Talk:God Only Knows

From article page

I moved this to the talk page:

(Could someone quote Brian's comments about this song from the anniversary edition of "Pet Sounds"? I don't have it available, but it would provide good background information to this article.)

Rx StrangeLove 02:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SoundTracks

"God Only Knows" is the final song in the film Love Actually.

It was also used in episode 6 of Skins.

Citation Needed

"As a consequence, many radio stations at the time refused to play it."

I'd like a citation for that. It seems very unlikely in 1960s Cold War America, though not impossible.

Removed lyrics

I have removed the lyrics that were posted on this page in full as all the songs lyrics on 'Pet Sounds' are copyrighted in 1966 under Irving Music. And unless their is permission given to use the lyrics then it is breaching the copyright of the songs lyrics. --Sahafan 09:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

GA Failing

No Fair Use Rationales and the lead is huge. Please see WP:FAIR and WP:LEAD. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 16:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"Firstly" on Love Actually?

This is a SUPER nitpick, but shouldn't it read that the song was "firstly" on the Boogie Nights soundtrack and then on Love Actually? To me, it seems only fair to Mr. Anderson that he gets credit for sticking it on his movie first (especially considering that Love Actually is quite possibly influenced by the multi-narrative structure partially popularized by Anderson's movies)

Yeah right, it's a nitpick. Not siding either way, but the writing there is symptomatic of what's wrong with Wikipedia. Cheers.00:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

so anderson is a genius for being the first person to use god only knows in a movie? even if that point is arguable, i don't quite think you can make the leap from that to saying anderson's movies influenced love actually and therefore somehow connect the use of god only knows, as if love actually's use of the song is somehow aping anderson's. i wouldn't say the word "firstly" is in and of itself NPOV, but your explanation certainly is wayyy NPOV.

Truth in this reply but the article as a whole is a glorious mess and needs a rewrite.

Brian Wilson - cover??

It strikes me as odd that in the list of covers, Brian Wilson is mentioned twice, when in fact he co-wrote the song. Slightly demeaning to him! Just a thought. Beanrobot (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

As a big fan of this song and having just played it I wanted to thank all the article editors for their contributions. Very interesting to read about. --bodnotbod (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Vocalists

It is mentioned that there were only three vocalists - C. Wilson, B. Wilson and Jonston. But how is it possible, that I can hear Mike Love singing that "bababa" part? --79.97.145.201 (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That's Brian doing the "bababa" part. --Sahafan (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Form

ABCBCDECBC'?

Ha ha ha. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Lovin' Spoonful inspiration

Sources state:

It was inspired by the Lovin' Spoonful's vocal layering on "You Didn't Have to Be So Nice".

• Criblez, David J. (June 22, 2012). "Beach Boys: Our top 50 hits". Newsday.

According to Brian's memoir, the melody for "God Only Knows" was inspired by a song by the Lovin' Spoonful. While no Spoonful title is mentioned and neither the Spoonful's John Sebastian nor lyricist Tony Asher knows of any such connection, it has been suggested that the vocal layering in the Spoonful's "You Didn't Have to Be So Nice" is actually the influence.

• Dillon, Mark (2012). Fifty Sides of the Beach Boys: The Songs That Tell Their Story. ECW Press. ISBN 978-1-77090-198-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Both are verifiable sources, or at least Mark Dillon is. Unless it can be demonstrated that Dillon is making stuff up, I don't see why this factoid isn't notable enough to include in the article. WP:SPECULATION and WP:NPOV state:

Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. ... Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research.

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic

It is not original research; these are published sources. Conjecture is allowed on Wikipedia if it is stated from a neutral point of view, as it is in this paraphrasing: "It is said that Brian Wilson had written in his memoirs that some of the melody in "God Only Knows" was inspired by the Lovin' Spoonful. Others have suggested that their 1965 single "You Didn't Have to Be So Nice" may have specifically influenced the song's vocal layering, though John Sebastian and co-writer Tony Asher are unaware of any such connection." --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: Wilson's "memoirs" in this instance may be referring to his ghostwritten autobiography. If that's where the Lovin' Spoonful connection originates, then it is no doubt of historical significance, and readers can discern that it may have been a fabrication by Todd Gold (if not taken directly from Wilson), providing closure on the subject.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Jp5472 does not appear to be interested in discussing the matter here and would rather keep removing the text, but just to address this statement: "Once again, just because some published writer wrote it does not make it FACT. It is not substantiated anywhere, including Brian Wilson's writing!!! Stop editing reference material with childish incorrect nonsense.""

The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" meant that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough). Sources must also be appropriate, and must be used carefully, and must be balanced relative to other sources per Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight. Wikipedia's articles are intended as intelligent summaries and reflections of current published debate within the relevant fields, an overview of the relevant literature. The Verifiability policy is related to another core content policy, Neutral point of view, which holds that we include all significant views on a subject. Citing reliable sources for any material challenged or likely to be challenged gives readers the chance to check for themselves that the most appropriate sources have been used, and used well (WP:TRUTH)

Nowhere in the block of text does it state that the Lovin' Spoonful influence is fact.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Questions: 1. Why is Brian Wilson's memoir Wouldn't It Be Nice: My Own Story now "disowned" by him? 2. What implication(s) does this disowning have for its use as a source here? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

(a) Read the article you linked to. (b) Either Wilson wrote the book, and says it's crap, and thus the source isn't reliable; or Wilson didn't write the book, and anything ascribed to him in it isn't reliable. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't really sound like an WP:RS. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Which means the section can be boiled down to "According to an unreliable source A, X is true. Reliable sources C and D quote unreliable source A." When we know a reliable source is itself citing an unreliable source, unless that citation is in itself remarkable, we shouldn't use the misinformation. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It's more like, "According to somewhat-unreliable source A, X is true. Reliable source C restates source A and evaluates the significance and reliability of X."--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Or, "we've picked out a tiny factoid quoted by the author of source C, who's not sure if it's one of the reliable bits in source A, which most people, including the subject of the work himself, think is mostly pants." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not that tiny if it's corroborated by two sources not including the Wilson bio. If nothing else then at least Dillon's comparison with the Lovin Spoonful song deserves to be acknowledged along with Asher's feelings.--134.241.39.254 (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd give the opinion of Dillon more credence. If the disowned autobiography has to stay I think it should go in a footnote. But I don't see that Dillon is enough to give it credibility, even if it was the starting point for his own claim. I'm not sure that list of song-facts in Newsday is a very strong source. I suspect it's just copying what Dillon claimed in his book. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And it's classic weasel wording: "it has been suggested that". Suggested by whom? Some random fan? Someone close to the Beach Boys? This would be a lot more usable if Dillon had actually made the assertion in its own right, but he neither ascribes it nor asserts it - just says some unnamed being suggested it. So we've got a reliable source quoting an unreliable source's assertion but being unwilling to commit to the assertion himself. I just don't see how we can use this; why spread misinformation? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I've since rephrased the wording per the footnote suggestion.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding his contributions to its writing. A certain portion of its contents genuinely came from him, but nobody knows which portions exactly. It's generally considered that all of the contents concerning his thoughts on family and court-related liaisons are crap. In the book Inside the Music of Brian Wilson, Philip Lambert acknowledged that the memoir may hold some credibility in sections where Wilson talks about the intricacies of his music, and states that the whole book should not be immediately disregarded.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, but then we need a reliable source to pick and choose what's crap and what isn't from that book. We can't do so; that would be OR. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The Mark Dillon source fulfills this requirement. He is aware of the book's reputation but posits that the factoid may have significance.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest that a second-hand appraisal that bits of a book "may hold some credibility" is not really sufficient to make it useful as a source in an encyclopedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it completely. It has little to do with "musical structure", and this unfounded piece of pseudo-information certainly shouldn't be at the beginning of the section. At most, it belongs in a footnote when discussing the melody -- perhaps just a footnote to the brief mention of the melody in the musical structure section. If some consensus develops for its inclusion it can be replaced, but at the moment the clear consensus is against it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Harsh dismissal. You and Jp5472 (who is absent from this talk page) are for removing the material altogether while I heeded Martinevans123's suggestion to simply regulate it to a footnote. The reliable source is nothing more than a comparison to the song, which shares the same key and A-G#-F# hook as "God Only Knows" (this is my observation, it is not written in the sources). I don't care exactly how the information is presented in the article, but I don't believe ignoring its existence is the best thing when a connection between the two songs has been established by more than one source, and that readers generally aren't aware whether the connection has merit. I'll probably bring back the text, this time with the whole thing under a footnote right after the first paragraph of "musical structure", but if you still disagree, I won't bother, and I'll just wait for others to weigh in.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The disagreement is as to the quality of the source, and it's exactly as poor as when we started discussing this problem. When a reliable source has to lean on an anonymous "it has been suggested", when the composer has disavowed another source, and when the lyricist (who worked rather intimately with the composer) expresses ignorance of such a connection, it's undue weight to mention it as anything other than an unverified, unverifiable rumor. (Unless Wilson cares to discuss it again someday.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a shame the source is so weak, because most people would, I think, agree with the similarity between the songs. But the clincher for me is what Brian Wilson has or has not to say about it. If only he could have "saved" the bits he believed in that book. I'd still be tempted to include it in a footnote somehow. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Like, I suspect, all of us in this discussion, I know both songs intimately, having listened to them repeatedly (and in my case, having played them as well) perhaps hundreds of times. I can vaguely see a connection to the vocal layering in the Spoonful song, but then, many (most?) Beach Boys songs involved vocal layering of varying degrees of complexity and sophistication -- as did many (most?) Spoonful songs; harmonic depth is one of the hallmarks of both bands. One could likely look at some Spoonful songs and find some good comparison with earlier Beach Boys songs. Melodically, I think you have to dig pretty hard to relate the two songs; the Spoonful song is pretty conventional, though perhaps I'm missing the parts in the two songs that Ilovetopaint says is so similar. I think it's a bit more similar to The Rite of Spring. But all of this is just my personal opinion and analysis, of no particular value except for conversation, and of no value at all to the article -- the very definition of Original Research. As it stands, it's an interesting but very poorly documented tidbit, and as a result not a particularly useful trivia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, --jpgordon. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction

So was it "the first pop single to name "God" in its title" (lead paragraph) or "one of the first pop songs to use the word "God" in its title" (under Lyricism)?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources state regarding the subject:

• ... never been done in a pop song before
• ... the first pop single
• ... had never been done before (in a pop song)
• ... a song by the same title put out by early doo-wop group the Capris in 1954

There's not a lot of info about the Capris' song and I'm not sure whether old rhythm and blues records are considered "pop music singles".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

[1] A 1955 doo-wop by ballad by male group The Crystals (not The Crystals): "Built upon vocal harmony, doo-wop was one of the most mainstream, pop-oriented R&B styles of the time." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Changed to "one of the first".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

"Not a lot of info"? Just listen to it. It's doo-wop, hence pop. Certainly Wilson et al thought their song was the first pop song with God in the title, but they were mistaken. It could be something like "Brian and Asher,unaware of the 1954 Capris doo-wop song of the same name, believed this would be the first pop song with God in the title." Also, did they agonize because it was the first pop song with God in its title or were the concerned about the particular "single" release format? Or is "single" just being used as shorthand for "song" here? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

"First pop single to name 'God'" is different and much more plausible than "first pop song to name 'God'". The sources state nothing about the specific format that is significant. Removed all references to "first" in main article space and changed to "unusual for a pop single ..."--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Better change Pet Sounds as well: ""God Only Knows" is the first pop song to have "God" in its title, a decision Brian feared would be blasphemous." Btljs (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems like an absurd assertion to me; a quick search on discogs for the 1950s & pop brings up lots of titles. You'd have to have a very narrow definition of pop to rule them all out. Admittedly we might not consider them pop now, but back then they were. Btljs (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, everyone knows the "pop" in "pop music" has a different definition now, which is exactly why I questioned. I can't recall ever seeing black R&B groups referred to as "pop" musicians before.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Not just black R&B artists had God in their song titles, there were popular classical singers (some of them even popular in America). It says a lot about the insular nature of white 60's US pop that it thought it existed in isolation. They were afraid of censorship by the mainstream radio stations I'd guess. Btljs (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, like "God Bless America" (Kate Smith's version is acknowledged by Asher in the article) or "God Save the Queen". The suggestion was the first in pop music as it was understood in the last century, not the first in popular music. This is the same reason why the Beatles get a lot of credit for their "innovations" which was nothing more than applying complicated ideas to pop music, a type of music which, by definition, should not have been possible to be complicated in, with not many songwriters considering it worth the effort, let alone any who were brave or talented enough to try complexity. Yes, it was a very insular industry before others stepped forward to change things (briefly).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This certainly fits with the wiki article on pop music ie as a 2nd half of 20th Century version of popular music. Not sure I'd go along with this definition myself, but it is at least consistent. (Arguably, the Beatles had stopped making pop music by the time they were doing what most people remember them for and the Beach Boys too) Btljs (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Genre

Added progressive rock with reference http://rateyourmusic.com/release/comp/various_artists_f2/the_best_prog_rock_album_in_the_world____ever_/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.40.106.125 (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on God Only Knows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715103553/http://www.pop-zap.com/conversations/weird-rock-a-conversation-with-simon-neil-and-ben-and-james-johnston-biffy-clyro to http://www.pop-zap.com/conversations/weird-rock-a-conversation-with-simon-neil-and-ben-and-james-johnston-biffy-clyro

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Graf 2

The title is an expression, no more. You guys gotta chill and remember this is Wikipedia. Cheers.00:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Come again? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Baroque rock

The difference between "baroque rock" and "baroque pop" is that, for the reader, they connote two entirely different things: pop music that is baroque and rock music that is baroque. Whether the terms are considered to be synonymous by a single source on a separate article is irrelevant. According to some sources, "symphonic rock", "art rock", "classical rock", and "progressive rock" refer to the same style of music, but they are NOT necessarily equivalent terms. The infobox for the first couple of Moody Blues albums, for example, could just as well do with sources for "classical rock" and "progressive rock", even though Classical rock redirects to the latter. Eliminating "baroque rock" in favor of "baroque pop" is an arbitrary choice that violates WP:WEIGHT:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources ... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

There are currently an equal number of sources that attribute "baroque pop" and "baroque rock" to the song.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: What the reader may infer is irrelevant if there is nothing supporting such a distinction. I will concede that a single source isn't especially compelling, but when there isn't a single known source stating the opposite, it has to be by default the prevailing viewpoint. In the cases of symphonic rock, art rock, classic rock, and progressive rock, the sources calling them the same are outnumbered by ones affirming them to be separate, which to my knowledge is not the case with baroque pop and baroque rock; I still await a source describing them as two different genres. The decision to retain baroque pop over baroque rock is anything but arbitrary; it was a choice in favor of the conventional name on Wikipedia and the more recognized term. It improves consistency and is preferred per WP:LEAST since the article it links to has the same name; both of these are beneficial to the reader. WP:WEIGHT would be violated only if baroque pop and baroque rock represented differing "significant viewpoints", which would only be the case if they were separate genres, which again, there has been nothing to support. At the end of the day, listing two terms that are synonymous and that link to the same page is simply redundant; the article for Spanish agriculture, for example, would not list both zucchini and courgettes as among the country's most grown crops just because sources were found using both terms. If sources describing baroque rock as a separate genre were found, the genre list here would be the least of anyone's concern, since it would open up discussion on whether the genre should have its own article or be its own section on the baroque pop page. As long as evidence can be shown that it is distinct from baroque pop, I have no objection to baroque rock being listed as a genre for "God Only Knows". LifeofTau 09:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

"The Baroque Rock Of The Spring Standards":

Sometimes you categorize an artist as baroque pop -- Arcade Fire, Feist, etc. -- because they tie lush arrangements to the pop model. But, now, I have another band to call baroque rock besides the National -- who were the only band to earn that moniker from me prior.

Here you go, a source that delineates between "baroque rock" and "baroque pop".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure that's not going to be French cuisine? To use zucchini and courgette as an analogy is like comparing Apples with Oranges? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Manuscript of Lyrics for God Only Knows - Rock & Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, Cleveland (by Adam Jones).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)