Hi, guys! I've been out of the loop for about two
months (due to a variety of events in my personal
life) and I'm trying to get caught back up. That
includes, of course, reading through some 70+ digest
of the Cabin! (Good God, you guys go off-topic with
only the slightest provocation!)
Anyway, while reading the back issues of the Cabin, I
ran across a question that Bill Tobelman posed that
appears to have gone unanswered (or, if there was an
answer, I simply haven't run across it yet).
Bill wrote:
The immediate source was Peter Reum's 9-page BB
discography in the April-May 1979 issue of "Time
Barrier Express." In that piece, Peter wrote, in a
footnote about the Brother 1001 release, "Original
release was intended tobe 'Heroes & Villains, Pt.1'
b/w part 2, Capitol 5826, but was not issued.Picture
sleeves outside the U.S. only showed Capitol 5826,
printed over with Brother 1001, while all domestic
sleeves were correctly printed." Peter was tight
(then, as now) with David Leaf, so he had access to a
certain amount of inside information and I assume
that's where the Part 1/Part 2 info came from (an
assumption reinforced by David's later promulgation of
the two-part
theory in his Smiley Smile/Wild Honey CD liner notes).
I also was in possession of a list of unreleased
Capitol master numbers, which clearly
showed a number assigned to "Heroes & Villains Part
2." In short, it seemed pretty obvious at the time.
But a couple of years later, I gained direct access to
Capitol's files while working on the RARITIES album
and was shocked to discover that there was nothing in
those files to indicate that a two-part "H&V" single
had ever been planned. Still, it took quite a few
years more -- after enough session sheets had surfaced
to be matched up to actual tapes -- before I became
convinced that the two-part single really was just a
myth.
Just in the past several months, however, with the
discovery of the tape labeled "H&V Side 2," I've begun
to swing back the other way. I'm fairly certain that
when Brian assembled the cantina version of "H&V" for
possible release as a single, there was no intention
on his part of backing it with a "Part 2." Brian's own
comments in the press at that time about a possible
B-side prove that. So Dom's theory for what
constitutes "Part 2" (comprised primarily of Dec. 1966
and Jan. 1967 recordings) just doesn't wash for me.
But, as Jon and I (and others) discussed on the Smile
Shop board a couple of months back, there is some
evidence for a two-part single being conceived and
executed by Brian in mid-February through early March
1967. Rather than paraphrase what Jon said on this
list about the same time as Bill asked his question,
I'll just quote Jon:
I guess the bottom line is that we really don't know
for sure whether there was or wasn't a two-part "H&V."
But I think we can lay to rest Dom's theory that the
second part was comprised of the majority of "H&V
(Sections)" from the Good Vibrations boxed set.
Surf's up!
From: "Brad Elliott"
Date: Thu Aug 9, 2001 12:45 am
Subject: Re: Heroes, Villains & An Old Theory
> I'm pretty sure that Dom's assertion that there was
>a "Heroes And Villains(part 2)" originally came from
>Brad Elliott's book Surf's Up! In the book Brad
>states, "One of the projected cuts, a seven minute
>long Heroes and Villains, was set as a single and
>scheduled for release January 13, 1967. Numbered 5826,
>it was to run both sides of the record - Heroes And
>Villains, Part 1 backed with Heroes and Villains, Part 2.
> Do you know what Mr. Elliott based his original
>claim upon?
> There is some interesting and compelling evidence
>FOR a two-sided H&V single, the most compelling of
>which was the recent revelation that the minor-key H&V
>chorus is logged as "Side Two." If the chorus was part
>of a "side 2" I'd say it's likely that some of the
>other things logged in late February as "part 2" under
>a different master number might've been the REST of
>"side 2," and that includes a re-recorded "false
>barnyard," "H&V Intro," and probably "prelude to fade
>aka the country western section." In other words: if
>there ever was a
>"part 2" I'd say it's likely it wasn't in the same
>time frame as the "part 2 variations."
Brad
If you have any comments on this topic, psychedelismile@yahoo.com and I will try to promptly post any interesting replies.