Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Smile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Smile

    Did anyone catch the documentary on BBC1 last night. I suspect it was a repeat from the wonderful BBC4 my friend keeps telling me about. I switched it on and saw Carol Kaye and Brian playing 'Good Vibrations' - nice to see her and Hal Blaine talking about doing the sessions with Brian.

    Hell, 2 music documentaries on TV in less than a week. Probably have to wait another year for the next one.

    Back to Neuuuuuuuuuu!

  • #2
    No ta -

    I was washing my hair, or something far more important. .

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by [b
      Quote[/b] (Belson @ Dec. 02 2004,10:43)]No ta -

      I was washing my hair, or something far more important.    .
      Greg - did you and Brian have a falling out - back in the day ??

      ...any mention of him always rankles you doesn't it ?

      I understand where you're coming from though - he is treated as some kind of uber-saint my so - called music afficiado's....

      His stuff is OK - though, but no much more than that. Pet Sounds is pleasant enough.

      In my view, people like Axelrod and the European sound sculptors like Umiliani / Dutour / Nilovic, etc etc should deserve more praise and exposure...

      This obsession with Wilson seems to go hand in hand with the "You've got to love everything the Beatles did" attitude.

      There was so much more than that going on - for godsake we've had nearly 40 years to suss this out!!


      DISCUSS...

      Comment


      • #4
        Either way... It was a good documentary.
        I prefer Pet Sounds myself.
        I'm still waiting for that programme (where they
        focus on an album and play the individual tracks etc.)
        to do a show on Pet Sounds.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by [b
          Quote[/b] (Si Cheeba @ Dec. 02 2004,10:52)]Greg - did you and Brian have a falling out - back in the day ??

          ...any mention of him always rankles you doesn't it ?  

          I understand where you're coming from though - he is treated as some kind of uber-saint my so - called music afficiado's....

          His stuff is OK - though, but no much more than that.  Pet Sounds is pleasant enough.
          Yes mate - given the choice of eternal deafness and listening to just one Wilson penned 'tune' again, then I think I'ld probably go for the mutt and jeff option.

          It was once working with one such aforementioned 'music afficianado' at 3mv when during the day, we could have run of what releases to play in the office. Mr Afficianado used his slot to repeatedly ram down our throats the various works of all the Beach Boys both as a band and individual work.

          It affected me son, much like Pavlov's Dogs. A mention of Wilson, and out comes the bile.

          People never get my comparison to The Osmonds either - Ahem!      .

          Comment


          • #6
            The Osmond's made some good tracks too...  

            I know what Cheebs is saying about the Beatles - for a long time I took an irrational dislike to anything they'd done (sorry Lee) precisely because of the 'You've got to love everything they did' attitude. But, although I don't agree with the unquestioning reverence they're given (see also Elvis, etc.) there is a lot to enjoy. I just caught the end of the Howard Goodall doc on Saturday which made some compelling arguments about their (The Beatles, that is)   .
            You freeking scientologists are all the same, quible, dribble and then demand ice creams. Ohhhhhhhhhhh.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by [b
              Quote[/b] (Rich Hero @ Dec. 02 2004,11:34)]The Osmond's made some good tracks too...  

              I know what Cheebs is saying about the Beatles - for a long time I took an irrational dislike to anything they'd done (sorry Lee) precisely because of the 'You've got to love everything they did' attitude. But, although I don't agree with the unquestioning reverence they're given (see also Elvis, etc.) there is a lot to enjoy. I just caught the end of the Howard Goodall doc on Saturday which made some compelling arguments about their (The Beatles, that is)   .
              Agreed. Not saying everything they've done is crap. Some tunes are rightly "classics" - but a lot of it wasn't for my tastes.


              The John Lennon jukebox documentary was on again the other day - I think that showed that the original songs that "influenced" - or ripped off by - the Fab Four - were mostly better than their own early offerings.

              The Isley's OG - Twist and Shout is the perfect example - with the latin shuffle and the offbeat brass...versus a dodgy scouse pub version...hmmm

              looks like George Harrison moptop!!

              Comment


              • #8
                I haven't seen that but I'd like to. What I took away from the Channel 4 doc was how quickly The Beatles assimilated and evolved from their influences -e.g. I'd never realised that 'Tomorrow Never Knows' was recorded in 1966.    That impressed me.

                For me, the problem with the untempered reverence thing is that it seems to diminish the contribution of those bands who maybe only recorded a few tunes but neveretheless made one blinder that's the equal or better than the work of the overexposed 'classic' artists.

                Sorry to hijack your thread Mumbles.  
                You freeking scientologists are all the same, quible, dribble and then demand ice creams. Ohhhhhhhhhhh.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I loathe all that Nick Hornby “pantheon of classic rock” mullarkey and I agree that the BW appreciation thing has got tedious. Over the last 5 years or so he’s gone from being under-rated to rather over-rated.

                  ItÂ’s all a bit lazy.

                  And donÂ’t even get me started on those four loveable scousers.....
                  Endless Tripe

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by [b
                    Quote[/b] (Rich Hero @ Dec. 02 2004,12:17)]I'd never realised that 'Tomorrow Never Knows' was recorded in 1966.    That impressed me.
                    Now , that WAS a pretty ground breaking track - incidentally, didn't I see Bernard Purdie claim that his drumming was on this ?

                    ...I wouldn't be surprised seeing as it's so differrent that other beatles stuff...

                    Now there's another example of someone with a lot of relatively un-credited influence over 20th Century music - In the background to so many big tunes, both well known or just damn good!

                    ....No point in going on about it, but it winds me up how narrow minded (ignorant ?) a lot of the music journo's are..again!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by [b
                      Quote[/b] (Si Cheeba @ Dec. 02 2004,12:36)] Now , that WAS a pretty ground breaking track - incidentally, didn't I see Bernard Purdie claim that his drumming was on this ?
                      I remember something along those lines but I have don't remember whether it was that track. And a Meters connection somewhere (or was that with Macca)?
                      You freeking scientologists are all the same, quible, dribble and then demand ice creams. Ohhhhhhhhhhh.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Purdie claims that he 'fixed' LPs for The Beatles.

                        As I understand his claims, this means after George Martin delivered the masters to EMI, they were then given to Purdie to 'fix' (his word, not mine) - presumably as it were, in the mix.

                        Doesn't sound very likely to me, but he's adamant about it. It's mentioned in a back issue of 'Wax Poetics'.
                        Matt Hero

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Agree with the general point about media focus on a couple of names to the exclusion of all else, but I'm afraid Wilson is still a bloomin' genius of an arranger/composer even if vast armies of smug tosspots *do* insist on ramming it down our throats...

                          The argument here is approximately like one that would go "James Brown is rubbish because there are other good funk records out there and everyone keeps going on about him instead of them", which is just as stupid as pretending only JB ever did anything worthwhile...

                          So Wilson is great (though dunno about the new Smile as I've not heard it - the tapes I've heard from the original sessions can't be faulted, though), 'Good Vibrations' is one of the greatest 45s ever released, no question, and the shame isn't that he gets his props, but that so many others don't.

                          And much as I like some of Axelrod, a lot of it's not a patch on Wilson's stuff, and his best stuff is so plainly influenced by Wilson and the likes of Curt Boetcher, that I'm not sure you could realistically set them up in opposition anyway...

                          Ooh, end of rant. And I've got the doc taped to watch later, looking forward to it. The Wondermints have done some good stuff under their own name, too, btw.
                          a giant steam-powered turntable in warwickshire plays six foot cement recordings of Prince Albert's speeches to the rejoicing populace

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by [b
                            Quote[/b] ]...I wouldn't be surprised seeing as it's so differrent that other beatles stuff...
                            Might be Macca drumming? He did that a fair bit.

                            Originally posted by [b
                            Quote[/b] ]Doesn't sound very likely to me, but he's adamant about it. It's mentioned in a back issue of 'Wax Poetics'.
                            Never quite understood this - doesn't Purdie feel he's worshiped enough for the stuff he did? I very much doubt he had anything to do with the Fabs - all the Abbey Road tapes have been cataloged, written about, bootleged etc so much that I'd say someone would have notcied a sudden funky later overdubbed. As for 'Tomorrow Never Knows' it started off as 'Mark I' and had pretty much the same drumming then.

                            Never been too much of a fan of BW though - as Hendrix once said 'Psychedelic Barbershop Quartet'.
                            "..hole...road...middle thereof"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by [b
                              Quote[/b] (wayne @ Dec. 02 2004,13:35)]The argument here is approximately like one that would go "James Brown is rubbish because there are other good funk records out there and everyone keeps going on about him instead of them", which is just as stupid as pretending only JB ever did anything worthwhile...
                              That's why I said 'untempered reverence'. I certainly wasn't arguing that The Beatles are shit, because everyone keeps going on about them, more that there are plenty of other tracks that match or surpass anything they've ever done, that deserve greater recognition than they have had. And, to veer close to unquestioning adulation, I often think that James Brown's contribution and importance is underestimated. Hmmm, 'Gravity' or 'The Frog Chorus'???

                              You freeking scientologists are all the same, quible, dribble and then demand ice creams. Ohhhhhhhhhhh.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X