Wow, this is pretty fucking bad I like Pet Sounds, I think it's

>>70556005
this is actually way better than smile sessions

>>70556005
get some taste lad

>>70556034
nah, it sounds dated as shit despite being released in 2004 and Wilson's vocals are awful

>>70556005
shut up

>>70556138
listen to the sessions (2011) then tard

>>70556005
>tfw Good Vibrations is nowhere near as good as the original recording

>>70556005
Why the everloving heck aren't you listening to the sessions instead?

>>70556138
agreed. that's why I listen to "Brian Wilson presents Smile using the Smile Sessions audio"

aka SLN's 2004 BWPS Mix

http://albumsthatneverwere.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-beach-boys-smile-2004.html

File: RS15363_1.Darian-wilson-qut.jpg (2MB, 1920x2679px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x2679px

This is embarrassing

Yeah it's very different from Pet Sounds and I totally see why people would be turned off even if they liked Pet Sounds. That being said ... Smile shreds.

Is there any reason to listen to this now that i've heard sessions?

>>70559029
only if youre a smile enthusiast

sessions is THE quintessential smile recording

no bootlegs, no live versions, just the real deal

>>70559072
>just the real deal
>highly edited and not complete
>using doctored and pitchshifted fly-ins to "finish" recordings
no

There's no "real" Smile and anyone arguing otherwise is just biased towards their favorite version of it.

We don't know what the original version would've sounded like and Wilson's later version has differences from whatever the original would've been.

>>70559145
>We don't know what the original version would've sounded like
We literally do from the evidence that can be gathered.

>>70559229
The sessions were unfinished, so no, we don't. For all we know Wilson could have decided to radically alter the sonic course of the album had he not had a breakdown.

>>70559293
>The sessions were unfinished, so no, we don't
For some songs, yes. But most backing tracks were finished. You can clearly understand how it was supposed to be form evidence
>For all we know Wilson could have decided to radically alter the sonic course of the album had he not had a breakdown.
Prove it.

What other Beach Boys albums should I listen to if I've only heard Smile Sessions and Pet Sounds? Everything they have either seems really good or really bad.

>>70559531
Today!
Sunflower
Surf's Up
Love You
Friends
Wild Honey

all range from good to great

>>70559531
Surf's Up and Sunflower are great.

File: SmileySmileCover.jpg (30KB, 220x220px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 220x220px

>>70559365
>Prove it.
Or do you mean other than the part where he totally did radically alter the sonic course of the album?

File: aphHERl.jpg (970KB, 2520x2774px) Image search: [Google]

970KB, 2520x2774px

>>70559729
this is a pretty good list. Smiley Smile is also good If you want more in depth suggestions, check out this chart

>>70559821
>Or do you mean other than the part where he totally did radically alter the sonic course of the album?
We're talking about Smile, not Smiley Smile.

Nice try.

>>70559880
>We're talking about Smile, not Smiley Smile.
Why can't they be one and the same?

New to the beachboys here, I listened to pet sounds and found most of the tracks to be kinda meh, not bad by any means, just not amazing or anything like that. The only tracks that really clicked with me were Wouldn't it be nice, and That's Not Me. Am I a pleb? What should I listen to next?

>>70559902
Listen to it again

>>70559902
listen to it again

>>70559902
Read the wiki article on it, it's interesting knowing the background of the album and the process they went through to make it. Then listen again.

>>70559898
>Why can't they be one and the same?
Because you can't change history to be right.

The fact is we know so much about, we can know what it would have sounded like and looked like, and this "we don't know..." is just mythology.

>>70559871
Daily reminder that Holland and LA Light Album are the Beach Boys' most underrated albums

>>70559902
>Am I a pleb?
>btw I judge music by if it clicked with me or not

>>70560008
>we can know what it would have sounded like and looked like
What would it have sounded like, then?

>>70559871
You're better off just getting a compilation then a lot of these (although there's a lot of compilations on the chart which is cool). Most their albums have a couple good songs and a lot of filler.

>>70560011
been meaning to listen to holland
what exactly is it like, sonically?
it looks like it's darker than most of their work but

>>70560105
Well, what do you want to know specifically?

>>70560157
Just in general, things that we know Smile would have had that Smiley Smile does not have. And at the risk of sounding overly argumentative, sources for how we know Smile would have had them.

>>70560212
>Just in general
Well, what do you want to know *specifically*?
>And at the risk of sounding overly argumentative, sources for how we know Smile would have had them.
The tracklist, session tracking notes, recording chronology, eye witnesses, test edits, etc

>>70560244
I guess, tell me what we know the tracklist would have been.

File: smile-tracklist-brian-1000.jpg (88KB, 1000x1339px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1000x1339px

>>70560285

>>70560396
How long after Brian wrote this was Smile in its intended form cancelled? Remember that Sunday Morning was a last minute addition to VU&Nico, so it's not impossible that Smile could have (or did have) last minute changes to its tracklisting.

>>70560469
>Remember that Sunday Morning was a last minute addition to VU&Nico
We're talking about Beach Boys, not VU
>so it's not impossible that Smile could have (or did have) last minute changes to its tracklisting.
A one song addition is really not that much of an unknown to make the assumption that we don't know anything. That is all-or-nothing thinking

>>70560507
My point is until the release is set, you can't know for sure what the tracklist is going to be. Especially when one of the major reasons it never got released is because Brian was having trouble putting the whole thing together.

>>70558850
Is he about to get strangled

This is such a cursed image and I'm not sure why

>>70559902

You might like their earlier stuff then. I would recommend Beach Boys Today and Summer Days and Summer Nights.

>>70559229
>>70559365

Found the SLN 1967 Mix stan

SLN's 2004 BWPS Mix will always be superior:

>longer
>has full "Surf's Up" suite
>has the cool song changes from BWPS
>has the cool debonair-sounding harmonies from the Smile Sessions version of "Heroes and Villains"
>is the "Kitchen Sink" version of "Heroes and Villains," so it's way more fun
>ends perfectly on "Good Vibrations"

no comparison, really

Its alright. I can't get into it like I can Pet Sounds. Its just too eccentric like a kids show or something.

>>70560644
>My point is until the release is set, you can't know for sure what the tracklist is going to be
No, we have a published account.
>Especially when one of the major reasons it never got released is because Brian was having trouble putting the whole thing together.
Exaggerated account
>>70561354
>Found the SLN 1967 Mix stan
Pretty much he states much of the evidence we have, but he missed a few things. It could have been more accurate.

>>70561354
>longer
longer =/= better
>has full "Surf's Up" suite
>has the cool song changes from BWPS
Nice historical revisionism
>is the "Kitchen Sink" version of "Heroes and Villains"
Oh yeah because more is better
>ends perfectly on "Good Vibrations"
Wrong.

>>70562713
>is the "Kitchen Sink" version of "Heroes and Villains"
>Oh yeah because more is better
Not him, but the Kitchen Sink version is just more pleasing on the ears overall. The singing is alot better

>>70562661
>we have a published account.
What is it?
>Exaggerated account
Then what would you say is the most important reason Smile didn't go as planned? Don't even think about saying Mike Love, because if he really cared that much about making hits, he never would have allowed Smiley Smile to be released.

>>70562732
>Not him, but the Kitchen Sink version is just more pleasing on the ears overall.
How so?
>The singing is alot better
It's shitty
>>70562754
>What is it?
See >>70560396
>>70562754
>Then what would you say is the most important reason Smile didn't go as planned?
Not relevant.

The fact is we have enough information to know what SMiLE would be like to about an 89% accuracy. That is far from "why don't know at all so stop discussing it!"

>>70562796
>published
>hand-written track list

>Not relevant.
It is relevant, because if it was "scrapped" because of the difficulty of assembling it as originally conceived, and then they just happen to release an album with a similar title and many of the songs intended for the original album, it can lead to the conclusion that rather than scrapping the original album, they just changed creative directions. It's similar to how Elvis Costello originally intended Imperial Bedroom to have more of a rock sound (as seen in Man Out of Time), but during sessions, he changed course and we got the album we now know. Why is it so impossible that Brian Wilson changed creative directions mid recording?

>>70562942
>>published
>>hand-written track list
Oh you mean the exact same list that was published on the back sleeve artwork?
>because of the difficulty of assembling it as originally conceived
This is exaggerated. Listen to all the edits on Smiley Smile, it can be done.
>Why is it so impossible that Brian Wilson changed creative directions mid recording?
Why is it so impossible that we can't look at the massive amount of evidence and conclude we can accurately make a Smile that predates Smiley Smile?

>>70562996
>can't
Can of course

>>70556655
Holy shit check em

>>70562996
>published on the back sleeve artwork
You mean the artwork that says "See label for correct playing order"?
>Listen to all the edits on Smiley Smile, it can be done.
Smiley Smile is also a lot less grand of a scale instrumentally than the hypothetical Smile would have been. I don't think that's a very good comparison to show that it could be done.
>Why is it so impossible that we can't look at the massive amount of evidence and conclude we can accurately make a Smile that predates Smiley Smile?
This is a fair point, but I still disagree. Even if it doesn't happen all the time, it's not uncommon for bands to change the album title/artwork/track listing between conception and release. Like, Let it Be was originally planned as Get Back, and it similarly had difficult recording sessions that led to the change. Why do we never hear about this great lost Beatles album, then? We just accept that Get Back changed in the creative process.

>>70559970
this shouldn't matter. if you can't appreciate the brilliance on the first listen i don't really know if anyone can explain it to you. you either get it or you don't, it sounds harsh but it's realistic

>>70559100
I think he meant the box set

File: Smile.jpg (331KB, 1428x1432px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 1428x1432px

Who else /can't stop listening to the smile sessions/ here?

>>70562796
>The singing is alot better
>It's shitty
I know this is a cop-out answer, but feel the singing on the Cantina version tends to sound much more raspy and deep than that of the Kitchen Sink mix, which, to me at least, doesn't fit the song very well. It is inferior to the smoother, often quieter singing on Kitchen Sink version in my opinion. Plus, and this is just a minor nitpick, I prefer the transition from the "...in the cantina..." section to the "just see what you've done" section (for lack of better terminology) on the Kitchen Sink mix. The version on the Cantina mix sounds much more unnatural to me- it seems strange to just cut it short with piano, especially after getting used to the Kitchen Sink version. Finally, and this is even more of a nitpick, I simply don't like the "jive to survive" line. I should give it another listen sometime, though.

>>70559821
Smiley Smile was the band's fault, not Brian's.

>>70563154
>You mean the artwork that says "See label for correct playing order"?
Same tracks.
>Smiley Smile is also a lot less grand of a scale instrumentally
Not what we are talking about. Unless you misspoke?
>Why do we never hear about this great lost Beatles album, then?
Because it's garbage. Oh and we do hear about it all the time.
>We just accept that Get Back changed in the creative process.
It did. At least in the editing stage of the film, because the song itself "Get back" was already a single.
>>70563333
I know. So did I
>>70563357
I don't care, it's garbage

>>70563348
went through that phase for like half a year, it was awesome. my advice is don't overplay it, it'll lose it's value

seeing brian live and hearing the band start with our prayer was one of the best moments ever, especially since i was drunk as shit. me and my friends were pissing off the old people around us so much but it was worth it

I prefer the Brian Wilson version to the Sessions version. It's more fully realized than the incomplete Smile Sessions, and Brian's aged voice works better IMO, especially in the middle section. Brian described it as a "teenage symphony to God," so I think it's fair to treat the different versions of it like one. You wouldn't discard a performance of Beethoven's 9th just because it wasn't conducted by Beethoven himself, would you?

>>70563549
>Not what we are talking about. Unless you misspoke?
I think it's disingenuous to say that the planned Smile and Smiley Smile are on a similar scale of complexity. The Smile Sessions were over the course of three months, and it wasn't finished. Smiley Smile was completed in half that time. It's a lot easier to do edits on stripped back songs than it is with the baroque arrangements originally planned.
>Oh and we do hear about it all the time.
Get Back never reached the mythic status that Smile currently holds, though.
>It did. At least in the editing stage of the film, because the song itself "Get back" was already a single.
If we can accept that Get Back became Let it Be, why can't we accept that Smile became Smiley Smile? I'm not sure what the part about "Get Back" having already been released as a single has to do with anything, admittedly.

That said, I will admit that Get Back/Let it Be, if I remember correctly, are mostly the same sessions. However, I don't think that really matters, because (Smiley) Smile represented a much bigger change in creative approach than did Let it Be.

>>70563764
>The Smile Sessions were over the course of three months, and it wasn't finished.
August, September, October, November, December, January, February, March and April are only three months?
>It's a lot easier to do edits on stripped back songs than it is with the baroque arrangements originally planned.
Not really. An edit is an edit.
>If we can accept that Get Back became Let it Be, why can't we accept that Smile became Smiley Smile?
Of course we can. But only if you can also accept is a mountain of evidence that can describe a blueprint of SMiLE before it became Smiley Smile
>That said, I will admit that Get Back/Let it Be, if I remember correctly, are mostly the same sessions. However, I don't think that really matters, because (Smiley) Smile represented a much bigger change in creative approach than did Let it Be.
So... you misspoke again?

>>70563888
>...are only three months?
This actually strengthens my point, though. If 9 months of recording weren't enough to create Smile, then obviously it was too complex to be realistically created.

>An edit is an edit.
Then why couldn't Brian put it all together?

>only if you can accept is a mountain of evidence that can describe a blueprint of SMiLE before it became Smiley Smile
There's also a mountain of evidence that can describe a blueprint of Get Back before it became Let it Be. Get Back even had demo copies pressed up before they changed creative directions, which is more than you can say for SMiLE.

>So... you misspoke again?
No, because although most of the work on the "Smile Sessions" was unused on Smiley Smile, it did in fact have bits appear on the album.

>>70564061
>If 9 months of recording weren't enough to create Smile, then obviously it was too complex to be realistically created.
Yet you claim that Smile = Smiley Smile, which Brian was able to complete in one month. Which is it?
>Then why couldn't Brian put it all together?
Not relevant
>There's also a mountain of evidence that can describe a blueprint of Get Back before it became Let it Be. Get Back even had demo copies pressed up before they changed creative directions, which is more than you can say for SMiLE.
Incorrect again.
>No, because although most of the work on the "Smile Sessions" was unused on Smiley Smile, it did in fact have bits appear on the album.
What are you trying to say here?

>>70564193
>Yet you claim that Smile = Smiley Smile, which Brian was able to complete in one month. Which is it?
Both. Brian couldn't create Smile as originally conceived, which led him to change creative directions. Since the project significantly changed shape, he changed its name as well. Its first title was "Dumb Angel", so this part isn't a stretch.

>Not relevant
It is though. I'm giving a motive for the significant change in direction that the album undertook.

>Incorrect again.
But it's not incorrect. There was a set of demos broadcast on the radio in 1969 for Get Back, and there's even a completed track listing out there. Though in leaving that out, I guess I was a bit misleading there. My bad on that.

>What are you trying to say here?
That it wasn't a complete scrapping of "Smile", and that there is some continuity between those sessions and the album we ended up getting.

>>70564292
>There was a set of demos broadcast on the radio in 1969 for Get Back, and there's even a completed track listing out there
This is also true for Smile.

>>70564336
>This is also true for Smile.
I mean an ordered listing, not just a group of tracks. Also, I'm looking more, and I'm that that handwritten track list wasn't even written by Brian. I can't find a picture of it, but I'm also seeing that there was a handwritten track list for Wild Honey that included songs that did not appear on the final album (pictures were posted, but they're dead links now). Does that mean the Wild Honey we got isn't the real thing too?

>>70559100
>highly edited

there is no iteration that wasn't highly edited released or unreleased.

>>70564469
>I mean an ordered listing
Yes, that was done. Capitol Records invested money to have slicks printed up with that tracklist. If it wasn't the actual tracklist, they wouldn't have. It's that simple.
>Also, I'm looking more, and I'm that that handwritten track list wasn't even written by Brian. I can't find a picture of it, but I'm also seeing that there was a handwritten track list for Wild Honey that included songs that did not appear on the final album (pictures were posted, but they're dead links now). Does that mean the Wild Honey we got isn't the real thing too?
Do you really believe this or are you just searching for things to come at me now?
>>70564494
Wrong.

I don't feel like we're actually getting anywhere (or ever going to get anywhere) in discussing this.

>>70564547
>Capitol Records invested money to have slicks printed up with that tracklist.
Do you happen to have a picture of one of these 1967-era slicks? (I fully recognize the hypocrisy of asking for this when I just gave evidence that I don't have a picture for.)

>Do you really believe this or are you just searching for things to come at me now?
It sounds plausible to me. Brian's busy recording, label demands a provisional track listing for some reason or other, someone else scrawls it out for them quickly. I don't see why it couldn't have happened that way. And it isn't that strange that it wasn't even the final list of songs. Artistic vision can change, especially in long and stressful sessions like Smile's.

>>70559871
Watch Love and Mercy

>>70564639
>I don't feel like we're actually getting anywhere (or ever going to get anywhere) in discussing this.
I thought we agreed to disagree earlier?
>Do you happen to have a picture of one of these 1967-era slicks?
I don't but I've seen em. They pop up on Ebay every once in a while, and are sued to press the vinyl
>label demands a provisional track listing for some reason or other, someone else scrawls it out for them quickly
Or, Brian has Dennis or Carl scrawl it, who is in the Beach Boys, and whose opinion is equally valid, and it's the official tracklist.
>I don't see why it couldn't have happened that way
Because there is an equal chance it didn't happen that way.

File: 6a00d8341c801b53ef017ee5546e6e970d-800wi.jpg (148KB, 800x776px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 800x776px

Post best lines:

>SLEEP A LOT
>EAT A LOT
>BRUSH 'EM LIKE CRAZY