Surf's Up Vs A Day In The Life

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