The Smiley Smile Message Board

That mix??

This is from an acetate right?

I got the box today, it's fantastic!

CIFOTM: I think the second chorus might be from an acetate, there is a small change in the sound quality when it starts (a bit distortion or something).

It's great to hear it with new vocals.
I'm wondering, they changed the BWPS mix and the vintage instr. edit for disc 1...was it just to use another section, or is there evidence this is the structure that would have been used in 1966/67?

This is one of the highlights of the first disc for me, but I wish they would have included it with the sessions instead. The noticeable drop in sound quality makes it sound completely out of place, at least when you're listening on headphones. It's like watching a movie in IMAX that includes a scene the director shot on his cell phone. Very jarring.

I personally love it!

Sounds incredible

i've only listened to the vinyl version, and so i really don't notice a drop in quality.. but holy cow, was my jaw on the floor with that new vocal line.  it's not much, but it's spectacular.

That's what she said! 

CIFOTM is one of the highlights of disc 1 for me as well, even though the structure is pretty rough. But those additional harmonies at the end are just fucking brilliant!

The new vocals are great, really didn't expect that. But there's a LOT of distortion on the second chorus, I really think this is not made for Joe Q. Public.

Well, it's from an acetate! Of course it's going to be rougher than usual

Sure! That's why it's fine by me! It's more than that actually. I was just talking about the average listener.

I LOVE the second chorus vocal. FATHER of the, FATHER OF THE MAN! Beautiful part.

Child was always in the running, but with this new 2nd chorus it just may be my favorite Smile song now. I mean DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Blown away...this song, along with Worms, is one of those numbers I never really had much interest in, but Mark and Alan really filled out Child, made it more layered and, really, more of a 'song' as opposed to just an intro to Surf's Up. Love the new vocal line, splicing together the different versions, really might possibly win 'most improved' for me!

Hearing the material from the 10/11/66 session  is stunnng--after all these years of hearing such potential and wondering if you'd ever hear anything other than a low-fi acetate.

And yes, the new chorus is indeed something else. How Brian ever came up with those harmonies...

The intro bit (first 24 secs) feels tacked-on, I think it was put there so the very start of the song wouldn't be so similar to the very start of "Look" but it hurts the flow IMHO

The more I hear it, the more I agree with that. It's a cool little section, but doesn't jive at all with the sounds he was using for that track in '66. I've always started my "Child" mixes with the chorus - it starts the song off quickly and hooks you in right away!

i'm super glad they put that stuff in to start Child.  Look is super boring, and starting Child with that just for smoothness would also be super boring.  They made Child a listenable track on its own for me

I am surprised by the sequencing. I thought they would for sure do the "verse/chorus/verse/chorus/bridge/Surf's Up" version. Especially since "Child (bridge)" goes into the start of "Surf's Up" so perfect.

So, did the bootlegs have it right all those years ago: "bridge/chorus/verse/chorus"?

Also, I am hearing some clipping on the piano key hits during the "bridge" sections. Sounds like metal squeaking. Anybody else hear this?

Seems we don't know, given the number of different permutations that have surfaced. The three minute version that surfaced several years ago had chorus/verse/chorus/verse/chorus/bridge/chorus

I decided to quickly attempt to "clean" the 2nd verse a bit, for fan mixes and stuff, PM me if you want a listen...

I would love a mix of this a la Alternate BWPS... (Forget who you are Brian) 

I've done two stereo versions of the 2d verse and cleaned it a bit (with the two backing tracks), sounds pretty good.

I'm guessing the vocal multi-tracks don't survive, which SUCKS.  :angry

Love to know what a completed version would have sounded like in 1967.

There's obviously a lot of lyrics missing, and perhaps another melody, which will never be heard.

Has anyone here managed to isolate the chorus vocals? (both new and old)

I would love to hear that, but i don't know how to really go about trying to isolate vocals from a mono mix without an identical instrumental version or some sort of sound-spectrum software (similar to the one used for a Good Vibrations stereo mix that one smiley smiler here put together)

I second this. Would be a thrill to hear them alone. 

I used SonicWorks, and it went pretty well, CIFOTM was weird though, its much rougher then GV (obviously) and it didn't sound good enough to exclamate on.

For what it's worth, a quick "pull open SonicWORX for 20 minutes and see what the options are" test sounded very thin and unremarkable. And, granted, that's not a lot of time to spend in an app like that, but compared with a similar test, some Good Vibrations extractions sounded sterling.

The Child choruses sourced from acetates IIRC, so it'll probably be a challenge to get something that sounds great. Good luck though.

I enjoy the new version here pretty well, particularly with the new vocals, but it feels a little bit choppy and rushed to me.  I wish they would have taken it at a more leisurely pace.  If they were going to include that bit at the beginning, I wish they would have followed the Sea of Tunes model, including that ascending/descending bass line bit before going into the piano and horn part.  We'll see what the fanmixers come up with now. . .

It's nice to have an "official version" of "Child Is Father Of The Man", but I think it could have been done more interestingly.  I hammered together a version on my sound forge several years ago that is still my favorite.  There are so many nice little pieces in the "Child" sessions, and several of my favorites are missing from the finished version on the new set.

'zit me, or is the chorus take with the high "ahh"s not anywhere on the box? :(

They're in the first chorus but to me it sounds like the eq caused much of that to be 'scooped' out. Have to listen really close, or perhaps do some lower mid boosting. I haven't tried it yet myself. Maybe someone else can give more insight.

I thought it was the chorus take without the high "ahh"s that isn't there.

I actually thought the chorus is a newly mixed version with both vocals included!

That may it. With the more sparse "child..the child" version up front. In that case, the one with the high notes and ethereal "ahhs" is there but buried(and the best!)

I doubt it mixes both versions, as they seemingly don't have the multitracks for that and there'd be hella phasing etc. if they attempted this. Srsly, I don't hear the "ahh"ness. Fuckin' it'd be cool to make a fan mix, but in this case, you'd have one pristine chorus and one obscenely skanky sounding one. AH BALLS.

May have to agree to disagree, I'd swear I hear it in there. And speaking of being phasy, while it isn't, it does sound wonky. Not as much presence as the sections that precede or follow. Something weird there cause at least on the boots they are much more 'there', with both versions.  Can anyone else provide their thoughts on this?

Yes I hear the "ahhh"s as well, although as you said, they're not as prominent as they used to be on the boots. 

I now relistened and found the high aaahs only in the second run-through of the chorus after the bridge.

There's something I heard on the internet long before the box set came out that they didn't have or didn't use. It was a 1:53 track of Child Is Father Of The Man, the section found on the box set disc 3, track 16, but with some staccato "shivery" strings, maybe cellos, in the left channel. Perhaps it was an overdub that they mixed out for the box, but it was pretty neat. Has anyone else noticed this?

I can hear the strings in the CITFOTM sessions on the box, but its lower in the mix.

Yeah, the cello part is included in an early run-through on "Version One", but it sounds like Brian decided not to include it on later takes.

Do people think that completed lyrics ever existed for this track ?
I don't mean that lyrics were necessarily recorded, but that maybe they were once written down somewhere ?

Yeah, sure enough, turned it way up and heard it. For some reason it worked a lot better on the vintage mix from... wherever it came from.

According to VDP there were lyrics. But I have no clue whether they were completed, written down, both or neither.

Have Alan or Mark given us more of a details about where they found the acetate with the extra chorus vocals? This is a story I would like to hear.

Same here. I'd like to hear the whole acetate as well.

Aw. I loved the intro.

What's an 'acetate' please?

Acetates are/were one off records cut from straight from the day/s recordings, so the artist/producers could listen to the days work on a record player at home.

They also wear out after a couple of listens as the material used was softer (cut from a lathe on-site, rather than pressed plastic from a plate in a plant).

Because they may contain work in progress, alternate mixes or unreleased material they can be collectible, and when known to exist but unheard, they are the source of myth and legend.

They may also be the only known existence of recorded material when a master or multi track tape has been destroyed, taped over or missing.

Hence the drop in sound quality on Child is Father... and several others tracks. Thanks for the info.

Has anybody tried putting those intro vocals over the quiet piano bit (the bit put at the end of CIFOTM in BWPS)? They need a bit of speed changing and chopping, but the effect (including the lumpy piano on the vocal track) works disturbingly well, making that piano bit spine tingling, and is of the right length. I would guess that something like this was originally intended.

Either way, I've put the piano section (with those vocals) at the beginning of the track, then chorus, then quiet guitar bit, then chorus 2, then that funny vibes bridge, then the shimmery strings fade out.

Krabklaw did something like that with his Smyle mix! Very good indeed and ..fits perfectly with that lonesome piano and trumpet..

I had a quick listen to this. Thanks for putting me on to it. Personally, this mix has a bit of a 'Japanese wailing cat' quality in places due to overprocessing, but I like some of the ideas, especially for Look.

Either way, his mix of the vocals into CIFO/TTM is not really what I meant. Try this (my mix, if if works)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G04KsvkxBxo&feature=youtu.be

I agree with all this. And I seriously cannot emphasize enough how much I hate the structure on TSS 1 as well.


CIFOTM has always been sold short, in my opinion. I agree, it's always treated as just an intro to Surf's Up and nothing more when the original song is so haunting and powerful in its unfinished state, and IMHO had the potential to be just as good as Cabin Essence. I blame the new coda from Surf's Up in '71. Ironic how an attempt to save this song from unheard obscurity has since retroactively ruined how its presented in most fanmixes and releases since.


I agree, another terrible (or at the very least, questionable) decision regarding Disc 1. I hate it. No way in hell would Brian have done it that way.


It's definitely a heartbreaking mystery. I'd love to see how VDP could spin some yarns around such an interesting concept. I always interpret the phrase CIFOTM to be a statement on the fact that your childhood influences what kind of man/woman you grow up to become. The child raises/influences/is father to the man. I think this song fits so well with Wonderful for that same reason, that and the similar instrumentation of course.


There is not and should never be an official CIFOTM. It's unfinished, and not like every other SMiLE song. Its entire structure is different in every fanmix/bootleg and official release its on. And unlike the other song that applies to, Brian never released it at the time so we have nothing even close to go by. The test edit would be our best bet...unfortunately the powers that be deemed that not important enough to include. Outrageous. And I agree, the sessions for it were completely shafted in the boxset too. So many pieces of this song in particular I was sure would be on there...but alas.


Seriously, if the SMiLE songs were children, CIFOTM would be the neglected abused runt of the litter that has so much hidden potential that no one bothers to see. Why, oh why, is it so underrepresented on this boxset? Why wasnt the test edit or full acetate included? Why did they, yet again, treat it like just an intro to Surf's Up? Should Worms be made just an intro to Heroes too? I dont think so. Ridiculous. It's my favorite SMiLE song, but I feel like I'm the only person who respects it on its own terms. If ever human life was captured in music, it's here. That bass is a beautiful sound of a heartbeating. The horn is obviously the baby crying. The guitar is the sound of the years trudging along...

I prefer a structure that starts off with that piano segment, then chorus, then verse, then new chorus, then Veggies-session chorus, then bridge, and the part I'd like to use for a fade was inexplicably left off the boxset, so I have to improvise new endings each time.

Hi all,  I am hoping to find out more information about the version of Child is Father of the Man in this SMiLE edit:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5TyjGkyz30 

In particular, Child Is the Father of the Man ( starting at 16:50 in the video)has a fan-written vocal here on the verse which is pretty interesting. Check it out! I am having a hard time finding more about this mix aside from what is in the description on YouTube...the uploader has credited the new lyrics and melody to a guy named 'Chris' (no last name) who may be associated with the 'Project Smile'  CD Rom that was circulated some time after the 2004 SMiLE came out...I am curious to hear what other think about this verse lyric and melody, or if anyone knows more about the person who wrote it.  Forgive me if this has already been discussed on this site, or if I should have posted under a different thread. I am new around here.  Thanks!

Thanks for sharing that! I've *NEVER* heard those lyrics before, but they work, man. Absolutely wonderful!

I want an answer too. Who recorded these, how did they know? Are they vintage lyrics? Either way, they blow the new ones done for 2003 outta the water. I love the voice imitating a baby over the piano part. I could see Brian doing that in '66. It fits with the "doing" vocals in Cabin Essence and yodeling in Wonderful that matches the trumpet part. That idea of using the voice to imitate an instrument. I absolutely love that.

I NEED to know if this is vintage Brian!

Hi there - I remember this when it was first circulated on Project Smile, and discussed in the early version of the Smile Shop boards. No, these aren't vintage lyrics.

(Nor, as stated on the youtube description, are they "improvised"- Chris deliberately wrote new lyrics he felt captured the spirit of the music and reflected the themes of the Wordsworth poem in which the title phrase originates.)

I had a feeling that was the case. Ah well. They're still far better than what VDP came up with in 2003.

Personally, I like to think the lyrics in '67 would have described significant experiences someone had in their childhood and how that affected them later in life. Thatd really tie into the chorus/title and what those words mean. Child is Father of the Man. The child, what happens to him, affects what kind of man he becomes. In a sense, the child raises the man, as a father world. I LOVE that concept so much, taking what's expected and flipping it. Very psychedelic.

I still think it is a bit odd that the album features a song with this title. After all, the title is a nod to a Wordsworth poem. The rest of the album though seems to place itself within the bounds of Americana. And when you consider Van Dyke Parks's own anxieties about transcontinentalism - in particular when it came to the Brits - it seems very strange for the Wilson/Parks team to borrow from English Romanticism. In one interview Lou Reed essentially states that the English should not make rock and roll music. I think both Reed and, from what I've seen of Parks's comments about British bands influenced by American blues, Parks too, have a problem with cultural appropriation (though how any of this speaks to Parks's use of the South American calypso genre is anyone's guess and maybe Parks is just full of contradictions).

The greatest point though is just how strange it is that we have no original lyrics for this song apart from the chorus. Has there ever been any recollections by anyone anywhere to suggest that anyone ever saw or heard of a lyric to accompany this song? Is it possible that they were just never written?

[quote author=Chocolate Shake Man link=topic=11413.msg528335#msg528335 date=1436364872

The greatest point though is just how strange it is that we have no original lyrics for this song apart from the chorus. Has there ever been any recollections by anyone anywhere to suggest that anyone ever saw or heard of a lyric to accompany this song? Is it possible that they were just never written?
[/quote]

For whatever reason, and this is just my personal opinion with really no hardcore evidence, I always felt that this really felt out of place on the album.  As you said, the album seemed to be about Americana for the most part. I guess the album would've been Americana theme/2 songs (Wonderful and Child...) that deal with innocence and/or growing up, and some songs about The Elements. As incredible as that may seem now, I can see where a record company would go 'WTF is this?'.

As far as anyone knowing anything about it, a few years back I sort of just decided that the rest of the band had no idea how much of the album was done, or what any of the lyrics were, right up to the point of recording the vocals. If you read anything that they ever said about it (circa 1966) the only answers that they seemed to give were somewhat vague; I think that we, the obsessives, knew more about it than they did. I think they had a better idea a few years later when they were trying to get it together without Brian's help, but by that point not even Brian knew anymore.

Use your imagination. What if "Child is Father of the Man" is a direct reference to Americana ascending to Super Power status just as England fell into decline? The student had surpassed the master. And truly, doesnt everything America trace back to Britain if you really think about it?

I also think it's strange about the missing lyrics. How is it that they just disappeared? How could VDP put out those lackluster, irrelevant, unimaginative lyrics in 2003? He really couldnt think of anything better, or anything he may have written (or meant to write) in '66?


Tell me, how does GV or Wind Chimes have anything to do with Americana? While I think Elements and Veggies fit with Americana personally, there's a solid argument that those dont fit either. I dont think it's fair to single CIFOTM out for that. I personally divide the album into an Americana side (Worms/Heroes/Cabin/Elements/Veggies) and a Life side (GV/WindChimes/Wonderful/CIFOTM/Sunshine/Surf's Up) but you could argue Wonderful, CIFOTM and Surf tie into the Americana theme too if you look into them a certain way. Wonderful is about an innocent girl who gets hurt by an unbelieving boy but ultimately gets over it with the help of her mother and father. Could it be that this is an analogy to America being savaged by the Europeans and rising to spiritual prominence again by getting in touch with its noble Native roots? Surf's Up is about society breaking down but finding hope for the future through children's innocence. You could interpret this as Brian seeing that the traditional institutions, roles and values of our nation arent working, but theres hope for the future by preserving the innocence and open-mindedness of the future generations to find a better way. CIFOTM could be read as a hope that America rises above the failures of European cultures that founded it and subsequently serve as an example to them. That we discover a new, better society with healthier institutions and more spiritual, honest worldview. Personally, in the Life/Innocence context, I see it as the bridge between Wonderful and Surf's Up. It adds to the tragedy of Wonderful, in that this bad experience will influence the person the girl grows into. It adds an air of responsibility to Surfs Up, in that we cant just sit on our hands and hope our kids sort sh*t out in the future, we have to raise them right so they grow into intelligent, responsible men. To say it doesnt belong on SMiLE is, to be blunt, completely absurd. The instrumentation (piano and horns) fits perfectly with Wonderful, Surf's Up and Wind Chimes. The themes tie into those songs well, and tentatively to the Americana songs as I theorized above. It fits with this album as well as it possibly could any other one.

I agree that we probably know more about this album than any non-Brian Beach Boy does. I dont think they care even half as much as we do either. To (most of) us, this is a great lost work of art. To them, this is a failed album that Brian scrapped and probably wouldnt have worked live or with the old fans anyway. They probably think a lot more highly of the old stuff, and remember a lot more from those days, than this. I also agree that Brian probably doesnt even know the original plan anymore. I do think there was one though; the themes and instrumentation of certain songs match up too perfectly for me to believe there wasnt a two-suite format in the works, and Brian did say that that was his initial idea. But beyond that general outline I dont think he had anything really set in stone, and I think with BWPS in 2003 he was more rediscovering the material rather than digging out some long lost blueprint. If he knows anymore about his thought-process in 66 he isnt saying anything. If he had any earth-shattering revelations theyd be revealed in 2003/4 or '11. Maybe we'll get some new info in his biography but I doubt it.

Maybe -- but I'm not particularly interested in being speculative about it. I just think it's fascinating given Van Dyke's comments about cultural appropriation and transcontinentalism that he should use a Wordsworth poem as a song title.

 
Not at all. There is a huge indigenous population, an enormous population that existed at the inception of the US that could be traced back to Africa, there are many cultures that could be traced back to Spain. And furthermore, if you reject colonialism as Parks appears to, you definitely reject the premise that everything in America can be traced back to Britain.

Sub-Saharan Africans were brought here against their will, starting in the 16th century. They are not indigenous people of the Americas.

The whole point of high art is that it invites speculation and means something different to everyone. For something as intentionally vague as Parks' lyrics, the possibilities are magnified ten fold. I just think thats the whole point of something like SMiLE.

According to the Wiki article, the title was Brian's idea. He thought it was a fascinating turn of phrase that had many possibilities. Personally, I never thought of it this way, but it could be incredibly significant that the title is British. Like I said earlier, it could be an allusion to America's rise to world power just as the British Empire crumbled. Or our potential to look to our indigenous roots and formulate a better spiritual/cultural backbone than our European ancestors left us.

Ok, ok, I exagerrated saying everything traces back to England. But you get what I mean. As much as I, and apparently Brian, had respect for the Native customs and way of life, how much indigenous customs *really* transitioned into the White lifestyle? Not too many, Id reckon. I guess you could say the Iroquois Confederation influenced our political makeup, but I'd say the founders looked to the Roman Republic even more so for that, and the confederated nature of States vs Federal government emerged more out of necessity. You cant take these various domains that were very different and accustomed to self-governance and merge them into one indistinguishable entity. And after the Articles of Confederation we learned that you need a strong federal government to get anything done. Anyway, yes theres a big Spanish influence, especially out west, but for the most part our cultural heritage is an offshoot of Britain.

That is not true. The Germans greatly influenced our culture, as  well. And where is 'out West, exactly?' Florida, Louisiana, Texas?

Anything -- not just high art -- invites speculation. If I were thinking academically and thinking of works in a scholarly sense (and, as an academic, I do this often), I would try and stay away from speculation. To treat something as an object of scholarly study means to avoid speculating as much as possible. This is not to say that speculation isn't fun - it has its place in casual conversation and message boards like these. I'm not opposed to it -- I'm just not particularly interested in speculating about this issue because I don't think it would get me anywhere and, to be honest, I think it forecloses a far more interesting discussion as speculation almost always tends to do.


No, SMiLE definitely rises above an appeal to speculation. I would argue that Parks's lyrics definitely do demand interpretation and analysis, which again, is a far more meaningful enterprise than merely speculating.


Probably not but we were talking about America not "White lifestyle." There's an extremely long and significant cultural history in America long before a white person ever set foot on it.

I feel like you're splitting hairs and arguing petty semantics on the whole speculation thing. I see that as a synonym for analysis. And with missing lyrics, theres not much in-depth analysis to do...hence "lighter" speculation based off the topic and title of the song. I always assumed CIFOTM would be with Wonderful, Wind Chimes and Surfs Up because of the identical instrumentation of all the songs. The whole Child thing immediately works into Wonderful and Surf's Up's lyrical content as well. The Americana interpretation isnt provable obviously, but I was just throwing it out there to illustrate that it could have been a part of that theme, since someone was saying CIFOTM didnt belong on the album because it wasnt American-themed.

Yes, I get that the NAtive Americans had their own history and heritage. Im not downplaying that but the America we all live in today, and that Brian grew up in and would be addressing with this album is not Native America. Unfortunately, the Europeans had little regard for the lifestyle and worldview of the "savages" they conquered, so very little of their culture survived into our society. Brian and VDP definitely made the point that this was a crime in Worms and arguably Cabin Essence as well, but they were still far more familiar with White/English American culture and again, would be directing their album to that audience. That being said, I do think one of the themes of the album is that this was a great tragedy and we ought to explore Native culture more and adapt some of the better ideas from it into our everday lifestyles.

Seeing speculation as a synonym for analysis is to dramatically misunderstand what analysis is. They are two extremely different concepts and therefore I'm not arguing semantics. If, in my work as a scholar, I made speculative claims, I wouldn't last in the job longer than a month. What I am meant to do is analysis. Interpretation is a different concept as well, incidentally. One makes an analysis based on their interpretation. I can't fault you too much though - it's a common misconception. Nevertheless, speculation simply isn't a serious level of inquiry and to be honest, not too much "high art" really makes an appeal for speculation. I'd say a good example of something that does make such an appeal would be the television show Lost, where audience members were asked from week to week to try and guess what the mystery was. A mystery novel does the same thing until it ends. Now that doesn't make these cultural objects bad. Lost was entertainment of very high calibre, in my opinion, but it was hardly high art.


But I wasn't speculating about what the song title meant, I was noting the apparent contradiction between the author's own point of view and the title of the song (ie. interpretation).


I agree with you on that point.


As you note here, Wilson and Parks were very much interested in covering aspects of America beyond just the white settler communities -- throughout Smile, we catch glimpses of Spanish Americans, indigenous Americans, Hawaiian speech, Asian Americans, etc. So regardless of your point about Europeans and their regard for the lifestyle of others, and regardless of who Smile's audience was, Wilson and Parks were quite simply not solely interested in portraying an America as a white European nation. If anything, they wanted to portray the exact opposite of that and consequently, your point that "everything America traces back to Britain" not only does not hold true as a general statement, it also doesn't hold true in a discussion about this album either.

Point taken on the speculation vs analysis point. I guess where I get confused is with something like SMiLE where (Id argue) the two become somewhat interchangeable due to its unfinished state. I guess my initial issue with you saying you dont want to speculate is because any analysis of SMiLE is in some way dependent on speculation.

And I was originally trying to illustrate that it wasnt necessarily a contradiction to quote a British poet for a song title because it could still ultimately be about America. To me, bringing up the fact that the author is British as a point of interest but then refusing to speculate on why that may be is only going halfway. Like saying "gee, Hitchcock uses a lot of green in Vertigo" but then not bothering to put forth a reason why that may be. I've been very open about the fact that my theory could very well be wrong. And if nothing else, well...maybe *this* would be Brian's take on an "English America" after all? In any case, I think Mr. Verlander is wrong to say it feels out of place on the album and isnt "American enough" for SMiLE. Without full lyrics we just dont know, and knowing VDP *whatever* lyrics there were would be able to be interpreted in such a way that you could make a connection to America.

Im not trying to argue about whether or not the collaborators were referencing other subcultures in America or not. I just meant a good percentage of American culture/identity traces back to Britain, so to argue something doesnt belong for being "too British/not American enough" is silly. Again, yes, there are other elements at play that shaped our cultural heritage but it's mostly white/european/english. To argue that theres all these references to other peoples here but then deny any British references should exist on the album is ALSO a misunderstanding of the album. But anyway, I wasnt trying to say there wasnt references to other groups in SMiLE.

I find this conversation engaging and I hope you don't mind if I continue pursuing it a bit more. I don't respond out of anger -- I just find the topic to be interesting but I understand if you are uninterested in pursuing it further.


While I agree that an unfinished project elicits a good deal of speculation, as does say a mystery novel before it reaches its conclusion, I would ultimately disagree that "any analysis of SMiLE is in some way dependent on speculation." I will go into more detail on this below but for now I think that one could find plenty to analyze with Smile without having to resort to speculation. One could, for example, examine the way the lyrics adopt the American Gothic style; one could examine the album in terms of a critique of the settler culture and how it troubles what at the time were standard conceptions of America; one could consider the modular style of recording and how it anticipates more postmodern understandings of time, history, narrative, etc. There's lots of analysis that can be done with what we have.


Okay, but to be honest, this just speaks to our differences in approach because I'm not particularly interested in speculating as to why Hitchcock uses lots of green. From a scholarly perspective, the artist's intention really doesn't matter - what matters is what the text does (this by the way is important because it is in moving from artist's intention to what the text does where we go from speculative to analytical).

There are excellent analyses of film by the way that properly steer clear of the kind of thing that you are talking about. In a scholarly analysis, one does not put forth a reason why Hitchcock uses a lot of green, one instead argues what the use of green in Vertigo is doing. This distinction may not seem like much, but it is in fact, crucial and very meaningful. To consider an analysis in this way, take a look at Zizek's analysis of Psycho (and, with it, The Marx Brothers) as an example (there are some frightening scenes from Hitchcock's movie shown almost immediately so viewer discretion is advised):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK1DnCjlBkA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK1DnCjlBkA)

Note here in this analysis that Zizek is not attempting to tell explain why, say, Hitchcock chose to put the viewer in the role of murderer. Rather, Zizek tells us what this decision does. For Zizek, this act makes us recognize something monstrous within ourselves that we do not wish to face, something which we are always keeping at bay. Whether or not Hitchcock knowingly intended this is not the point - the movie does this regardless of what the point was. Zizek is sure to say things like "This is the sentiment that Hitchcock's films evoke" rather than say, "Hitchcock meant to evoke this sentiment when he did such and such." And because Zizek is a psychoanalytic critic, he probably doesn't even assume that Hitchcock meant to include these things purposefully. Rather, Zizek has an understanding about the way the fundamental humans operate  and the way that they make meaning and always necessarily falsely understand the world in an illusory way, that films cannot help but illustrate it since films are always an attempt to make meaning in some way.


Is it silly when one of the primary architects of the album, Van Dyke Parks, is on record as finding transcontinentalism a problem? Here's the thing: Van Dyke Parks is a literate person and he understands literary traditions well. And the fact is that by the 1830s, the American literary culture became obsessed with what C. Richard King calls "the development of the uniquely American subjectivity." The first major text to come out of this culture was Ralph Waldo Emerson's The American Scholar which largely called upon American intellectuals to reject old (read British) ideas.

Emerson's call for American intellectual independence was taken up by authors who strove to find a postcolonial voice that was not British but American. Authors such as Edgar Allan Poe, James Fenimore Cooper, Walt Whitman, Thoreau, and others. So when Parks makes claims about transcontinentalism, he's speaking out of an American literary tradition that actively sought to locate a non-European voice. And the lyrics that Parks wrote for Smile, many of which contain both subtle and unsubtle nods to the authors I listed above, reaffirm his desire to position himself within this literary tradition.

So given all of this, the title of Chid is the Father of the Man, is as if Emerson, the author of The American Scholar, would also, at the same time publish a re-write of Romeo & Juliet. My claim here is not that American culture wasn't influenced by England, nor am I making a value judgement about whether it's too British or not (I'm perfectly fine with the reference). What is worth noting is that this is a stunning contradiction. However, as you note, the title may very well have come from Brian and not Parks. Therefore, it WOULD have been interesting to see how Parks might have dealt with this dichotomy.

I would agree. But they're still very interrelated and using one can help with the other. Analyzing Cabin Essence and Worms, one sees two songs with slower verses and faster/louder choruses, that reference all manner of travel (Trucks/Trains & Ocean Liners/Bicycles) and reference the exploitation of non-Whites (church of the American Indian & coolies working on the RR). Ok. Speculation comes in when you say "huh, these songs are very similar. almost like they were made to go back to back or are part of a larger message." Also "these songs deal with destroying nature and exploring America. Brian is on record saying there'd be spoken word humor on this album. There's some of that in Heroes and Smiley already. He recorded some comedy sketches already called Smog and Taxi Cabber which would fit these songs/themes very well. Wonder if he considered using them between or within these tracks at some point?" See how it feeds off one another? Now for you maybe it's different but for myself once I start thinking about something as enticing as SMiLE my brain goes off in all manner of directions with it. I dont see it as "resorting" to speculation. Speculation is just another tool by which to decipher, or a filter by which to see it through.


I think, if anything, you're the one speculating on our collaborator's intentions and forcing their supposed perspective unto the album. I do both myself. Mostly I look at the body of work by itself and judge from there. That's how Ive come to be so certain of my two-suite mix--the music really does just work that way. It makes the most sense when you take it on its own, and ignore the years of misleading Priore-speculation and Brian coming in years after the fact to reconstruct it for a live show. This "the authors intent doesnt matter" would be best served aimed at the crowd that takes BWPS as the unquestionable final word. I sometimes add things like "Brian is quoted saying two suites was his original intention" or "Brian was really into astrology at the time" (in regards to my long-winded post about possible astrological meanings in SMiLE) but thats more an after-thought in both cases to lend credence to what I consider already strong arguments made mostly by just looking at the music by itself, on its own terms, without any biases.


Ok that's nice and all but you're ignoring by point that Brian came up with the title/subject, not VDP. Maybe that's why there are seemingly no vintage lyrics for this one song? Maybe Van didnt believe it fit either and refused to work on it, or was struggling to work some American ideal with this British springboard? I know, I know. You dont want to speculate. But see how it's almost inevitable with this album? And arent you sort of doing the same thing?


A child may assert his independence from his father as he comes to be a man, but they're still the same blood. The very language we use is British...I mean, I get making your own culture and identity but the fact is you cant remove your roots completely. Most of Europe owes a lot to its Greco-Roman history. While There's a uniquely French identity and uniquely Italian and English and whatever...they still owe a good chunk of that to their past. And with America, even more so because it's still relatively recent that we were just a colony of England. And anyway, we're talking about a single reference/song title here. I know you and others have been quick to point out that many other nations and ethnicities played their part in American development, but it's undeniable that England played a very large part. So, again, why is it so hard to accept this single nod to THAT part of our history? Especially when the line itself easily applies to the two countries' relationship to one another. By the '60s, America had surpassed England and come to more or less dominate the global stage in place of the now dismantled Empire. This isnt some long-winded, forced interpretation that requires researching a dozen centuries old authors or VDP's political views. This is a simple, straightforward reading of the line with the context of America in mind. I literally came up with this theory on the spot upon reading this thread. If I could, why is it so hard to accept that maybe thats it? 


No it really isnt. It would be like if he used the basic idea of R&J as a springboard for a completely new work that asserts American culture--like West Side Story. Or even closer, if he used the TITLE R&J for a completely different medium of art with its own message and identity. It may be a *notable* connection, I'll grant you that. But *stunning?* I'd say that's hyperbole. And with this new reading of CIFOTM I've come up with, it could actually give even more meaning to Surf's Up, with the crumbling society perhaps being Europe (or the more European-influenced parts of America) with the children being the emerging, distinctly American perspective you're referring to? This even makes me wonder if maybe Brian really *did* intend to have that reprise of the CIFOTM chorus at the end of Surf's Up back in '66. Because the children's song is a metaphor for a new American worldview, America is child of the man (England/Europe) and now it's our responsibility to find a new way and set an example for them (be their father, so to speak) and he wanted to make sure we got that connection at the end because that's literally the whole overarching "moral" of the album.

I didnt say Brian and VDP independently came up with the phrase, just that Brian specifically really liked it, thought it was a fascinating turn of phrase that they could do something with, and wrote a song about it. VDP either didnt finish the lyrics, forgot them, or couldnt/wouldnt do it because he disagreed with the use of a British author's quote. IDK. But it's worth remembering there were two collaborators here. Brian was a sponge at this point, absorbing all kinds of ideologies and art from all manner of sources. I believe he was very interested in some French novel (forget the name) at the time too. I dont think he was at all as strict with this "America only" mantra as you're insinuating VDP was.

I would like to respond in depth to your post but before I do, I need to clear up this confusion. You note the following:


Since you were responding here to a lengthy passage in which I said nothing of Van Dyke Parks, and since you do not provide an example of my speculations, I am curious what you believe my speculation to be?

Because you're bringing VDP's supposed anti-transcontinentalism to your analysis of SMiLE. For myself, I didnt think twice about Wordsworth being quoted on the album. For you, it's a major point of contention because the collaborator supposedly didnt want to incorporate anything British into his work. You said this: "Okay, but to be honest, this just speaks to our differences in approach because I'm not particularly interested in speculating as to why Hitchcock uses lots of green. From a scholarly perspective, the artist's intention really doesn't matter - what matters is what the text does (this by the way is important because it is in moving from artist's intention to what the text does where we go from speculative to analytical)."

So I was bringing up the fact that *you* and not I, seem to be focusing on the artist's intent and not what the music/lyrics themselves do. Who cares whether it's British or American in origin? The quote is very thought-provoking. I think it's the best actual title on the whole album--it certainly got my attention. Even without verse lyrics, the chorus/title are so strong that it already got my mind racing on what the meaning could be, and it works great either with the other life/innocence tracks or as a part of some greater Americana theme that bridges the album together. The fact that it's British when much other references are strictly American is worth bringing up but all the same I dont see why it's worth focusing on, much less saying CIFOTM doesnt belong on the album. Again, it's very easy to attribute a meaning to this--it reflects a British perspective on America. The Child has surpassed the Man. Britain was now the lesser power and largely dependent on American might for protection in the Cold War when previously England has the largest empire in the world and America was but an offshoot of that. This is a very simple interpretation that doesnt require too much thought, research or forced reaching into VDP's political views. It's there, it works, and the track itself could have possibly been the best song on the album had it been finished. End of story.

Nothing that I have said constitutes speculation on any level. I have noted 3 facts:

Fact 1: Van Dyke Parks opposes transcontinentalism (this is not "supposed" as you falsely attribute it - it's a fact)
Fact 2: Van Dyke Parks opposes cultural appropriation
Fact 3: There is a song on Smile with the same title as a British poem

And my conclusion (not "analysis" as you put it -- what these terms mean is crucial) is that these facts are contradictory. Now, if you can explain to me how this, on any level, represents a speculation, please let me know.


Well, again, in spite of what you say above, I'm not attempting to make an analysis here. That being said, my main point is not to say anything about the artist's intention on Smile. I did devote one sentence to the subject when I stated that the lyrics on Smile belong to a particular literary tradition and that this serves to reaffirm Parks's self-positioning as a kind of postcolonial American author. But I only started talking about that after you began questioning the facts that I brought up above and it is certainly not my main point nor is it my focus. One need know nothing about Van Dyke Parks's intentions in order to come to the conclusions I have. I don't believe it's particularly useful or at all interesting to figure out what Van Dyke Parks was intending with Smile or certain songs (as you have done repeatedly with your assumptions about what Child could have been about), that does not mean I am not interested in the things that Van Dyke Parks has to say. In other words, it would be interesting if Hitchcock made some claim about never wanting to make a film about psychopaths and then directed Psycho but that does not necessarily mean that I would do a reading of Psycho to come to some conclusions about what Hitchcock was intending with the film. Again, the distinction here is crucial.


In this case, I do. You might as well ask Van Dyke Parks why he cares so much that Mick Jagger and Eric Clapton played their version of blues music.


I agree. I'm not sure what your point here is though.


You are now conflating the statements made by two different posters. I've certainly never suggested that the song doesn't belong on the album.


You call this interpretation but it's not - it's a groundless assumption based on exactly zero evidence.

Ok again, it feels like you're splitting hairs here. Analysis...conclusion...the conclusion of your analysis...whatever. And again, you're ignoring the fact that this wasnt VDP's album, this was BRIAN'S album first and foremost. Even VDP says he was just a hired hand. I know its not a bastion of journalistic integrity but if we believe the wiki article, Brian came up with the title/reference. Again, the fact that there's this lone reference to English literature is worth noting but not this all-important point of contention I think.


What's the point of talking about the album at all if we're just gonna trade factoids and not discuss them (be it speculation, analysis, conclusions or whatever) in any way? This is art, our two artists clearly had high, grandiose intentions about it. Im sorry you dont think thats interesting or useful but I do. I guess Im the opposite as you. Sticking with Vertigo, I see the film itself as very inviting of various interpretations. I find new conclusions to draw literally every time I watch it, and my understanding of it has aged and gotten more complex as I myself have grown and gotten more worldly. I think *that* is interesting. How art grows with you, means something new not only to every person but to every new listen/viewing. I myself wouldnt find it particularly useful if Hitchcock was a liberal or believer in aryan supremacy or anti-transcontinental or anything. I might use that info to look for new hidden messages in the film for curiosity's sake but ultimately my own unique interpretation is what it is and is just as valid.

Honestly I really dont understand what you're trying to say. Maybe these distinctions are crucial to you but Im not picking up your meaning.


But again, I thought you didnt care about the artist's intent? I dont know, on the one hand you're saying you're interested in what the author has to say but then you're saying its irrelevant. I feel like we're going in circles, both of us :lol


Because for Brian at least, I think that was the primary endgame. If you're to be believed, for VDP it was primarily about asserting a distinctly American message. But you keep forgetting this was Brian's show and ultimately he who called the shots. I think he wanted to express a lot of different ideas and concepts on this album. Religion, nature (the elements), astrology, zen riddles, and this quote really struck a chord with him at the time, made him think, and he wanted to do something with it on this album. You're continuously ignoring Brian's role in all this. VDP's perspective and intentions are certainly important to take note of (or...arent they? what did we decide on, I seriously have lost track) but Brian's would have taken precedence and I dont think his were as narrow in subject matter as that.

You know what? Im skipping the conclusion, analysis, speculation and going full-tinfoil. VDP walked off the project in protest to the use of this British poetry in his Americana-rama. You heard it here first.


I didnt mean to accuse you of saying that. I referred to MrV by name earlier.

[/quote]

Umm, no. Thats my personal interpretation of this song. Assumption? Isnt all artistic interpretation an assumption by this definition? Zero evidence? Im working that quote into the greater theme of Americana and specifically the lyrics of the two songs CIFOTM is almost always placed between. I mean...how much evidence do I really need before my assumption is granted the rank of interpretation? Do I need a signed letter by VDP and Brian? Or wait...did we agree that the artist's intent/views dont matter? Ive honestly lost track by this point and am not even sure what we're talking about anymore.

Why dont you give me a clear cut definition as you see it of conclusions vs interpretations vs analyses vs speculations. A clear set of rules for applying outside quotes/intent of the artist? Cuz Im not sure what you expect of me. Are we just stating facts and leaving it at that? Well, maybe thats all youd care to do but for myself I enjoy analysis/speculation if you dont. So if thats the case, why not accept that and lets move on.

I never made an analysis of SMiLE. SMiLE is an unfinished album -- I made reference to one song. And I wasn't even doing an analysis of that song. I was saying how the title was at odds with Van Dyke's statement.


No. It's neither a major nor minor point of contention. And I have never said that Parks "didn't want to incorporate anything British into his work." Obviously he did want to, or else we wouldn't have the title. And as I noted in my first post on the subject, Parks has delved outside of the continent elsewhere. His first record has Donovan cover on it. So I'm curious how Parks might explain the dichotomy - or perhaps even explain how one form of cultural appropriation is seemingly unacceptable while another isn't. Or, for that matter, how does he square his past comments about The Beatles with his contemporary work with Ringo? I suppose I could have used any of these examples, but we happen to be in the Child Is the Father of the Man thread.


These are different terms and the difference is crucial, not splitting hairs.


I've never ignored this. Check out this quote of mine from earlier in the discussion:



Yes, and this is a point with which I raised above when I suggested that "this just speaks to our differences in approach." Again, lumping in speculation with analysis is a mistake. To me, if a work is eliciting speculation then it is not really a great piece of art. It may be very entertaining - like I suggested in other posts, a mystery novel, a TV show like Lost or The Twilight Zone, maybe a Hitchcock film might count. I like all of these things but high art they are not. And I agree there is an element of Smile that appeals to people who go in for stuff like that - people like reconstructing what they speculate could have been the final track order in the 60s, etc. I have done all of this too but I don't particularly find it serious. Like I said, it's great fodder for message boards, and I wouldn't be here if I didn't like fodder, but it's not exactly something that's going on in music departments. Again, I'm not putting a value on this really -- I think both have a value and I enjoy both. I have never said we should avoid analyzing the album and, in fact, in this thread I gave several examples of what I think might make for an excellent analysis of the material. And speculation is great fun but I'm just not sure I see it working in terms of the issue that I raised.


Absolutely - couldn't agree with you more.


Because again, these terms have meanings. Artist's intent has nothing to do with an artist's opinions. The long form of artist's intent is "what were the artist's intentions when making this piece of art." That's different from asking, "I wonder what this artist's opinions were on such and such issue." You make the excellent point above that when watching Vertigo what's important is your interpretation. I agree and so would most scholars. You don't watch Vertigo to try and figure out what Hitchcock was trying to achieve - you watch Vertigo and you realize it has a certain effect on you and has certain meanings to you whether Hitchcock meant it or not. So an analysis of Vertigo would be to examine what kind of work the film is doing, not what kind of thing Hitchcock had in mind (the latter is for film historians not film analysts). That being said, if Hitchcock ever made statements that appeared to be in opposition to his actions, it might be worth talking about.


I haven't forgotten Brian's perspective. I just haven't foregrounded it for this particular discussion. Like I noted above, I was quite willing to drop this entirely with the point that Brian could have been the one to come up with the title. At a certain point in the thread I became interested in other parts of the discussion.


No, it's not and I think to some degree you are misunderstanding what an interpretation is. Here, you're telling me what the song could have been about if it had lyrics. An interpretation of the song would be looking at the lyrics and telling me what it means (or, for that matter, listening to the music and telling me what it means, but you have not done that here either) We have no lyrics. We do have a title. An interpretation of the title could lead to several possibilities:

1. The reproduction and cycle of humanity.
2. A man learns more from his child than a child learns from his or her father
3. A man's knowledge is build in his childhood

Outside of those three options, I'm not sure I can think of other interpretations though there may be a few more. But that's what an interpretation is. You are essentially looking at something and answering the question, "what does this mean?" On a more basic level, an interpretation of Back to the Future could be:

1. The story of a kid trying to get back home after travelling to the past
2. The story of a kid who goes back in time to make sure his parents get together
3. The story of a kid who goes back in time to teach his father how to be brave
4. The differences in two time periods

And so on. But with all this you can see how the phrase "Child is the Father of the Man" does not mean that Britain became more dependant on America. Maybe if the song had lyrics, there might be something there that could lead one to make such an interpretation but the title alone does not allow for that.


No. What am I assuming when I interpret the phrase "Child is the Father of the Man" to mean "a man learns more from his child than a child learns from his or her father"?


One doesn't need evidence to make an interpretation.


Conclusion: Something you reach after making an observation or a series of observations. One can reach a conclusion after taking a sip of tea, and one can reach a conclusion after performing an analysis.
Interpretation: What you think something means
Analysis: Given what a piece of art means, what you argue that piece of art doing in meaning that.
Speculation: Filling in an absence or lack with your guess

And again, to illustrate the difference between interpretation and speculation here given these definitions:

Interpretation: Lost is about a group of people trying to find their way back home and they seem to be building to revealing a big mystery.
Speculation: They're all on a spaceship.

What I was basically looking for from you was more of this interesting discussion on speculation vs. analysis. As far as my Van Dyke Parks point, I would be interested in seeing how other people read his comment about transcontinentalism or how might cultural appropriation be appropriate under some circumstances but not others, or if people have read more or talked more to VDP to genuinely understand his stance on this issue, etc. There's quite a bit to discuss on that front I think.

Well, Ive long since lost the plot as well as interest in this back and forth (no offense to you personally) so Im just gonna respond specifically to a few points and otherwise agree to disagree and move on. In any case, I agree theres a discussion to be had about VDP's apparent inconsistency on transcontinentalism. Someone specifically invested in this ought to ask him about it. Dont reference SMiLE specifically and you might just make his day by doing so.

Anyway, I just want to say I dont think it's fair to dismiss my reading of CIFOTM as "not really an interpretation" just because Im trying to reconcile it with the lyrics/themes of the rest of the album. This wasnt your typical pre-66 rock album where the songs were all separate. The songs on SMiLE are very interconnected and this is provable not just with knowledge of the recording process (like how Worms and Cabin briefly exchanged choruses, Heroes stole Worms chorus, etc) but just listening to the music itself without any preconceived notions. So taking in Wonderful and Surfs Up (mostly) as well as the rest of the album into my understanding (or speculation or w/e) of CIFOTM is totally within reason. At least it is to me.

"Fact 1: Van Dyke Parks opposes transcontinentalism (this is not "supposed" as you falsely attribute it - it's a fact)
Fact 2: Van Dyke Parks opposes cultural appropriation
Fact 3: There is a song on Smile with the same title as a British poem"

Here's an "alternative" fact - I remember reading that Brian came up with the title from a book he was reading by Karl Menninger.  Van Dyke told him that the phrase originated with the Wordsworth poem, which Brian was unaware of.   So if the title was a Brian idea, Van Dyke's pro American and anti cultural appropriation stance doesn't really come into play.

Just some thoughts about this track since I've started tinkering/mixing/etc with Smile for the millionth time a few weeks ago.

More and more I believe that the version that best works for me follows the BWPS template for the major part. That is, starting with the 'verse'. It just seems the right, mystical atmosphere, without giving it all away (that's what starting straight with the chorus does for me).

Moreover, starting with a verse rather than the 'bridge' makes room for including the verse more than once, like the old acetates do as does the 2011 mix. It's just too good a piece of music to hear just once... And it makes for a cohesive, clear structure like most of the old Smile material has, with a clear verse, chorus and bridge section. Verse/chorus/verse/chorus gives the track a more complete feel, more of a song, than just fragments (all to my ears of course).

Then: the bridge, as a pause in the song, time to overthink what happened in the minute and a half before.

How to end the song? Well, just listen to virtual all the vintage edits: one more chorus. Or, half a chorus like the vintage instrumental edit. Whatever you may choose though, I think it would have ended with a fade-out.

I came across some forum post that made this point again: most of Brian's songs end with a fade. Smile material included. It makes the songs go on forever, it completes them once and for all.

Furthermore, the last bass/cello tone of the chorus just doesn't seem to be recorded as a 'hard finish'...way too 'casual' I feel. It rings out in the 1966 instr test edit, but there's talking going on, so chances are it would have been a short fade out like Good Vibrations. A short repetition of the main part of the song, a reminder for the listener.

So, all 'revelations' put together, what I think is both historically and musically a very satisfying edit of this personal favourite song:

Verse/chorus/verse/chorus/bridge/(half-)chorus/FADE.

Just wanted it to share with some of you who might still be reading these threads.

PS: this 'fade-out' thing made me turn down the volume of the last notes of Wonderful as well. The bass notes are brought forward in the 2011 mix, with echo and all, but  in all seriousness, it would have been a strange ending to the song. In my opinion it would have been a short fade out, just making it to end of the last backing vocals (won-won, won-won...). Much more likely and musically 'logical', I think.

Your perspectives on fade outs here has blown my mind as such an obvious and useful piece of the smile puzzle. I recently made an edit of CITFOTM using this acetate for the non vocal sections to get that vintage mix (that distant piano is essential to me), and this fade will complete it beautifully. I'd love to hear the exact timings you've used on both this and Wonderful.

This mix choice is essentially the same as Brian's mono instrumental mix from 1966, except you take out the chorus that starts off the song and you fade rather than have a cold ending.  It's important to note that Brian chose to have a cold ending rather than a fade, but of course we can't know what he would have done with the end after adding vocals and doing the final mix.

Listened to this and I agree with the vocals, but the conflicting piano must be phased out somehow.  Hope this idea spreads to fanmixers everywhere