Smiley Smile

[jazzfascist]

The image of BB's have been ruined time and time again, by the various incarnations they have appeared in, so I doubt if that's the  problem that some people could have with "Smiley Smile", at least if they know the entire output of the group.

Right, but people here constantly complain about their particular image of the group being ruined.  It's a huge issue, not just a given.  Some people have a problem with the Mike Love Beach Boys, and think he's ruined the group's image as intelligent songwriters.  Others seem to hate Smiley Smile for forcing them to really analyze what sounds like "half-assed" noise instead of just drooling over the same, easy, old bits over and over again ("That tag from 'Fun Fun Fun,' far out!").  If Brian was trying to compete with the best of the 60s, he succeeded with Smiley Smile so much that it hurt.  It makes the Smile fans look traditional, and I think that's the problem people have with Smiley Smile.  A lot of fans like to gush about Brian's perfectionism and the layers of hidden complexity in his best known songs.  I think they resent him for putting out an album that is as beautiful as anything he wrote earlier but sounds, superficially, like amateur work.  It fodas with the Brian Wilson image too much by showing him as a creative guy willing to put one over on his fans to see why they really liked him in the first place.

How about the fans that just think the album sucks? The same fans who like Pet Sounds and Wild Honey, but don't like the crap inbetween the two?

Yes, I agree but instead of discussing the actual music, you always get the argument that the reason, that people aren't that crazy about Smiley must be because it ruins their image of the BB's. I find it hard to believe that people wouldn't like an album, because it presented a slightly different image of BB's, if the music was actually really great.

Søren

[Chris D.]

But with the above sentences, if you hear something on the radio once--and you think it's merda--do you really analyze what it is you dislike?

I do!

Not that I'm not largely guilty of the same, but that depresses me, in that I think it takes away from the aesthetics of music. It is unfortunately that we over-intellectualize everything.

Ian's response nailed this perfectly.  It's second-nature for me and loads of fun.  I hear a song that excites me and I take it apart.  I want to know why I think it's good.  And you're way off saying that my attempt to fully appreciate music is damaging to music's aesthetics.  Aesthetics is the appreciation of something, and I mean to do that for real.  For example, I just got Pulp's Different Class album for Christmas and can't stop playing it, especially the song "Disco 2000."  What made me really take notice of this song?  Reading the lyrics.  I got hooked immediately from a reaction to the lyrics which included full-on analysis.  I could post pages for you about this song, and it's my desire to absorb every corner of its being which lets me love it so much.  If I just wanted a catchy tune for the background I could find that anywhere, and I'd probably own 20-30 albums tops.  I'm not Ian, but I own a lot more than that.

For me the bottom line is two-fold: I would like to make a living off of my writing so I find it beneficial to analyze all art in order to improve anything I create (monks did this with books and we call it glossing--no one would argue that was useless); and I think an understanding of yourself and surroundings is absolutely essential in order to not be used by those surroundings.  That is, we like to pretend so much of our behavior is just human nature, is involuntary or burned into our DNA, but that isn't the case.  For example, we practise sexuality, not just intercourse.  Intercourse is natural, sexuality is an invention.  Say you have a couple into bondage.  You can't tell me they just naturally like something which isn't man-made.  If I were in that couple, I would be compelled to understand my sexual fetish in order to get the most out of it.  I don't see that as negative or over-intellectualizing at all.  If someone wants to pretend their tastes are incidental, that's their loss.  They will be a lesser person for it.  I want to understand myself inside and out, and push harder for that every day because the brain is a complex tool that we barely understand and aren't even ready for.

I realize in these rants I tend to try pulling in a lot of comparisons that may not be necessary, but if I'm still unclear look at it this way: my desire to create the best things is sort of like a competition.  I wouldn't advocate creating for other people at the expense of your own goals, but you could still see it as a competition.  In that sense it's not unlike two warring nations.  You would expect a nation at war to learn all it can about the enemy, right?  No one would say, "You guys won, but you really over-intellectualized that war, didn't you?"  The country that doesn't do the research loses and has to absorb itself into the culture of the winning country.  Think of all the people on this site who bitch about new music not being as good as the 60s.  If you're not going to analyze the stuff you can't expect it to be good.  Casual response is going to generate casual product.

[Chris D.]

I find it hard to believe that people wouldn't like an album, because it presented a slightly different image of BB's, if the music was actually really great.

Søren

Isn't that why Brian said people weren't ready for Smile?  And considering that, has anyone here actually said it was a good idea to shelve Smile (especially for that reason) in 67?

You want the Beach Boys to get some long-awaited youth support from this generation? Market their albums as pioneers of emo, slowcore, or lo-fi, people will jump all over them.

Right thing for the wrong reasons.  Shouldn't they like the music on its own terms, not because it's been remixed/reworked/reworded/repackaged to fit current trends that won't mean sh*t in a few years anyway?

[Jason]

You want the Beach Boys to get some long-awaited youth support from this generation? Market their albums as pioneers of emo, slowcore, or lo-fi, people will jump all over them.

Right thing for the wrong reasons.  Shouldn't they like the music on its own terms, not because it's been remixed/reworked/reworded/repackaged to fit current trends that won't mean merda in a few years anyway?

That's something that most likely will never happen. The young people who post here (myself included) are rare breeds, we get the music. I like to think of Brian Wilson as a, if not the, pioneer in the so-called "indie" movement, a good 20 years before such a movement really existed. There are plenty of indie purists out there, and a little clever marketing of Beach Boys music towards a younger audience could do nothing but good, in my opinion. If the genres don't last, who cares? There will always be that fan base out there. Pet Sounds gets approval like this from younger audiences, but the whole catalog deserves such praise.

[jazzfascist]

I find it hard to believe that people wouldn't like an album, because it presented a slightly different image of BB's, if the music was actually really great.

Søren

Isn't that why Brian said people weren't ready for Smile?  And considering that, has anyone here actually said it was a good idea to shelve Smile (especially for that reason) in 67?

That's what Brian thought, but who says he was right and it could just as well be an excuse for not releasing some music, that he after all wasn't so sure about .

Søren

[Chris D.]

That's something that most likely will never happen. The young people who post here (myself included) are rare breeds, we get the music. I like to think of Brian Wilson as a, if not the, pioneer in the so-called "indie" movement, a good 20 years before such a movement really existed. There are plenty of indie purists out there, and a little clever marketing of Beach Boys music towards a younger audience could do nothing but good, in my opinion. If the genres don't last, who cares? There will always be that fan base out there. Pet Sounds gets approval like this from younger audiences, but the whole catalog deserves such praise.

I agree about them being a huge influence on indie stuff.  I just don't think they should have to alter their image to seem cooler.  But you are right about the influence -- their adventurousness is severely underrated.

That's what Brian thought, but who says he was right and it could just as well be an excuse for not releasing some music, that he after all wasn't so sure about .

Whether he was right or wrong you say that his thinking it was inappropriate stopped him.  That's the important thing, and it says to me how foolish it is to care so much about keeping with that the audience thinks is your image.  Especially if you're going to throw out music like that.

[the captain]

But with the above sentences, if you hear something on the radio once--and you think it's merda--do you really analyze what it is you dislike?

I do!

Not that I'm not largely guilty of the same, but that depresses me, in that I think it takes away from the aesthetics of music. It is unfortunately that we over-intellectualize everything.

Ian's response nailed this perfectly.  It's second-nature for me and loads of fun.  I hear a song that excites me and I take it apart.  I want to know why I think it's good.  And you're way off saying that my attempt to fully appreciate music is damaging to music's aesthetics.  Aesthetics is the appreciation of something, and I mean to do that for real.  For example, I just got Pulp's Different Class album for Christmas and can't stop playing it, especially the song "Disco 2000."  What made me really take notice of this song?  Reading the lyrics.  I got hooked immediately from a reaction to the lyrics which included full-on analysis.  I could post pages for you about this song, and it's my desire to absorb every corner of its being which lets me love it so much.  If I just wanted a catchy tune for the background I could find that anywhere, and I'd probably own 20-30 albums tops.  I'm not Ian, but I own a lot more than that.

For me the bottom line is two-fold: I would like to make a living off of my writing so I find it beneficial to analyze all art in order to improve anything I create (monks did this with books and we call it glossing--no one would argue that was useless); and I think an understanding of yourself and surroundings is absolutely essential in order to not be used by those surroundings.  That is, we like to pretend so much of our behavior is just human nature, is involuntary or burned into our DNA, but that isn't the case.  For example, we practise sexuality, not just intercourse.  Intercourse is natural, sexuality is an invention.  Say you have a couple into bondage.  You can't tell me they just naturally like something which isn't man-made.  If I were in that couple, I would be compelled to understand my sexual fetish in order to get the most out of it.  I don't see that as negative or over-intellectualizing at all.  If someone wants to pretend their tastes are incidental, that's their loss.  They will be a lesser person for it.  I want to understand myself inside and out, and push harder for that every day because the brain is a complex tool that we barely understand and aren't even ready for.

I realize in these rants I tend to try pulling in a lot of comparisons that may not be necessary, but if I'm still unclear look at it this way: my desire to create the best things is sort of like a competition.  I wouldn't advocate creating for other people at the expense of your own goals, but you could still see it as a competition.  In that sense it's not unlike two warring nations.  You would expect a nation at war to learn all it can about the enemy, right?  No one would say, "You guys won, but you really over-intellectualized that war, didn't you?"  The country that doesn't do the research loses and has to absorb itself into the culture of the winning country.  Think of all the people on this site who bitch about new music not being as good as the 60s.  If you're not going to analyze the stuff you can't expect it to be good.  Casual response is going to generate casual product.

I understand you. I just don't agree with some of what you say. And I don't plan to, nor do I expect you to agree with me.

And who cares? It's just f@cking pop music.

[I. Spaceman]

We care. And that's why we're here, dude. To argue and analyse music.
If you don't dig it, don't take part, don't read it.
But don't pass it off with some jiveass comment that simply signifies you've lost the argument.

Chris, man, I knew you would love Different Class, I FODA KNEW IT! Disco 2000 is the single of the 90's, bar none.

[Daniel S.]

5. And it's not just 'cause I love this album. This is the REAL psychedelic acid album. To me this in the same league as Oar by Skip Spence. I don't want to throw words like "genius" around, but it's amazing where this album can take you. Don't get to hung up on "production value." Just go with it.  In a sea of posers trying to capitalize on peace, love and psychedelia - Skip Spence, Brian Wilson and Syd Barrett were really showing you what was on the other side.

f*** the Beatles.

[I. Spaceman]

Damn right!!!!!!

That's the reason people don't dig the SMiLEY. Because they don't "get" Syd Barrett, Roky Erickson and Skip Spence.
Does ANYONE here who does not like SMiLEY like any other bizarre, intense twisted psych?
It's the same deal, guys. Listen.

[Chris D.]

Chris, man, I knew you would love Different Class, I FODA KNEW IT! Disco 2000 is the single of the 90's, bar none.

You're exactly right, as usual.  Best 90s single, easily.  He squeezed a long story into a short song as well as anything by Steely Dan and makes Ray Davies look like a caricature artist in comparison.

[Mitchell]

I loved Smiley Smile from the moment I heard Vegetables and it just got better from there. Funnily enough, this album "sounds" like the Beach Boys more to me than anything else. For some reason I identify with their voices on the album, especially during Wonderful's party break.

[I. Spaceman]

Welcome back, Mitchell!

[jazzfascist]

That's what Brian thought, but who says he was right and it could just as well be an excuse for not releasing some music, that he after all wasn't so sure about .

Whether he was right or wrong you say that his thinking it was inappropriate stopped him.  That's the important thing, and it says to me how foolish it is to care so much about keeping with that the audience thinks is your image.  Especially if you're going to throw out music like that.

No I was talking about how some music would be received if it momentarily ruined the image of a band, it seems that you agree, that if the music is great people will listen anyway.

Søren

[the captain]

We care. And that's why we're here, dude. To argue and analyse music.

Of course we care, and that's obviously why I'm here. My point was that at a certain point, when neither person is really presenting new arguments, but they don't agree, you need to just agree to disagree. And because it's pop music (beloved, but not exactly a nuclear arms treaty or anything), we don't have to come away with an agreement. Sometimes you just have to drop it and move on, you know?

If you don't dig it, don't take part, don't read it.

My ongoing arguments would obviously show I dig it enough to take part in it, and that I'm reading it. I wasn't being dismissive of Chris D., I was just saying nolo contendere.

But don't pass it off with some jiveass comment that simply signifies you've lost the argument.

Take it as my loss if you want. I don't. But as you once said to me, don't tell me what to do, man--especially if you misunderstand the intention of my post.

[I. Spaceman]

I think new arguments were being presnted by Chris D. I certainly have never read them before. And who's to say that everyone here has heard and read all the same things? Maybe others, less enlightened than you, dig reading it.

[Jason]

You guys need to chill out, it's music for f***'s sake.

[I. Spaceman]

That's even more of what I'm talking about.
Music is my religion, man. I take it seriously. Very seriously.
So, if you don't have anything more constructive, that's cool, but don't dampen or cheapen the discussion.
Music is not JUST anything. It's THE thing.

[Jason]

I wouldn't say music is my "religion", it's more like my bread and wine.

[the captain]

It's absolutely central to my life, no doubt about it. But it isn't to everyone's, and is differently important to everyone. We, being people who spend spare time talking in detail about it, obviously all care more than most. But I'm not going to get too worked up about disagreements about how a person should listen to it or think about it, since I don't believe there is any certain way that people should listen to or think about it.

[I. Spaceman]

I would die for Rock and Roll because God gave it to me to enjoy. It's saved my life many times.
I'm just not into the pooh-poohing everyone does when a discussion gets heavy. Why shouldn't it get down there? It's key to what makes us who we are.
I mean, if everyone wants to get to a level of "Man, that new Byrds box is amazing", then that's fine, we can do that.
personally, I prefer this more.

[the captain]

I'm not sure how one goes about dying for rock 'n' roll, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't do it. But I can't really imagine a rewarding life without music. And I'm glad to discuss it daily in depth. Just don't talk down to me.

[I. Spaceman]

I wasn't buddy, I thought you were.

I just miss the days of real gen-u-WINE passion about rock, the days of Lester Bangs, Marcus, Patti Smith, Townshend, all that. When digging a band was like being in a gang, taking a side, being FOR something.
I see a lot of mellow relativism in regards to music and it's just not for me. I guess I was born a little too late.

[Chris D.]

That's even more of what I'm talking about.
Music is my religion, man. I take it seriously. Very seriously.
So, if you don't have anything more constructive, that's cool, but don't dampen or cheapen the discussion.
Music is not JUST anything. It's THE thing.

Without trying to stir things up too much, I have to back Ian up here.  A year or so ago I would've agreed with you, Luther and Jason.  Sure, it's just music.  But even the trendiest, momentary music can be affecting.  Caring so much about music goes beyond caring about just music or some musical style.  It's caring about what other people have to say and how they say it.  It's how you express your romance with a complicated invention we have called communication.  Caring about music, or anything, just shows that you're interesting in being alive.  A nuclear arms treaty might have more serious effects on us in that it could end our existence, but inventing nuclear arms in the first place is just careless.  Making music takes care.  There's no way I could justify treating something as beautiful as music as less important or valuable than a weapon someone is going to make just to have power over me.  I'm giving myself to someone who wants to say something to me.

Edit:

And I'm glad to discuss it daily in depth. Just don't talk down to me.

Right on.

I see a lot of mellow relativism in regards to music and it's just not for me. I guess I was born a little too late.

Right on.

[I. Spaceman]

Thanks, Mr. D. Your thoughts and writings, your FEELING about art serve as an inspiration to my head.
Right/Write on, my friend.