The Beach Boys original SMiLE to be released on CD and vinyl LP...(dixième partie)

Continued from here:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=262221

 

'part 10' .. what is this??? not carrying on the Francais theme??

*that's more like it (Ken looks to the top of the page)*

 

Looks like I'm not the only one who didn't wanna go

 

You win.

 

Did Amazon stop the practice of allowing people to review albums before their release date? I just noticed that there are no reviews for any of the Smile Sessions formats on Amazon.co.uk.

Compare that with the 3-4 weeks before the Beatles remasters came out, when the stereo and mono box sets had about 170 reviews each, despite the fact that nobody had heard them yet.

 

Here's my side-by-side comparison chart of all the releases, in case anyone is still deciding...

 

Not to totally nitpick, but I don't think it's fair to use the "because Brian would have probably mixed it in mono anyway" argument here when Disc 1 is forcing us to throw out the whole concept of "what Brian would have done in 1967."

The fact that good stereo mixes of many of the "album" tracks do not exist is a good enough reason. They wanted Disc 1 to have a consistent listening experience and that's a fine reason to make it mono.

"What Brian would have done" simply is not a factor, and once that's out of the way I think it will be a lot easier to just enjoy listening to it as an album.

 

I don't think that it's not a factor. I mean, I don't think they're just going like "let's throw in whatever, wherever, and completely ignore Brian 1967." I honestly think that for the most part they're hypothesizing about what the various songs might've sounded like in the era, and basically placing THAT within the BWPS framework, which is, I might add, the only partially-Wilson-created framework for the album that we have.

On the first bit -- yeah, they totally are. I've heard a lot of complaining about the "Heroes" mix, but we KNOW there was a five-ish minute H&V mix done, we've got that from contemporary sources. And we KNOW that most of those bits were recorded during the Smile-proper "rush to finish H&V" in January and February (and I'll bet you a buck the ones that WEREN'T actually WERE and we just don't have 'em, i.e. the "sunny down snuff" bit), so why NOT that particular flow? They're not just randomly putting in bits -- they're working from session dates and what they know was done at the time and coming up with listenable, workable versions of the songs. Mostly. From what I know, there's a couple of "Huh?" moments on the album, but they're few and far between.

On that last bit: it kind of is. I mean, yes, we have the back cover listing, but a) that does not include some "key Smile bits" like Holidays and Look which make for a better "Smile" listening experience, and b) we have NO IDEA what things like "The Elements" and "I'm In Great Shape" WERE. There's too much guesswork involved there.

Basically, using BWPS as a framework is a way of removing the question of "what's the track lineup" from the equation. NO WAY would everybody agree -- I mean, I bet just amongst the key players (Mark, Alan, Domenic) there isn't even consensus, and they've all had multiple theories over the years, and amongst the other Smile experts there's certainly not consensus either. So they're defaulting to the one lineup the creator of the music actually helped come up with. You can argue with it all you want, but you're arguing with "old Brian" -- he's the guy. And I bet it helped him to approve the release, too.

 

Is there an official track list yet? Sorry if I havent been paying attention.

 

Fair enough. There was clearly an overwhelming number of choices to make with this project. I'm just amazed they got it done and I'm really, really excited to hear it all. That version of "Vegetables" streaming on Facebook continues to blow my mind.

 

Look at Sean's PDF file (post#7, in this thread)

 

Sean

This is great - I am in for all formats I think - hahaha

 

Very nicely put Jon

 

Sorry have to disagree right there - that makes it sound as though they've just done what they want without any regard to Brian 67 or 2011.

I think the "album" will be just as Brian wants it and that for me is the single most important thing

 

One question for the scholars - can we presume (I know that's a dangerous word) that we now have the Barnyard Suite (IIGS/BY/OMP/YAMS) restored to its somewhat original glory particularly since it seems to be the consensus that 'Barnshine' will be included on the end of YAMS??????

 

"Barnyard Suite" is a fan idea/creation. It's not authentic to 66/67. There can be no "original glory."

 

Brilliant!

 

Not according to Brian Wilson

"[The Barnyard Suite] was going to be four songs in four short pieces, combined together, but we never finished that one. We got in to something else" - DP's book

 

That quote is from the mid-70s (I think originally from the Preiss book??) and is the ONLY reference to that particular suite, but yes, it is indeed Brian saying that. And yes, if I had to guess at the four pieces included, it would indeed be the ones we're getting on the new Smile box!

 

Like Jon said, that's from later. Brian also said "barnyard Billy loves his chickens." What happened to that? We have Van Dyke Parks saying there would be no connected songs and that they didn't develop suites/movements. The only "suite" mentioned in 1966/67 was the Elemental suite, and that was abandoned once the recording of the first part, Fire, freaked Brian out.

 

Originally from the Preiss book - in fact I've yet to see it anywhere else at all, and you all know how I feel about single-source statements.

 

He was just making something up as an example of the type of songs they were recording.

 

I have no trouble believing in the "Barnyard Suite" -- it's the only way to explain the existence of "Great Shape" and "Barnyard" which are barely fragments on their own. I never totally understood the connection between those two pieces and "Old Master Painter/YAMS" but I guess it works well enough musically.