Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Topic: Yet More Heroes & Villains Part II?



05/21/01 01:47:55 PM

Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tones part of Smile?

What I think happened with Domenic was not so much an err as it was him just not taking it to the next level. He spoke with Chuck, who basically conceded that there was a two-part song (and he meant in the R&B "Two-Part" song, because they spoke about it together. NOT the "two-part" song, as in "two-sections"). However, if we take the session evidence that Brad has given us and the fact that you have identified these tapes with who was playing on what and when it was recorded and then add to that what Chuck remembered and add it all up, you and Brad are likely right in putting together a strong balance of what Domenic said and what you have since been able to come up with and it not only makes a lot of sense, but also squares with the facts greatly and is most likely what really happened.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Maybe there was a long "Heroes And Villains" (5 minutes) on side A PLUS a "Heroes And Villains, Part II" on side B.

I think I wrote that somewhere else already, please notify if I start buggin'.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Maybe the difference between being logged as "Part 2" in January and "Part II" in February is more meaningful then we thought.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

So in other words: Chuck could indeed have just meant a two-part song on ONE side, and who knows, really, we can't ask him to clarify it, which is a shame.

'Cause it seems to me, early on, there are STILL 2 parts to the song, even when it's only on one side. The Jan. 31st comp reel (with the verse, the "dum dums", something called "part 2 - first version," "My children," and "3rd verse") bears the notation "HEROES AND VILLAINS - FIRST PART," if I'm not mistaken, right? Now, right there, there's a part 2 INSIDE a "first part." This is PRE-Cantina, and there's a second part notated -- and what's missing from that lineup? Well, the fade, for one.

This is right around the time that the "part 2 variations" might still have been included in the lineup, I've wondered long and hard whether THEY might not have constituted "SECOND PART" in some way, shape, or form. I posted a long theory about that here a while back, about how the edits on SOT 17 disc 1 likely date from between Jan. 27th and Feb. 10th, and might constitute assembly segments from the same, single, long version. I even did a lousy test-edit of it, called 'earlyfeb" that some of you grabbed.

Now, what I mean is: this is the LONG VERSION that folks talk about. This is the "5 minute" or "7 minute" version, which then got truncated into the less-than-three minute version that is Cantina.

And perhaps the FURTHER revision/confusion comes from the addition, then, of a second SIDE of H&V, as Brad says above, in late-February, following the incident with the police. So we're dealing with a song with a first part with a part two, a second part, and then a Part 1 and a Part 2...no clear demarkation.

Where I think Domenic errs is simply insisting that the "part 2 variations" constituted the second side. I don't think that's the case at all. I think Brad's theory above is pretty damn likely -- that if we're looking at a "part 2" we're looking at the late-February stuff in some way, shape, or form.

And that there might ALSO have been a "long version" from BEFORE that, from maybe before the Cantina mix.

Makes any sense?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I pressed Domenic pretty hard on this issue last week. I was sitting on here defending some of his theories and everyone was asking me exactly what he thought about SMILE these days, so I had a three hour conversation with him about SMILE and all of the controversial issues that have come up over the past five or so years. When I asked him about the 2-part H&V single, he told me what I told you. Now, I didn't quote it exactly, because I didn't bother to ask Domenic if he had it written down or recorded on a tape. I just said, "Tell me exactly what you remember him saying." To which Domenic said what I told you. However, I don't think Chuck was thinking, "Hmm, well on this date, I had recorded GV at three and a half minutes and a few months later I recorded one that was nearly as long." I think Chuck's point was that H&V was the longest song that he remembered recording or mixing with Brian. "One of the longest" was just an expression so as to point out that he remembered it being one of the lengthiest tracks he'd ever worked on with Brian. I don't know what he would have said about the length or GV, nor do I know anyone who asked him such a question, but I don't want to jump to the conclusion of putting words in his mouth, especially since he is no longer with us, God bless his soul. I feel that I have already put words in his mouth by giving a third-hand account, but Domenic won't get online, as he feels like he can't put the right amount of time into it that it would require and he also doesn't feel the need to really go into SMILE any more. Ihave tried to get him back in, but he'll have none of it. And honestly, I'm getting kind of tired of speaking for him. No one put a gun to my head and made me do it. But, now that I have, I feel kind of awkward about giving second and third-hand quotes. I feel that the integrity of these arguments may have been forfieted a little bit. Maybe I'm overreacting, but until I can pin down Domenic with an exact quote, I'll leave it that Chuck said that he remembered a two-part H&V and that he felt the song was a very long song. How many times do you hear that about a song? Well, only if the length would have been out of the ordinary.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

That's what I've been thinking, esp. considering that it seems a lot of Part 2 (if I'm not mistaken) is repetitive with few lyrics, like the "dit dit dit, Heroes and Villains" parts. They sound to me like either B-side material, or backgrounds for spoken word sections. A B-side would be the perfect place to put little musical pieces that didn't fit somewhere else.

I think Brad's suggestion that Brian decided to add a "Part 2" for the B side of the single after mixing the cantina version makes the most sense (right now).

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Sure, I'm not being agrumentative or saying anyone is mistaken etc. it's just that it would be nice to know what was said before running too far.

Two part H&V is not out of hand equal to 2 sided H&V. Chuck might have meant H&V was to be split between two sides or he might have meant that the longer 5 minute H&V A side consisted of two parts, part 1 and part 2. Chuck was very familiar with Brian labelling sections of the same song as parts 1 and 2 or parts A-C etc. For all we know Paley and Priore just misinturpreted Chuck's meaning, we need more specific information if available. The fact that Chuck remembers it as being one of the longer songs, not the longest, suggests the 2 parts together were under GV's time of 3:35. A single with 2 sides of one song averaging 1:47 per side seems sort of unusual.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

As I told Brad in a private letter, Andy Paley asked Chuck in the late 80's whether there was such a track. Domenic Priore wanted to know if there was a H&V Part 2 and had Andy ask Chuck. At the time, Brad's article had not been changed, so it was still in the theory stages. Chuck said that he DID remember there being a two-part H&V and that the song was one of the longer songs that he remembered doing with Brian. Now, in the early 90's, Domenic met Chuck himself and had the chance to ask him that question again (just to see if he still held the same thoughts) and a few more questions. So, he asked Chuck again about a two-part H&V and Chuck said the same thing about it. Plus, Domenic and Chuck got into a little rant about how so many R&B artists had already cut two-part songs way before that. I don't know if Dom has any interview tapes lying around his house, but I can ask him.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Could someone post the quote[s] by Chuck Britz concerning part/side 2? Without the quote, it's had to understand how saying there were 2 parts to H&V equals both sides of the single. How specific was he?

As someone pointed out sessions are logged as "Surf's Up (1st movement)" and "Surf's Up", should we jump to the conclusion that a movement was intended for each side of the LP? Aren't we forgetting that a section of BR was logged as H&V Part 2 in January yet Brian didn't know what would go opposite the "A-side" [note: not he didn't say "side 1" or "part 1"]of the single in February. If "part 2" didn't equal "b side" in January, why would it in February?

Also we are forgetting that a tape box from 1/31/67 shows a "part 2" of the "1st part" of H&V, not part 2 of side 1 or side 2 of 1st part or side B of 1st part or part 2 of side A.

Again, "Side 2" was LP terminology, Brian himself referred to the H&V single in February as having an "A side" not a "side 1". Capitol did not designate singles as side 1 and 2 either, only LPs.

I've never had the priviledge to hear VDP's first Warners' single which has "Donovan's Colours" on both sides. I know there is a :10 timing difference shown between sides, but nowhere on the label I've seen is the song either side labeled part 1 or 2, or side 1 or 2 or side A or B for that matter.

How specific is Chuck in describing what he means by 2 parts?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

On the Capitol sheets is Tones logged as part of Capitol project 31-5526?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

*** Actually, Britz's recollection is the ONLY solid reference we have to it. ***

** Does that mean it doesn't count? **

No, not at all. I was simply indicating that the concept of a two-part "H&V" single probably wasn't quite as widely known as Brian C. was indicating it was.

*** Why aren't there contemporary references to a 2-part "H&V" single? ***

** It seems to me that this two-part single conception occurred very late in the process (end of February) and wasn't held up for very long. IMHO, the labelling "side 2" is evidence that this conception DID exist. **

I agree. While there might be many reasons to label something "Part 2," there's really only one reason to label it "Side 2." I think the concept of a two-sided "H&V" single existed only from about Feb. 15 (when Brian tracked a new section of "H&V" after having finished the "cantina" version) to March 2 (the last session logged for "H&V" for three months; not coincidentally, it also was logged as "H&V Part 2"). For whatever reason, the entire SMILE project came to a halt in early March 1966. I don't know whether it was due to Brian's increasing frustration, Van Dyke's leaving, The Beach Boys' resistance or what, but the session sheets clearly indicate that Brian stopped working on "H&V" on March 2 and did nothing on Capitol project 31-5526 (SMILE, later SMILEY SMILE) for a month. (The couple of sessions logged in the first half of March for "Tones" were for Carl's track, not anything Brian was involved with.)

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Although probably nobody will ever read this message posted way down the thread, here's my opinion. Peter "Homer Simpson" S. suggests that there is evidence for both a two-sided HV and a "normal" single because both was at some point in time true, and I think he's right. The sleeves lacking the mentioning of the b-side is no evidence at all, as Brad states. The strongest hint for a stand-apart "HV, part two" is to me that there are lots and lots of sections but NEVER EVER any sessions logged as "part 3" or "part 4" or whatever. No proof either, but a strong hint.

> Actually, Britz's recollection is the ONLY solid reference we have to it.

Does that mean it doesn't count?

> Why aren't there contemporary references to a 2-part "H&V" single?

It seems to me that this two-part single conception occurred very late in the process (end of February) and wasn't held up for very long. IMHO, the labelling "side 2" is evidence that this conception DID exist. Maybe this tape was going to be a compilation tape for side 2 and was abandoned after the first section was dubbed down there.

And here's yet another theory: If "Part 2" was the flip side, maybe it wasn't destined for the album, but just as a b-side in order to not having to pull a track from either Pet Sounds or SMiLE itself.

But if it indeed was a long song split in half, that was a REALLY old hat - it had been done as early as in the late 20s!!!

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

** You are most likely correct that Capitol was not aware of a two-sided, two-part H&V single. However, those in the studio most certainly were. [SNIP] And with what Chuck remembered and with the sessions sheets available, it is quite clear that while Capitol may not have known about a two-part H&V, Brian and the people he was working in the studio with were aware of it. **

Not to make too big a thing out of it, but I'm really not sure that everybody except Capitol knew Brian was working on a 2-part "H&V" single. Actually, Britz's recollection is the ONLY solid reference we have to it. If you read the press reports of the time (in LLVS), NOBODY mentions "H&V" as a 2-part single. Yes, a number of people mention a longer version of "H&V" running 5 or 6 minutes, but it's never discussed as a 2-part single. Brian doesn't mention it, Derek Taylor never mentions it, Mike Love never mentions it, nor Richard Williams (who got to hear the long version). You would think that at least one of them would have mentioned it as a 2-part single if it were intended as that. I'm not saying the idea wasn't there, but I find it damn curious! Why aren't there contemporary references to a 2-part "H&V" single?

It leaves me to wonder whether the extended "H&V" would only have appeared on the album, with the single simply being a 3 to 3-1/2 minute edit (i.e., Part One), with something else being used for the B-side.

We may never know for sure ...

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I think that theory you finished your post with is something I can stand for. It brings together the best of both theories and utilizes all of the evidence within the context of the time things were cut.

I just wanted to add one thing to this. You are most likely correct that Capitol was not aware of a two-sided, two-part H&V single. However, those in the studio most certainly were. So, while the 45 sleeve may not have initially been for a two-part, doubled sided 45, it would certainly not be out of line to use such a thing. And with what Chuck remembered and with the sessions sheets available, it is quite clear that while Capitol may not have known about a two-part H&V, Brian and the people he was working in the studio with were aware of it. So, that single sleeve was just to say that they didn't know WHAT he was going to do with the B-side. But, you are probably right, that around Feb. 1967, Brian was not going to put on an unrecorded version of H&V, Part 2. Though, we could be wrong. There could have been pieces recorded before Feb. 15th that were the same pieces recorded as H&V, Part 2 sections AFTER the 15th. I don't know, but someone here must know. It would be interesting to know if any sections were cut as H&V before the 15th and then re-cut as H&V, Part 2 after the 15th.

That's all I can think to say about that, though.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

** Doesn't Brian tell Tracey Thomas that he is going to mixdown the final version "tonight" in an interview and that he didn't know what the B-side was going be? That's the only one that I can find in Dom's book, unless you have something else. **

That's the one, and "tonight" obviously is Feb. 10, when he mixed down the "cantina" version. (The article appeared about a week later, which is just about right for Tracy to have sent a report back to England and then have it published in a weekly paper.)

Are we at least agreed that at the time he mixed down the "cantina" version, Brian didn't intend for the B-side to be a "Part 2" of "H&V"? That seems like an inescapable fact to me.

** Look, even if the single was pressed an to be released between "Penny Lane" and whatever Cam said was after it, even if that is the case, it didn't happen and Brian went on to cut more and more H&V. **

Agreed, but the fact remains that the original single release number HAD to be assigned at about the time he mixed down the "cantina" version in preparation for a possible release in late February or early March. Furthermore, record labels can't get a 45 picture sleeve ready overnight; there's a lead time of at least several weeks so that the sleeve can be designed and printed. So, in preparation for the planned release of "H&V" as Capitol 5826 in late February or early March, Capitol HAD to go on and start preparing the sleeve as soon as they knew Brian had a "finished" version of "H&V" ready. Since he didn't know yet what the B-side was going to be, Capitol simply prepared (and then printed) a sleeve that said only "HEROES and VILLAINS." That way, when Brian decided on the B-side and delivered it, they could press the single and not have to worry about whether the picture sleeve matched. The same thing had been done with "Good Vibrations" just four months earlier; it wasn't a new or unusual practice.

For what it's worth, in regard to the "Part 2" debate, my current working theory is that the "cantina" version was intended to stand on its own as "H&V" at the time Brian mixed it down. However, within a few days, Brian experienced a situation (the theft of his car or something like that, wasn't it?) that brought him into contact with the LAPD, and he saw heroes and villains for real. That prompted a re-think on his part. There's evidence to indicate that everything he did on "H&V" after Feb. 10 (starting with the new tracking on Feb. 15) was designated for "Part 2" in some way, so my guess is that his "re-think" resulted in the decision to ADD to what he'd already done, by creating a "Part 2" as a B-side to the "cantina" version. He worked on it through March 2nd, at which time he (grew frustrated? and) abandoned it. Maybe there was a mixdown of it at some point (Britz's recollections would seem to support that), but if there was, Brian obviously wasn't pleased with it, because he didn't turn it over to Capitol for release. In fact, as I've stated before, there are NO indications in Capitol's files that they ever knew anything about a two-part "H&V" single. Thus, there's no way that was the reason for doing picture sleeves that just said "HEROES and VILLAINS."

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Doesn't Brian tell Tracey Thomas that he is going to mixdown the final version "tonight" in an interview and that he didn't know what the B-side was going be? That's the only one that I can find in Dom's book, unless you have something else. Look, even if the single was pressed an to be released between "Penny Lane" and whatever Cam said was after it, even if that is the case, it didn't happen and Brian went on to cut more and more H&V. He didn't exactly stop after that interview. It wasn't until April that he switched to Vegatables". Neither is conclusive here, but there WERE sessions for a "Part 2", Chuck Britz remembers that there was a two "Part" song and not just section "labels", and in more than a few places throughout the contemporary 1967 articles do people who heard it say that it was "5 minutes" or "six minutes long" or, as Britz himself said, "I only remember that it was really long." There's a very good chance that it was one long song for the album and a two-part, two-sided single.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

As Cam points out in a thread somewhere above this one, the catalog number for the original "H&V" single release (5826) places it as a late February or early Marh 1966 release. Capitol can turn around a single in 2-3 weeks, so what we're looking at is, without much doubt, the "cantina" version, the recording and assembly of which was completed on Feb. 10. In a short piece that appeared in one of the British music papers right about that time, Brian said he had no idea what was going to be on the B-side and talked about several possibilities (none of which included an "H&V Part 2"). Does 1 + 1 equal 2? It looks pretty conclusive to me!

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Well, there were never sessions for GV logged as "Part 2". But, since there was for H&V and the sleeves had only "Heroes & Villains" printed on them, it is not too much of a stretch, considering that it had already been done in the industry. That doesn't mean that in every case where one song title is on the sleeve that it is automatically a 2 "Part" single, but in some cases, it makes sense. Especially since Chuck Britz remembered that there was indeed a two part song for H&V.

****The only reason that both the "GV" and "H&V" picture sleeves don't mention a B-side is that, at the time they were printed, Brian simply didn't yet know what the B-sides were going to be.****

Are you sure about that? How do you know that that was Brian's reasoning? Do you have proof that it was?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

** With the original H&V 45 picture sleeves, it just says "Heroes & Villains". That's all. Same with the Bob Dylan 1965 45 single, "Like A Rolling Stone". One six minute song, cut in half and placed on two sides of a 45 RPM. Gary Usher cut a comedy-pop-spoken word little piece in 1965 with a group called The Buddies. It is a 45 called "The Duckman Parts 1 & 2". So, it wouldn't have been uncommon for there to be a song such as H&V to be around six minutes on the album and then cut into two sections or two "Parts" on a single. **

Then, by that reasoning, there ought to be a "Good Vibrations, Parts 1 & 2," or at least some indication that such a release was planned. But, of course, there isn't and there wasn't. The only reason that both the "GV" and "H&V" picture sleeves don't mention a B-side is that, at the time they were printed, Brian simply didn't yet know what the B-sides were going to be.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I'm looking at my stash of 1965-67 45's as we speak and in examining them, I notice that in most cases the labels on the wax themselves don't indicate which is the A or which is the B side. A few of my singles do. All of the singles I have by The Poor have A and B labels.

But, what is very noticable about these singles is that if the 45 has a picture sleeve, in almost all cases, it is very very clear which is the A and which is the B.

With the original H&V 45 picture sleeves, it just says "Heroes & Villains". That's all. Same with the Bob Dylan 1965 45 single, "Like A Rolling Stone". One six minute song, cut in half and placed on two sides of a 45 RPM. Gary Usher cut a comedy-pop-spoken word little piece in 1965 with a group called The Buddies. It is a 45 called "The Duckman Parts 1 & 2". So, it wouldn't have been uncommon for there to be a song such as H&V to be around six minutes on the album and then cut into two sections or two "Parts" on a single.

Also, considering all of the interviews from 1966-67 where Brian is praising the shit out of Dylan and his close proximity to Gary Usher, it wouldn't be a far stretch to think that H&V, the SMILE single, was going to be a "Part 1" and "Part 2" 45 RPM. Chuck Britz remembers that Brian had it in his head that he was mixing a part one and part two. He didn't remember exactly what it was made up of, but only that it was very "long".

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I don't think Capitol's 7" labels even specified a "side 1" or "2" or an "A" or "B" side either in 1966/67 did they? [I can't find my 45s at the moment]

The albums specify "Side 1" and "Side 2". So if the label meant what it said, it seems most likely the note was referring to a side of a 12" album doesn't it? Although I notice there are some promotional EPs in "Surf's Up" that show a "side 1" and "side 2" also.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

When was this recorded, so we can properly speculate on what a "side two" would have included?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Putting "side two" on a tape box definitely isn't a normal practice, which is why I don't buy the idea that it might have indicated that H&V was slated to appear on side 2 of the Smile album (see adjacent side-thread). There is only one situation I can think of where it makes sense: if you're going to put a song with the same title on both sides of a single, you might want to label one as "side two" to differentiate them.

Why is this instrumental chorus the only section that is labelled as such? Well, that was my original burning question from the top of this thread. Who knows. Until more evidence is uncovered, I'm simply chalking it up to the inherent disconnect between what Brian had in his head and what ended up getting called out between takes and written on session sheets or tape boxes. Just because we don't know of any other sections labelled as "Side two" doesn't mean there aren't candidates out there. There are other examples of this: we only have one definitive, clearly-labelled portion of The Elements, yet Carol Kaye, Bellagio and others strongly feel that pieces we know and love (Friday Night, Da Da, etc.) were planned to appear in The Elements, at least at one point in time.

But who knows? Someone may have intended to write "part two" but wrote "side two" as a mistake. I wish Brian would just come out and settle the debate. I know he's forgotten a lot of that stuff, but I think he would remember something like this. Maybe not, I don't know. I still think Chuck Britz' recollection is the strongest evidence we have. Brad's essay is a pretty air-tight and well-presented position based on what we have known, but it doesn't preclude the possibility of new evidence emerging that might paint a different picture. Maybe this new find is that evidence and maybe not. We'll probably never know. I'm gonna go grab a beer. Or two.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Other than this one (which I'll admit is incredibly intriguing!), the only tape boxes I'm aware of that carry "Side 1" and "Side 2" designations are master tapes for complete album sides. Of course, this can't possibly be related to "Side 2" of the SMILE album, can it? Strange weirdness indeed!

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

OK, I'll grant that this labeling of the tape box as "side two" can be cited as evidence for the 2 sided single. But consider this:

1. Have any tape boxes before, or after, ever had "side one" or "side two" on them (other than album master reels)? Brad, Alan? I've never heard of any other examples of this practice, even when clearly Brian was recording a single. So it seems odd this piece of tape would have "side two" on it, doesn't it?

2. Clearly this piece of music would not be adequate alone to make up a side of a single. Yet no other pieces are labeled "side two." Why?

I posit that perhaps the tape box labelling is simply an error - like labeling Friday Night (I'm in Great Shape). And what was meant to be on the tape box was "Part Two," not "Side Two."

In other words, we're back to the same debate over whether Part Two means a 2 sided single or not.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Mmm, that feels good. Another Smile mystery solved. Thanks!

This all reminds me, does anyone remember the rumor/speculation/evidence that was the prevailing theory for a long time about "H&V Part 2" that went something like this:

H&V Part 2, the flipside track, was supposed to be start with How I Love My Girl, followed by the Part 2 variations, followed by the Smiley "children were raised," followed by "sunny down snuff," followed by the Smiley chorus as a fade.

I believe this started from something Domenic wrote in LLVS, and it kind of became accepted fact after that for a while. I always assumed it was true, until I started having doubts on my own and then I saw the heretical writings of Brad Elliott on this site ("No Two Ways About It" essay) and I then plunged straight into apostasy with the rest of you.

So, were we right to doubt Dom? Where did this information come from? I know I saw it written somewhere in LLVS (the Bible) that apparently there was a tape reel somewhere that conatined Brian leaving clues as to how Part Two should be sequenced. That just doesn't seem to fly with what we know now. I don't recall statements from Mark Linett or Alan that indicate anything other than the fact that Linett pieced the "Sections" track together himself, not based on any clues left by Brian, but solely going by what Mark thought was a "listenable order." (By the way, I think he did a pretty good job.)

It now appears to me that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Although the Board doesn't seem to be diving into this "Part Two as a flipside" idea, I tend to think that idea is more than worth revisiting, it's worth believing in. So I'm coming back to my Domenic-ian roots and I am going on record as saying that I think there was going to be a "Heroes And Villains Part 2" as the flipside to H&V Part 1 in February 1967. That's my confession of faith. But I don't read the Bible so literally anymore and therefore, I don't hold much stock in what Domenic says Part 2 would have been. Some of it seems almost impossible: if "my children were raised" and "sunny down snuff" were recorded in June, how could they be part of H&V Part 2 in February?

Sorry about the corny faith/church analogies. Hope it doesn't put anyone off.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

The "Sunny Down Snuff" section is labeled "barbershop" on the tape box and dates from the same June 12-14 1967 sessions as the "My children were raised" section.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Yeah, this "part two" business could mean anything depending on the context. That's what makes this whole Smile game so dang-blasted torturous. But still fun, though.

So if Jon's guessing right and the "part two" recordings from January and prior are probably not included for this February "Side Two" track, that would leave:

1) H&V intro from March 1, plus or minus one day
2) Tubular bells bit, from same tape as H&V intro
3) Fade re-record, from same tape as H&V intro
4) "Prelude to Fade" aka C&W section from Feb. 15
5) Tack piano of H&V chorus (that follows "Prelude to Fade") from Feb. 15

Now, what about "my children were raised" and "sunny down snuff"? I just noticed (and posted on a thread below) that according to the Hawthorne liner notes, the "children were raised" section that appeared on the single was not recorded until June 12-14. So that would seem to indicate that it's out, although it's possible Brian had conceived and planned to record that arrangement but just didn't get to it until July.

But what of "sunny down snuff"? Alan, have we been able to pinpoint a date for that section?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Just to confuse things even more:

Don't forget that sometimes terms like "part 1" and "part 2" may be referring to different sections within the same version (or side). The use of the term "Part 2" doesn't necessarily mean "Side 2."

The box with the "Heroes" theme that later became the track for the chorus of the single version, however, clearly states, "SIDE two."

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I'm guessing that if there WAS a "part 2" it didn't even exist until February, after Brian's "I don't know what's gonna be on the b-side" quote. So those early items -- "Bicycle Rider" and the "Part 2's" -- probably aren't included. But the OTHER stuff you mentioned -- and maybe things like "my children were raised" or "sunny down snuff?" -- probably were. Or, that's what I think.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Yeah, so now I'm confused again. It's confirmed there was to be a "H&V Side Two." Well, I suppose it's not CERTAIN, but this is about as literal as proof can be. Just for fun, and for the sake of this post, I'll assume it's an accepted fact that there was to be a "Heroes And Villains Part 2" that would have appeared on the flip side of the single. So if any of you want to play along, please help me figure out just what that track might have been comprised of.

Is it ONLY the instrumental track for the Smiley chorus that is labelled as "H&V Side Two"? Certainly there would have to be something else - that section alone couldn't make an entire flipside, could it? Hmm, well he DID release "You're Welcome" as a flipside, so maybe...

No, damn it, there has to be more to H&V Side Two than JUST the instrumental Smiley chorus. Is it reasonable to consider all the sections logged as "Part 2" to be fair game for the flip? If so, let's list all the pieces recorded as "Part 2." I'm pulling most of this right from the wonderful H&V list that Jon compiled a week or so ago.

1) H&V intro from March 1, plus or minus one day
2) Tubular bells bit, from same tape as H&V intro
3) Fade re-record, from same tape as H&V intro
4) "Prelude to Fade" aka C&W section from Feb. 15
5) Tack piano of H&V chorus (that follows "Prelude to Fade") from Feb. 15
6) Bicycle Rider from Jan. 5 (and if this is part two, mightn't "Bridge to Indians" be a part two section as well?)
7) "Part Two Variations" (How I Love My Girl, 4 variations of "dit dit dit, heroes and villains", Swedish Frog)

Now, what have I missed?

How does the Part 2 mix on SOT 17 Disc One Track 20 factor into this? We don't know for sure when it was mixed, but Jon's educated guess is sometime in January. That might explain why it doesn't include any of the sections from my list above that were recorded after January.

And what of the empty tape box dated Jan. 31 that contains something titled "part 2 (first version)" - where does that fit in the picture?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

>>> I think that the instro BR theme from the H&V (Sections) track is one and the same as the backing used for Smiley Heroes chorus, perhaps in a different mix.

It is, yes, with additional organ OD.

>>> So maybe the H&V sections track really is a reasonable approximation of the flip-side to the planned Smile H&V?

Nope, that's very much Mark just highlighting a number of different sections in what he thought was a nice-sounding running order. There's no historical accuracy to anything but the 4 "part 2" sections.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I was gonna post about that! Ya just beat me.

But doesn't Alan say it's the TRACK for the chorus?

From previous sync-ing up experience, I think that the instro BR theme from the H&V (Sections) track is one and the same as the backing used for Smiley Heroes chorus, perhaps in a different mix. So maybe the H&V sections track really is a reasonable approximation of the flip-side to the planned Smile H&V?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I'd like to point out the soon to be contentious point: the box for the Smiley chorus is labeled "Heroes and Villains Side Two".

SIDE TWO.

Welcome back, 2-sided-single!

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---



Back to the Message Board Archive
HOME