THE BEST Surf's Up revelation.

[FatherOfTheMan Sr101]

This may be the coolest thing i've seen on any album/song ever.

Listen to the last line of the 2nd part,

"I heard the Word /

WONDERFUL thing /

A CHILDREN's SONG /

The CHILD IS FATHER OF THE MAN"...

Notice that both BWPS and TSS both have "Look" changed to "Song for Children".... Proof of the 2nd movement?!?!

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Well, Child is Father of The Man was not part of Surf's Up in 1966, and Song For Children (the title of which may very well have been inspired by Surf's Up) was not heard of until 2003/2004. So I would say no.

[FatherOfTheMan Sr101]

BUT it was part in '71, which shows that Brian may have had some idea back then.

Even if, and AWESOME mistake.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

BUT it was part in '71, which shows that Brian may have had some idea back then.

Even if, and AWESOME mistake.

Well, like I said, it probably wasn't a mistake to re-name Look Song for Children.

[FatherOfTheMan Sr101]

True, but still, CIFOTM and wonderful!

[Quzi]

I believe there's a little more to this revelation than what you have picked out,


"I heard THE WORD /

WONDERFUL thing /

A CHILDREN's SONG /

The CHILD IS FATHER OF THE MAN"...

we all know that "bird" is the word, and that leads me to having a notion that the second movement of Smile would have likely progressed from Papa-Oom-Mow-Mow/Bird is the Word to Wonderful, Song for Children, Child is Father of the Man and finally, Surf's Up.

[The Shift]

Erm, doesn't the second movement start with the words "Dove nested towers…"?

[FatherOfTheMan Sr101]

2nd movement of smile.

[filledeplage]

Well, Child is Father of The Man was not part of Surf's Up in 1966, and Song For Children (the title of which may very well have been inspired by Surf's Up) was not heard of until 2003/2004. So I would say no.

William Wordsworth

My heart leaps up when I behold
A rainbow in the sky:
So was it when my life began,
So is it now I am a man,
So be it when I grow old
Or let me die!
The child is the father of the man:
And I could wish my days to be
Bound each to each by natural piety.

Also used by Blood, Sweat and Tears (1968)

Also some similarly titled poem by Gerard Manley Hopkins

The child is father to the man.
How can he be? The words are wild.
Suck any sense from that who can:
No;what the poet did write ran,
'the child is father to the man.'
The man is father to the child.
How can he be? The words are wild!

 

[Runaways]

Well, Child is Father of The Man was not part of Surf's Up in 1966,

How do you know this?

[Reddiwhip]

I believe there's a little more to this revelation than what you have picked out,


"I heard THE WORD /

WONDERFUL thing /

A CHILDREN's SONG /

The CHILD IS FATHER OF THE MAN"...

we all know that "bird" is the word, and that leads me to having a notion that the second movement of Smile would have likely progressed from Papa-Oom-Mow-Mow/Bird is the Word to Wonderful, Song for Children, Child is Father of the Man and finally, Surf's Up.

For some reason I can hear this on Smiley Smile 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Well, Child is Father of The Man was not part of Surf's Up in 1966,

How do you know this?

What evidence do we have to suggest that it was.

[pixletwin]

Well, Child is Father of The Man was not part of Surf's Up in 1966,

How do you know this?

What evidence do we have to suggest that it was.

Absence of evidence is not evidence. The evidence we do have is the story about Brian hearing the others messing up the rerecording of Surf's Up so badly that he had to come down and teach them how it was supposed to end.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Well, Child is Father of The Man was not part of Surf's Up in 1966,

How do you know this?

What evidence do we have to suggest that it was.

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

Yeah, exactly. You know what that statement means? It means that because there is no evidence in 66/67 to suggest that Child was part of Surf's Up, there is no reason to conclude that it could have been part of the song.

The evidence we do have is the story about Brian hearing the others messing up the rerecording of Surf's Up so badly that he had to come down and teach them how it was supposed to end.

I'm not sure I'd call that evidence. By the end of 1966, how many Smile songs directly incorporated parts from other Smile songs?

[LostArt]

By the end of 1966, how many Smile songs directly incorporated parts from other Smile songs?

Well, let's just see...part of Look went into Good Vibrations, Who Ran The Iron Horse was taken out of H&V and put into Cabinessence, part of DYLW was put into H&V, YWMS and fade were taken out of H&V for The Old Master Painter,  I'm In Great Shape and Barnyard were taken from H&V (although we're not sure if Barnyard would've been on a late '66 album in any form).  I guess what I'm saying is that we just don't know if Brian would've put CITFOTM at the end of Surf's Up in '66-'67 or not.  No evidence to support either argument.

[LostArt]

The evidence we do have is the story about Brian hearing the others messing up the rerecording of Surf's Up so badly that and he had to come down and teach them how it was supposed to his idea for end.

Had to edit a few things here.  I never heard any story that indicates that the guys were messing anything up.  My understanding is that Brian heard them working on the song, and went downstairs to show them what he had in mind for the ending.

[pixletwin]

Fair enough. But did his idea for the ending have it's genesis in 1971 or 1966/67? It works so naturally and majestically it seems a greater stretch to believe the former rather than the later.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

By the end of 1966, how many Smile songs directly incorporated parts from other Smile songs?

Well, let's just see...part of Look went into Good Vibrations,

Sort of - I mean, there are people here on a regular basis who can't hear the Good Vibrations nod at all and to be fair, he seemed to come up with that part in Look and that vocal part in Vibes around the same time, and then Look appeared to be entirely abandoned as a song.

Who Ran The Iron Horse was taken out of H&V and put into Cabinessence, part of DYLW was put into H&V, YWMS and fade were taken out of H&V for The Old Master Painter,  I'm In Great Shape and Barnyard were taken from H&V (although we're not sure if Barnyard would've been on a late '66 album in any form).

That's not the same thing at all - that's taking parts out and using them for something else so that the original intention didn't exist anymore. Is anyone saying that if Brian had used Child as the coda to Surf's Up that there would be no track called Child is Father of the Man anymore or, at least, no chorus to Child?

And also, part of DYLW was not put into H&V in 1966 - that didn't come until the confused H&V sessions in 1967. By the end of 1966, DYLW and H&V were totally separate entities that didn't reference each other at all, except possibly thematically.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Fair enough. But did his idea for the ending have it's genesis in 1971 or 1966/67? It works so naturally and majestically it seems a greater stretch to believe the former rather than the later.

Not to me. He had ample opportunity to sing the Child part when he played the song live for the Bernstein show, and demoed it both in 1966 and later in 1967. He certainly could have sung the "A children's song, have you listened as they play..." part. He never did. Not once.

I agree that it works though consider the context in which it works - being placed atop a demo that was never intended to be a final product in 66.

[runnersdialzero]

By the end of 1966, how many Smile songs directly incorporated parts from other Smile songs?

Well, let's just see...part of Look went into Good Vibrations, Who Ran The Iron Horse was taken out of H&V and put into Cabinessence, part of DYLW was put into H&V, YWMS and fade were taken out of H&V for The Old Master Painter,  I'm In Great Shape and Barnyard were taken from H&V (although we're not sure if Barnyard would've been on a late '66 album in any form).  I guess what I'm saying is that we just don't know if Brian would've put CITFOTM at the end of Surf's Up in '66-'67 or not.  No evidence to support either argument.

"Heroes", "Vega-Tables", "You're With Me Tonight", "Our Prayer" all share elements, in addition, and I'm sure there's stuff I'm not remembering off-hand that neither of us named. There are a number of Smile tracks that show clear reference to one another.

Also, I hadn't heard the words "messing up" specifically, but we know Brian was not into the idea of finishing this song at some point - some reports say initially, others say the entire time up until the end. To have him suddenly burst into the room saying "This is how it goes", handing out parts, kind of indicates a sort of "If you feel you have to do this, at least do it right" sort of thing, to me.

I'd say it's unconfirmed if the "Child" ending was part of "Surf's Up". As pixeltwin said, "Absence of evidence is not evidence." It could've been around in '66 or '67, but in an incomplete state or just as an idear. The ending does seem fairly sparse without it. To me, it's too hard to say one way or another and I'm not sure how others can be so sure.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

"Heroes", "Vega-Tables", "You're With Me Tonight", "Our Prayer" all share elements,

Not in the way I'm talking about, they don't. Explain at what point of Our Prayer is another song added. Furthermore, we don't really know if With Me Tonight is even a Smile track or a section of another track or what.

There are a number of Smile tracks that show clear reference to one another.

Surf's Up doesn't reference Child is Father of the Man, it has a Child is Father of the Man section as its coda. You can't say, for example, that Heroes and Villains references the Cantina section. It's just part of the song.

Also, I hadn't heard the words "messing up" specifically, but we know Brian was not into the idea of finishing this song at some point - some reports say initially, others say the entire time up until the end. To have him suddenly burst into the room saying "This is how it goes", handing out parts, kind of indicates a sort of "If you feel you have to do this, at least do it right" sort of thing, to me.

And "doing it right" included using a demo version of the song to complete it? Was that the intention in 1966 as well?

[pixletwin]

He can't sing two + parts at once. Maybe he just enjoyed singing the "Ah" part at the end? I dunno. But the reason runnerz outlined is precisely the reason why it seemed to me like Brian's involvement in Surf's Up 1971 was one of correction, rather than creation.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

He can't sing two + parts at once. Maybe he just enjoyed singing the "Ah" part at the end? I dunno.

What other demo has Brian excluding lyrics to instead sing a buried background vocal? Besides the Surf's Up 1966 demo is double tracked and Brian had already put multiple vocal parts on his Vega-Tables demo recorded shortly before that.

But the reason runnerz outlined is precisely the reason why it seemed to me like Brian's involvement in Surf's Up 1971 was one of correction, rather than creation.

Then why didn't he correct the part where they use a demo for the second half in lieu of an actual session recording from that time?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Also, what is the source of this story where Brian bursts into the room? Not saying I don't believe it, I just want to look at it for myself.

[Bicyclerider]

The source of the story is Jack Reilly - I belive the story is archived here somewhere, isn't it?  And wasn't it mentioned in the rolling Stone 1970 2 part story on the Beach Boys?

However, the way the story goes is Carl put together Surf's Up for the album and he was the one who added the Child is Father to the Man tag.  The LYRICS to that part were added at the suggestion of Brian, but I believe the lyrics were a last minute collaboration between Brian and Jack.  It's a little unclear if Brian really came up with they lyrics or not.

I'm with Rockandroll on this one.  No tape evidence of Child being part of Surf's Up, no press or later interviews (the Preiss book, Vosse interview, Anderle interviews) suggesting that.  He doesn't sing Child on the Dec 67 Wild Honey version either.

But since the album was never finished, Brian MAY have decided if he finished it to put Child there, who knows.  But that's a far cry from suggesting there's some kind of proof it was always meant to be part of the song.