Talk:Brian Wilson Presents Smile/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

U.S. Tour

i'm pretty sure theres talk about bringing the live smile to the US in the fall. ill go check my sources and try to correct that. --tom 01:13, 3 July 2004 (UTC)

Yes, a U.S. Tour is indeed planned for the new "SMiLE", and I've updated the article to reflect this.

Hiphats

Lead Change

I changed the lead to reflect the release of the new version of the album. Since most of the article is (rightly) about the original version of the album, I moved the album box for the new version to that section. This is admittedly kind of ugly -- I'd love to see an image of the original album cover up top. Alternatively, I suppose we could split the article into two different ones, one for the original album and one for the new, but I think the current article tells the whole story nicely. Jgm 02:00, 1 October 2004 (UTC)

Successful FAC

Like Sesame Street, I am relisting this. Only one person supported it, no one objected, so I don't know if that means it made it or not. Note that this is an article listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Featured albums proposal. Tuf-Kat 03:45, 19 October 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Zerbey 04:10, 19 October 2004 (UTC)
  • Support with a slightly expanded lead section - Taxman 15:22, 19 October 2004 (UTC)
    • Lead slightly expanded Tuf-Kat 21:51, 19 October 2004 (UTC)
  • I listed it the prior time, and support it now. Jgm 11:33, 20 October 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Golbez 06:52, 21 October 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: I do hope, though, that we alternate pop culture with stodgy culture somewhat. Good article, but I understood that lots of folks were saying that the 2004 release wasn't the "real" Smile. Could have just be fan grumbling, though. Geogre 20:44, 21 October 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I think I skipped over this last time, assuming it referred literallly to the act of smiling. ;-) func(talk) 21:26, 23 October 2004 (UTC)

Recent Trims 2

Since the article was awarded featured status in October 2004, lots and lots of new material was added but seemingly with little regard for structure or consistency. I decided not to add a cleanup tag at this time (as has been done on the Beach Boys article which has some of the same issues), but I have started an effort to re-focus and tighten the article; I think I'm currently about half completed. In particular, I've removed stuff that isn't specifically focused on the album itself (ie. digressions to prior albums, other bands, general name-dropping). changed usage of first names to last names per Wikipedia style guide, and standardized on the Smile (rather than SMiLE) usage, as set in the lede. Boquets or brickbats here, please, and any help appreciated. Jgm 03:32, 13 December 2004 (UTC)

I'm new to this process so I'll use this space to list a couple tiny changes/corrections which are already made. This is not to step on toes but in case anyone wanted sources for those changes. Julius Wechter was a percussionist/marimba player; see the Pet Sounds Sessions box set and, of course, any LP by the Baja Marimba Band. I added a cross reference between the chords of "Cool Cool Water" and those in "Love to Say Da Da" (they're the same); ditto the repeating bass pattern in "Can't Wait too Long" and the one in the original "Wind Chimes", which is especially evident in the "big band" finale, though the chords in the two songs are a bit different. Otherwise a fine article. If these notes should go in a different space please move them there and accept my apologies. DrTim 15:30, 4 February 2005 (UTC)

References

The Further reading section seems to say both of those works were used as references in writing this article. Can someone confirm that and if so, format them properly as at Wikipedia:Cite sources, or let me know and I will? It should probably also be called references if they were in fact used as references in order to avoid ambiguity. Thank you - Taxman 17:23, 22 April 2005 (UTC)

Unweildy length

I love SMiLE as much as the next guy (seen it live twice and even met Brian Wilson) but this is one LONG article that seriously needs a trim. Just passing on my view.... PetSounds 01:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Change to album infobox

As this article is currently a featured article, I have changed the album infobox to the standards at WP:ALBUM, the associated WikiProject, per Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article. If there are questions as to why Album inofobox 2 is not a WP:ALBUM recommendation, please see Template talk:Album infobox 2. Those interested in Album articles reaching Featured Article status might want to look at the discussion Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beatles for Sale/archive1. Thanks. Jkelly 02:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Page move concern

User:Jiy just moved this from Smile (album) to Smile (Brian Wilson album). Is there another album named Smile that we need to disambiguate? Jkelly 18:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Smile (the pillows album), Smile (Laura Nyro album), Smile (L'Arc~en~Ciel album). All Music lists a lot more that could potentially be added to WP.—jiy (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Smile album re-recording vocals- how much?

It doesn't say for sure in the article, and I'm not necessarily saying it should say in the article, but does anyone know how much re-recording of the lead and background vocals were done for the songs on Brian Wilson Presents SMiLE album? I'm looking for this info and not finding it. Did he re-record all the vocals or did he use some of the originals recorded by the Beach Boys in the 60s? Specifically on the songs "Good Vibrations" or "Heroes and Villians". Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Aabbbiee 18:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The Brian Wilson Smile album was a completely new recording. There was nothing at all included from the original Beach Boys sessions, vocals or music. —Chowbok ☠ 19:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul....

This article has somehow changed beyond recognition of what it was just months ago. It should NOT AT ALL have an infobox with the unreleased Beach Boys cover as the first image to see (let alone be slotted into the official BB discography timeline) when it was NEVER RELEASED at that time (and still hasn't been). Yes, acknowledge its roots as a BB recording, but this officially came out as a BRIAN WILSON album, and the article should reflect that fact more predominantly - as it USED TO (just for starters, the article IS called "Smile (Brian Wilson album)". Hence the needed overhaul. BGC 14:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


I know it was discussed above -- although to no conclusion -- but I really think there needs to be two pages for this, one for the Brian Wilson album and another for the aborted Beach Boys album. Of course the two are greatly connected, but the page supposedly about the Brian Wilson album doesn't talk about that album specifically until 2/3 of the way down the page. This would also address the length of the article: if people just wanted general info on the Wilson album, then they could get it. If they wanted more, they could get the whole Smile story on the Beach Boys album page. It's definitely something worth discussing. piper108 01:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

New studio version based on old version?

This is really interesting: "For the new version, Wilson, Wondermints leader Darian Sahanaja, woodwind player/string arranger Paul Mertens, and lyricist Van Dyke Parks based their arrangements on the original, unreleased Beach Boys tapes to give Smile a coherent and fresh, updated sound."

Is there any more information on this precise detail? I'd like to know more about precisely how the new studio recording of Smile was based on the original 60s version (in a way that I suppose differed from the live version?) - I've not heard about this anywhere else other than this wiki page.

All of it duh! It's the same song material. Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.197.233 (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Letter to Jimmy Wales from Jules Siegel

All references to my article "Goodbye Surfing, Hello God!" have been removed from the Brian Wilson and Smile entries. No references to any outside works appear in either piece.

I think that you are treading on very thin ice here, Jim. It's generally agreed that my story about the making of Smile was the single most important source of information on the album and in creating the legend of its greatness when only a few people had heard the cuts.

The information on your pages is based on the work of several other writers, whose books are nowhere mentioned, as far as I can tell. It is a 100% derivative work. As there are no direct quotes, no one who actually did the original research and wrote the original sources can take legal action, but I find the whole thing rotten.

While it is true that I now charge a paltry $3 to download the Brian Wilson Story, I don't see why the reference to it should be excluded. I was paid only $500 for this article when it first appeared. It kept the story of Smile alive for many years and inspired many, many other writers and thousands of fans to dig out the tracks and the anecdotes that have made the Wikipedia article about Smile possible.

I am attaching a copy. I hope that when you read it, you will understand my feelings about this. At that time I wrote it, no one took the Beach Boys seriously. I defy you to find a single serious reference to them earlier than October 1967 when "Goodbye Surfing, Hello God!" was published.

Summing up: the Wikipedia articles on Brian Wilson, the Beach Boys and Smile are rip-offs. They compile the findings of authors and scholars without referencing their works. My name is mentioned with a link to my bio, but there's not a single word about "Goodbye Surfing, Hello God!" --Jules Siegel 14:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I was a bit trigger happy. My story is mentioned in further reading. I still stand on my other points. When you use other people's work, you should provide a link to the original reference. It gives credit where credit is due, and it also allows other researchers to check the material and see if your use is fair and accurate. You are creating an encyclopedia article, not just putting a web page together. --201.154.68.114 16:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that your work has been essential in helping to bring the completion of Brian Wilson's Smile into fruition. You should be proud of this fact but nobody will ever know the impact you had as much as you do yourself. Please don't seek to be recognised though, it's better you leave it a selfless act, don't you agree? In the end, you should just be pleased the completion of Smile happened. Like we all are. Smile was finished! Brian is a changed man! Peace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.153.197.233 (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Is this a Beach Boys album or Brian Wilson album?

You guys are now officially labeling SMiLE a Brian Wilson album. I think it deserves to be listed as a Beach Boys album since it was conceived as a Beach Boys album in the first place. SMiLE is more of a Beach Boys album than a Wilson album because of its long and complicated history.

I have made an attempt to relist this as a Beach Boys album but with no avail. I vote this be listed as a Beach Boys album. How about you? Hiphats 20:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No no no. The Beach Boys outright dismissed this as not being an album for them. This is one of the accepted reasons for the original collapse of the 1967 Smile album. After their return from touring, the Beach Boys found Brian working on this album and on the whole (Mike Love especially) couldn't comprehend this music. The music especially, but other aspects of the music they thought just didn't seem appropriate for the Beach Boys' style. You can find this information anywhere but the simplest resource at the moment is the new Smile documentary on the DVD. It's clear that this is a Brian Wilson record that wasn't accepted by the Beach Boys. You can call "Smiley Smile" a Beach Boys album, however.
That argument sounds good up until it's pointed out that the Beach Boys lent their voices to the original Smile recordings.--piper108 03:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Pointing that out doesn't change the argument. Voice contributions don't detract from a solo project; session musicians do not turn a solo album into a group one. The Beach Boys had little influence over Smile, and thus Brian Wilson is able to legally call the new Smile his own project. There is no issue remaining on this anyway, as there are now two separate Smile wiki pages - one for the original Beach Boys album, and another for the Brian Wilson 2004 version. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.152.206.108 (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
This is most definitely a Brian Wilson solo album. The Beach Boys album Smile was recorded in 1966-67 and was never released. The Brian Wilson album Smile was recorded in spring 2004 and released later that year.
Now, you could always create a redirect from Smile (Beach Boys album) to Smile (Brian Wilson album)...but that's something else entirely. --Lukobe 07:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Lukobe. --Nicholas 15:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, the most logical answer is that there should be two pages, one detailing the story of The Beach Boy's Smile and another focusing on Brian Wilson's Smile. At least that's what I was expecting to see on this page. --Mdhowe 08:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Blood, Sweat, and Tears homage?

Is it just wishful thinking on my part, or does the song "Child is Father of the Man" contain a short violin motif near the end that is reminiscent of the theme to the album The Child Is Father To The Man by Blood, Sweat and Tears? in the latter album, the motif is found in the overture and repeated at several points throughout the album? Then again, Wilson may have simply been referencing the same Wordsworth poem as Al Kooper, and any connection between the two is mere fantasy on my part. Any thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davin Flite (talk • contribs) 11:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Wilson's recording of the track precedes BS&T's debut by over a year. Anazgnos 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And it was Parks who wrote the lyrics anyway Miscreant 20:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent trims

In addition to splitting the too-long "collapse" section, I removed several paragraphs that belong better in articles on the group, Pet Sounds, or Wilson. The intent is to keep the article focused on its subject. Jgm 22:15, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

i thought george fell into his french horn was part of the Pet Sounds sessions? --tom 22:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I removed the bit about the "Laughing Gravy" Vegetables recording, as it was pretty inaccurate. It's nowhere near as mysterious as reported. Jan (but not Dean) and some backup musicians recorded a version of Vegetables and released it as a single under the name "The Laughing Gravy". Brian Wilson produced it. It's available on a couple compilations of Wilson's non-Beach Boys productions. Paul McCartney wasn't on it. Not a big deal--too trivial, IMO, to keep on the page. Chowbok 21:32, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'George fell' is from the Surf's Up sessions, the infamous title was given by a bootlegger, it's not an actual smile track. It was just Brian experimenting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.9.145 (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Dylan's Blonde on Blonde

The article says, "...it might have stood alongside Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Dylan's Blonde on Blonde as a landmark album...," but I thought that the most influential Bob Dylan album is Highway 61 Revisited. Highway 61 Revisited has "Like a Rolling Stone" on it, which is the first Dylan single that he did electric. I am suggesting we change Blonde on Blonde to Highway 61 Revisited.--Andland 07:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Like a Rolling Stone is perhaps Dylan's greatest effort as a song. But Blonde on Blonde is BY FAR his most hailed and influential album and generally considered his greatest work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.63.122 (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

But when did Blonde on Blonde come out? (1966) So it's a more fair comparision, than 'Highway 61 Revisted' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.9.145 (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Once and for all...

Is this a Beach Boys album, or a Brian Wilson album? We've been debating this for a couple of years, but through my revisions I have inched this towards being a Beach Boys project since this began as a Beach Boys project. Favoring Brian Wilson would be like reviewing a Simon and Garfunkel album as a Paul Simon solo album. It is very much about the Beach Boys, so I make my vote for this article to be credited as "Smile (Beach Boys project)". The Beach Boys started all this, and it has its significant place in their history. Please, let the record stand as such. Hiphats 00:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No no no. The Beach Boys outright dismissed this as not being an album for them. This is one of the accepted reasons for the original collapse of the 1967 Smile album. After their return from touring, the Beach Boys found Brian working on this album and on the whole (Mike Love especially) couldn't comprehend this music. The music especially, but other aspects of the music (the lyrics, etc) they thought just didn't seem appropriate for the Beach Boys' style. You can find this information anywhere but the simplest resource at the moment is the new Smile documentary on the DVD. It's clear that this is a Brian Wilson record that wasn't accepted by the Beach Boys. You can call "Smiley Smile" a Beach Boys album, however. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.153.197.233 (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC).


The 2004 SMiLE release has nothing whatever to do with any of the other Beach Boys. It was all newly recorded by Brian, Darian, and many other musicians. The 1966 and 1967 recordings were never assembled into an album called Smile. I think there should be one page that tracks the entire history of the album. This would include details about the origin of the album beginning in 1966, but the focus should be on the ultimate 2004 release. As for the length, I think it's okay for this article to be longer than many other articles about music albums given SMiLE's extraordinarily complex history. It doesn't make sense to me to make two separate articles since the original recordings were never released as a single album. This should be one page that makes reference to the original recordings. It should be SMiLE(Brian Wilson album). I guess you could make an article called SMiLE(Beach Boys project), but I just think that's pretty useless since the original project was shelved. If it hadn't been finished in 2004 it would make sense, but now that it is done it makes more sense to include the original project in the article for the ultimate release. I don't think the Simon and Garfunkel analogy works because Art Garfunkel actually did have something to do with the releases they made. He sang on them (quite well in fact). And anyway, they released the albums as Simon and Garfunkel albums, so the recordings should be named as such regardless of who actually participated in the creation of the records. This article is about the 2004 release which, again, has nothing to do with the other Beach Boys except historically, which is something one should document in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.127.254 (talk) 09:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Right on dude, I compeletly agree. I'll use a new Simon and Garfunkel analogy that MAKES sense. Calling SMiLE a Beach Boys album is like calling the Paul Simon solo album Hearts and Bones--which began life as a Simon and Garfubkel album, but was ultimately released by Simon alone--a Simon and Garfunkel album. Or, like calling any Paul Simon album a Simon and Garfunkel album! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.63.122 (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Article finally split

OK, everyone, to satisfy all, this article has finally been split into two separate articles, since obviously we're talking about two separate releases, one by the Beach Boys, the other by Brian Wilson. I think that with this split, all the arguments on whose SMiLE it really is will finally come to an end. Hiphats 22:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That looks good to me. I think this makes much more sense. --piper108 22:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be a bit late to throw in my two cents, but, as someone who is just coming to these articles as a general reader, splitting the articles does not seem to have been a great idea. This is a single topic with a single history - the music was written in the '60s, recorded by the Beach Boys and never released, and then released in 2004 under Brian Wilson's name. Splitting the story in two seems to reflect Beach Boys turf-war mentalities and intellectual property issues more than it reflects encyclopaedic sense. The question of whether this is a "Beach Boys" album or a "Brian Wilson" album should be irrelevant in deciding whether Wikipedia has one or two articles on the topic. Art Markham (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Genre

In response to edit summary by User:Dan56:

Is this paragraph not an analysis, sort of like this section????

I guess? It's more like some people subjectively designating the album's genre after the fact. I don't think the speculated genre of the work has much to do with its structure or themes.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Genres and style interpretations are always subjective, and such interpretations by critics belong there (WP:SUBJECTIVE, MOS:ALBUM#Musical_style.2C_writing.2C_composition). Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Lawsuit

The 2005 lawsuit regarding Love and Wilson pertained to the Good Vibrations promotional CD and not Brian Wilson Presents Smile and for that reason, it appears to have undue weight in this article. I personally think the best place to cover the details would be on the Brian Wilson and Mike Love article since its placement here could easily be misconstrued as "Mike sued Brian over Brian Wilson Presents Smile" which is not the case. Regards, Jamekae (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

References say
In paragraph 1 of his original complaint, Love stated that "This action arises out of an international advertising and marketing scheme organized and orchestrated by Brian Wilson and his agents to promote the release of the Beach Boys’ long-awaited Smile album, at the expense of fellow Beach Boy Mike Love and the Beach Boys corporate entity"
The lawsuit was over the promotion for Brian Wilson Presents Smile, which I think is due for this article. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
That statement simply establishes that the release of the Good Vibrations CD was used in the interest of Brian Wilson's solo career. At the end of the day, the lawsuit has sole little to do with Brian Wilson Presents Smile, that was just the release he was pushing at the time. Had the Good Vibrations CD been released promoting Gettin' in Over My Head it'd be viewed as absurd to have a "Lawsuit" section in that article. Yes, it probably deserves a mention in this article, details on the Daily Mail promotion could be moved in the "Album Release" subsection with a sentence or two about the lawsuit, but the bulk of that information belongs in the Brian Wilson/Mike Love articles, not here. Regards, Jamekae (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

In September, 2004, Brian Wilson, without permission or a license from BRI, the owner of Smile, orchestrated the scheme to release a Smile CD. Up until then, Smile had been called the most recognized unreleased album in the history of rock ‘n’ roll. Smile has obtained “secondary meaning” as a Beach Boys property, and historically has been identified with The Beach Boys trademark. The defendants here exploited Mike Love and The Beach Boys’ tie-ins with Brian Wilson and Smile to promote the sale of the Smile CD, The Mail on Sunday newspaper, and the services of BigTime.TV.

...

The acts and omissions perpetrated by defendants to misappropriate the songs, the copyrights, publicity rights, the names and likenesses, and The Beach Boys trademark are summarized as follows:

...

  • · Brian Wilson’s breach of his fiduciary duty to Mike Love by replacing the lyrics Mike Love wrote for their co-authored Good Vibrations song with those written by Van Dyke Parks for the version of Good Vibrations that appears on the Smile CD;
  • · Brian Wilson’s breach of his fiduciary duty to Mike Love by not informing Mike Love of the inclusion of their co-authored songs on the Good Vibrations CD used to promote the sales of Brian Wilson’s Smile CD;

...

  • · Defendants David Leaf, Jean Sievers, SOOP LLC, The Lippin Group, and others tied in the giveaway of the Good Vibrations CD with a worldwide promotion of Smile by, inter alia, producing a television “documentary” using copyrighted Beach Boys materials and The Beach Boys trademark in such a way as to represent to the world that Smile was a BRI product, and that Smile was the property of Brian Wilson and that Brian Wilson and his new band was, in fact, the real Beach Boys.

I think you ought to read the lawsuit text for yourself before you become more than 99% sure it wasn't about Smile.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've read that text and if anything, right off the bat it supports the fact that the bulk of the suit is targeted at the Good Vibrations promotion, not the release of Brian Wilson Presents Smile. For that reason, giving it such weight in this article space is undue. By all means, mentioning parts of the filing which directly pertain to this album should arguably be done (that the prepared statement said BRI owned the rights to Smile and that replacing the lyrics of "Good Vibrations" was a breach of fiduciary duty to Mike) but information about the misuse of the band's trademark doesn't really belong on this article as it's not directly relevant. This is not a pulpit nor podium for righting great wrongs. Regards, Jamekae (talk) 09:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
What album was Good Vibrations promoting again? Before you answer -- whatever album it was -- its mentioned in the very first sentence of the suit. It then reappears 38 more times by name. To compare, the text "Good Vibrations CD" only occurs 27 times. If somebody had a vague idea of some controversy that came as a result of an album's contents and/or promotion, certainly they'd come to the album's article to find out more? In this case, the album was Brian Wilson Presents Smile, and a close-knit promotional CD was devised as part of its marketing campaign. The suit was also about "Good Vibrations" as it was presented on Brian Wilson Present Smile. Not only that, it was about Brian Wilson Presents Smile being based on Smile. I know that when I first read about the lawsuit in this article, it never occurred to me that a much larger text was waiting underneath all the bloat in the Beach Boys article. Why would information relating directly to a Brian Wilson solo album be stored en masse on the main Beach Boys page?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Counting the amount of times a word appears in one a suit is a less than logical way of deducing what the content is about. The word Jardine appears 36 times and you know how much he has to do with the suit? Very little. Many of the times Smile is mentioned in that suit, it was mentioned to link the economic benefit Wilson would receive through the Good Vibrations promotional CD. As I said, there's no doubt that components here directly pertain to Smile, Mike's belief that BRI owned the rights to Smile and that replacing the lyrics to "Good Vibrations" was a breach of fiduciary duty to Mike, they should be mentioned on this article. But as the entire case has scope and origin beyond Brian Wilson Presents Smile I feel as if the full details are better off addressed elsewhere, especially since the lawsuit did nothing to effect the (already released) album. Regards, Jamekae (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
On the surface, the lawsuit was about Smile promotion and the Beach Boys trademark. It is mentioned just about as much as it needs to be on the Beach Boys page (but not on the Brian Wilson page yet). The full details pertain directly to Brian Wilson Presents Smile and a promotional CD devised for it. You've hardly made a case on why it wouldn't all belong here. He's re-recorded Mike Love-penned Beach Boys songs before without Mike having to take legal action. What made this promo CD so special? It's evident that the lawsuit would never have happened if Wilson didn't release the Smile CD, recorded a Smile Beach Boys documentary, advertised his verson of Smile as a lost Beach Boys album, gave away a free CD to promote Smile, etc.. The whole lawsuit revolved around about four core items:
  1. Brian Wilson Presents Smile
  2. Brian Wilson Presents Smile's advertising campaign
  3. Re-recordings of Beach Boys songs (one of which appears on Smile)
  4. Infringes on trademark made by all of the above
I am awaiting a solid case on why this lawsuit over an album campaign's use of promotional trademarks wouldn't be due on the article designated for it.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
"He's re-recorded Mike Love-penned Beach Boys songs before without Mike having to take legal action. What made this promo CD so special?" The perceived negative economic flow stemming from this particular case exceed other times when Brian had rerecorded Beach Boys songs. For example, Mike would have been awarded a royalty for Brian's rerecording of "Let Him Run Wild" on Imagination, no problems there. Here? 2.605 million CDs were issued with 5 tracks Mike co-wrote. That's 13 million counts of a co-writer's intellectual property being reproduced for free in the promotion of a secondary disc that would see no monetary gain awarded to that co-writer. Basically, those 13 million examples of Mike contribution helped generate demand for Brian's current album and so he felt entitled to a piece of the pie. Further, more people being in possession of these Beach Boys compositions could theoretically reduce demand for buying Beach Boys records as a percentage of people would have had their demand for Beach Boys product sated through a close substitute.
"I am awaiting a solid case on why this lawsuit over an album campaign's use of promotional trademarks wouldn't be due on the article designated for it." A) As shown above, the driving economic factor in this filing likely had little to do with Brian Wilson Presents Smile, other factors including BRI licensing concerns and writing credits were at play. B) It ultimately didn't actually affect the album in question in any way. C) It holds undue weight in this article.Look at the search trends for "Smile, Brian Wilson" against "Brian Wilson, Mike Love". "Brian Wilson, Mike Love" at November, 2005 (when the suit was filed) generated only 2% the traffic that "Brian Wilson, Smile" did at October, 2004 and yet the genesis of Brian getting together to record this album is given equal article space.
To put it in perspective, Pinkerton by Weezer is a featured article and yet it has no mention whatsoever of Matt Sharp's 2002 lawsuit against the band claiming credit for 90% of that album's songs. Instead, it is mentioned on the Wikipedia page of Matt Sharp. Regards, Jamekae (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The way the section is written right now undermines the level of involvement Brian Wilson Presents Smile had in the trials. In this form, it is actually perfect for moving to the Brian Wilson article. A clarification should be written to explain the roles Brian Wilson Presents Smile and the re-recording of "Good Vibrations" served in the lawsuit. Also, there is mention of the Pinkerton lawsuit in its article.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I was looking at the prose for Pinkerton, I didn't think to look in the credit section *slaps wrist*. Anyhow, I agree that the bulk of this does belong in the Brian Wilson article, but only because the role of Brian Wilson Present Smile in the trial was non-existent beyond context establishment. Mike was not trying to extract a cent out of Brian for the lyric changes to "Good Vibrations" or the release of Brian Wilson Presents Smile. Though the Nature and Base of Action does say "In September, 2004, Brian Wilson, without permission or a license from BRI, the owner of Smile, orchestrated the scheme to release a Smile CD." and "Brian Wilson’s breach of his fiduciary duty to Mike Love by replacing the lyrics Mike Love wrote for their co-authored Good Vibrations song with those written by Van Dyke Parks for the version of Good Vibrations that appears on the Smile CD", nowhere in the Causes of Action (46-144) was he trying to reprimand Brian for doing this. That's the most important thing to digest here. There was no lawsuit against Brian Wilson Presents Smile, it was just mentioned in one. Regards, Jamekae (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Van Dyke Parks never wrote any lyrics for "Good Vibrations": those on BWPS are by Tony Asher, and were only ever dummy, or placeholder, lyrics.Andrew G. Doe (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

[SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION]
71. By virtue of the judgment in Love v. Wilson, the jury found that a partnership between plaintiff and Wilson existed, which imposed a fiduciary duty on Wilson relating to their co-authored.

72. Brian Wilson violated the fiduciary duty of care, loyalty, candor, and independence owed to Mike Love and has acted to put his personal interests ahead of the interest of Mike Love.
74. As demonstrated by the allegations above, Brian Wilson failed to exercise the care required, and breached his duties of care, loyalty, candor, and independence owed to Mike Love by, among other reasons (a) instead of attempting to maximize value for Mike Love, Brian Wilson took actions to benefit himself at the expense of Mike Love...
76. Brian Wilson engaged in self-dealing, did not act in good faith towards Mike Love, and breached his fiduciary duties to Mike Love and thereby damaged Mike Love.

"There was no lawsuit against Brian Wilson Presents Smile, it was just mentioned in one"? No. I understand what you are trying to say, but it is in direct opposition to what is actually written. Smile's contents and promo campaign included numerous breaches of a supposed "fiduciary duty" between Mike Love and Brian Wilson. This means that Smile breached a contract. Therefore, portions of the lawsuit were directly related to Brian Wilson Presents Smile along with its accompanying promotion, concerts, and documentary. The statement "Mike sued over Smile and a promo CD" was never erroneous.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Which paragraph exactly is the lawsuit trying to seek compensation for "the contents" of Brian Wilson Presents Smile? The fiduciary duty in the above paragraphs refer to Mike's entitlement to receive compensation on songs he co-wrote.

[SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION]

74. As demonstrated by the allegations above, Brian Wilson failed to exercise the care required, and breached his duties of care, loyalty, candor, and independence owed to Mike Love by, among other reasons: (a) instead of attempting to maximize value for Mike Love, Brian Wilson took actions to benefit himself at the expense of Mike Love; (b) failing to disclose to Mike Love all material information in connection with The Mail on Sunday’s promotion of Brian Wilson’s Smile CD; and (c) ignoring or not protecting against the conflicts of interest resulting from Brian Wilson’s own interrelationships or connections with The Mail on Sunday’s promotion of Brian Wilson’s Smile CD.
75. By reason of the foregoing acts, practices, and courses of conduct, Brian Wilson failed to exercise ordinary care and diligence in the exercise of his fiduciary obligations toward Mike Love.

If this were about seeking compensation for Brian Wilson Presents Smile there'd be a few paragraphs in the Course of Action detailing how the release of Brian Wilson Presents Smile infringed on the rights of Brother Records Inc. - not Mike Love - of a valuable asset, breached fiducial duty etc. etc. A case was not made of this nature and therefore the "Prayer for Relief" if fulfilled would have had nothing to do with the album.
Anyway, we're obviously not going to reach a decision here, we've been going around in circles for quite while so I'm going to request a third party opinion here to help guide us in the best way to comply with Wikipedia's policy/interests. There's a strong chance what we've been arguing about can't even belong on Wikipedia, we're sourcing this filing information from a forum which won't comply with WP:RS - I'm not sure about the site's policy on using legal documents as a source either. Anyway, hopefully the third opinion will be able to advise on that as well. Regards, Jamekae (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion

My opinion here is, to be quite honest, the discussion to date hasn't been all that relevant. But it's a relatively common mistake, and nothing against you, so please allow me to explain.

Wikipedia does not work by original research on primary sources such as original legal documents. Rather, it is a summary of what secondary, unrelated sources have to say about a matter. If such reliable sources didn't see fit to cover this lawsuit, it really isn't an appropriate topic to cover at all, and it's never appropriate for us to read and interpret primary source materials and place those interpretations directly into articles. If such sources do exist, go by what they say about the lawsuit, not by what you personally think or read from it. If such reliable secondary sources disagree on the lawsuit's scope or other aspects of it, neutrally report that the facts are in dispute and how so without taking anyone's side. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The concert hall at the Royal Festival Hall - geograph.org.uk - 1575927.jpg

Concerning recent edits:

(WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE) Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic

...

Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information. Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images. For example, a photograph of a trompe-l'œil painting of a cupcake may be an acceptable image for Cupcake...

For similar contexts of a venue related to a musical work but not depicting it, see the accepted usage of public domain images such as

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

See WP:OSE
What relevance does this have to this article? It's not the performance by Brian Wilson. The concert hall itself is not of any particular significance either architecturally, nor even to the production or even performance of Smile. As this is a (different) performance taking place, it's also misleading. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It is where the album was debuted.
  • It is where the album was performed for six consecutive nights; it was not repeated at any other venue to my knowledge.
  • It is where the album's "Good Vibrations" single B-sides were recorded.
  • With the exception of a few other European locales, it was originally fathomed as the only venue that the album was to be performed at.
  • It is not the same performance; File:Abbeyroadtomswain.jpg is probably not the grand piano used on those recordings; I doubt the mural in front of the Capitol building in File:Capitol_Records_Building_LA.jpg existed in 1970; etcetera. The article makes it clear that there were only ten performers on stage; the picture displays dozens, and the caption only suggests that it is an image of the venue, not an image of the performance itself.
  • This article is not just about a studio album, it is also about a series of concert performances which preceded the album's creation.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Considering this article is under significant construction and restructuring by Ilovetopaint, I think it'd be best to save scrutiny of freely licensed images for later when the article will presumably be reviewed/nominated for something. Right now, I think it's passable. Dan56 (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

BWPS redirect

If this album is "(also referred to as Smile or the abbreviation BWPS)", please could we have the abbreviation actually redirect to this article? Crazy Eddy (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

done...--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Title

Why? I don't see the objection to mentioning the alternate capitalization of the album, especially since it is used on the title itself. If it were not for WP:CAPS, I would be in favor of moving it, considering that is what the album calls itself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The album does NOT call itself that. It is merely stating that this is the artist (Brian Wilson) presenting the album (Smile). It's quite clear. BGC (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it does Then why does it read "SMiLE" on the cover? And why are you opposed to mentioning this in the text? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
It's NOT its title - that's why. It's gone by the name "Smile" since 1966, that's how people know it. Not as BWPS. It's just a fancy way of presenting the title of the album. It's not complicated. I don't mind the font of "SMiLE" - go right ahead. It's the BWPS that I have a problem with. BGC (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay Well at least that's a start; I'll put in SMiLE if you're not going to revert it. I'm not in any way invested in the "BWP" part. I'll take a look at the liner notes to see whether or not it's called that throughout the album or not. If it is, that seems worth mentioning. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Liner notes The album has "Brian Wilson Presents SMiLE" written on the cover, spine, and the vinyl record; nowhere is it not called that as far as I can see. Hence, it seems to present itself as named that. Also, it's my understanding that it is common to include bonus tracks in the length of the album; why are you deleting that as well? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The album is called SMiLE, it is presented by Brian Wilson.

It needs to be clear that 'Smile' is a the title of a work and that Brian Wilson is presenting it. At present we have, removing the caps, "Brian Wilson presents smile", which makes no sense: how does one present smile? There seem to be three possibilities: Smile (Brian Wilson album), Brian Wilson Presents SMiLE or Brian Wilson presents Smile. The last is the neatest, but the others are fine. Rothorpe (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with either Brian Wilson Presents Smile or Brian Wilson presents Smile though I'm leaning toward the former because I believe that is the true title of the album much like The Beach Boys Today! includes the artist's name. On the LP sticker it restates Brian Wilson Presents Smile not "Brian Wilson - Smile" or anything of the like. I'm largely against Smile (Brian Wilson album) due to it going against WP:Natural and because it further murkies the coverage of Smile on Wikipedia. As for "Smile" vs. "SMiLE", I've made my opinions heard elsewhere. Jamekae (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't see what is comparable about The Beach Boys Today! By the way, I think good English is more important than how someone chose to format a sticker or spine. Rothorpe (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Your last two points, the naturalness of Smile without the capitals, and the awkwardness of the disambiguation brackets, I agree with; thus I continue to prefer Brian Wilson presents Smile. Rothorpe (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The album is officially published as "Smile", so it is Smile. The Beatles was not published as The White Album even though that's what everybody called it after release. The title of this article should go back to Smile (Brian Wilson album) and keep it that way... I think you'd have to be as high as Brian Wilson himself was when he was writing the material to want it formatted as Brian Wilson presents Smile.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

How a title is presented on an album cover is how it's officially titled. There can be many different names for something on several sites. Let's take "#9 Dream" as an example. It has been referred to as: no9 Dream, Number 9 Dream, No. 9 Dream. etc. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 15:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"How a title is presented on an album cover is how it's officially titled... " Kinda like how Smile is capitalized as SMiLE? Or is the full title now [NEW IMPROVED FULL-DIMENSIONAL STEREO] SMiLE THE BEACH BOYS GooD ViBRATiONS GooD ViBRATiONS GooD ViBRATiONS...? There are a trillion cases where an album has words on its cover that aren't in the title.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
"Smile (Brian Wilson album)" makes sense; "Brian Wilson presents smile" doesn't. Rothorpe (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Brian's official website refers to this record as Brian Wilson Presents SMiLE. Furthermore, Brian has stated that this is a version that was sequenced primarily for live performance and not the completion of Smile as it were intended. For this reason, the title Brian Wilson presents Smile is proper, adheres to WP:Natural and is a good way of acknowledging its status as a related, but ultimately different entity to what would have been the Beach Boys' Smile product. - Jamekae (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree entirely. As long as 'presents' is differentiated from 'Smile'. Rothorpe (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
On CD it is tagged as "SMiLE". It's also titled Smile just about everywhere else...--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Revisiting this while listening to the album, I wondered if the move would be possible, and to my surprise it was. An experiment without further discussion, but it still looks right to me. What do others think? Rothorpe (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Brian Wilson presents Smile"

Where in MOS:CT does it say that the word "presents' should be exempt from capitalization? This is not applied in Alfred Hitchcock Presents, Diana Ross Presents The Jackson 5, Dr. Dre Presents the Aftermath, Herb Alpert Presents Sergio Mendes & Brasil '66, Charles Mingus Presents Charles Mingus, Stevie Wonder Presents: Syreeta, Martin Scorsese Presents the Blues: A Musical Journey... you get the picture.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, that was quick. Well, as you know, I think it should be exempt, at least in this case (see discussion above). Also, there's still the Brian Wilson Presents SMiLE option. Rothorpe (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The examples you give are all OK, except for Diana Ross Presents the Jackson 5. Also, Brian Wilson Presents "Smile" would make sense. But 'presents smile' doesn't. Rothorpe (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Even if the typeset was officially stylized as Brian Wilson presents "SMiLE", the article would still be called Brian Wilson Presents Smile per examples MBV (album) and many others if you look for them. I don't understand why this page would be exempt. There isn't anything distinctive about this work that warrants a lowercase 'p'. Brian Wilson Presents Smile or Smile is the literal album title -- the former is not a statement that could variate the article name to "Smile as presented by Brian Wilson".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand your last clause, but I agree that Smile is the real album title. Nothing wrong with Smile (Brian Wilson album). Rothorpe (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
People already have a hard time differentiating between Brian Wilson's Smile and the Beach Boys' Smile. Every piece of official media relating to the 2004 project calls the album Brian Wilson Presents Smile when it's not abbreviated simply to Smile. No subheading. It's not "Smile presented by Brian Wilson" or "Brian Wilson presents Smile". I implore you to find any other example on Wikipedia where it is grammatically correct to lowercase "presents" in a composition title, let alone anywhere else in history. I've just never seen it before so I'm completely bewildered.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
It's like... it's Brian Wilson Reimagines Gershwin, not Brian Wilson reimagines Gershwin. Nilsson sings Newman?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
One more thing. If the album was truly entitled Brian Wilson presents Smile, then the abbreviation would be BWS or at the most BWpS.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
And on closer inspection, the album artwork doesn't even have a lowercase 'p'. It's uppercase. Where is the presents coming from?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The artwork 'p' is ambiguous. Rothorpe (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The album's title is Smile, we agree about that, so I've moved it to Smile (Brian Wilson). Rothorpe (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Presumably because the article space also covers the tour and DVD? User Jamekae pointed out more than a year ago about WP:NATURAL which states

If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. ... If natural disambiguation is not possible, add a disambiguating term in parentheses.

Before, I recommended that the article be called "Smile (Brian Wilson album)", but I've since changed my stance after reflecting on the above along with Jamekae's apprehensiveness about "murkying" Smile for laymans. Why confuse people? And still, no explanation for the lowercase 'p', which seems to be the only compromise you'll accept. Neither an acknowledgement for the fact that the album is called Brian Wilson Presents Smile in numerous sources, nor an explanation for why you feel that presents doesn't subvert the standards set by MOS:CT. Besides all that, "Smile (Brian Wilson)" seems more like a disambiguation title than it is the article name for the album, tour, and DVD – all entitled Brian Wilson Presents Smile.
You don't seem convinced that Brian Wilson Presents Smile is an official alternate title – I'm guessing what you're adamant about is that the Brian Wilson Presents part is just an airy subheading – so have just a few RSes which refer to the album, DVD, and/or tour in full as Brian Wilson Presents Smile – [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] --Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Brian Wilson presents smile" doesn't make sense. These do:

  • Brian Wilson presents Smile (rejected by you)
  • Brian Wilson Presents SMILE
  • Brian Wilson Presents SMiLE
  • Brian Wilson Presents "Smile"
  • Brian Wilson Presents "SMILE"
  • Brian Wilson Presents "SMiLE"
  • Brian Wilson Presents 'Smile'
  • Brian Wilson Presents 'SMILE'
  • Brian Wilson Presents 'SMiLE'

Any of those would be fine. Rothorpe (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No they wouldn't. "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules" (MOS:TMRULES). This is the same reason why we aren't calling it SMiLE in the article space. And while there are one or two RSes which call it Brian Wilson Presents "Smile", it is infinitesimal compared to Brian Wilson Presents Smile, and with it, all permutations-of-capitalization thereof. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

On a sidenote, I have no idea when anybody ever suggested Brian Wilson presents smile... --Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

MOS:TMRULES pertains to trademarks, and this is a title, not a trademark. Brian Wilson presents smile is what your version says, if one removes the capital letters. Rothorpe (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article titles

"Use lowercase, except for proper names" (WP:LOWERCASE).

Brian Wilson Presents Smile is a proper name, as demonstrated by an innumerable supply of sources.

~Of course it is. But not all words in proper names have capital letters (Heroes and Villains).
"And" is a short coordinating conjunction, "present" is a verb, which MOS:CT says to capitalize.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." (WP:CRITERIA)

"Smile (Brian Wilson)" is by no means precise. Brian Wilson is involved with every single article related to Smile.

~I was unable to change it to (Brian Wilson album)...

"If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." (WP:NATURAL)

Brian Wilson Presents Smile is the only other alternative; failing that, we have Smile (Brian Wilson album), but this would contradict article content since the Brian Wilson Presents Smile project was not limited in scope to a studio album, being envisioned as a follow-up to his Pet Sounds album tour and then a concert film.

~Indeed, (Brian Wilson project), (2004)...
"Project" is still ambiguous; "2004' is highly ambiguous and inconsistent.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles." (WP:CRITERIA)

"Do not enclose titles in quotes ... An exception is made when the quotation marks are part of a name or title (as in the movie "Crocodile" Dundee or the album "Heroes")." (WP:TITLEFORMAT)

Brian Wilson Presents "Smile" is thus an invalid choice.

~Here we are talking about part of the title. It should be in quotes, yes, like "Crocodile", or set off by having 'presents' in lower case.
Out of dozens of sources I hastily linked, only one (Peter Ames Carlin) places quotes around Smile. No quotes are part of the title.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)

Capitalization of song titles and album titles should be consistent with the guidelines for composition titles. (WP:BANDNAME)

Thus, stylized capitalization is a no. There was nothing wrong with Brian Wilson Presents Smile. It made sense, and it followed Wikipedia's MOS.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The name of the album is clearly Brian Wilson Presents Smile and that is where the article should be. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
~My whole point is that "Presents Smile" doesn't make sense. But I see no point in continuing to argue if you think it does. And I only stumbled into this again by accident. Enough, goodbye. Rothorpe (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I think I finally understand you now. No, when you think about it, it doesn't make sense as long as you see the title as a self-referential thing. You're putting way too much thought into a minor idiosyncrasy in language.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Brian Wilson Presents Smile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 03:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brian Wilson Presents Smile. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

"Indie rock"

User:ILIL Leaving aside the credibility of that source (it looks more like a promotional site for new music than a journalistic source), I'll quit haggling about it, given the ambiguity of the term "progenitor" (does it mean "ancestor" or "originator"?) and the author's use of the term "indeed" (but does this connote straightforward agreement, or an extension used to make a distinct clarifying point?). My main gripe is that... the tag doesn't make sense. The 1967 SMiLE was recorded for Capitol Records and BWPS was released on a subsidiary of Warner. There's nothing independent about it, unless you're talking about the "spirit" of independence, which would require some serious clarification. We should be exercising some editorial common sense here. It's literally not an independent rock album, or "indie" in any conventional layman's sense either. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

There is rarely any logic to anything that gets labelled "indie". The point is that this album was described as indie, and so there's no reason to hide that fact. One could argue that the album could constitute "indie rock" by virtue of the Wondermints forming the backbone of the record. That is enough, in my opinion, to make such a descriptor not as absurd as calling it a synth-pop or heavy metal record. There's also the (interesting and notable) fact, pointed out by that writer, that Smile did end up influencing a plethora of indie bands, so that's a valid argument for retroactive application. Clarification is moreso warranted at Indie rock, which fails to introduce the genre as "loosely defined". It's not this article's job to explain to readers that "indie rock" is not a particularly meaningful term. ili (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brian_Wilson_Presents_Smile/Archive_1&oldid=1145604614"