

'Brian Wilson Presents Smile' is a totally different animal. Put any spin you want on it, but a facts a fact.
Yes they are different. One is the composer's completed statement, and one is hours of unfinished session tapes.

This is the one aspect of BWPS that bothers me the most, and it is the reason that I cannot accept BWPS.

Brian Wilson in 2004 could not even approach composing the songs that are on BWPS. He has very little in common with the man who composed the music in 1966. But they (the team) did a marvelous job selling it/him to the public.

If they would've kept BWPS as live performance piece, I would have no problem supporting it. I love the concert BWPS. But once they recorded it and SOLD it as "Brian finishing it", they lost me. It's became a fraud.
Logged
L Ransford
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 84


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: June 17, 2006, 11:13:36 AM »

One is the composer's completed statement

There are many things about BWPS that are inferior to the original tapes, but what I hate the most about BWPS is that it is not the logical conclusion of Brian's original intentions. It doesn't even come close, that's why the sequencing is so fodaed.
Please do tell us Brian's original intentions. Don't keep us waiting!
« Last Edit: June 17, 2006, 11:18:08 AM by L Ransford » Logged
Daniel S.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 896



View Profile
« Reply #69 on: June 17, 2006, 12:53:51 PM »

Oh...and Van Dyke's new lyrics suck.  Tongue
Logged

Let us all stay teenage gamblers listening to the radio.
Daniel S.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 896



View Profile
« Reply #70 on: June 17, 2006, 01:15:23 PM »

But BWPS is better than 99.8% of what is released, and it gets bashed because of sequencing quibbles or the use of keyboards instead of true harpsichord or tack piano? Please...

The devil is in the details. They killed off the spirit and soul of Smile using those synths. The old Brian was all about the production of a record and he was on a quest for PERFECTION. Remember? Do you think BWPS hit the mark? Do you think if Brian had all of his marbles he would be happy with it? He had a merda hemorrhage over the merdaty vocals for Surf's Up 1971, remember?
Logged

Let us all stay teenage gamblers listening to the radio.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: June 17, 2006, 01:47:25 PM »

But BWPS is better than 99.8% of what is released, and it gets bashed because of sequencing quibbles or the use of keyboards instead of true harpsichord or tack piano? Please...

The devil is in the details. They killed off the spirit and soul of Smile using those synths. The old Brian was all about the production of a record and he was on a quest for PERFECTION. Remember? Do you think BWPS hit the mark? Do you think if Brian had all of his marbles he would be happy with it? He had a merda hemorrhage over the merdaty vocals for Surf's Up 1971, remember?

Remember? No. I'm 29 years old, so absolutely not. I don't remember a fucking thing. But while you talk about them killing the spirit and soul of Smile, I think about the alternative: no Smile at all. More Britney records. More Rob Thomas. More whatever the f*** sh*t is coming out these days. A synth here or there instead of NOTHING? Are you fucking kidding me? I've never said it could have been better, or wouldn't have been better (in 1967). But without BWPS, it WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN. PERIOD.  I'll take an allegedly flawed product over none at all.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Jonas
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1923


I've got the Beach Boys, my friends got the Stones


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: June 17, 2006, 02:23:22 PM »

I'll take an allegedly flawed product over none at all.

I'd have to disagree there, I agreed with the BWPS better than nothing, but then again its hard to deal with the fact that it'll always be 'what couldve been' instead of 'what is'...SMiLE will always be 'what couldve been' regardless of the BWPS.
Logged

We would like to record under an atmosphere of calmness. - Brian Wilson
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1IgXT3xFdU
Daniel S.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 896



View Profile
« Reply #73 on: June 17, 2006, 06:08:48 PM »


 But without BWPS, it WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN. PERIOD.  I'll take an allegedly flawed product over none at all.

Not being finished is part of Smile's indentity. The Smile album IS THE SESSIONS. Releasing a comprehensive Smile Sessions box set would be like releasing the album. 'Cause that's what it is. 

Smile took on a life of its own and achieved everything Brian wanted. Just not in the way he, and the Beach Boys, intended.

Oh, and I mean't REMEMBER THE fodaING INTERVIEWS AND ARTICLES WE'VE ALL READ!
« Last Edit: June 17, 2006, 06:11:13 PM by Heywood Floyd » Logged

Let us all stay teenage gamblers listening to the radio.
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #74 on: June 18, 2006, 12:55:06 AM »

I personally consider BWPS and SMiLE to be two completely different things. That said, I freakin' love me some BWPS...

I do feel though that the live version on the 2-DVD is superior to the album, though...
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
gfx
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.429 seconds with 24 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!