Talk:Smile (The Beach Boys album)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Further Reading?

Re: "In Lewis Shiner's novel Glimpses, the mental time-traveling protagonist meets and befriends Brian Wilson, and encourages Wilson to complete Smile over the objections of his bandmates. Glimpses won the 1994 World Fantasy Award for Best Novel.":

Well, technically, this would be "further reading", but since it's clearly fiction, I think mentioning it is rather misleading. Reading this novel you don't learn more about Smile, you only learn about Mr. Shiner's fantastical imaginings. Really, it's just another way to sneak in trivia. I'm removing the paragraph. TheScotch (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the info box, this album appears to have been released in the future.

"Released November 1, 2011" - seriously? -- 77.182.240.237 (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That's the release date, doofus! :) 68.32.137.231 (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

RELEASED ON ITUNES OCTOBER 30????

I just went on Itunes, and there's nothing there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.97.42 (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Article finally split

OK, folks, for all those people like myself who must insist that SMiLE is a Beach Boys album rather than a Brian Wilson one, I have finally given the Beach Boys version its own article, with links to info on Brian Wilson's version. I hope this ends all those arguements. 22:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you figure SMiLE is a Beach Boys album when it was never released be the Beach Boys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.63.122 (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Because there's a front cover from 1966 that says "The Beach Boys" on it ? :-) Andrew G. Doe (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is about the unfinished album, sort of about the "entity" that is Smile. Dozens of other unfinished albums have their own page, don't you think Smile, possibly the most famous unfinished album of all time, deserves its own article? 64.53.37.3 (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

But SMiLE is no longer unfinised. It was completed and released alone by Brian. The earilar attempt as a Beach Boys album and the finshed version are one and the same--It's all SMiLE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.63.122 (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps at one time SMiLE would have been a Beach Boys album, but now it most certainly is a Brian Wilson album since it was released by him alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.63.122 (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are looking for Smile (Brian Wilson album). MookieZ (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't you undersatnd, they are the same thing. SMiLE is SMiLE. It began as a Beach Boys album, was not finsihed. Then Brian completed and rerecorded SMiLE releaseing The same album on his own--same songs same subject matter just in its finished version.

Then why is brian's version called "Brian Wilson presents Smile" and not just "Smile" ? Answer - because it isn't.Andrew G. Doe (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no longer an unfinished SMiLE. There are recordings from SMiLE's first attempt from the late sixties. But the album SMiLE is finished as of 2004 by the very man who first conceived it, so therefore no longer can be called "the greatest album never released."

I'm sorry, but there is still an unfinished Smile album. This article is about the lost Beach Boys album. Brian may have finished the Smile project in 2004, but that's Smile by Brian Wilson. Smile is also a lost Beach Boys album - several recordings were held and the album was never finished. Brian brought the project back to life but did not finish the Beach Boys' album, he re-recorded and reworked it from scratch.

I'm not saying this because I'm some purist who dislikes Brian Wilson Presents Smile - it's a wonderful album, but it is a Brian Wilson album. Not the lost Beach Boys album. There is much more to the puzzle that was lost that aren't on Brian's finished versions of the songs and album.

No, once again I am certain you are wrong. The SMiLE sessions recorded in the late sixties are SMiLE's first attempt. Brain was unable, for one reason or another, to complete this album back then and therefore shelved it. In 2004 when he decided to return to and finished SMiLE he rebuilt the album with the exact same material from before and almost nothing from the original sessions is left off the finished 2004 product. I can only think of one thing, the "Air" instramental, but that part of the "Elements" in SMiLE is now being represented by "Wind Chimes". Do you think Brian thinks this isn't the completed album he began in the sixties? Do you think that he and the surviving Beach Boys are going to "finish" this "lost album" one day and release virtually the same thing that Brian released in 2004? That would go over well, right?

They are the same thing but at the same thing they aren't the same thing. My biggest point is that putting both articles together would result in a very, very long mess of an article. I think that both the lost Beach Boys album AND the Brian Wilson album deserve their own articles because of this. 64.53.37.3 (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this one deserves a separate article. 'Smile' may have been 'finished', but that doesn't mean that there still isn't an 'unfinished' version, which some people might be just as interested in as the 'finished' version.... Miscreant (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Miscreant, how can something be finished and unfinished at the same time?--132.3.9.68 (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure let them have separate articles BUT THEY ARE THE SAME THING just in different forms. One is the completed form and the other is the incomplete form. --124.40.63.122 (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Lets say I start writing a book and abandon it halfway through. Then years latter I start the book over again and finish it. It's not a new book (same idea, same premise, same title, same subject matter) it's just that I got it right the second time around. JUST like Brian and his SMiLE

No, let's not say you start writing a book--bad analogy. Let's say, rather, that you start then abandon a painting. Wilson didn't finish his canvas. He made a fresh canvas, painting--as well as he could remember it after so many decades--the same subject. The original unfinished canvas still exists, and this article is about that original unfinished canvas. TheScotch (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Brian did not finish SMiLE,rather it was Darian that took the most commercial "elements" and turned rock musics finest hours into a K-Tel Best Of type pale facsimilie, the original sessions as directed by Brian are fascinating experiences ,total mastery of the form,the sad,tired,badly sung solo version is a bastard step child,Van Dyke added a few ,totally un SMiLE -like lyrics to I Ran/Dada/Holidays/Child is Father,Mertens appalling string arrangements sound like James Last in a swamp and have none of subtlety or grace of Brians 1966 string arrangements even Three Blind Mice[possibly the most SMiLE sounding track albeit recorded in 1965]shows just how brilliant an arranger Brian was,someone decided to use Tony Asheres REJECTED lyrics on the Good Vibes collage and for reasons known only to Darian,Do You Like Worms became Rock Plymouth Rock,I Love To Say Dada became Blue Hawaii...all in all its a rape,Brian hardly turned up ,Darian admitted that even with Van Dyke the process was "very hard" IF Brian not his "manager" had wanted SMiLE out then great,IF Brian had written the new link partsd,IF Brian had insisted on voicings being placed in order to create a "symphony",IF Brian had dictated the backing track sessions,IF Brian had put the puzzle together,IF Brian had showen more than fleeting interest ,even in front of the cameras,then and only then can the solo version be called a finished SMiLE,it is no more finished,and in many cases far less so,than the hundreds of fan made SMiLEs...I have around 9 gbs of sessions and I'd rather listen to the most fragmented session that sit through the terminal chore of hearing a post good voice/caring Brian trying to turn back the clock,the solo SMiLE was created to be performed live by brians band,there never should have been a studio version,every note is inferior to the 66/67 originals,every vocal sounds old in comparison,the touring band do not posess the beauty of Carl,Mike,Al,Bruce,Denny and 66 Brian..thankfully there will be a small [6 cd] SMiLE Sessions Set released this year [2011] which once and for all will lay down Brians burden,lay to rest the SMiLE vrs Revolver/Peppers myths and let the public hear what it lost.

"Three Blind Mice" was arranged by Dick Reynolds.Andrew G. Doe (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No offence Andrew, but what's your point? This kind of comment is fine for the blogosphere, but it doesn't really address or advance the status of this article. Dunks (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Everything preceding the "Three Blind Mice" sentence is nothing to do with me ! Aside from anything else, I'd be more accurate, and much more coherent. :-) Andrew G. Doe (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Smile track listing template

Do we still need the Smile track listing template at the bottom of the page? It no longer corresponds to the final track listing given in the body of the article. Also there's a problem with the template in that the "view/discuss/edit" buttons link to Template:Smile, which is not the same thing. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I see this is hard-coded into the bottom of each Smile song article. Perhaps a free-standing template should be created similar to Template:Smiley Smile. Then the track listing can be updated and the "view/discuss/edit" buttons fixed. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've created a new template, The Smile Sessions and I've gone through all the song pages and replaced the hard-coded template with this new template. I've also removed the hard-coded template from this Smile album page because there is already a track listing. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Where are the reviews?

Plenty of reviews have been released for the Smile Sessions already. Why haven't they been posted yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.97.42 (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added a review box with some ratings and links. What is needed now is a "Reception" section that would summarize some of these reviews. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this page too big?

I'm not Wikiexpert, but this page seems to merit being split into separate pages due to it's enormous volume. The Smile Sessions alone probably deserves it's own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daithi81 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There was a suggestion above about spliting this page into the "never-released Beach Boys album, Smile", and "The Smile Sessions compilation album". But no conclusion was reached. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Derek Taylor

I've reverted the statement that when he announced the demise of Smile, he was the Beatles press officer to the correct fact that he was the Beach Boys PO. Taylor resigned as Beatles press officer at the end of their summer 1964 US tour, returning to work for them in 1968. Andrew G. Doe (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Personnel

This article sorely needs a personal section detailing who played what on which song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.146.71 (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You should probably get on that then. 109.145.116.195 (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I would love too, but i just don't have the information to do so, i know there are books about the SMiLE sessions and all, but i don't have them at home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.56.176 (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Featured article

I vote that this become a featured article on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.58 (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. —Bruce1ee^talk 04:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Use of Smile vs. SMiLE on WP

WP:MOS advises against using unnecessary capitalisation when possible so I can't fathom why "SMiLE" is the preferred method of writing "Smile". Historic articles, advertising, interviews etc. do not include this capitalisation, it has only been a recent development that the album has been referred to as anything bar "Smile". I propose that wikipedia follow that initial thread which better falls in line with how this site is formatted. To refer to an album by the typography on a stylised album cover is a bit ludicrous. By applying similar logic, Good Vibrations should be referred to as GOOd VibrAtiONS and the upcoming box-set "MaDE iN cALiFoRNiA". Jamekae (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Split article for The Smile Sessions

Smile is not "The Smile Sessions", just like Pet Sounds is not "The Pet Sounds Sessions". --24.60.5.200 (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

AGREE 100%, Once again this article is about the unfinished, planned but never-released Beach Boys album, Smile. The Smile Sessions is a similar, yet different album that is what Brian Wilson and others have imagined — some 45 years later — what Smile might have been. Read the new album title; The Smile Sessions is a compilation of recordings from the original Smile sessions. --hulmem (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the never-released Beach Boys album, Smile, and The Smile Sessions compilation album need to separated. As it stands the article mixes the two and gives the impression that The Smile Sessions is the long-awaited Smile album. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I also, agree. It irritates me that they are saying SMiLe has been released 1 November 2011. no, that was when the SMiLE Sessions where released. Brian's solo SMiLE is more of a correct version--since it was actually completed. This collection is not a studio album but a collection of tracks from the aformentioned sessions, assembled in a way that guesses what the album might have been had it been released in 1966/67. For the record though SMiLE is not incomplete it is done and released in 2004 by Brian Wilson. But this is not it.--132.3.29.68 (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The Smile Sessions surely deserves a bit more attention paid to it. Clearly a lot of work was involved in completing it. Also, the entire Smile article is a bit of a mess and looks very cluttered. It's like people keep cobbling together any Smile-related info. There is a case to be made for seperating Smile Sessions into it's own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daithi81 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's misleading to have an infobox that states that "Smile (The Beach Boys album) was released on November 1, 2011; however, I don't think a separate article for "Smile (The Beach Boys album) is entirely necessary. "Smile (The Beach Boys album)" was never released, so I think it's a bit redundant to have such a page when the album's genesis, history of recording etc. could be covered under "The Smile Sessions". I'd say that a rename of this page to "The Smile Sessions" teamed with a good cleanup/restructuring is the best thing to do for coverage of the aborted sessions. Jamekae (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVE Consensus was unanimous was that "The Smile Sessions" would suit this article better than "Smile (The Beach Boys album)". Jamekae (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Smile (The Beach Boys album) → The Smile Sessions – There's no completed Beach Boys album titled Smile, therefore I believe it's misleading to have this article namedSmile (The Beach Boys album). As this article discusses the events, conception, etc. that took part during the recording sessions for Smile, I nominate that the article be renamed The Smile Sessions in order to emphasise the incomplete nature of the project and so that the information for the 2011 archival release The Smile Sessions can be better be fed into the article. As it stands, the article is an incoherent mess where it's easy to misunderstand the 2011 archival release for a completed album. Jamekae (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Hi Jamekae, you've done a lot of work on this article, and improved sourcing, this seems to be backed up in Google Books so support move. But I've wikilinked Smile (Brian Wilson album) 2004 into the lede to make the difference clearer. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support – I agree, the current title is misleading and a rename would help, but I think (as discussed above) that keeping a separate article for the (aborted) Smile Project should still be considered. The Smile Project was a significant event that was covered extensively in the media. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Conflicting with my initial comments above, I think I'd be content with a split, however, information about the aborted sessions would still need to be moved from the article name "Smile (The Beach Boys album)" to something more appropriate, but I'm not 100% sure of what would be the best fitting name. "Smile (The Beach Boys sessions)" perhaps? Jamekae (talk) 08:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I think "The Smile Sessions", as you suggested above, is fine for the title of the box set article. The aborted Smile Project article could retain the current title, namely "Smile (The Beach Boys album)". If you look in Category:Unreleased albums, this seems to be an acceptable way to name articles of unreleased albums. And yes, information about the aborted sessions would have to be included in the "The Smile Sessions" article, but it would be a condensed version of "Smile (The Beach Boys album)". I'm open to any other suggestions. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Also, natural disambiguation is much better than parenthetical disambiguation. bobrayner (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Frank Holmes artwork

It would be great to have some pictures of the conceptual artwork Frank Holmes drew for Smile. The only photo I have to upload that would comply under fair use is a scan of The Smile Sessions CD booklet, which might be too low quality, and I'm not sure if I can crop it. http://i.imgur.com/BMjdxee.jpg--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: more original scans http://i.imgur.com/qf61Q3g.jpg http://i.imgur.com/7cxrwUl.jpg. I don't know if these make up every piece illustrated. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

RE: Infamously

"in·fa·mous [in-fuh-muhs] adjective 1. having an extremely bad reputation: an infamous city. 2. deserving of or causing an evil reputation;"

Therefore, "The surrealism and obtuseness of the lyrics had infamously led Love to adopt the term "acid alliteration" when describing them." is not entirely neutral, especially as infamy can be contested. It should be left to the reader to interpret whether there's negative connotation in the statement. For example, Love has occasionally used it in conjunction with praise ("brilliant acid alliteration") and Jardine, even in the midst of his current rough patch with Love has said "I’m sure he was perplexed (laughs) as anyone would be about the “acid alliteration,” as he always puts it. I love that description!" so there's definitely an alternate viewpoint floating about that suggests it's intention could have been somewhat misconstrued by some writers (personally, I'd say Jardine'd have a more accurate view of Love's intention behind the statement as he toured with the guy for 40 years.)

As for "had" vs "has", I changed it from "had" to "has" as it shows he continues to use the remark and that it wasn't just a one time occurrence. "Had led Love to adopt the term "acid alliteration" when describing them." could imply that the "acid alliteration" remark was first used during the December 1966 confrontation detailed in the preceding paragraph. Is this the case? And to who was it described as "acid alliteration"? From what I've read, Love has said he created it "in the past" or "back then" but not specifically stating when that was. I think it's a suitably important thing to note. Regards, Jamekae (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The help and general fine-tuning is greatly appreciated but, man, you know Love got tons of flack for the "acid alliteration" thing. Just because Jardine stated that he liked it once doesn't mean that journalists and writers didn't reference it in a negative light for the last 40 years. "Has" versus "has"... whenever he talks about the phrase today, it's always in past-tense. And it's always in his defense years after the fact. I'm sure that the 1971 Tom Nolan article says something that supports "Love used the term during Smile sessions". Don't know what exactly.

Also I removed "adamantly" from "Love has adamantly noted that whatever misgivings he had toward Smile laid specifically toward some of the lyrics and not the music" because I remembered the 1993 Mojo interview where he disparaged it.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

1996 Smile box plans

"There was hope that the box set would be followed by an official Smile release, but it failed to materialize due to objections by the other Beach Boys over The Pet Sounds Sessions liner notes." I'm pretty sure this is a contested assertion (Is this source even reliable? The next paragraph says the band "never once" played songs from Pet Sounds and Smile yet one needs only to have a quick glance at Knebworth or the 1993 live material on Made in California to identify this statement as gross hyperbole). While there were difficulties with the PSS liner notes, I recall reading Mark Linett saying he was overwhelmed to compile the project without more sophisticated computing technology (I'll try finding a source for this when I'm not on my phone). Even removed from that, I have issues with pinning another non-materialisation of the Smile material to "the other Beach Boys" due to reliance on an identifiably sensationalised source. The binary roles of "heroes" and "villains" in the Beach Boys saga makes for an interesting story, but ultimately we're here to present the facts with context and a neutral point of view, not compile the most interesting/tragic (but poorly sourced) gossip that we can. Regards, Jamekae (talk) 04:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't found any other source commenting on what happened with the Pet Sounds box. Obviously something did. I found other stuff too -- the talk about Smile coming out between 1998~2001 -- but I dont think I can properly source it since it exists only on fansite archives. The article is sensationalized but it's the only "official" source I've ever found for the bootleg stuff besides Allmusic. I doubt McCartney or Zappa has said anything about Smile like Pheonix New Times says they have.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to take my word on this as it comes from a private inside source at the time (1997): the the original gameplan (as hinted at in the liners to The Pet Sounds Sessions) was for the box to be followed by a single CD of "Good Vibrations" sessions (a master for which was strongly rumoured to have been prepared) and then by a 3CD Smile, comprising a disc of the closest approach to a "finished" album as could be achieved, a disc of "Heroes & Villains" sessions and a disc of the best of the rest of the recordings. The grief encountered during the compiling of The Pet Sounds Sessions was a major factor in the abandonment of this plan. Andrew G. Doe (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

If we "have to take (your) word for it", it doesn't belong here. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Here we go. Mark says the reasons it didn't come out in '96 were for technical and sequencing issues and there's no mention that the objections to the Pet Sounds Sessions liners had anything to do with it.

"Mark says the reasons it didn't come out in '96"... Where? He never explains this in any point in the article. Just that the project "took a fair amount of time" in reference to the analog editing. The liner notes thing wasn't even denied, let alone did he bring up that the box had been delayed for a year and a half.

In a related note re: reliable sources, and I apologise, I don't know if I'm dealing with this with the correct sensitivity, but since Landy's malpractice and administration of damaging pharmaceuticals, there is strong indication that Brian's memory has been somewhat impaired. Interviews are often contradictory to details recounted in the past or they don't align with hardened facts. For this reason, I feel that reporting Brian's 21st century word on the project as a lucid, infallible, authoritative stamp of how Smile unfurled is less than ideal. I don't feel comfortable with prose such as "Wilson has maintained on multiple occasions that the other Beach Boys met Smile with huge disapproval, and that he was disappointed with their reactions." in its current state knowing it's information derived from the man at a time where he had marginalised recall. That being said, I don't know how to go about editing in an ethical manner in this situation. I'd like to hear your opinions on the matter since I do believe it's an enormous elephant in the room which needs to be addressed. Regards, Jamekae (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Basically, you're arguing that Brian Wilson is a human being, and as such, is prone to making wrongful recollections of events that occurred several decades ago. I don't think that's enough to discredit every single word he's had to say about anything. He's remembered Shortenin' Bread and Da Doo Ron Ron all the way from 1965 to this very day. Even if he didn't remember a single note or idea, what he has to say about Smile is important no matter what considering it is his album. The validity to his claims should be disputed on a case-by-case basis.

"Wilson has maintained on multiple occasions that the other Beach Boys met Smile with huge disapproval, and that he was disappointed with their reactions. Other times, he has said that the group eventually grew to like the material as sessions progressed." He has, hasn't he? I don't see the issue with that statement. He's talked publicly about how the band has had creative disputes since 1968. Besides that, it's probably safe to say that there's some merit to his recollection, and so it is worth noting. Likewise, "Van Dyke turned me on to LSD and amphetamines" can be easily contradicted, and not worth noting by itself for Wilson's bio. I don't know what elephant you're talking about. I noticed a while ago that the "Project collapse" section had much speculation on what Wilson may have felt with the Beach Boys at the time, and almost nothing straight from the horses' mouth. Before, it seemed as though the only characters surviving to the 2000s with a mouthpiece on Smile were Mike Love and Van Dyke Parks. Since then, I've tried to add all the many different perspectives that Bruce, Dennis, Carl, Mike, Brian, Al, and Van Dyke have had over the last 45 years.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"Basically, you're arguing that Brian Wilson is a human being, and as such, is prone to making wrongful recollections of events that occurred several decades ago."

In 2008 he denied knowing Dennis even recorded a solo album. Given Brian was largely clean in 1976/1977, it seems he's in some way or another afflicted with above average levels of forgetfulness. I'm not chastising him, or saying it's his fault, but I think it's an important thing to keep in mind when compiling an article.

Statements made by Brian are always prefaced with "Wilson has said..." or a variant. I know that he's often an unreliable narrator either intentionally or unintentionally, but so far, he's not been diagnosed with Alzheimers or any other form of memory loss. He's as reliable a source as you, I, or the other Beach Boys.

"Given Brian was largely clean in 1976/1977" Wasn't he dealt with tons of psychotropics even in the '70s? I don't think he was that clean.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

""Wilson has maintained on multiple occasions that the other Beach Boys met Smile with huge disapproval, and that he was disappointed with their reactions. Other times, he has said that the group eventually grew to like the material as sessions progressed." He has, hasn't he? I don't see the issue with that statement."

Here are my issues with the statement. When exactly has he maintained that? Like I said, dates are really important when quoting Brian. The sources used to back up that statement are from 2004 and 2011. Based on those interviews, I'd say it's fair to say "Wilson beginning in 2004 has maintained that the other Beach Boys met Smile with disapproval". As for Brian quotes indicating creativity disputes since 1968, is there any way you could recover those? What do they say exactly? If they support that the Beach Boys met Smile with disapproval, I'd say slap it on as a reference and leave everything ceteris paribus. Regards, Jamekae (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a seven-year stretch where Brian has explicitly named Love as an antagonizing force. The quote I'm speaking of from 1968 allegedly comes from Look, Listen, Vibrate, Smile

“ The song "Surf's Up" that I sang on that documentary never came out on an album, and it was supposed to come out on the SMILE album, and that and a couple of other songs were junked... because... I don't know why... for some reason didn't want to put them on the album. And the group nearly broke up, actually broke up for good after that. ”

He doesn't seem to go into detail, but the gist of what he's saying is that "Smile nearly broke up the group." How did it nearly break up the group? I don't know, because as of 2013, everybody seems to have an agenda. The point is that he stated those things in 1968, and again forty years later in greater detail. He's never said the contrary. Sure, he's also spent years blaming it solely on "drugs", but he's never ever once completely dismissed that the band had been quarreling, even during the most amicably delicate of times (like the 2012 reunion).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Album type

I've reverted the album type back to "aborted" (as opposed to "unreleased") simply because this album doesn't exist and it can never exist. A studio album type carries the assumption that Smile exists and that it's established as a studio piece which will immediately mislead readers. Smile is not a studio album, it is a project connected to a collection of tapes recorded in the 1960s which serve no clear purpose. You have field recordings on cassettes, spoken-word skits, and many promotional tapes, with nobody ever knowing what would actually be included. It can't be a studio album when it was never finalized as one; it's just a concept for some kind of album. It doesn't even have a track listing..-Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Album types It was recorded in a studio and wasn't a compilation or a live album or a soundtrack or an EP. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

...neither was it a studio album. An unknown percentage of Smile was recorded in a conventional recording studio. What about all the recordings which could be classified as demos? There are many of those on The Smile Sessions and they can't be discounted. Smile at one point could also have once been a remix of Smiley Smile. Then it was almost an EP in the 1980s. Then it was meant to be reassembled as a compilation with the title Smile (before The Smile Sessions or The Smile Era). THEN you have the so-called Smile albums that are included in Good Vibrations: Thirty Years of the Beach Boys and The Smile Sessions. Bear in mind, it was almost all of these just as much as it was almost a studio album. Yet the closest tangible thing we have are compilations based on incomplete information.

If you're going to leave it as a studio album, you'd better at least give a good, descriptive longtype for the infobox. Because it is absolutely not just a studio album: Smile is a wildcard. {{Album infobox}} clearly states that an unknown type should be left blank. Calling it a studio album type contradicts the article's contents.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Smile not a milestone

It's only one word, but referring to Smile in the intro as a "milestone" is incorrect. Wilson's release of the work from fresh recordings in 2004, and then its subsequent assembly in 2011 from the old 1966-67 tapes using the new version as template, does not make it a milestone from the mid-1960s; a future milestone from 2004 or 2011 perhaps - time will tell. For decades Smile only existed as rumor or at best a bootleg, and could therefore not be considered a milestone the way Pet Sounds, Sgt. Pepper, or The Velvet Underground and Nico could be. Sorry, but that's the way it is - a milestone by definition is a tangible, concrete thing, and in the world of recorded music that means an actual, released album or song from a specific time period, not something never released and never finished. PJtP (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Smile (The Beach Boys album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.petsounds.com/bam.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.petsounds.com/nytimes2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)