Surf's Up Vs A Day In The Life

From what could have been the 2 biggest pop albums in 67, arguably the best songs on their respective albums, modular songwriting, both Lennon&Macca (not just one of the two as it was the case most of the times by then) Vs Brian (and VDP), both songs lauded by bernstein...

• A Day In The Life - The Beatles
• Surf's Up - The Beach Boys

Would 'Smile' have been one of the biggest pop albums of '67? It's hard to say. I mean, 'Pet Sounds' hardly set the world on fire in '66, did it? A lot of acclaim of that album has been retrospective, surely!

oups, I should have made this a poll I guess !
anyway, very difficult. I listen to "Surf's Up" a lot at the moment with the Smile release and I've always loved this song. Although it's richer and more complex in composition and arrangements than ADITL which is quite simple, in a way, I think I still find the latter more moving... but both amazing, of course !

xpost
true but in between "Good Vibrations" became the Bboys biggest ever hit !

But I agree that although I love it, the content of Smile might not have been mainstream enough to be a big hit. On the other hand, the publicity would have been huge after GV, with the "Brian is a genius" idea spreading, McCartney participating in the recording of "Vega-table"...

It's a really hard one to call. For me, anyway - both of these are tracks that knocked me flat-out when I first heard them... and I first heard them years and years after they were released, which says a lot.

> Would 'Smile' have been one of the biggest pop albums of '67? It's hard to say. I mean, 'Pet Sounds' hardly set the world on fire in '66, did it? A lot of acclaim of that album has been retrospective, surely!

I've read this alot, but it's a fallacy. Pet Sounds was hugely acclaimed and influential upon its release, including by the Beatles themselves as Paul McCartney and George Martin have repeatedly noted. It was also very popular - top 10 in the US spinning off four top-40 singles (at a time when jazz, crooners, and Broadway still ruled the album charts), and tickling the top of the charts in the UK. NME declared the Beach Boys the most popular band in the UK at the end of 1966, bouncing the Beatles to #2.

Would Smile have been a hit? "Good Vibrations" had recently topped the charts on both sides of the Atlantic. I think had "Surf's Up" rather than "Heroes and Villains" been the follow-up single it would have sustained the momentum. (I tend to think had Smile been finished and released in 1967, it would have been whittled down to a single LP, about 45 minutes, leaving out the connecting passages and focusing on the strongest songs like "Wonderful" and "Cabinessence". It would unquestionably been perceived as the leading edge in pop.

I'll pick Surf's Up over A Day In The Life although they're both amazingly great and original songs.

For some reason it's hard for me to imagine "Surf's Up" in heavy rotation on radio, just seems too strange.

"Heroes and Villains" is probably even stranger and it was a sizable hit, and not as good a song.

Much of Sgt. Pepper is rather strange too, certainly Day In The Life, Within You Without You, etc.

"Strawberry Fields Forever" from around that time was pretty strange too, and a huge hit

Between them, "Strawberry Fields" and "Good Vibrations" had every element of strangeness that "Surf's Up" did (dissonance, unusually instrumentation, oblique lyrics, stops and starts, sudden tempo changes, shifting time signatures) and both received heavy radio rotation. Can't see why "Surf's Up" would have been any different. Like so many Beach Boys songs, it draws you into the song immediately (no intro, no long wait to get to the hook) which bodes well for radio airplay.

Surfs up is too sad to be a hit

OTM. Plus no real hook. The idea that "Smile" would've changed music forever if released is a nice hypothetical exercise, but count me on the side that doesn't think it would have nearly been as important as people like to imagine.

The real joy of the alternate universe where "Smile" is a success lies in the records Brian would have made with the boys (and without) afterward.

prefer A Day but Surf's Up is a close close second, I think my two favorite 'rock' compositions of the 60's.

I think had "Surf's Up" rather than "Heroes and Villains" been the follow-up single it would have sustained the momentum.

Ohhh, how I disagree. A large part of the magic of "Surf's Up" was how the listener came to it, the plaintive solo piano TV performance.

but I heard the 1971 version long before I'd ever heard Brian's solo piano take (either of them) and still think the same. And likely would have with if the newly released orchestrated version with Brian on vocals was how I first heard it.

But yeah I know what you mean. I remember watching the "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times" TV documentary in 1995 which showed Van Dyke Parks at the piano with Brian Wilson singing "Orange Crate Art" before the album was released; I liked it better than the fully-produced studio version that would be on the CD.

I Thought this was Surf's Up vs A Day In The Life of A Tree

Both of these are songs that I would consider pinnacles in the history of modern music. But I have to go with Surf's Up. First of all, A Day In The Life is obviously two songs mashed together. It's more catchy, but Surf's Up is complex - it winds and meanders and tricks. It still gives me goosebumps all the way through. From "Surf's Up Mmmhmm/Mmmhmm/Mmmhmmm aboard the tidal wave" to "Columnated ruins domino". Insanely beautiful. A Day In The Life sounds amateurish, hamfisted, lowbrow by comparison.

that would have been a good one too !
Actually, I think I find ADITL of a Tree more moving than surf's up ! crazy talk, eh !

Not really. It's a bit more narrow in its emotional content, but it's a great song. Not even sung by a Beach Boy, mind.

xpost
I agree with the idea that ADITL seems more basic.
but it's the beatles' songs in general that seem more simple than (some) beachboys'.
Like, someone on the smile thread said a revolver sessions would be great.
you would have some demos of the songs, like in the anthologies, but I don't think there would be anything as interesting as hearing the recording of the various parts of pet sounds or smile.
I love the beatles but the songs and instrumentation/arrangements are more guitar/bass/drums and verses/chorus/bridge.
I'm not really clear and it's not about saying one is better than the other but it's just very different !

but then again, back to this thread, the simplicity of ADITL is more moving and effective than the complexity and sophistication of surf's up to me.

oh yeah ? who sings it ? I always thought it was brian !

It is....... isn't it?

It's Jack Rieley, their manager at the time

xpost Yeah, I mean, I think Surf's Up is as close as you could get to Brian's internal musical monologue. It's a glimpse into his fractured mind's image of perfection. A Day In The Life was a group effort written by at least three geniuses (Lennon/McCartney/Martin) and therefore makes concessions to the hivemind notion of what makes a rock song, hence why it's that much more palatable on the surface. Brian had no one to say "Hey, you can't do that!" or "Why not do it this way?" or "I don't get it, WTF?!" (other than Mike Love, who I'm sure was largely ignored; and Van Dyke Parks who I'm sure actively encouraged such mentalist free-associative behaviour). So ADITL is an inventive psychedelic pop song, actively pushing the boat out when it comes to regular song structures and arrangments. Surf's Up is a symphony mainlined from a genius brain on the verge of collapse. I don't think Wilson was even thinking "hey this is really crazy, it's going to drive people wild and change the face of music forever" when he wrote it - I think in his head he was still writing the equivalent of car and girl songs, just the next level up..?

Jack Rieley was picked because Brian thought he sounded "like an mighty oak tree" or something IIRC.

... no, he 'sings' "A Day in the Life of a Tree". This is getting confusing. (xxp)

"A Day in the Life of a Tree" is pretty silly tbh

but...that's what dog latin was talking about?

Yeah ADITLOAT is sung by Jack Rieley. Surf's Up is Brian.

Phew!

The idea of Jack Rieley singing Surf's Up is pretty LOL

Yeah, I mean, I think Surf's Up is as close as you could get to Brian's internal musical monologue. It's a glimpse into his fractured mind's image of perfection. A Day In The Life was a group effort written by at least three geniuses (Lennon/McCartney/Martin) and therefore makes concessions to the hivemind notion of what makes a rock song, hence why it's that much more palatable on the surface. Brian had no one to say "Hey, you can't do that!" or "Why not do it this way?" or "I don't get it, WTF?!" (other than Mike Love, who I'm sure was largely ignored; and Van Dyke Parks who I'm sure actively encouraged such mentalist free-associative behaviour). So ADITL is an inventive psychedelic pop song, actively pushing the boat out when it comes to regular song structures and arrangments. Surf's Up is a symphony mainlined from a genius brain on the verge of collapse. I don't think Wilson was even thinking "hey this is really crazy, it's going to drive people wild and change the face of music forever" when he wrote it - I think in his head he was still writing the equivalent of car and girl songs, just the next level up..?

― Glo-Vember (dog latin), Monday, 7 November 2011 13:40 (15 minutes ago) Bookmark

Stellar post DL

Stellar, indeed.

aw thx guys

VDP wrote all the lyrics to Surf's Up, correct? So give him some credit because that is some Wastelandesque imagery and I love it.

Don't know if anyone here claimed Brian wrote the lyrics

I love the beatles but the songs and instrumentation/arrangements are more guitar/bass/drums and verses/chorus/bridge.

Why does this warrant a "but"? Are guit/bass/drum arrangements inherently inferior to those written around xylophone and string quartet or something? It's a moot point anyways, Brian Wilson used bass guitar and drums, the Beatles used piano and non-rock percussion. I'm trying to figure out the verse/chorus/bridge in ADITL and while you could make a case that they all exist (what i think of the bridge, the wordless meandering chords after Paul's part, is probably my favorite Beatles chord progression) it certainly isn't in a pedestrian standard rock way.

I think ADITL gets a big help because the ensemble performance, of everyone in the studio playing through the song together, is really terrific, and by then the rock band that was the Beach Boys (and was for most of their career) was pretty much shut out of the recording process altogether, save for vocals.

no-one suggested he wrote all the lyrics but there was "I think Surf's Up is as close as you could get to Brian's internal musical monologue. It's a glimpse into his fractured mind's image of perfection. A Day In The Life was a group effort written by at least three geniuses (Lennon/McCartney/Martin) and therefore makes concessions to the hivemind notion of what makes a rock song, hence why it's that much more palatable on the surface"

a 'revolver' or any beatles album sessions collection isn't going to be as interesting as these, no (anyway if you search out purple chick versions you can hear pretty much what those collections would sound like), but remember that Pet Sounds and Smile sessions involved top-notch session musicians working through arrangements, it's a totally different thing.

ADITL, for all its orchestra flourishes, is basically a live take. They aren't the Wrecking Crew but I think the Beatles as musicians tend to get underrated, esp. during the psychedelic years.

The only song the Beatles made that was modular, piece-by-piece, is "You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)". Which is really the only Beatles song that would kind of fit on "Smile". Of course it's more Goon Show than Gershwin but it still sort of makes a strange sense.

really? i thought they did a good bunch of 'modular' tracks from Rubber Soul onwards? (At least that's what I vaguely remember from Revolution In the Head - lots of having to speed and slow down certain parts to match keys and things?

Oh yeah, SFF, how could I have missed that.

SFF?

Strawberry Fields Forever (had to google it)

Something vaguely recalled about the horn solo on Penny Lane having to be changed to an unplayable pitch cos of so much tape-fuckery or something too...

Was it perhaps just the intro? Which was possibly added later?

... in SFF not PL

strawberry fields is pieced together from a couple different takes. but i'm not sure if that's quite the same as what wilson was doing -- each "strawberry" take was complete, as far as I understand, and after the fact they pulled the parts they liked to make the track we know.

anyhoo, as far as this question is concerned, i don't know. it's hard to imagine "surf's up" being more well-known than "day" but "day" is certainly a strange song to be so massively popular, even after years of overexposure.

Whereas...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ssMr0ylbkE

I think I could name at least a half dozen Beatles track that could be classified as modular, piece-by-piece recordings. The big difference being that the Beatles did this more out of laziness (piecing together best takes) vs. Wilson's calculated song arrangements.

Correct. SFF was pieced together after the fact, from individual complete takes. Definitely a different style than B. Wilson. His was more pre-planned, more deliberate. As for slowing down/speeding up piano solos and stuff, I think that's different. That's more of a production flourish, altering the sound of a lead instrument.

I really think "You Know My Name" is the only track where they would just come up with a different section, record just that section, then later piece them all together. And that song took years to complete (66-70)!

Please name those songs! I've been wracking my brain and can't really think of any at the moment.

is "happiness is a warm gun" one of them? it *sounds* modular, and is obviously a couple of different song ideas strung together, but i don't know if it was actually recorded that way.

Wilson's calculated song arrangements.

Not sure how calculated these were either. Modular = writing lots of different bits that sound good then sticking them together?

Brian called them 'feels', I believe.

A few that I can think of:

I Me Mine (the second half of the song was simply a cut & paste job from the first section)
Revolution #9
Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except for Me & My Monkey
I Want You (She's So Heavy)
Paperback Writer (OK maybe that one is a bit of a stretch, but I think it fits the description)

Also, there's a lot of that half-hazard John Cagey sort of editing going on w/The White Album: Glass Onion, Bungalow Bill, etc.

OK, "calculated" probably doesn't apply to lots of the recordings - I was thinking more re: Good Vibrations

"Taxman", has the solo from the middle spliced/repeated onto the end as a fade.

"Yer Blues" cuts back into the beginning of the song at the end, minus (nearly) John's vocal, which you can just about hear if you try.

"Happiness Is a Warm Gun": They pretty much all got in a room and hacked it out in a million takes. It's pretty maddening but it's for the most part a live take. But yeah, that's a good example! One of the best Beatles tracks too.

I guess we can throw in side 2 of Abbey Road also. While it was a bunch of different songs stringed together, I guess the whole thing is a sort of 'suite'.

There's plenty of creative editing to be sure, but I still don't think they fall in the category that I'm thinking of. Basically where you have a song that is made of a bunch of different parts that have different arrangements and are recorded entirely on their own. Maybe if The Beatles had recorded "Good Vibrations" it simply would have been a full live take with the cellos and theremin and stuff done as overdubs.

I think, of the 'proper' Beatles tracks, only "The Ballad of John and Yoko" was self-produced!

I guess it's the vibe. Day In The Life does sound like a patchwork, and I like the way these different parts are stitched together in this abrupt, contrasting way - Lennon's ethereal out-of-body experience as he flies over a map of Blackburn, Lancashire being rudely interrupted by McCartney's kitchen-sink bus journey. But Brian's song doesn't sound so obviously Frankensteinian, each measure sounds like an innate and logical progression of the last - a journey composed entirely by the brain, like a made-up song one might sing while doing the washing up that is allowed to wander and trickle through the mind's natural quarries.

Without wanting to hyperbolise here, Surf's Up makes me think that (left to its own devices) the human mind operates on its own internal formula: that there's a code within each brain that can only be tapped through dreams or psychedelics or hypnotism or plain absent-mindedness. A sort of generative effect where all thoughts and ideas are inter-connected and lead from one to another - a mental river that flows, twists, meanders along a natural path. The difference is that while you or I might be able to dream the ultimate melody, Brian found a way to get that down on paper and kind of paid the price for it. Surf's Up is a snippet of Wilson's DNA. It's a glimpse of a journey through the tunnels of his imagination.

I think you guys are right but I still think whatever edits and overdubs they did were dependent on the full live take that underlies everything. Brian in the "Smile" sessions didn't really seem to ever do that, which is why those are so unique and interesting.

Except....."Surf's Up"? Is that built on a full take?

no, i think it's cut down the middle -- the more orchestral part and the reflective, sparer bit.

Surf's Up is a snippet of Wilson's DNA. It's a glimpse of a journey through the tunnels of his imagination.

And Van Dyke Parks' imagination?

VDP is obviously a huge part of Surf's Up, yeah, but I think even he would admit that Wilson is the inspiration for the song -- he wouldn't have written those lyrics for himself I don't think?

Yeah, I'm not giving VDP enough cred and obviously he had a hugely positive effect on Surf's Up. I'm not sure how much of that song is Brian's and how much is Van Dyke's. I doubt Brian would have written a lyric like "columnated ruins domino", but I believe he wrote the main structure of the song, which is what I'm talking here.

Does anyone else hear similar correlations between "over and over the crow flies o'er the cornfield" and certain lyrics in ADITL? Lots of birds-eye-view imagery in sixties songwriting I guess: Eight Miles High, I Can See For Miles etc...

Surf's Up for sure

drugs

yep.

but I believe he wrote the main structure of the song, which is what I'm talking here.

I didn't think he wrote any of the lyrics

yeah don't think wilson actually wrote any of those lyrics, but i wouldn't be surprised if he "directed" VDP to some extent -- or at least suggested the title "Surf's Up"...

I mean, I hardly think of Brian as any kind of intellectual!

imho Brian was like "I want to write this song, a really groovy type of song, maybe with the title "Surf's Up" and it can be about, like, children, little children and the beach and being maybe a little bit sad about growing up" and then VDP was all "hmmm how about 'Columnated ruins domino'"

and then Brian was like "EXACTLY. Here have some more of this weed."

look at these two geniuses
http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2011-11/65835708.jpg

ADITL always feels to me as two rather slight songs with a big overblown arrangement stuck around it - it just doesn't move me at all, whereas almost every time I've listened to Surf's Up the hairs on the back of my neck have stood up, whether in the full production, or solo versions.

ahah.
that said, the interesting thing about the pet sounds and smile sessions is how Brian is very much in control with all these top level musicians and all. for all the talk about his mental issues, he's pretty impressive and clear !

I think you guys are right but I still think whatever edits and overdubs they did were dependent on the full live take that underlies everything. Brian in the "Smile" sessions didn't really seem to ever do that, which is why those are so unique and interesting.

yes, that's part of the thing when I say that beatles sessions wouldn't be interesting the same way pet sounds/smile are. that said, pet sounds/smile sessions are live takes but with all the various instruments involved instead of overdubs. I guess that's one part of the appeal of the sessions to hear all these musicians develop the ideas and build the songs under the supervision of Brian. It's hard to explain but the construction of the songs and the way the instruments are used feel totally different between the beatles and the beachboys.

"Surf's Up" was VDP's title, and I'm pretty sure that Brian wanted to call it something else b/c he was wary of anything to do w/ surfing at that point. But VDP talked him into it b/c he felt like it would serve to transform the Beach Boys and the surf myth into something new.

it's kind of amazing they got that far into their career without ever using that title tbh

ADITL always feels to me as two rather slight songs with a big overblown arrangement stuck around it - it just doesn't move me at all, whereas almost every time I've listened to Surf's Up the hairs on the back of my neck have stood up, whether in the full production, or solo versions.

― Chewshabadoo, Monday, November 7, 2011 11:48 AM (53 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this is true to an extent, but really really love the main lennon part, very spare and effecting and sad, in many ways those parts of ADITL remind me of a "test run" of the style he would use on plastic ono band, it's just wedged in with all the orchestral bombast and mccartney's goofy stuff

ringo's thunderous drum fills vs. surf's up's dissonant horn sweeps

Yeah the main Lennon part is pretty moving imo. ADITL gets so much attention on the big orchestra that comes in but really it's just a damn fine song and you can play it on a guitar or a piano and it still works.

There's nothing like a bit of Lennon + big chorusey solo piano really.

All of this conversation later and I still can't choose. It's very much a draw for me. I think both of these songs stand up surprisingly well both all of these years later, and also when stripped of all of their production 'excesses' (for want of a better word).

Interesting to hear the edits on the White Album being talked about... there are some seriously awful, cack-handed, sloppy edits on that album. It's part of the charm of the record for me now, but when I first started listening to the Beatles discography, I did so in order - so by the time I got to the White Album I thought "christ, they had all of that studio time and the recordings just feel thrown together". I don't think that way now, and see its flaws as part of the 'package', even if it is the messiest record The Beatles ever made.

It's important to remember how vastly more difficult editing was in the 1960s than today. Combining two sections of music meant taking two reels of analog tape, doing your best to locate the end of the first and the beginning of the second, then taking a razor blade and slicing your only first-generation copy in half on a slicing block, than using adhesive to join your two tape segments together. And if you got the timing off and sliced off a bit too much tape, the timing would be off, and you didn't get a second chance to get it right. Nothing like nowadays where you do all of that with a click of the mouse, and you can undo and retry if you don't like the result.

Yes, I understand what the process involves, you honestly didn't need to enlighten me! However, it is plainly obvious that the editing on 'The White Album' is considerably more sloppy and noticeable than on pretty much any other Beatles album. They had all of the studio time in the world to get things done (one of the few bands of the era that had such an embarrassment of resources), and managed to do it with meticulous care and attention on other albums, so it's not really much of an excuse. If they were rushing themselves, then it showed. But, like I said, I view it as part of the 'charm'/'aesthetic' of that record now.

I don't really get where the sloppy edits are on the White Album tbh

Beach Boys catalog, however, is littered with sloppy edits - botched vocal punch-ins, extraneous dialogue/talking, etc.

You don't think the ending to 'Yer Blues' is a sloppy/bad edit!?

"I would like you dance!"

"Birthday!"

"DaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAA/**squeak**/AAAAAAaaAAAAAAAnce!"

never noticed either of those

honestly don't hear the Yer Blues one... I guess I can tell where the edit is in Birthday but that one's never leapt out at me either

there are some jarring edits on the white album, but i always thought of them as in keeping with the aesthetic modus operandi of the album, not really "sloppy"?

i just realized that my version of little dog is a way more complex work of art than the beatles, thanks y'all

there are some jarring edits on the white album, but i always thought of them as in keeping with the aesthetic modus operandi of the album, not really "sloppy"?

― tylerw, Monday, November 7, 2011 9:30 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark

I don't think they intended for the edits to sound 'jarring', I think that's just how it turned out. It's pretty well documented that The Beatles weren't the most focused bunch of individuals in 1968! The 'aesthetic modus operandi' thing is what has been attributed to the album since by people who have embraced the flaws.

The Beatles also weren't the guys cutting up tape with razorblades, so faulting them for bad edit is silly. But at any rate, if you haven't read "What Goes On - The Beatles Anomalies List" check it out, it's nothing but editing and other mistakes:
http://wgo.signal11.org.uk/wgo.htm

That's a great site! He's even solo'd the vocal bit from 'Birthday' I was talking about!

http://wgo.signal11.org.uk/snd/bi_0207.mp3

I don't think they intended for the edits to sound 'jarring'
i don't know, both lennon and mccartney were pretty familiar w/ avant garde recording techniques/approaches at this point. i mean, i don't want to give them too much credit, but I can certainly see Lennon hearing a rough edit and thinking that it sounded raw, intense. which is kind of what he was going for at that point.

Even with that in mind, I don't think it's deliberate. There was a reason why they made those solo projects.

I'm referring of course not just to 'Two Virgins' here, but also 'Electronic Sound'.

Also, while McCartney was more than familiar with the avant-garde, even before Lennon was (it took Yoko to open up the avant-garde to him), he was also less than thrilled with stuff like 'Revolution 9' going on the record, and successfully vetoed 'What's The New Mary Jane?' also.

I think the "McCartney was more avant-garde" meme is something sort of perpetuated by him, and won't believe a word of it until I hear "Carnival of Light". Where is Paul's "Life With the Lions"?

That's a great site! He's even solo'd the vocal bit from 'Birthday' I was talking about!

except that I totally don't hear that in the finished version of the song...? I dunno what's going on here.

I don't think his "output" was more avant-garde, merely that McCartney appreciated the avant-garde well before Lennon did. Lennon did once go on record and say "avant-garde is French for bullshit" before he met Yoko.

McCartney was responsible for the tape loops on 'Tomorrow Never Knows', and Lennon once lamented that all of the experimentation seemed to happen on his songs. Lennon was even toying with the idea of re-recording 'Strawberry Fields Forever' in a "straighter" form during the Double Fantasy sessions!

except that I totally don't hear that in the finished version of the song...? I dunno what's going on here.

― The Uncanny Frankie Valley (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, November 7, 2011 11:08 PM (53 seconds ago) Bookmark

It is there, believe me. Towards the end.

oh it's in the SECOND refrain.

yeah now I hear it

that is a pretty weird thing to leave in

You are right when you say there's some obvious bleed throughs/bad edits/bad punch-ins on Beach Boys stuff, though. I think 'Here Today' has a near-audible conversation in the background at one point which isn't supposed to be there.

McCartney was responsible for the tape loops on 'Tomorrow Never Knows'

wait I read that that was all Harrison and Lennon

yeah there's a similar page for the Beach Boys (iatee or tylerw might know what I'm talking about?) - but I was kinda surprised how much of the entries on there were things I had actually noticed before. The conversation about cameras in Here Today is noted in the liner notes iirc

from wiki - "McCartney supplied a bag of ¼-inch audio tape loops he had made at home after listening to Stockhausen's Gesang der Jünglinge. By disabling the erase head of a tape recorder and then spooling a continuous loop of tape through the machine while recording, the tape would constantly overdub itself, creating a saturation effect, a technique also used in musique concrète. The tape could also be induced to go faster and slower. McCartney encouraged the other Beatles to use the same effects and create their own loops."

i mean, if that's true, mccartney can lay claim to being the avant garde beatle.

Here's a bunch
xp

Honkin Down the Highwway - (fade) Al sings "Who cares if I gotta spend the night" at the end of the fade -- obviously not the correct lyric, and right after, realizing his mistake, he seems to say, "Oh, shit!"

I mean I love "Love You" and totally noticed this before, it just makes me laugh

now I'm just laughing at this list...

2:26 Carl says "I love you" it is intentional, but I don't like it

In Brian's autobiography on page 326 referring to digital recording which can easily be made flawless Brian says "I learned the lesson that so many people who made albums in the eighties missed: no matter how perfect technology made the sound, an album still boiled down to great songwriting and a spiritual investment in the music."

Mr. Wilson is OTM. Flaws can add 'character' to a release. I know they certainly do to 'The White Album'.

when i saw the pet sounds tour with the wondermints many years ago BW was constantly coughing/clearing his throat into the mic- old habits die hard

All those supposed flaws you hear on the 'White Album' I think I have missed. I always heard it and felt like everything really flowed in its own strange way. Nothing really took me out of the mood. I don't think it's really a bad edit unless it takes you out of the song/flow of the album, regardless of technical standards.

I dunno man, there were a lot of things that were very noticeable to me!

Like, on 'Happiness Is A Warm Gun' for example. I noticed several things right off the bat about that track, and two of them are noted on that anomalies site... the fading in of the word 'down' before John starts singing the "I need a fix..." bit, and right at the end the bleed-through of the falsetto "Guuuuuuuuun!" before the actual lead vocal comes in. One thing that isn't noted on that site that I noticed is during "mother superior jump the gun", the vocal double-tracking goes all to shit.

I've never questioned the intentionality of those elements on the white album. Same guys that went on to attempt to make an album of all live takes next (Let It Be) and went on to make records like Wild Life and Some Time in New York City.

I understood that The Beatles wanted to make a bit more of a 'stripped back' album than the psychedelia of 'Sgt. Pepper's' and 'Magical Mystery Tour'. I honestly don't think that bad edits/punch ins/messy double-tracking was the intention. I just think they had a lot of songs and rushed their way through it. Look at 'Hey Jude' and the single version of 'Revolution', for example. Those two tracks were done during the White Album sessions, but because they knew they were going to come out as a single they paid more attention and care to what they were doing, and it shows!

It's also worth noting that George Martin didn't produce all of 'The White Album' either... he buggered off on holiday half-way through and left The Beatles to it.

Geoff Emerick quit the sessions too... so you've got Ken Scott/Geoff Emerick engineering and Chris Thomas/George Martin/The Beatles themselves producing.

So maybe an engineer does and edit, shows it to a John Lennon who is tripping on LSD, and gets the OK to keep it in.

I honestly don't think that bad edits/punch ins/messy double-tracking was the intention.

Right, but the decision not to do anything about them was intentional and, I've always assumed, aesthetically-motivated rather than just due to laziness. I mean, who knows, but surely something like the editing on "Yer Blues" was intentional.

My theory is that the decision not to do anything about them was because they wanted to record as much of their material as possible and maybe their record company had set a release date. The compiling of the album legendarily took place in their only 24-hour session, which suggests to me that they may have had a deadline. They were in the studio a fair amount of time making that record while they were essentially falling apart... band members and producers going off on holiday or quitting. There may have been an attitude of "okay, that'll do".

I think they spent six months making 'The White Album' ... 'Sgt. Peppers' took five and there's considerably less songs on it.

'Abbey Road' took seven months from start-to-finish, but there were less songs... which means more time devoted to each song, with a producer that was completely in charge and a much stricter recording regime. Still though, this is the band that made 'Revolver' in three months... I just think they became distracted by having so much material and the tension in the studio, really, that's the only real reason I can think of that they spent six months on 'The White Album' and it ended up sounding so sloppy. I really don't think they intended to make a messy record, though, it just turned out that way as a product of what was going on when it was made. Lord knows they had enough studio time to make it non-sloppy, though.

It all seems 'of a piece' to me on an album with a long tape collage piece, the intentional editing at the end of "Yer Blues," lo-fi things like "Wild Honey Pie," the rambling fiddle at the end of "Don't Pass Me By," the little snippet of unidentified song on Side Four, etc.

tell you though, if I had 6 months in Abbey Road, I'd make a damn great double album!

I'm voting Beatles. 'Surf's Up' is gorgeous, but I've never been a fan of VDP's lyrics. The "music holocaust" pun, "adieu or die," etc... are much too "clever" to move me. Arrangement-wise, 'Surf's Up' is certainly more textured than ADITL, but it's nothing that Spector, the Beatles, and the Beach Boys themselves hadn't done at least a few times already. ADITL's crescendos, on the other hand, are some pretty inspired and unique bits of orchestration. ADITL also flows much more smoothly to my ears than the start-and-stop production of 'Surf's Up.' I do love both songs. If you break them down into sheet music, I think Surf's Up is probably the stronger composition. It'd be a beautiful piano piece. But in the end, I prefer Lennon's voice to Wilson's, and Ringo's performance is just too good. I suppose I usually prefer the rougher Beatles sound to the Beach Boys sound.

I've been thinking a lot about album context too. I listened to each of these songs many times tonight, and it's been a little strange to hear ADITL on its own, instead of at the end of 'Pepper.' One of my favorite things about the song, and the album, is that instead of a crowd pleaser, this silly, psychedelic, half-assed 'concept band' ends their night with a creepy existentialist encore. WTF?

Yeah, that's one of the problems with Sgt Peppers. It starts off with the best intentions of being a themed concept album and quickly forgets about it all after the first two-three tracks.

Like most so-called concept albums

What is this "Yer Blues" thing you guys keep mentioning? I know John is singing off-mic for the last verse. Do yall think that is some kind of editing trick or something? It's actually part of the performance.

I really don't think they intended to make a messy record, though, it just turned out that way as a product of what was going on when it was made. Lord knows they had enough studio time to make it non-sloppy, though.

Does not compute. First of all I don't think the "White Album" really is any more flawed than their previous albums, on a purely technical level. Read through that list for yourself for plenty of messy bits even in that paradigm of studio craft "Revolver". As for it being a messy record aesthetically and this not being the intention; this is 100% silly. Look at that track-listing. Listen to the songs. At no point in the recording process was there an attempt to sequence it as a stronger cohesive single album. What is the previous record they did, "Magical Mystery Tour". Is that not a total mess as well? The Beatles love a good mess. Just watch "A Hard Day's Night".

Sgt. Pepper is messy too -- why does the concept go away after a few songs? Well, the concept is just another bit that they stumbled into during the process, it's another part of the journey of making the album, not an end in itself. In fact I think the main Pepper songs were the last recorded for it.

The concept was going to be "Liverpool", but after they had done three songs, they ran out of ideas, and the label insisted on 2 tracks for a single. So, Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields became 2 sides of the "Liverpool" concept single, and "When I'm 64" was kept back for the album.

I don't think anyone but Paul ever really signed onto the "Pepper" concept in the first place

What is this "Yer Blues" thing you guys keep mentioning? I know John is singing off-mic for the last verse. Do yall think that is some kind of editing trick or something? It's actually part of the performance.

yeah I always thought so too. but the suggestion was that that whole verse is just a copy of the musical track from the beginning of the song. could be I suppose, would need to listen to it more carefully and/or consult Lewison

What is this "Yer Blues" thing you guys keep mentioning? I know John is singing off-mic for the last verse. Do yall think that is some kind of editing trick or something? It's actually part of the performance.

Right at the end of 'Yer Blues', it's clear that while the guitar solo is playing, the band are jamming and don't have the faintest clue how to end the song or get back into the main riff. Their answer to this problem? Edit the beginning onto the end and use it as an instrumental - and it sounds jarring as hell. I don't think they meant for it to sound jarring, but it does.

At no point in the recording process was there an attempt to sequence it as a stronger cohesive single album.

But that's not what I'm talking about!

I think the end of Yer Blues sounds great, intentional or not. And they do have a track record for this kind of thing. Look at how I Want You (She's So Heavy) ends...

i kind of forget what we're arguing about re: the white album

so jarring I've never noticed it

just figured it was one of the many many many rhythmic turnarounds/switchups in Lennon's songs

I think the end of Yer Blues sounds great, intentional or not. And they do have a track record for this kind of thing. Look at how I Want You (She's So Heavy) ends...

― B-Boy Bualadh Bos (ecuador_with_a_c), Tuesday, November 8, 2011 10:30 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

Yeah, you're right about 'I Want You (She's So Heavy)' but the editing on that is far more seamless.

so jarring I've never noticed it

just figured it was one of the many many many rhythmic turnarounds/switchups in Lennon's songs

― The Uncanny Frankie Valley (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, November 8, 2011 10:35 PM (9 seconds ago) Bookmark

The whole track comes to an immediate halt and literally everything gets cut off in mid-everything just as the drum fill comes in!

I hear it now that you've pointed it out

you've ruined it for me forever!

*cries*

I don't care one bit for 'Surf's Up'. I didn't even know it had a following until ILX

I would of preferred an album that's all stuff like "She's Goin' Bald" and "He Gives Speeches"

those are the same song

yeah, they should of stuck in that mindset and made more cracked out pop

in what universe did they NOT make more cracked out pop?!

> I would of preferred an album that's all stuff like "She's Goin' Bald" and "He Gives Speeches"

That's what most of Smiley Smile was.

"Fall Breaks and Back to Winter" is wack but it got darker and more cracked out with "Mrs. O'Leary's cow". I'd like an whole album of cracked out shit - not so much light and wacky

That "sha na na" section in 'She's Goin' Bald' still gives me one hell of a chuckle when I hear it. In fact, the whole song does... "yer too late momma, ain't nothin' upside your head... no more no more no more no more!"

whenever I saw this thread I was always like ugh and now I read it and am surprised at how great it is

I don't care one bit for 'Surf's Up'. I didn't even know it had a following until ILX

― hotter than a hoochie coochie (CaptainLorax), Wednesday, November 9, 2011 12:06 AM (35 minutes ago) Bookmark

waht

"She's Goin' Bald" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Surf's Up"

surf's up is blahbity blah or mehhity meh

the Befuddling Opinions of Captain Lorax

I would of preferred an album that's all stuff like "She's Goin' Bald" and "He Gives Speeches"

This is why smiley smile is one of my favourite albums, even above smile

captain lorax's technically after the deadline vote bumped surf's up from its rightful #1 spot on the beach boys poll

I respect iatee for having not been so Type A (tight A) about the deadline (like johnnyfever).
Anyways, "God Only Know" is obviously better

iatee was considerate

Oh god, Lorax, still frustrated about the deadline? Jeez, get it out of your system man.

people make lasting impressions

Impressions don't just dissipate. I have no desire to make them disappear

This is why smiley smile is one of my favourite albums, even above smile

― Glo-Vember (dog latin), Tuesday, November 8, 2011 11:45 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

'Smiley Smile' is that oddest thing, a replacement for a scrapped record that is perversely far more uncommercial and strange than what it replaced. It's not a record I dig out on purpose to enjoy, but rather I find it offers a kind of window to how strange things had got in the world of The Beach Boys at that time. 'Wind Chimes' has always been a kind of slightly unsettling moment on 'Smile', but on 'Smiley Smile' it's fucking scary.

yeah, I would support that track for a cracked out Smile album
and even though I like "Heroes and Villains" and "Good Vibrations" - they are bit of a different extreme. Also, "Good Vibrations" always seemed out of place even if there were songs on Smiley Smile that didn't fit either extreme

Impressions don't just dissipate

controlled demolitions are required for that amirite

be careful what you say, it all goes into one big government file

Impressions don't just dissipate. I have no desire to make them disappear

― hotter than a hoochie coochie (CaptainLorax), Wednesday, November 9, 2011 12:53 AM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark

This train of thought will inevitably lead you to mistake frustration for impression. The GBV poll had a deadline, you didn't meet it, get over it. Christ.

I don't care if my poll wasn't tallied. Big whoop. I care about a person's character and I don't jive well with Tight A's. Loosey Goosey all the way baby

Turrican is my new favourite poster. Smiley Smile was the first album I heard after their best ofs and pet sounds, and to me it's their pinnacle. No, not their best or most realised but the truest, most fucked up, most acid fried, funniest, craziest album in a time of crazy fucked up, acid fried funny albums.

Same goes for white album. Shit, you wanted the Beatles or the beach boys to take drugs and discover musical nirvana, these are the ones

Beach Boys/Nirvana collaboration in the immediate future

'Wind Chimes' has always been a kind of slightly unsettling moment on 'Smile', but on 'Smiley Smile' it's fucking scary.

that was the first song i heard off Smiley Smile: i was in my local record store when they started playing Wind Chimes and it kinda blew my mind. i had spent quite a bit of time with 3 different Smile bootlegs at that point so i just assumed this was another fan mix that i hadnt heard. i asked the clerk what album they were playing and then asked if it was for sale

I don't get what's "scary" about Wind Chimes.

Really? The Smiley Smile version is Scott Walker levels of sinister compared to the Smile version (which I heard much later and found quite strange to be honest). Okay not Scott Walker but 'c-lose your eyes and lean ba-ck/listen to wind-wiiiiind chiiiyiiiimea' is sirenic stuff.

I just... what is sinister about chilling out and listening to some windchimes?

like lyrically this song does not deliver the bad vibes

the arrangement is cracked and the melody is eerie but "scary" implies fear of something and I'm not sure what anyone is afraid of in this song

I think some people are better than me at trancing out to "wind chimes". I'm inclined to agree with the only "slightly unsettling" descriptor

are there some backmasked "I am going to KILL YOU" vocals from Mike Love buried in the mix or something

The more you can jibe with the song the harder it can hit you?

I can't really jibe with Syd Barret stuff so it doesn't hit me at all - but I can imagine why it would hit some people. And I don't even think he's bad or anything. He just feels blah to me. Different folk for different folks

It's not just the lyrics, though... it's the way its delivered and the general atmosphere of the track. Whenever I listen to the 'Smiley Smile' version, I just get this vision of an acid burnt-out guy sitting in the dark with a little bit of dim lighting getting freaked out by his wind chimes. In the 'Smiley Smile' version I don't get the impression he's chilling out and listening to some wind chimes... I get more of the impression that the wind chimes are fucking him up for some reason.

That burst at 1:26 is kinda scary. What is that anyway?

tbh, when i was a kid and had Endless Summer on endless repeat i was spooked by the vocals especially on the slow songs- "eerie" is a good word.

Psychedelics when abused can make the most harmless things seem terrifying. That's what windchimes represents - the smile version is 'oh pretty windchimes, wow' the smiley
Smile version is 'get those dissonant fuckers away from me!!'

windchimes really do creep me out tbh. I only ever notice them late at night when it's silent and kind of windy and they often give me a kind of lonesome feeling. I always feel like they're going to suddenly break out into the Suspiria theme.

"Smiley Smile" version of "Windchimes" is effing scary and really good. The "Smile" one is equally great, but in a totally different way.

"Smiley Smile" is like when they decided they couldn't make their "Sgt. Pepper" ("Smile") they instead jumped ahead to making their "White Album".

Smiley Smile needs a serious critical reassessment, no doubt. Great and weird album.

"Good Vibrations," in the end, that is the single to end all singles, but it doesn't need to be on an album. It practically is its own album.

You guys are nuts. The "Smiley Smile" version of "Windchimes" does such massive disservice to the song. The version on this year's Smile is like my favorite thing ever.

As a matter of fact, I'd go so far as to say that the SS version of that song completely summarizes the most frustrating elements of Beach Boys.

I never said that I preferred the 'Smiley Smile' version of 'Wind Chimes' over the 'Smile' version, just that both versions are different. I like the 'Smile' version because of its sheer listenability and unbeatable melody, whereas the 'Smiley Smile' version is more of a burned-out version.

I think both are great for different reasons.

Sorry - I didn't mean to put words in anyone's mouth. I was just surprised by everyone's enthusiasm for the Smiley Smile version.

"Vegetables" is probably the only track on SS that I'd rank above the Smile versions.