Talk:Smile (The Beach Boys album)

Recognised start of the project

Ilovetopaint re this. Not only was I following what is said in the main text, but David Leaf writes in the liner notes to Brian Wilson Presents Smile that Smile was "born in the summer of 1966" and, as context for the songwriting for the majority of the album, "the then-current Beatles album was Revolver". The timeline offered in one of the external links also supports an August date (25 August). So …? JG66 (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

To use Pet Sounds as an example, the album was not "officially" begun until January 1966. Half of the songs were still written or recorded before then. It's not meaningful to draw these sorts of lines. In the end, August 1966 is just the month "Smile" was being drawn on the tape boxes. "Good Vibrations", "Heroes", "Wind Chimes", and "Look" were already in the process of recording. That's about 30% of the album, potentially. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Dubious Revolver claims

@JG66: In all the time you've spent reading Beatles history, have you ever come across a Beach Boys quote regarding Revolver's influence? Here's the only one I've seen, from Mike Love:

No, I don't think he [Brian] was influenced by Revolver. Brian was in his own world, believe me. If he were influenced by the Beatles, there'd be more fuzz tone and a few sitars on our records, but there never have been, really.

—Gilliland, John (1969). "Show 37 - The Rubberization of Soul: The great pop music renaissance. [Part 3]" (audio). Pop Chronicles. University of North Texas Libraries.

• Yes, I know you're fond of bandying that quote around. But I've never read a quote from a member of the Beatles that says "Strawberry Fields" was highly influenced by the Beach Boys – a statement made by Jonathan Gould that you're also particularly wedded to. JG66 (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I've never heard that before. I agree that there are obvious parallels between "Strawberry Fields" and "Good Vibrations", but none that I've seen anybody write about. Do you mean "A Day in the Life"?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay: I've never read a member of the Beatles saying anything at all to support Gould's assertion that "of the many ambitious pop singles released during the fall of 1966, none had a stronger influence on the Beatles [than 'Good Vibrations']". Gould's is one opinion, one that you've been keen to splash over Wikipedia. I'm talking about statements relating to the Beatles' influence on Smile from at least four writers (Gaines, Howard, Prendergast, MacDonald), and Wilson himself, as mentioned below. JG66 (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

If you want to make a case for why that quote shouldn't in the "A Day in the Life" article, or if it should be moved somewhere else, then make it there.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

A somewhat related quote from Brian, alluding to the acid rock experimentation of the time

WC: When you talk about the Beatles, and how they changed the way you thought about songs, when stuff like Jimi Hendrix and some of the louder guitar stuff came along in the late Sixties, did you ever consider doing loud, noisy stuff?

BW: We never got into the heavy musical level trip. We never needed to. It's already been done.

BW: No, no.

WC: Did you like that sort of stuff?

BW: It makes you feel like swimming, exercising, breaking a sweat.

—[1]

• I'd call that utterly unrelated. JG66 (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah because we all know how songs like "Taxman", "And Your Bird Can Sing", and "Love You To" sound exactly like the soft, Byrds-like folk rock that Wilson loved from Rubber Soul.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

No original research, please. JG66 (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

How does this mesh with "Brian felt he was bested by Revolver"? It doesn't even really connect with "Smile was a response to Revolver". Assuming these authors failed to provide a decent source, "'Good Vibrations' was a response to Revolver" is another ridiculously speculative claim. Why are we focusing on unsubstantiated(?) rock music apocrypha about Revolver when there were so many other British acts making albums at the time? On Rubber Soul, Wikipedia's voice doesn't state that the Beatles were responding to The Beach Boys Today!, and on Sgt. Pepper, it doesn't say they were influenced by Freak Out!. So what's with the preferential treatment here?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• You just removed the entire flippin' paragraph – never made any mention of attribution. And as I said when adding the text, it needn't be grouped together; but each element is relevant to Smile.
• Also, btw, no source other than the Moskowitz ref that you added at Rubber Soul makes any mention of a Beach Boys Today influence on that Beatles album. In addition to the sources I've add here about the Beatles providing some sort of impetus for Wilson on Smile and "Good Vibrations" (Steve Gaines, David Howard, Mark Prendergast), there's: Ian MacDonald; Paul McCartney's recollection of meeting with Brian Wilson in April '67; and Wilson's own comments to Rolling Stone about wanting to top the Beatles with Smile. As I've said above, and on other talk pages, you're perfectly happy to accept any source (or no source whatsoever) when a statement matches the narrative you want to advance on Wikipedia. And why is Gaines' Heroes and Villains now marked as an "unreliable source"? – the book's used here already and elsewhere. If something included in this or any article is impossible, then okay, it should not be included, but otherwise you might want to read WP:UNDUE.
• And really, you are questioning these reliable sources?! Elsewhere I've seen you use student newspapers such as The Pitt News as if their contributors are somehow experts in the field; and that's aside from the barrel-scraping discussed at Talk:Pet Sounds. Here at Smile, you've used or appear to accept Christian blogs and an obvious self-styled expert. JG66 (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Here are the right points to cover:

• the BBs were in competition with other British Invasion acts, mainly the Beatles
• many other American bands were explicitly imitating the British groups
• by 1966, the BBs were the main competitor to the Beatles (since you might not be happy with this, then maybe include a sidenote detailing Rolling Stones and Dylan competition)
• Pet Sounds, a stylistic departure that received great acclaim upon release, was a conscious effort to match Rubber Soul
• the Beatles' latest album, Revolver, was lavished with praise, nearly eclipsing Pet Sounds
• sidenote, according to some biographers, Wilson loved Revolver and was influenced by it for Smile and "Good Vibrations", although Mike Love says otherwise

As for sources, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article". Who, what, and when is important, especially when we're dealing with constantly oversimplified topics like the BBs-Beatles relationship (WP:OVERSIMPLIFY). There is nothing unusual about the fact that dubious info is sometimes advanced by people who should know better. This includes Wilson, who is extremely reticent about his mindset during '60s, and who (rightfully or wrongfully) submits to the simplified narratives perpetuated by critics and bloggers for the last few decades. Despite that, there's some things he says today that are more obviously true than others. And I marked Gaines' book as unreliable because it has been discredited and shouldn't really be used anywhere, especially not for claims like these.

I recently read somewhere that Revolver may have spurred Wilson to speed up the recording for "Good Vibrations". That would have been much more interesting to include than "Smile happened 'cuz of Revolver". --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

What is this – the Gospel According to IlovetopaintaprettypictureofBwian?

"Here are the right points to cover" ... so they're okay with you, are they? "the Beatles' latest album, Revolver, was lavished with praise, nearly eclipsing Pet Sounds"; so, by the sound of it, you're going with Gilliand(?), when Rodriguez says something stronger. It's certainly no "side note" to mention Revolver's influence on Wilson when making Smile and "Good Vibrations", since this article is about Smile. As for "simplified narratives perpetuated by critics and bloggers", they seem to be precisely the sort of dodgy sources you routinely scrape up from searching google. "Despite that, there's some things he says today that are more obviously true than others" – hmm, so we should all check with you first? Gaines' book has been discredited by whom? The Barry Miles' book that I see you cite to emphasise the Beach Boys' influence on the Beatles, Many Years from Now, was highly controversial and its accuracy has been challenged as a Beatles biography by many commentators, and by a couple of us on Wikipedia. That wouldn't stop you from treasuring the Miles' quote, would it? Why would a quote of your choosing be "much more interesting" than a mention that with Smile Wilson intended to top Revolver – this being an article dedicated to Smile? JG66 (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Just like you aren't aware of controversy surrounding Gaines' book, neither am I about Miles'. The point is that many authors write tendentiously and/or superciliously about rock music, depending on where their interests lie, and rarely do they challenge conventional wisdom. Many myths and rumors are kept alive this way. Meanwhile, everybody else is misled, and historical perspectives get narrower and narrower. While it can be difficult to navigate these waters, WP:COMMONSENSE goes a long way in determining what's overblown rockist mythology and what isn't.

Consider a hypothetical in which everyone says "Pepper influenced Pet Sounds", but the only thing a Beatle is known to have said on the subject came from Harrison, being "actually, John liked Dylan better". Would you still find "Pet Sounds influenced Pepper" to be a credible statement? I would keep it under consideration, but I wouldn't brazenly include sentences like "the Beatles felt Pepper was better than Rubber Soul," or "Pepper was an attempt to top Pet Sounds" — at least not without attributing who exactly is advancing these claims.

Gaines' book is commonly seen as a tabloid put-down of the Beach Boys, the opposing extreme of the Beach Boys hagiographies that were to follow. Any claims that "Revolver influenced Smile" carry as much weight as "Sgt. Pepper caused Wilson to hide in his bed and flounder in a schizophrenia mess for 10 years". Both widely-perpetuated "facts", but do they stand up to scrutiny? Well, it's a fact that "so many have repeated the claims", so that would in itself be worthwhile to include. But otherwise, no, it's a gross exaggeration to anyone who reads a few books on the subject and peruses direct quotes from the relevant parties. Nobody from the Smile era appears to discuss the Beatles except to say that Wilson was intimidated by them. The sole exception I'm familiar with is Michael Vosse's anecdote, where Wilson allegedly says that "Strawberry Fields" was the sound he was going for. It's clear that, at the time, Wilson was absolutely obsessed with Spector's music and the Rolling Stones' "My Obsession". But he never talks about Revolver. Whenever the Beatles come up, he either talks about A) how lauded and successful they were B) how he thought Rubber Soul, Let It Be, and Sgt. Pepper were great albums. Not only do we have numerous statements where he dismisses the heavier style the Beatles went into, we have several quotes from Parks where he's basically saying "NO, we were NOT drawing from the Beatles".

With all this considered, it's very possible that he didn't actually care for Revolver, and so it would be ridiculous to name it as the single catalyst for Smile, or to even put it on the pedestal that you want it placed on. Again, there's better, more credible, and more substantial context we can include here. Bottom line: I'm sure Revolver had some impact on Wilson during the Smile era, but for a man who seems to have preferred listening to "Be My Baby" and "My Obsession" hundreds of times a day, perhaps not as profoundly or directly as numerous other things that were occurring in the Hollywood music industry in the spring and summer of 1966 (WP:UNDUE; WP:BESTSOURCES; WP:IMPARTIAL).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

1) I know I've told you at another article talk page that Miles' Many Years from Now is totally biased, or at best just one former Beatle's perspective. No way is it an authoritative or accurate account of the band's career. JG66 (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

2) You say: "Many myths and rumors are kept alive this way. Meanwhile, everybody else is misled, and historical perspectives get narrower and narrower. While it can be difficult to navigate these waters, WP:COMMONSENSE goes a long way in determining what's overblown rockist mythology and what isn't." Right, but in practice I've seen you do exactly the opposite of what you're preaching. At Talk:Pet Sounds last year, I made the point that Leaf's claim that "British rock newspapers were hailing Pet Sounds as the most progressive pop album ever" was highly questionable, and that it was the ads in these publications that carried the "most progressive pop album ever" description, not the editorial content. You decided to go with the one source that does not attribute the line to advertising copy. (I've since found that Badman is another who identifies it as an advertising tagline only.) While it's no longer an issue at Pet Sounds, I've seen the Leaf version appearing at other articles you contribute to – so it's hard to take your objections seriously. You're presenting yourself as some sort of custodian of history, but you're just controlling which aspects of history get told. More below in 6). JG66 (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

3) There's no need to consider a hypothetical in this instance. Brian Wilson has said that he was trying to outdo/top the Beatles with Smile. McCartney reported on his April '67 visit with the Beach Boys and his conversation with Wilson: he told Brian that, instead of continuing to slog away on his "reply" to Revolver, he ought to "hurry up" because Pepper was finished and due for release. JG66 (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

4) Gaines' book cannot be dismissed outright. By the sound of it, the tone of his book provides some balance against Leaf's wholly uncritical work and, as you say, studies of the Beach Boys that are plain hagiographic. JG66 (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

5) You've misunderstood what Wilson's reaction to Revolver might've been, and have gone off on a tangent as a result. Perhaps he might not have warmed to much of Revolver, who knows, but the point being made by Rodriguez, for instance, is that Wilson recognised the album as an advance on Pet Sounds and a serious challenge. It was Wilson's competitive nature that made him want to, or need to, respond to that advance. JG66 (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

6) Of course, there were numerous other influences. As Leaf says in his liner notes to BW Presents Smile, WIlson and Parks set out to respond to the British Invasion, generally (although Revolver is the one music-related item Leaf mentions while providing the "cultural context" for when the Smile project really began, in summer 1966). The Stones' "My Obsession" appears to have been a track that really caught Wilson's imagination, no argument there. It's not a case of what I want, here or anywhere on Wikipedia. That approach is more in line with how you contribute and have done for years, from all I've seen. You appear to want every example of the Beatles taking inspiration from the Beach Boys underlined, while resisting examples when inspiration flowed in the other direction. Brian was obsessed with the Beatles and their achievements; the Beatles certainly weren't obsessed with the Beach Boys. You say above that members of Wilson's Smile entourage mention that he was "intimidated" by the Beatles. In this article, we get no end of quotes from the participants, but is that point mentioned? – because it would seem to lead in directly to the statements made by Rodriguez, Prendergast and Howard. For me, it works the other way: if I was expanding Beatles for Sale, I'd be sure to add mention of the influence of Dylan and American C&W music on the album. And at Magical Mystery Tour, I'd add the point that, rather than just succumbing to tripped-out post-Pepper laziness, the Beatles missed the usual inspiration provided by their competition – this was due to the Stones being completely at sea in the prime psychedelic era, Dylan's semi-retirement, and the lack of a new challenge presented by Brian Wilson. JG66 (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Some issues that should be addressed someday

I just came across this essay for the first time(?) and had some thoughts about the article.

Confusing timeline / structure

5 years later and I'm still not sure how to tackle Smile. I think all of the details regarding the album's conflicts should be trimmed and moved to Collapse of Smile. Put "Promotion" and "Project collapse" under "Background"?

Lacking in historical context

Some details about psychedelia and the LA scene in '66 should be covered. Wilson was a huge figure in this time and place, even if he wasn't as directly involved as, say, Zappa. Gaines' book notes some interesting connections with Derek Taylor as a middle man.

Sourcing / original research / too much detail

Self-evident and already tagged.

Important but somehow obscure details that are missing

The essay includes these claims that should be sourced and integrated to the article or to Collapse of Smile:

Notes

• Brian had struck a deal with the Boys at the beginning of Pet Sounds to allow him to do one whole album of "Brian" music instead of "Beach Boys" music. The Boys agreed to try it on one album and Brian and Mike even shook hands to seal the deal.
• Brian and Van Dyke were on the same wave-length in some ways, but their backgrounds were almost opposites. Van Dyke had had a privileged upbringing but was a poverty-stricken recording artist in his young adulthood. Brian had had a lower middle class upbringing but was a millionaire recording artist in his young adulthood.
• Nick Grillo, the Boys' business manager, had been working since Spring 1966 on developing a corporate organization that would allow Brian and the other Boys to produce records, films, other artists, publish music and create and control any other project they cared to pursue independent of Capitol Records. In late September/early October David Anderle, formerly a deal-maker with MGM Records and manager of Brian and Van Dyke's friend/singer Danny Hutton, was positioning himself to take over those duties from Nick. Anderle persuaded Jules Siegel, an acquaintance of his working for the Saturday Evening Post, to do a story about Brian and the Boys. Jules would cover the SMiLE story for 3 months. Brian was looking for a personal assistant and Anderle suggested a college chum of his, Michael Vosse, who was a reporter and also an acquaintance of Jules. These three would all hang with Brian through several months of the creation of SMiLE. New friends, new interests.
• Like Asher, Van Dyke worked with Brian over a 3 month period using his words to lyrically illustrate Brian's ideas; unlike Asher, Van Dyke claims he made no contribution to the writing of the music [although he would have been more than capable]. Brian and Van Dyke worked on the songs and themes for the SMiLE album through August and September and by the end of October all the songs had been written. Van Dyke often sat in on SMiLE sessions as a studio musician through October but after October 1966, with his job as lyricist finished, Van Dyke would only rarely visit the studio.
• The Boys were being hailed as conquering Pop heroes and voted Best Vocal Group in England at the same time as they were being criticized in the British press for being Brian's puppets, frauds who didn't play their own instruments on their records.
• Michael Vosse felt that SMiLE "was a totally conceived entity" by the return of the Boys to L.A..
• January of 1967 was sort of a good news/bad news month for Brian, Van Dyke and the Beach Boys. Van Dyke signed a contract with Warner records; Carl refused as a conscientious objector to report for induction to the draft; the SMiLE album booklets and jackets were ready; Brian was feeling the pinch of studios not being available when he wished; the formation of Brothers Records was announced; the deadline for the Heroes & Villains single and the SMiLE album passed; Dennis and Carl began trying their hand at producing tracks on their own; Good Vibrations fell from the Billboard Singles Chart; Brian had some fun recording tracks with pal Jasper Dailey, a mild-mannered restaurant supply salesmen by day and a super SMiLE and rock Ôn roll celebrity photographer/chronicler by night. At the end of the month, Brian was holding mixdown sessions.
• February 1967 began with Brian recording more tracks with his pal Jasper Dailey and continuing work on Heroes &Villains; producing the so-called "cantina mix" around February 10, 1967. No sooner had Brian created this mix than his Rolls Royce was burglarized while parked in the lot of a movie theater. Two "perps" were apprehended and Brian was called to the police station. This real-life heroes and villains experience supposedly caused Brian to re-think Heroes and Villains and record new instrumental and vocal tracks in the last half of February for a longer 4 to 5 minute version of the single
• Perhaps the Boys felt SMiLE was a second "Brian" album and that he had gone back on his word; maybe they were stung by the accusations regarding their lack of involvement with their musical product [the Monkees were being accused of the same thing].

Overall, probably >10k of the current revision needs to be trimmed out.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Reasons fo adding Yet-to-diagnosed regarding Wilson's schizoaffective disorder.

I reverted the revert by ILIL but with a slight wording change for the following jreasons: ILIL wrote "I think that is obvious to 99% of readers." to which I respond that I think that is irrelevant as the wording change is a minor one IMO which I believe is clearer so even if it's true that 99% of readers understand what was meant why not include a minor clarification for them last one 1%. Second since I believe there is no need to "mention that the legal battles and Parks' withdrawal were also situations that were only relevant for the time" as that those where known to the people involved in the project at the time even if not yet to the general public. Wilson's specific mental health issue (schizoaffective disorder) was known to no one at the time as he'd yet to be properly diagnosed with it. Thus there would be no need for a "then" before the legal issue or Park's withdrawel as those cuased the cancelation of the completion and release the Beach Boy's version of Smile at that time and thus are not relevent to this version of Smile. The phrase "undiagnosed schizoaffective disorder" inplies a widely believed but not official diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder in a perosn whom has either not yet been properly diagnosed, who died before having the opetunity to be propely diagnozed, or whom lived prior to 1933 when such a diagnosis was first possible as that was when the condition was so named. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

"The phrase "undiagnosed schizoaffective disorder" inplies a widely believed but not official diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder in a perosn whom has either not yet been properly diagnosed" – Ironically, the phrasing "yet to be diagnosed" can be read just the same way, misleading readers into believing that Wilson remains to be officially diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder. It is more likely that readers will be left with that impression because it's a very strange phrasing in the first place, for the reasons I have already stated. "Yet to be diagnosed" confuses more than it clarifies.

"Second since I believe there is no need to "mention that the legal battles and Parks' withdrawal were also situations that were only relevant for the time" as that those where known to the people involved in the project at the time even if not yet to the general public. " – This is... an incoherent argument and I don't know what to say about it. If we applied that logic to the rest of the lead, then we would have to remove everything else that had not been public record in 1966–1967. ili (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)