Hawaiian chants in Roll Plymouth Rock?

[Sheriff John Stone]

I was listening to BWPS (sorry, lost my head again) and I need another interpretation. "In Blue Hawaii".....

OK, is it about finally reaching Hawaii or something? I'm assuming it is. But, when Brian sings, "Aloha nui means goodbye", does that mean he's leaving already?

[Dove Nested Towers]

One of my chief frustrations with the hoo-hah around BWPS was the lack of serious scholarly examination of the original project.

While sometimes I can be as into "serious" examination as the next Smiley Smiler, other times I wish there weren't such examination of Smile or any other records. It can be interesting to dissect pop, but for me sometimes it also just steals the fun out of the whole experience. Pop isn't intended to have--or be--homework. (Cecil Taylor disagrees with me here. Van Dyke Parks might, too. But I suspect Brian Wilson, were he coherent, would agree.)

No disrespect intended, Luther, but I don't think that it has to seem like "homework" and ruin one's
enjoyment of the album to engage in the (admittedly frustrating and inadequately addressed by those involved) intellectual exercise of attempting to dissect the meaning or layers thereof behind a
symbolically rich offering such as our beloved (or indifferently regarded or even reviled, by the minority here) Dumb Angel.

It would surely be among  the most fertile subject for a truly ambitious attempt at a comprehensive
book or other documentary of any single project or period in any band's history, if the principals, chief-
ly Mr. Parks, were sufficiently inspired/mentally present and/or unscarred/financially, historically or otherwise compelled to participate.

Brian has miraculously been able to embrace, perform and internally recontextualize the actual music
itself, given a sufficiently supportive and enthusiastic family and band environment and fan reaction, but not with-
out significant difficulty and courage, and the contemporary experiences and anecdotal memories themselves he is
and always has been both unwilling and now is probably incapable of being a source of (unfair to ask
of him also).

It's a shame that Van Dyke has not been more forthcoming, in his inimitably articulate style, but it's at
least partially out of respect for Brian's wishes, as well as his own painful associations with the abort-
ed project, and they would both obviously have to give it the thumbs-up, have the utmost confidence
and rapport with the author-interviewer-editor, and, in Mr. Parks' case, participate in revealing and
expansive new interrogations in order for other peripheral but vital participants/witnesses to feel
comfortable in signing on.

This is a VERY improbable but not necessarily inconceivable set of circumstances, in my humble, idea-
listic view. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

JCarson's posts are very interesting (or tedious, subjectively speaking, as is this one). There was of
course a movement in the late 60's, which is now further metastasizing and morphing in this genera-
tion, to peel back the layers of entitlement, manifest destiny and the like to expose the hypocrisy and
fallacy of land and property ownership, seen from this perspective as outright theft of Native American
land, and the need to first somewhat clearly, if lyrically obliquely, expose and acknowledge these acts
as a prelude to them being somehow revised or repealed (a difficult proposition) sounds like a plausi-
ble explanation for the "can of worms" visual, and overall intent of the westward expansion/"American
gothic trip"/Western European exploitative Bicycle card deck-Rider portion of the original 3 part SMiLE concept.

I wonder, though, just how fully fleshed-out the whole symbolic structure was in their own minds by
the time that the quicksilver creative inspiration and stillborn composition and recording period had come and gone.

Thanks, everyone, for tolerating my self-indulgent ramblings. I hope they have had at least some merit and those who have read this don't feel that they have totally misspent a chunk of their
precious time.

 

[JCarson]

JCarson's posts are very interesting (or tedious, subjectively speaking, as is this one). There was of
course a movement in the late 60's, which is now further metastasizing and morphing in this genera-
tion, to peel back the layers of entitlement, manifest destiny and the like to expose the hypocrisy and
fallacy of land and property ownership, seen from this perspective as outright theft of Native American
land, and the need to first somewhat clearly, if lyrically obliquely, expose and acknowledge these acts
as a prelude to them being somehow revised or repealed (a difficult proposition) sounds like a plausi-
ble explanation for the "can of worms" visual, and overall intent of the westward expansion/"American
gothic trip"/Western European exploitative Bicycle card deck-Rider portion of the original 3 part SMiLE concept...

Thanks, everyone, for tolerating my self-indulgent ramblings. I hope they have had at least some merit and those who have read this don't feel that they have totally misspent a chunk of their
precious time.

 

Err... okay, so did you dislike what I said or how I said it? I guess you're making a point.

[Dove Nested Towers]

JCarson's posts are very interesting (or tedious, subjectively speaking, as is this one). There was of
course a movement in the late 60's, which is now further metastasizing and morphing in this genera-
tion, to peel back the layers of entitlement, manifest destiny and the like to expose the hypocrisy and
fallacy of land and property ownership, seen from this perspective as outright theft of Native American
land, and the need to first somewhat clearly, if lyrically obliquely, expose and acknowledge these acts
as a prelude to them being somehow revised or repealed (a difficult proposition) sounds like a plausi-
ble explanation for the "can of worms" visual, and overall intent of the westward expansion/"American
gothic trip"/Western European exploitative Bicycle card deck-Rider portion of the original 3 part SMiLE concept...

Thanks, everyone, for tolerating my self-indulgent ramblings. I hope they have had at least some merit and those who have read this don't feel that they have totally misspent a chunk of their
precious time.

 

Err... okay, so did you dislike what I said or how I said it? I guess you're making a point.

I LIKED what you said AND how you said it. Sorry, I just meant that some might find both
my post and yours to be overly analytical and hard to take. I meant no offense and should
probably just speak for myself in future.

I think SMiLE fans should feel free to take this line of thought and analysis as far as we can, in the
absence of first-hand clarification. Really, no offense meant, quite the opposite actually.

[Sheriff John Stone]

No disrespect intended, Luther, but I don't think that it has to seem like "homework" and ruin one's
enjoyment of the album to engage in the (admittedly frustrating and inadequately addressed by those involved) intellectual exercise of attempting to dissect the meaning or layers thereof behind a
symbolically rich offering such as our beloved (or indifferently regarded or even reviled, by the minority here) Dumb Angel.

It would surely be among  the most fertile subject for a truly ambitious attempt at a comprehensive
book or other documentary of any single project or period in any band's history, if the principals, chief-
ly Mr. Parks, were sufficiently inspired/mentally present and/or unscarred/financially, historically or otherwise compelled to participate.

Brian has miraculously been able to embrace, perform and internally recontextualize the actual music
itself, given a sufficiently supportive and enthusiastic family and band environment and fan reaction, but not with-
out significant difficulty and courage, and the contemporary experiences and anecdotal memories themselves he is
and always has been both unwilling and now is probably incapable of being a source of (unfair to ask
of him also).

It's a shame that Van Dyke has not been more forthcoming, in his inimitably articulate style, but it's at
least partially out of respect for Brian's wishes, as well as his own painful associations with the abort-
ed project, and they would both obviously have to give it the thumbs-up, have the utmost confidence
and rapport with the author-interviewer-editor, and, in Mr. Parks' case, participate in revealing and
expansive new interrogations in order for other peripheral but vital participants/witnesses to feel
comfortable in signing on.

This is a VERY improbable but not necessarily inconceivable set of circumstances, in my humble, idea-
listic view. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

JCarson's posts are very interesting (or tedious, subjectively speaking, as is this one). There was of
course a movement in the late 60's, which is now further metastasizing and morphing in this genera-
tion, to peel back the layers of entitlement, manifest destiny and the like to expose the hypocrisy and
fallacy of land and property ownership, seen from this perspective as outright theft of Native American
land, and the need to first somewhat clearly, if lyrically obliquely, expose and acknowledge these acts
as a prelude to them being somehow revised or repealed (a difficult proposition) sounds like a plausi-
ble explanation for the "can of worms" visual, and overall intent of the westward expansion/"American
gothic trip"/Western European exploitative Bicycle card deck-Rider portion of the original 3 part SMiLE concept.

I wonder, though, just how fully fleshed-out the whole symbolic structure was in their own minds by
the time that the quicksilver creative inspiration and stillborn composition and recording period had come and gone.

Thanks, everyone, for tolerating my self-indulgent ramblings. I hope they have had at least some merit and those who have read this don't feel that they have totally misspent a chunk of their
precious time.

Muted, please mail a certified or registered copy of the above post to Brian Douglas Wilson and Van Dyke Parks, return receipt requested.

Also, could somebody tell me, when Brian sings, "Aloha nui means goodbye" in "Blue Hawaii", does that mean he's leaving Hawaii? He just got there!

[Chris Moise]

After all of these years, decades actually, I still find it hard to believe, in my opinion unfair (but I'll never win THAT argument), that we, the fans, can't ask Brian or Van Dyke a simple question about SMiLE, and get a straight answer.

Amen brother! What blows me away is that after all of the '04 Smile hoopela we *still* don't know if Van Dyke wrote lyrics for the Child verses in 1966, we still don't know what Great Shape was, and we don't know if Look/I Ran had lyrics in 1966. I can't beleive that after the album, documentary and dozens of interviews we stil don't know those things.

[Dove Nested Towers]

No disrespect intended, Luther, but I don't think that it has to seem like "homework" and ruin one's
enjoyment of the album to engage in the (admittedly frustrating and inadequately addressed by those involved) intellectual exercise of attempting to dissect the meaning or layers thereof behind a
symbolically rich offering such as our beloved (or indifferently regarded or even reviled, by the minority here) Dumb Angel.

It would surely be among  the most fertile subject for a truly ambitious attempt at a comprehensive
book or other documentary of any single project or period in any band's history, if the principals, chief-
ly Mr. Parks, were sufficiently inspired/mentally present and/or unscarred/financially, historically or otherwise compelled to participate.

Brian has miraculously been able to embrace, perform and internally recontextualize the actual music
itself, given a sufficiently supportive and enthusiastic family and band environment and fan reaction, but not with-
out significant difficulty and courage, and the contemporary experiences and anecdotal memories themselves he is
and always has been both unwilling and now is probably incapable of being a source of (unfair to ask
of him also).

It's a shame that Van Dyke has not been more forthcoming, in his inimitably articulate style, but it's at
least partially out of respect for Brian's wishes, as well as his own painful associations with the abort-
ed project, and they would both obviously have to give it the thumbs-up, have the utmost confidence
and rapport with the author-interviewer-editor, and, in Mr. Parks' case, participate in revealing and
expansive new interrogations in order for other peripheral but vital participants/witnesses to feel
comfortable in signing on.

This is a VERY improbable but not necessarily inconceivable set of circumstances, in my humble, idea-
listic view. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

JCarson's posts are very interesting (or tedious, subjectively speaking, as is this one). There was of
course a movement in the late 60's, which is now further metastasizing and morphing in this genera-
tion, to peel back the layers of entitlement, manifest destiny and the like to expose the hypocrisy and
fallacy of land and property ownership, seen from this perspective as outright theft of Native American
land, and the need to first somewhat clearly, if lyrically obliquely, expose and acknowledge these acts
as a prelude to them being somehow revised or repealed (a difficult proposition) sounds like a plausi-
ble explanation for the "can of worms" visual, and overall intent of the westward expansion/"American
gothic trip"/Western European exploitative Bicycle card deck-Rider portion of the original 3 part SMiLE concept.

I wonder, though, just how fully fleshed-out the whole symbolic structure was in their own minds by
the time that the quicksilver creative inspiration and stillborn composition and recording period had come and gone.

Thanks, everyone, for tolerating my self-indulgent ramblings. I hope they have had at least some merit and those who have read this don't feel that they have totally misspent a chunk of their
precious time.

Muted, please mail a certified or registered copy of the above post to Brian Douglas Wilson and Van Dyke Parks, return receipt requested.

Also, could somebody tell me, when Brian sings, "Aloha nui means goodbye" in "Blue Hawaii", does that mean he's leaving Hawaii? He just got there!

Thanks for the support, Sheriff! I don't know the answer to your question but I'd bet that it was just
a random hawaiian expression that happened to fit the meter and syllabic needs of the melodic
phrase, or maybe, to go for a deep symbolic interpretation, it signifies saying "goodbye" to the
traditional Hawaiian culture that was supposedly overwhelmed by westward expansion. How's that
for a theory in the absence of input from the source, Mr. Parks? A more thorough explanation from
him about the whole shebang would be REALLY appreciated, without a doubt!

[Jay]

I must say that this is one of the most entertaining, thought provoking discussion's of SMiLE that I've ever read. One question though. Do you think that it's possible that discussion's like these are the very reason that Van Dyke has not really talked much about it? The SMiLE story is kind of like some big conspiracy. We start to ask to many questions, and sooner or later we might accidentally find an answer or two. Melinda wouldn't want that.   

[Mr. Cohen]

I wonder about some of the less discusses SMiLE lyrics, as well. For example, "Barnyard". The first verse is fairly direct and self-explanatory. "The chickens drew their number...", though, could mean a few things. A "number" could refer to  "a tune or arrangement for singing or dancing/ a song" or "a single or distinct performance within a show, as a song or dance". They're drawing a song or performance , within the canvased town and its brushed backdrop, where our doodle lives (remember the line "what a dude'll/doodle do in town full of heroes and villains"?, which also references the phrase "c*ck a doodle do"). Or, I imagine that the chickens could be numbered for slaughter, and thy're picking their numbers to wait in line. The cook, after all, is chopping lumber for dinner. But what about the second verse?

"Jump in the pigpen,
next time I'll take my shoes off
hit the dirt, do two and a half
next time I'll leave my hat on"

What exactly does that mean? "Do two and a half" of what? Some relate this to how much acid Brian took on his mystical trip (didn't he say he took 250 micrograms of acid, which is 2.5 mg, or perhaps 2 and 1/2 hits?). The references to shoes and hats could mean a lot of things. First, we'll look at the reference to hats, by relating them to a couple of popular phrases:

To throw or toss one's hat in or into the ring: to become a participant in a contest, esp. to declare one's candidacy for political office. Perhaps next time the narrator will not throw his hat into the pigpen, meaning that he doesn't want to be a participant.
Under one's hat: confidential; private; secret. The narrator doesn't want to take his hat off and reveal his secrets.
Hat in hand: humbly; respectfully. He went into the pigpen without his hat on, perhaps meaning humbly so with hat in hand?
Take off one's hat to: to express high regard for; praise. By taking his hat off, he was praising the pigpen.

Perhaps the pigpen represents Brian's acid trip, or simply, just returning to nature and country life. Or both? "Hit the dirt" implies that the narrator got down and dirty, perhaps rolling around with pigs (did he roll two and a half times?).

Now, for the shoes:

Fill someone's shoes: to take the place and assume the obligations of another person.
In someone's shoes: in a position or situation similar to that of another: I wouldn't like to be in his shoes. Could it be that the narrator is taking of his shoes so we can take a walk in his shoes ourselves and experience what he experienced?
Drop the other shoe: to complete an action or enterprise already begun. By dropping his shoes for us to walk in, the narrator has made it clear that he is now enlightened, his spiritual journey complete, and we can now join him.
Where the shoe pinches: the true cause of the trouble or worry. Maybe the narrator's shoes were pinching his feet, and he is going to drop his troubles and worries. By taking his shoes off, his feet can really feel the dirt and earth below.

Now, I realize that some of these conjectures may be wildly off the mark, but I'm just shooting in the dark and hoping I'll hit something. "Barnyard" truly is a mysterious song when you really try to analyze it. I doubt Van Dyke thought of all of those phrases when he wrote the song, at least directly. He just knew phrases of the sort existed, probably, and that referencing to shoes and hats would lead to interesting literary allusions.

[The Shift]

I wonder about some of the less discusses SMiLE lyrics, as well. For example, "Barnyard". The first verse is fairly direct and self-explanatory. "The chickens drew their number...", though, could mean a few things. A "number" could refer to  "a tune or arrangement for singing or dancing/ a song" or "a single or distinct performance within a show, as a song or dance". They're drawing a song or performance , within the canvased town and its brushed backdrop, where our doodle lives (remember the line "what a dude'll/doodle do in town full of heroes and villains"?, which also references the phrase "c*ck a doodle do"). Or, I imagine that the chickens could be numbered for slaughter, and thy're picking their numbers to wait in line. The cook, after all, is chopping lumber for dinner. But what about the second verse?

"Jump in the pigpen,
next time I'll take my shoes off
hit the dirt, do two and a half
next time I'll leave my hat on"

What exactly does that mean? "Do two and a half" of what? Some relate this to how much acid Brian took on his mystical trip (didn't he say he took 250 micrograms of acid, which is 2.5 mg, or perhaps 2 and 1/2 hits?). The references to shoes and hats could mean a lot of things. First, we'll look at the reference to hats, by relating them to a couple of popular phrases:

To throw or toss one's hat in or into the ring: to become a participant in a contest, esp. to declare one's candidacy for political office. Perhaps next time the narrator will not throw his hat into the pigpen, meaning that he doesn't want to be a participant.
Under one's hat: confidential; private; secret. The narrator doesn't want to take his hat off and reveal his secrets.
Hat in hand: humbly; respectfully. He went into the pigpen without his hat on, perhaps meaning humbly so with hat in hand?
Take off one's hat to: to express high regard for; praise. By taking his hat off, he was praising the pigpen.

Perhaps the pigpen represents Brian's acid trip, or simply, just returning to nature and country life. Or both? "Hit the dirt" implies that the narrator got down and dirty, perhaps rolling around with pigs (did he roll two and a half times?).

Now, for the shoes:

Fill someone's shoes: to take the place and assume the obligations of another person.
In someone's shoes: in a position or situation similar to that of another: I wouldn't like to be in his shoes. Could it be that the narrator is taking of his shoes so we can take a walk in his shoes ourselves and experience what he experienced?
Drop the other shoe: to complete an action or enterprise already begun. By dropping his shoes for us to walk in, the narrator has made it clear that he is now enlightened, his spiritual journey complete, and we can now join him.
Where the shoe pinches: the true cause of the trouble or worry. Maybe the narrator's shoes were pinching his feet, and he is going to drop his troubles and worries. By taking his shoes off, his feet can really feel the dirt and earth below.

Now, I realize that some of these conjectures may be wildly off the mark, but I'm just shooting in the dark and hoping I'll hit something. "Barnyard" truly is a mysterious song when you really try to analyze it. I doubt Van Dyke thought of all of those phrases when he wrote the song, at least directly. He just knew phrases of the sort existed, probably, and that referencing to shoes and hats would lead to interesting literary allusions.

Wow. I've always come at this from a somewhat different angle.

First, I always heard it as "chickens do their number" - as in the chickens are performing a dance.  Which is just what I picture happening when I hear the slower paced, plucked strings version of False Barnyard on the SoT boot. There has to be a link there, I reckon.

The other verse I always took in-part to be Brian making lyrics up on the spot to indicate the melody, and the VDP would be tasked with some real lyrics later. Or maybe Brian just forgot most of the lyrics during that run-through. I like the "pig-pen" line, and the "hit the dirt" line, but the hat and shoes are ill-fitting nonsense to my ears.

"Hit the dirt, do two and a half": I assumed that was drop to the floor and do two-and-a-half push-ups. After which, I guess, if you did it regularly enough, you could claim "I'm in great shape".

Maybe he's decided to take his shoes off next time he jumps in the pig pen so he doesn't get them covered in pig sh*t again... I know I would!

[Bill Tobelman]

I really like how folks are mentioning that Brain's & Van Dyke's SMiLE "answers" to SMiLE questions don't seem to really answer our questions. I think they are complicit in this process.

On David Leaf's CD Brian & Van Dyke discuss "Surf's Up." Van Dyke asks Brian "what were you thinking?" when writing "Surf's Up." Brian answers that there was "a lot of love" going around at that time. Got it folks?

When Mike Love asked Brian & Van Dyke about the SMiLE lyrics in 66-67 he basically recieved a non answer. The Vosse Posse doesn't seem to have any illuminating SMiLE observations. And David Leaf is no SMiLE visionary.

One thing I really like is how Brian was hauled off to the hospital prior to the BWPS first performance. It may have been on the Charlie Rose tv show but Brian blamed the LSD still left in his brain as the culprit behind the hospital visit. Hmmmmm. SMiLE & LSD.

In the American Band video (I think it's in Brian's voice) Brian says "I took the LSD and it tore my head off." Maybe that's why he'll "keep his hat on" next time in Barnyard.

[runnersdialzero]

I always thought, "Hit the dirt doing two and a half," meant he was running and jumping into the pig pen. As in, when a cop pulls you over, he says, "I caught you doing sixty-seven back there." So you're running and jumping into the pig pen at two and a half miles per hour.

Or is that just ridiculously stupid? I'd never questioned it until now.

[Andrew G. Doe]

"do a two & a half" means two and a half forward rolls.

[Dove Nested Towers]

I wonder about some of the less discusses SMiLE lyrics, as well. For example, "Barnyard". The first verse is fairly direct and self-explanatory. "The chickens drew their number...", though, could mean a few things. A "number" could refer to  "a tune or arrangement for singing or dancing/ a song" or "a single or distinct performance within a show, as a song or dance". They're drawing a song or performance , within the canvased town and its brushed backdrop, where our doodle lives (remember the line "what a dude'll/doodle do in town full of heroes and villains"?, which also references the phrase "c*ck a doodle do"). Or, I imagine that the chickens could be numbered for slaughter, and thy're picking their numbers to wait in line. The cook, after all, is chopping lumber for dinner. But what about the second verse?

"Jump in the pigpen,
next time I'll take my shoes off
hit the dirt, do two and a half
next time I'll leave my hat on"

What exactly does that mean? "Do two and a half" of what? Some relate this to how much acid Brian took on his mystical trip (didn't he say he took 250 micrograms of acid, which is 2.5 mg, or perhaps 2 and 1/2 hits?). The references to shoes and hats could mean a lot of things. First, we'll look at the reference to hats, by relating them to a couple of popular phrases:

To throw or toss one's hat in or into the ring: to become a participant in a contest, esp. to declare one's candidacy for political office. Perhaps next time the narrator will not throw his hat into the pigpen, meaning that he doesn't want to be a participant.
Under one's hat: confidential; private; secret. The narrator doesn't want to take his hat off and reveal his secrets.
Hat in hand: humbly; respectfully. He went into the pigpen without his hat on, perhaps meaning humbly so with hat in hand?
Take off one's hat to: to express high regard for; praise. By taking his hat off, he was praising the pigpen.

Perhaps the pigpen represents Brian's acid trip, or simply, just returning to nature and country life. Or both? "Hit the dirt" implies that the narrator got down and dirty, perhaps rolling around with pigs (did he roll two and a half times?).

Now, for the shoes:

Fill someone's shoes: to take the place and assume the obligations of another person.
In someone's shoes: in a position or situation similar to that of another: I wouldn't like to be in his shoes. Could it be that the narrator is taking of his shoes so we can take a walk in his shoes ourselves and experience what he experienced?
Drop the other shoe: to complete an action or enterprise already begun. By dropping his shoes for us to walk in, the narrator has made it clear that he is now enlightened, his spiritual journey complete, and we can now join him.
Where the shoe pinches: the true cause of the trouble or worry. Maybe the narrator's shoes were pinching his feet, and he is going to drop his troubles and worries. By taking his shoes off, his feet can really feel the dirt and earth below.

Now, I realize that some of these conjectures may be wildly off the mark, but I'm just shooting in the dark and hoping I'll hit something. "Barnyard" truly is a mysterious song when you really try to analyze it. I doubt Van Dyke thought of all of those phrases when he wrote the song, at least directly. He just knew phrases of the sort existed, probably, and that referencing to shoes and hats would lead to interesting literary allusions.

Hey Dada, when I first started reading this I thought you were putting on everyone who gets
obsessive about the SMiLE lyrics, like Beatles "hidden significance" fanatics, but then realized that
you and subsequent posters were in earnest. Interesting stuff!

Van Dyke Parks certainly has nearly unlimited capacity for allusion and metaphor, but to me, the
Barnyard and I'm in Great Shape lyrics seem more hastily conceived and playfully, light-spiritedly composed than some other sections of the album, and may not lend themselves to too deep an attempt at interpretation. Could be totally wrong, of course.

I could see how Mr. Parks might feel besieged by the "conspiracy"-type intensity of the curiosity
about the lyrical thematic significance and it might add to any natural reluctance he has to discuss this
turbulent period in his creative life, which he must be ambivalent about, in addition to his loyalty to
Mr. Wilson and respect for his desire for discretion and not wanting to bring up disturbing memories
for him.

If only the same supportive family and musical environment that enabled Brian to courageously "face
the music" itself could also be sufficient for him to revisit, reframe and re-integrate the actual exper-
iences of that time in a completely new way which would heal and remove the traumatic, painful
associations they contain and allow him to discuss them in more depth, but again, he's given so much of himself to us already and that's selfish to ask, plus it's probably not therapeutically possible with such strong negative memories.

Perhaps someday when Van Dyke feels more free to expound, for various reasons, we'll get a more complete, even lyric-by-lyric, explanation.

Or not.

[Mr. Cohen]

Perhaps someday when Van Dyke feels more free to expound, for various reasons, we'll get a more complete, even lyric-by-lyric, explanation.

I don't think that'll ever happen. Did James Joyce ever go back and explain Ulysses? No, that's just not how literary types work. The air of mystery is purposeful. It allows the work to reveal not only some of the author's beliefs, but some of your own as well. Also, I'd agree that the lyrics to "Barnyard" were playful and off-the-cuff. However, I'm pretty sure Van Dyke, being the erudite young man he was, was aware of the possible allusions shoes and hats can have, and threw it out there for that purpose without really thinking about much more than that. Of course, he maybe didn't, but the rest of the lyrics on SMiLE hint towards such double meaning. Anyway, I just analyzed it such a drawn out manner because I wanted to bring to light all of the various thought processes that may have went through Van Dyke's head, even if just fleetingly, in his amphetamine and hash daze while writing "Barnyard".

[Bill Barnyard]

VDP has commented on some of the SMiLE tracks mentioned here. Back in 2004 post release of BWPS he gave quite a few interviews.

He did mention that he had never heard the track 'Holidays' until Darian played it for him. Darian himself was unsure that the lyrics for 'Child' that Van Dyke presented for BWPS were from 1966 or 2003. The general opinion is thst they were of the latter date. He has confirmed that he did write lyrics for 'Child' in 1966.

'Look', according to Brian (also in 2004) was originally an instrumental.

I cannot recall him saying anything about 'Da Da' etc.

 

[Bill Tobelman]

There are a few techniques that Brian & Van Dyke use to escape the nets of SMiLE questioners.

One way that Brian escapes is by avoiding lyrical questions altogether. And when asked to comment about a song Brian will add only musical insight.

Van Dyke often seems to answer in the micro or macro. The very specific lyrical references don't seem to add up, the lager generational generalities also don't seem to add clarity.

Another, more recent, technique is for Van Dyke to claim ALL lyrical responsibility---thus removing Brian from the "what does it mean?" line of questioning. Good one.

There's a great quote in the Priore book. Van Dyke says "it's as logical as it's ever going to get."

That means that it's up to us & others to figure it out (if that's possible). But that's largely not possible if one considers Brian's original intentions and inspirations for SMiLE.

Brian said it all was about two of his LSD trips & the resulting religious spiritual experience. That's where the answers primarily lie.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Yes, I'd love to have some of the SMiLE lyrics interpreted, which Van Dyke Parks could knock off in about a half an hour, but I'm more interested in some of Brian's 1966-67 ideas FOR THE MUSIC!

Specifically, what was the original intent for "Heroes And Villains", what was the "Barnyard Suite", what comprised "The Elements", and what was Brian's working sequence (assuming he had a rough one)? With the speed in which Brian talks, that would take about another half an hour to answer. Of course, I wouldn't want to send him over the edge with these emotionally troubling questions....

[Mr. Cohen]

Specifically, what was the original intent for "Heroes And Villains", what was the "Barnyard Suite", what comprised "The Elements", and what was Brian's working sequence (assuming he had a rough one)? With the speed in which Brian talks, that would take about another half an hour to answer. Of course, I wouldn't want to send him over the edge with these emotionally troubling questions....

Well, I have another dumb theory, being the resident Brian Wilson and Van Dyke Parks impersonator around here. My theory is that the cantina version of "H&V" reveals the songs original structure. The "in the cantina..." part replaces the "barnyard" section ("out in the barnyard..." to "in the cantina..."), and the "dum...dum...dum..." section with the distortion replaces "I'm in Great Shape" (I'm inferring this by how both end, with echoing distortion). Brian identified those as sections of "H&V" in the famous demo, and I think the cantina mix was trying to put "H&V" back together after having cannibalized the sections for the separate track "I'm in Great Shape". If you were to follow "I'm in Great Shape" with the early version of the cantina "H&V" fade with the "you were my sunshine" vocals, it makes some thematic sense. But I'm just trying to do detective work without enough clues. Also, something else interesting I found out accidentally:

Threescore and ten: The span of a life. In the days that this was coined that was considered to be seventy years.

There is a use of it that refers to the span of our lives, in Psalms 90:

The days of our years are threescore years and ten;
and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years,
yet is their strength labor and sorrow;
for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.

As with many other Biblical phrases, this was picked up by Shakespeare. In Macbeth, we have:

Threescore and ten I can remember well:
Within the volume of which time I have seen
Hours dreadful and things strange; but this sore night
Hath trifled former knowings.

So, besides "at threescore and five..." from the cantina "H&V" dating the narrator as 65 years old, it also reveals that he is at the end of his life and is reflecting on what has happened.

[Chris Moise]

VDP has commented on some of the SMiLE tracks mentioned here. Back in 2004 post release of BWPS he gave quite a few interviews.

He did mention that he had never heard the track 'Holidays' until Darian played it for him. Darian himself was unsure that the lyrics for 'Child' that Van Dyke presented for BWPS were from 1966 or 2003. The general opinion is thst they were of the latter date. He has confirmed that he did write lyrics for 'Child' in 1966.

'Look', according to Brian (also in 2004) was originally an instrumental.

I cannot recall him saying anything about 'Da Da' etc.

 

Are you sure about Look? There was a group vocal overdub session for Look that has never turned up anywhere.

Interesting about VDP confirming that he wrote CITFOTM lyrics in '66. Did he hint as to why he decided to write new lyrics? That right there is my Smile holy grail. Seems odd that both Brian and Van Dyke wouldn't remember the lyrics.  I wish Al would give an in depth interview about  the recordings. I bet he remembers stuff like that.

[Dove Nested Towers]

VDP has commented on some of the SMiLE tracks mentioned here. Back in 2004 post release of BWPS he gave quite a few interviews.

He did mention that he had never heard the track 'Holidays' until Darian played it for him. Darian himself was unsure that the lyrics for 'Child' that Van Dyke presented for BWPS were from 1966 or 2003. The general opinion is thst they were of the latter date. He has confirmed that he did write lyrics for 'Child' in 1966.

'Look', according to Brian (also in 2004) was originally an instrumental.

I cannot recall him saying anything about 'Da Da' etc.

 

Are you sure about Look? There was a group vocal overdub session for Look that has never turned up anywhere.

Interesting about VDP confirming that he wrote CITFOTM lyrics in '66. Did he hint as to why he decided to write new lyrics? That right there is my Smile holy grail. Seems odd that both Brian and Van Dyke wouldn't remember the lyrics.  I wish Al would give an in depth interview about  the recordings. I bet he remembers stuff like that.

Yeah, why in the world would he write new lyrics for "Child" unless he either forgot
the contemporary ones (hard to believe) or wasn't satisfied with them (possible)?

VERY interesting, if true , about the vocal overdub session for Look. If that's confirmed
in session notes, it seems more reliable than Brian's '04 statement, although I know
Brian still has much more on the ball regarding past events than many think, and I guess session records can be misleading for various reasons. Al AND Bruce may know more than
they let on. That's their prerogative.

True about the writer's desire for some mystery to surround their works. The bottom line
is that we'll probably never know much or any more about it than we do now.

The 1971 Rolling Stone "Beach Boys: A California Saga" article has some expansive
comments about lyrics and song meanings.

[Mr. Cohen]

Yeah, why in the world would he write new lyrics for "Child" unless he either forgot the contemporary ones (hard to believe) or wasn't satisfied with them (possible)?

Well, one thing that's interesting is that there was an article in '66 in which Dennis described "Child is Father..." as a 'cowboy' song. Could it be that "Child is Father..." was lyrically closer to "H&V" in concept in '66, building off the "my children were raised..." tidbit in "H&V"? But, then when "Child is Father..." was made part of a spiritual suite in BWPS, Van Dyke decided to write more ambiguous lyrics? Either that, or the writer of the article got "Child is Father" confused with another song, like "H&V" or "Cabinessence"...

[Chris Brown]

Yeah, why in the world would he write new lyrics for "Child" unless he either forgot the contemporary ones (hard to believe) or wasn't satisfied with them (possible)?

Well, one thing that's interesting is that there was an article in '66 in which Dennis described "Child is Father..." as a 'cowboy' song. Could it be that "Child is Father..." was lyrically closer to "H&V" in concept in '66, building off the "my children were raised..." tidbit in "H&V"? But, then when "Child is Father..." was made part of a spiritual suite in BWPS, Van Dyke decided to write more ambiguous lyrics? Either that, or the writer of the article got "Child is Father" confused with another song, like "H&V" or "Cabinessence"...

I've always thought that the writer of that particular article was getting "Child" confused with something else...I can't imagine a song with an esoteric phrase like "child is the father of the man" having verses/other sections having to do with cowboys.  It is Smile we're talking about here though, so anything is possible.

As for Van Dyke writing new lyrics, I think it would have to have been a case of not liking the old lyrics (not likely, in my opinion) or not having access to them at all.  Maybe the lyric sheet Van Dyke wrote was lost somehow?  If it had been available in 2003, I can't imagine why Van Dyke and Brian wouldn't want to use it.

[Bill Tobelman]

It's interesting that Dennis Wilson thought that "Child If Father Of The Man" was a cowboy song. Is that how Brian & Van Dyke were presenting things to the Beach Boys???

After that quote I believe Dennis then states a "throwaway" (article writer's term) line about writing a prayer for song. That seems more in line with SMiLE.

[Chris Brown]

It's interesting that Dennis Wilson thought that "Child If Father Of The Man" was a cowboy song. Is that how Brian & Van Dyke were presenting things to the Beach Boys???

After that quote I believe Dennis then states a "throwaway" (article writer's term) line about writing a prayer for song. That seems more in line with SMiLE.

Here's a far-out theory: what if Dennis confused the song titles, and he really played Cabinessece?  Further, what if the "prayer" that he was working on was an early incarnation of his "truck drivin' man" part?

I know, its totally out of left field...Cabinessence isn't really a cowboy song anyways, but I can't imagine "Child" being called a cowboy song, so I'm thinking there had to have been some sort of mix up.