Beatles listening to part of Smile at Armen Steiner's studio: what happened?

[Andrew G. Doe]

Assuming that this story isn't true, and that there's no possible way that the Beatles could have heard those tapes...

Why would Van say that Brian felt "raped"?  If not by The Beatles, then by whom?  Or is Van just being dramatic?

Does he actually say 'raped'? It's been awhile since I've read the book, but I don't recall that. That would be a little bit over the top, it seems....

"We knew that the nest had been found, and Brian was very sad. He felt violated, raped."  Page 116. In the same paragraph, Van Dyke states unequivocally that "Derek Taylor facilitated The Beatles listening to Smile before (my emphasis) the advent of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Before that started, they heard Smile in part..." - something we've now clearly established is utterly impossible.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Been re-reading Dom's book, and something interesting emerged. On p.112, right after it being stated that on April 29 1967 Capitol were told by Brian that the next BB single would not be "H&V" but rather "Vega-Tables", comes this paragraph (emphasis added):

"This, in fact, was a ploy that showed how serious Brian Wilson, David Anderle and The Beach Boys were in breaking from Capitol. The master tapes, for the time being, were oddly stored catercorner from the Capitol Records parking lot (and across from KFWB) at Armen Steiner's Sound Labs studio*."

For the time being. Not "for some time", or "for several months" - "for the time being", that is, temporarily. So, now we have a date for the tapes in question being at the studio in question: April 1967, and according to the book, they'd not been there long.

The Pepper sessions wrapped the first week in April 1967 (overdubs to existing tracks) and by mid month, the mixing was well under way. Taking the book itself as evidence, the famous covert listening session, even had it occurred, couldn't possibly have influenced the essential music and overall form of the album.

[* - actually it was Sound Recorders, which AS operated from 1965-71: Sound Labs was from 1971-80]

Mr. Doe, I great piece of detective work here.  Thank you.

Well... all I did was read the book... but thanks.

[Dove Nested Towers]

Assuming that this story isn't true, and that there's no possible way that the Beatles could have heard those tapes...

Why would Van say that Brian felt "raped"?  If not by The Beatles, then by whom?  Or is Van just being dramatic?

Does he actually say 'raped'? It's been awhile since I've read the book, but I don't recall that. That would be a little bit over the top, it seems....

Not only that, but "the only conspicuous offense Brian and I recall was when we heard that The  Beatles had heard the tapes of Smile at Armen Steiner's. That changed his attitude completely. It
made him a lot more defensive; it made him question the loyalties of the people who were working
for him, the professional integrity of the studios to keep a client relationship confidential". Priore adds that "Exactly what happened with Derek Taylor and The Beatles at Armen Steiner's studio once the Smile tapes were stored there in early 1967 may never be certain". It appears not.

But just because recording of Pepper had wrapped when the tapes were first placed there doesn't preclude any such incidents from having occurred, though other logistical factors might. Enigmatic.

[Mooger Fooger]

This whole suggestion by VDP sounds like sour grapes to me. The fact is plain and simple: the Beatles got there first. The suggestion they had to steal or borrow from Brian is absurd. Have a listen to Tommorow Never Knows. I'd say they were on a pretty well-defined path to the aural experience of Sgt Peppers without the need to covertly listen to Smile. The experimentation on the album is pretty much where everyone was headed in 1967 anyway, and not some grand secret society to which only Brian and Van were privy.

I love Smile. I prefer BB material to the Beatles. However, I won't ever to agree the suggestion that the world's premiere pop/rock act were so bereft of talent that they had to pilfer other artists' work to call their own.

It is quite possible that bothe Brian and JL/PM reached their relevant musical nirvanas independant of each other.

Or perhaps during this holiest of holy secret pilfering the Beatles happened to hear "Teeter Totter Love" and figured they could definitely do better.

[MBE]

 

This whole suggestion by VDP sounds like sour grapes to me. The fact is plain and simple: the Beatles got there first. The suggestion they had to steal or borrow from Brian is absurd. Have a listen to Tomorrow Never Knows. I'd say they were on a pretty well-defined path to the aural experience of Sgt Peppers without the need to covertly listen to Smile. The experimentation on the album is pretty much where everyone was headed in 1967 anyway, and not some grand secret society to which only Brian and Van were privy.

I love Smile. I prefer BB material to the Beatles. However, I won't ever to agree the suggestion that the world's premiere pop/rock act were so bereft of talent that they had to pilfer other artists' work to call their own.

It is quite possible that both Brian and JL/PM reached their relevant musical nirvana's independent of each other.

Or perhaps during this holiest of holy secret pilfering the Beatles happened to hear "Teeter Totter Love" and figured they could definitely do better.

I wouldn't compare it to how I feel about the Beach Boys but I do consider myself a Beatles fan. I can't help but agree with you here, they were doing there own thing. All the top groups influenced each other, but Brian didn't steal from them and they didn't steal from him. They were good competition and got each other to try harder but that's it. I think Smile was amazing it was among the best of the best,  but I also feel that 1966-1967 was just about the apex of the 1951-71 period that I see as the golden age of music. The Beach Boys were at the forefront, Brian was influential, but there was so much talent then that deserves praising. The Beatles and dozens of others stand on their own.

[Andy B]

This whole suggestion by VDP sounds like sour grapes to me. The fact is plain and simple: the Beatles got there first. The suggestion they had to steal or borrow from Brian is absurd. Have a listen to Tomorrow Never Knows. I'd say they were on a pretty well-defined path to the aural experience of Sgt Peppers without the need to covertly listen to Smile. The experimentation on the album is pretty much where everyone was headed in 1967 anyway, and not some grand secret society to which only Brian and Van were privy.

I love Smile. I prefer BB material to the Beatles. However, I won't ever to agree the suggestion that the world's premiere pop/rock act were so bereft of talent that they had to pilfer other artists' work to call their own.

It is quite possible that both Brian and JL/PM reached their relevant musical nirvana's independent of each other.

Or perhaps during this holiest of holy secret pilfering the Beatles happened to hear "Teeter Totter Love" and figured they could definitely do better.

I wouldn't compare it to how I feel about the Beach Boys but I do consider myself a Beatles fan. I can't help but agree with you here, they were doing there own thing. All the top groups influenced each other, but Brian didn't steal from them and they didn't steal from him. They were good competition and got each other to try harder but that's it. I think Smile was amazing it was among the best of the best,  but I also feel that 1966-1967 was just about the apex of the 1951-71 period that I see as the golden age of music. The Beach Boys were at the forefront, Brian was influential, but there was so much talent then that deserves praising. The Beatles and dozens of others stand on their own.

Totally agree.

Though as Beach Boys historians value must given to the theory that the Beatles did hear some of the Smile music. Why? Well, not because of what the Beatles may or may not have stolen, but what the effect on Brian was. If Brian did honestly believe that the Beatles had stole some of his ideas, or that they were privy to certain tapes, then how would that affect Brian. Would it be just another example of his ever growing paranoia, would it be the final straw that tipped him over the edge? Was the thought that he had been violated or raped the thing that stopped his work on Smile. If Brian was told that the Beatles had found the nest, then who told him? Where would Brian (or Van Dyke for that matter) have got the idea from?

We have proven that it was more or less impossible for the Beatles to have heard Smile tapes first hand from a studio in L.A. But they could still have heard bits of Smile via acetate form, or even by word of mouth (ideas / concepts etc). We know that Lou Adler gave Paul McCartney a sneak preview of Pet Sounds before Bruce Johnston flew over to the UK. We also know that Derek Taylor was Byrds publicist around the time the Bealtes started sounding Byrds like. He was also publicist for Captain Beefheart - and what stickers did John Lennon have on his wall? Captain Beefheart Safe As Milk ones of course!! I know those examples are pretty obtuse and insubstantial, but i wouldn't bet against two way communications across the Atlantic taking place between those people who surrounded Brian and those who worked in England. That was how the music biz worked.

[Dancing Bear]

Yeah, but the Beatles started to sound Byrds-like AFTER THE LP Mr. TAMBOURINE MAN WAS RELEASED. Of course the Beatles heard some of Smile before beginning to record Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane. Good Vibrations, part of Smile, was a #1 hit in England, they just had to turn on the radio.

We're talking about a behind-the-trenches conspiracy between Derek Taylor and the Fab Four to steal ideas from the great Brian Wilson. I know this is a fan board and all, but would we give the idea any time of the day if it was Brian and Derek stealing ideas fom the December Beatles sessions?

[Surfer Joe]

Here comes the boring conservative assessment from an alternate juror:

(1) To me, proof is an absolute word without much degree (or wiggle room) to it, so on the question of whether the Beatles could possibly have heard some tapes in August, 1966 or whenever, I don't think anything here will ever meet that standard, or even come very close. Remember that the Beatles themselves, as of fifteen years ago, could not agree on whether they jammed with Elvis- friggin' ELVIS-  that same week.  So hearing some very incomplete Beach Boys tapes may not have registered as big with them as we might imagine.

(2) Having said that, based on the evidence, I would strongly guess that they didn't. 

(3) It's important to remember that Van Dyke's story is second hand to begin with (right?): "I was told..."  Who knows what someone told him?  To give it any credible scholarly attention we'd need to go to the source. As it stands, though, exact words can be a red herring, especially with hearsay.  What if his story is partly correct, or based on some kind of truth, and (say) some dubs were sent overseas?  The evidence of that is entirely lacking, and I predict that it will remain so because (I think) it didn't happen.  But I can't call the story- or the essence of the story- disproven.  That's too strong. I think "completely unsubstantiated" will do fine.

(4) Paul asked for an acetate of "Good Vibrations", right?  Not sure what my point is there, but it does show that the Beatles were interested. Maybe the whole story grew out of that.

(5) As for Van Dyke, as always, I say give the guy a break.  I have always liked the phrase "zone of tolerance" since I heard it used in politics, and I certainly think VDP has earned one.  If anyone you know is a great scholar of his own life, give that guy a wide berth. This is just a guy going back forty years to an experience that was bitter to begin with, and repeating something somebody told him. I doubt he's as well read on himself as any of us are.

(6) But to me, the most important point is this:  I don't hear anything on Pepper that is remotely lifted from SMiLE. Even the animal noises- supposedly from Pet Sounds- have a very credible pedigree: they come from the same Kelloggs commercial that inspired the song itself. Did the Beatles "steal influence" from Cornelius, the Kelloggs rooster? 

I don't believe in the idea of "stolen influence" anyway (a phrase someone here used which gets right to the heart of the matter).  Influence is legitimate; plagiarism is not; copying is a grey area in between. In relation to SMiLE, though,  Sgt. Pepper shows no significant signs of any of the three.  The Beatles have always said that Sgt. Pepper was most influenced by another album, anyway- Pet Sounds.  So what's the hassle?

I didn't read the whole thread carefully before posting, so if I made any mistakes or misrepresented anything, my apologies, and have at me.

[Dove Nested Towers]

En Garde! If the story is true, Van and Brian were told directly , presumably by a studio staff member, that Beatles had been there, so it's not second hand, except that they didn't actually
witness Beatles members there themselves.

AGAIN, I am not concerning myself with whether or not Sgt. Pepper somehow stole, or at least
was influenced by, illicit Smile access, Andrew's timeline would seem to preclude that. I'm sure they were still VERY interested in hearing his work even after Pepper recording was finished,
but not with the intention of purloining ideas or sounds. My only interest is in whether a fledgling bond or trust that had developed between the two musical forces (and human beings involved) was really violated, or whether it was just Brian and Van Dyke's paranoia that led them to imagine, invent or exaggerate the incident in their minds. Parks' account, IMO, has the ring of something based on a truthful, specific memory.

[Surfer Joe]

"En Garde! If the story is true, Van and Brian were told directly , presumably by a studio staff member, that Beatles had been there, so it's not second hand, except that they didn't actually
witness Beatles members there themselves. "

Actually, that would meet my definition of second hand, as it comes to us, and as per my original point.  Especially the "presumably" part.  Who says, for the record, speaking for themselves, that they- first hand- witnessed the Beatles there listening to SMiLE session material?  Someone saying "I was told..." always meets my personal understanding of second hand.  In court it's called hearsay. Either way, Van Dyke Parks was not representing what he knew personally to be true, but what he was told, or understood that he was being told, or recalled being told. Same as with his Dennis-beating-up-Manson story.

Again, I don't think this story is true, either- in detail or in essence.  Even if it were, since Pepper (in my nominally humble opinion) doesn't resemble SMiLE in any significant way, the only possible relevance of it (again, my opinion, which you cannot prove is not humble) is whether it really did feed Brian's paranoia or make him feel even more betrayed- which wouldn't amp me up much either.

But as to whether or not the story has been emphatically disproved in detail and essence, someone refresh me again on why they couldn't have heard anything during August of 1966? Which I don't think they did? Or why stuff couldn't have been sent to them elsewhere or played over the phone- which I very seriously doubt it was- giving the story an essence of truth with important details mangled after forty years?  Or why the Beatles couldn't have heard SMilE tapes, as described, albeit too late to "influence" Sgt. Pepper, which Brian, Van Dyke, and others may not have known was finished, since it wasn't yet released, making the story true except for the "stolen influence" part? To prove that it happened too late to influence Sgt. Pepper is not to disprove the story- just one subjective part of it.

"Proof" is an absolute word.  Proving something didn't happen is typically harder than proving something did.  Though discrediting some details is often possible, as in this case, it doesn't rule out every aspect of the story.  I just think it's totally unsubstantiated, very stale, and irrelevant gossip.  Just my opinion. No, screw that. It's a damn good opinion. 

[Andrew G. Doe]

Point I've been waiting for someone to pick up on...

Having established that the tapes were in Steiner's studio April 1967, in fact it is possible that a Beatle managed a covert listen. Paul was in LA then. Of course, it makes a nonsense of VDP's claims for it to have influenced SPLHCB, but it was possible... but hugely unlikely unless Derek Taylor had some very elastic morals and principles.

[Surfer Joe]

Yes, and just to be a total twit about this, "they"- whatever tapes existed at a given point- could possibly have been at the Steiner studio at other time periods for a week here or there, right?  Who the F. knows? 

Documentary evidence of vintage tape-movements has to be pretty scarce at this point. What's amazing is that this evidence has come forward.  Catch me up, Andrew- was the Steiner studio a specific part of the VDP claim?  If so, this would be a bizarrely specific sort of corroboration (and referring to a point when Parks was well off the project) while also mooting the whole point of the story. 

The ethics issue is maybe a little hazy to me, since Paul and Brian were playing things from the two albums for each other at every opportunity, but yeah, if I was in Taylor's position I certainly wouldn't have played the stuff for anyone without asking Brian first.  It could have been viewed as anything from subterfuge to just a lapse in judgement.

[Wilsonista]

Someone refresh my memory. Was it the Williams/Anderle conversation where Anderle states that Brian always felt that Taylor's loyalty lay with the Beatles? I know I read that somewhere.

Danny Hutton in Beautiful Dreamer also claims that Taylor's press clippings on Brian and the BB at the time was a coded "warning". 

It has been disproven that the Beatles could not have heard SMiLE in L.A.  But I certainly wouldn't put it past Mr. Taylor (who DID go back to the UK to work for Apple) to have either played SMiLE tracks to the Beatles' inner circle or at least put the word in that this California Kid is doing Something Monumental.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Yes, and just to be a total twit about this, "they"- whatever tapes existed at a given point- could possibly have been at the Steiner studio at other time periods for a week here or there, right?  Who the F. knows? 

Documentary evidence of vintage tape-movements has to be pretty scarce at this point. What's amazing is that this evidence has come forward.  Catch me up, Andrew- was the Steiner studio a specific part of the VDP claim?  If so, this would be a bizarrely specific sort of corroboration (and referring to a point when Parks was well off the project) while also mooting the whole point of the story. 

The ethics issue is maybe a little hazy to me, since Paul and Brian were playing things from the two albums for each other at every opportunity, but yeah, if I was in Taylor's position I certainly wouldn't have played the stuff for anyone without asking Brian first.  It could have been viewed as anything from subterfuge to just a lapse in judgement.

VDP specifically stated the tapes were stored at Steiner's studio... however, he also equally specifically stated that The Beatle(s) heard, and I quote, "the first eight-track". Which is impossible as in early 1967, Sound Recorders wasn't equipped with a 8-track. And that, it's just dawned on me, negates any possibility of anyone listening to the tapes at Sound Recorders, assuming VDP is accurate about the tapes being stored there. I'm investigating this.

[Andrew G. Doe]

But I certainly wouldn't put it past Mr. Taylor (who DID go back to the UK to work for Apple) to have either played SMiLE tracks to the Beatles' inner circle or at least put the word in that this California Kid is doing Something Monumental.

He sure as hell did the latter - as Beach Boys publicist it was, after all, his salaried responsibility. 

[Surfer Joe]

...It has been disproven that the Beatles could not have heard SMiLE in L.A. ...

My question all along has been: how is this "proven"?  We've decided that the August 1966 visit didn't happen, or every moment of their time is accounted for, or what? And we also somehow know that- relevant to Pepper or not- they couldn't possibly have heard something in April 1967, even when Paul was sitting in on a session? How do we know this? I've lightly read most of the thread now, but missed the proof.

Andrew, I still need to read what the exact original VDP claim was, since I haven't gotten around to reading DP's book yet- it's still sitting on my shelf, signed by the author and Tony Asher- but I think you've shown that it's not going to hold up in any kind of detail.  What remains of interest is whether there's any kernel of accurate information there at the heart of it.  I would have guessed not, but turning up the information that "masters"- (an intriguing comment in itself- April, 1967 masters of "Heroes" and "Vegetables"?)- were stored in the right place at the right time to coincide with this odd story is highly interesting and totally unexpected. 

The best case scenario, to me, is this: since the Beatles story in itself doesn't seem really compelling (maybe they heard something, maybe they didn't; most likely not, but in either case Pepper is hardly a song cycle of Americana), maybe this weird little bit of arcana leads somewhere that is interesting.

The next obvious step is to find out what DP's source was for the sentence on page 112.  Man, if I wrote a book like that, I'd footnote the hell out of it. 

And on a side note, what's the basis for saying that changing the single from "H & V" to "Vegetables" was "a ploy that showed how serious Brian Wilson, David Anderle and The Beach Boys were in breaking from Capitol"?  Absent more and clearer information, that's no more than a highly subjective theory.

[Andrew G. Doe]

My question all along has been: how is this "proven"?  We've decided that the August 1966 visit didn't happen, or every moment of their time is accounted for, or what? And we also somehow know that- relevant to Pepper or not- they couldn't possibly have heard something in April 1967, even when Paul was sitting in on a session? How do we know this? I've lightly read most of the thread now, but missed the proof.

OK, if we accept the info as related by VDP as being accurate as he recalls it, it falls down immediately he says "eight-track" in reference to the tapes stored at Sound Recorders, because the studio didn't have an eight-track console until late 1967/early 1968. Ergo, even if the tapes were there - no way to listen to them. And yes, between August 1966 and April 1967, The Beatles time is acounted for pretty much day-by-day.

VDP further claims that The Beatles heard the tapes in LA before they embarked on Pepper, which just isn't possible as they were not in the USA then. Further, I've established to my satisfaction, if no-one else's, that the book claims the tapes were taken from Capitol and/or Western (neither of which had an 8-track, btw) and stored in Sound Recorders in April 1967, or slightly prior (en passant - what would be the point of storing 8-track tapes somewhere that couldn't play them ? The obvious - indeed only - choice would be Columbia).

What remains of interest is whether there's any kernel of accurate information there at the heart of it.

Here's an idea, admittedly off the wall: what if some engineer at Sound Recorders did tell VDP and Brian that... as a joke ?

  I would have guessed not, but turning up the information that "masters"- (an intriguing comment in itself- April, 1967 masters of "Heroes" and "Vegetables"?)- were stored in the right place at the right time to coincide with this odd story is highly interesting and totally unexpected.

Never seen any refernece to masters - just "the first eight-track". 

Might seem like I beating this to death, but just trying to point out that once you start to examine VDP's claims in the light of known and established facts, even superficially, it all falls apart. To sum up concisely - the timeframe is wrong, the mechanics are unworkable and VDP is relaying, at best, 2nd hand information. It never happened because it couldn't have.

[?]

The thing is, 40 year old memories simply aren't reliable given what is known about the way the human mind works.  What we remember is never an accurate picture of what really happened, it's more the way we think it should have happened.  It's the same as when you gather with a group of old friends and talk about something that happened long ago and nobody remembers it the same way.  It isn't that anyone is being untruthful, it's just that the truth as they recall it isn't necessarily reflective of the actual event.  So it's entirely possible that VDP clearly remembers such an event happening when in fact it never did.  Obviously Smile was a very complex situation for all involved, and such a story could go a long way towards explaining why it all went so terribly wrong.  The mind is a strange, strange thing.  That's my two cents anyway.  Carry on! 

[Surfer Joe]

What remains of interest is whether there's any kernel of accurate information there at the heart of it.

Here's an idea, admittedly off the wall: what if some engineer at Sound Recorders did tell VDP and Brian that... as a joke ?

Nothing wrong with that thought- it's perfectly plausible.  Along the same lines, it's also very possible that someone was relaying something to VDP- who knows how much later?  (again, I need to look at the source for all this)- that could have been fifth or sixth or seventh hand, inflated at every stage, and was what somebody thought VDP wanted to hear. The sleeper theory says that we remember the gossip long after we forget the source (and whether or not it was ever credible).

Never seen any refernece to masters - just "the first eight-track". 

"The master tapes, for the time being, were oddly stored catercorner from the Capitol Records parking lot (and across from KFWB) at Armen Steiner's Sound Labs studio."

 

Might seem like I beating this to death, but just trying to point out that once you start to examine VDP's claims in the light of known and established facts, even superficially, it all falls apart. To sum up concisely - the timeframe is wrong, the mechanics are unworkable and VDP is relaying, at best, 2nd hand information. It never happened because it couldn't have.

Nah, we're all beating it to death (and especially me); it deserves to be hashed out.  

Yeah, I would certainly agree that it's been established, for example, that a purported listening session in April, 1967 could not have influenced Pepper, and I'm comfortable with saying that eight track masters could not have been played at that studio at that time.  I would certainly agree that specifics of the Parks story have been discredited.  But from there, we've leaped all the way to this:

...It has been disproven that the Beatles could not have heard SMiLE in L.A. ...

Quite a different and bolder statement, repeated throughout this thread. Whatever the relevance to anything.

The Parks story certainly doesn't hold up in detail, despite one oddball bit of apparent corroboration of one part of it- the tapes being at that studio during a Beatle visit to L.A.  But as to the broader statement- the Beatles' movements are certainly known day by day, but hour by hour?  If there was even one visit to Capitol on Vine, they'd be in the right area with a window of time that might be very hard to close.

This may be off the wall a little, but: over in Toluca Lake, Bob's Big Boy has a booth with a little plaque in it that says that on such-and-such a date, (1964 or '65), "...John Lennon,  Paul McCartney,  George Harrison, and Ringo Starr sat in this booth".  Is there any other account of them that places them at Bob's Big Boy on that day?  (I have no idea, but I guess that it'd take some digging). Granted they were there, who's to keep Papoo's Hot Dog Show, which is (and was) right across the street, from claiming that they also stopped in there for butterscotch milkshakes?  The point is, I'd be surprised if even THEIR movements were tracked and documented thoroughly enough to rule out what could have been a very brief stop at a place that was right in an area where they were known to be.  

And just to make the slope slipperier, what if the plaque- which presumably would have been ordered and made somewhat later, had the wrong day?  Somebody thought it was last Wednesday, but it was last Tuesday?  Happens all the time. That would be enough, for some, to totally undermine and discredit an otherwise true story.  What if they just sat in there for five minutes having a coke while the limo gassed up next door?  Now the time frame may not support a true story. I could go on (and I know you believe that)!

So the threshold for "proof" should be very high- especially for a broad statement.

I just checked, and oddly enough, Mark Lewisohn doesn't mention the April, 1967 L.A. visit at all in his Chronicle book, but he leaves a blank from April 8 though 16, so I guess it must have been then.

And as to August 25-29, 1966, when some recording had been done, when we know they heard "Good Vibrations" (am I right on that?), and during a period for which the Beatles could not remember whether or not they jammed with Elvis, I don't know what the disproof is- again, of a general listening session, not the details of the Parks story.

[Surfer Joe]

The thing is, 40 year old memories simply aren't reliable given what is known about the way the human mind works.  What we remember is never an accurate picture of what really happened, it's more the way we think it should have happened.  It's the same as when you gather with a group of old friends and talk about something that happened long ago and nobody remembers it the same way.  It isn't that anyone is being untruthful, it's just that the truth as they recall it isn't necessarily reflective of the actual event.  So it's entirely possible that VDP clearly remembers such an event happening when it in fact never did.  Obviously Smile was a very complex situation for all involved, and such a story could go a long way towards explaining why it all went so terribly wrong.  The mind is a strange, strange thing.  That's my two cents anyway.  Carry on! 

Very, very true.  I've learned over the years never to completely credit even eyewitness memories (which this isn't), especially those going way back, or completely discount them.

In researching some animation history (my old field), I had an older artist describe to me an episode he said he had witnessed involving a certain famous animator.  Later, I asked him when he had started at the studio and he said "1957".  The artist in question had been killed in 1952.  Many, many examples of this.

On the other hand, in the mid-eighties, I read a book on the sinking of the Titanic that included eyewitness accounts of the ship breaking up at the surface, according to people who were in the water or in boats and saw it happen. The author quoted many experts who verified that this hadn't happened, and explained why it was very unlikely and gave various reasons that the eyewitnesses were all wrong. The book ended by saying that someday the Titanic would be found, on her side but intact  on the ocean floor.  A few months later Robert Ballard found it and of course it was shown to have broken apart at the surface (both ends resting upright), with eyewitnesses trumping perceived wisdom in that case. The book was immediately re-issued- heavily revised.

So it's wise to be conservative.  The truth, when we're fortunate enough to get it,  isn't always entirely logical.

[earcandy]

Or perhaps during this holiest of holy secret pilfering the Beatles happened to hear "Teeter Totter Love" and figured they could definitely do better.

Well, there was the Beatles out-take in June 67 of "The Teeter Totter Mystery Tour"! 

[grillo]

(en passant - what would be the point of storing 8-track tapes somewhere that couldn't play them ? The obvious - indeed only - choice would be Columbia).
ected.

[/quote]
Couldn't BW's 'paranoid' ideas about Spector & Murry be related to the move? If Brian thought people were trying to get him in some way, BW might stash the tapes at an unlikely location to keep the mind gangsters off his trail...?

[Surfer Joe]

 Further, I've established to my satisfaction, if no-one else's, that the book claims the tapes were taken from Capitol and/or Western (neither of which had an 8-track, btw) and stored in Sound Recorders in April 1967, or slightly prior (en passant - what would be the point of storing 8-track tapes somewhere that couldn't play them ? The obvious - indeed only - choice would be Columbia).

Yeah, Nick Grillo and Andrew, I'd had that same question, but not only that- why were 8-track reels at Capitol and/or Western to begin with if they couldn't play them? 

One more: the "GV" vocals were done at Columbia, thus they don't exist/aren't available. What other SMiLE masters were done on 8 tracks at Columbia?  If we know what reels are 8-track, we can possibly nail down what reels the Beatles are supposed to have heard, and also eliminate anything not recorded prior to August 25-29, 1966 from that window of opportunity.  Provided of course that anyone still takes the basic story in all of its problematic details seriously enough to scrutinize.

We need Mark Linnett and Alan Boyd in this thread at some point.

And incidentally, Andrew and I aren't beating a dead horse here.  At this stage, it's still a dying horse being killed off (eventually to be interred with "Remember The Zoo").  And I'm trying to find out if it has any bastard colts that might require saving.   

[Dove Nested Towers]

What I posted here was irrelevant, so I wish to retract it.

[a.j.]

I assumed he is meaning the first 8 tracks. As in the first eight tracks that they more or less completed.