Jump to content

Talk:Good Vibrations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleGood Vibrations has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 8, 2016Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 6, 2016.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Beach Boys' "Good Vibrations" was the most expensive single ever produced in its time, requiring over 90 hours of recorded tape?

Carol Kaye

[edit]

In The Wrecking Crew (2008 film), Brian Wilson states outright that "Carol played on 'Good Vibrations'," and all sources seem to agree she was on at least some of the sessions. On the other hand, the only source currently cited to oppose her claim is the smileysmile.net message board, which does not appear to be affiliated with anyone involved in the recording. Does anyone have a better source to say one way or the other? Apparently the liner notes for The Smile Sessions contain a detailed session list, so maybe that would do it if anyone has a copy to check. 192.251.46.111 (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that Kaye played on some "Good Vibrations" sessions, but as of right now, it can't be proven that she can be heard on the final mix. Wilson is not a reliable source for these kind of exact matters, and Kaye herself is known to wrongfully take credit for work that she had nothing to do with. The "Craig" mentioned in the smileysmile.net post is Craig Slowinski, the same man who wrote the liner notes for The Smile Sessions and who has analyzed many Beach Boys' session tapes (his work for The Beach Boys Today! and Keep an Eye On Summer 1964 can be seen here and here).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"but as of right now, it can't be proven that she can be heard on the final mix" - actually, it can. Craig Slowinski has been granted access to the Beach Boys tape archive, and he has painstakingly compared all the available tracking sessions tapes to the final, released edit, and his conclusions are as follows:
1) Kaye undoubtedly played on several sessions for the song...
2) equally undoubtedly, none of those sessions made the final edit, thus, in the final analysis, Kaye does NOT appear on the hit single, therefore she shoudl not eb credited with having played on it. Andrew G. Doe (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, I meant "as of right now" in terms of WP:SOURCE. If that research has never been published anywhere then it can't be accounted for on Wikipedia.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but perhaps the credit could be listed as disputed in the article? It is mentioned in the Carole Kaye article, citing the Smile Sessions liner notes. I am aware of her other claims, but this one actually seems to be widely accepted. Even if Brian Wilson isn't a reliable enough source to take his word as definitive, I think his claim at least makes the dispute notable enough to mention. 192.251.46.111 (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what is actually written in the liner notes. If Slowinski fails to note any dispute, then Wikipedia can't either (WP:STICKTOSOURCE, WP:SYNTHESIS). The Carol Kaye article words it like he does, but there's a good chance he actually doesn't. I guess it doesn't hurt copying to this article, albeit with a {{verification needed}} tag.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. I've reworded it slightly and added a couple more sources identifying Kaye as the bassist, more to clarify notability than anything since I know none of them should be considered authoritative. My take is simply that Carol Kaye is closely enough associated with the track that her contribution should be mentioned somewhere, if only to clarify that she didn't actually make the final mix. I'll leave it to your more experienced judgment from here. 192.251.46.111 (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More on bass credits

[edit]

While doing some further research on this, I stumbled on the source currently cited for Ray Pohlman's bass credit. The full quote, in context, reads:

That said, the arrangement of “Here Today” foreshadows “Good Vibrations,” which was recorded during the Pet Sounds sessions. A tremolo electric bass and staccato organ, played by Ray Pohlman and Larry Knetchel [sic], respectively, open the track behind the vocal, as they do in “Good Vibrations.” (Fusilli 65-66)

This is stating that Pohlman (and Knechtel) played on "Here Today," and comparing the arrangement of that track to "Good Vibrations." I do not believe it necessarily means the same players were on both tracks; it is ambiguous at best. I'm not going to change the credits myself because I don't want to give the appearance of edit warring. However, if we are going to require reliable, verifiable sources for each individual credit, we should subject them all to the same level of scrutiny, and I don't feel that this citation is any stronger than those that have been offered for Carol Kaye.

Related: Is there a manual of style guideline for recording personnel credits? Perhaps we should—pending verification of a definitive source—simply list known credits for all sessions, and indicate in the text that it is uncertain which ones made the final mix? 192.251.46.111 (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The key difference between Kaye's dubious credit and Pohlman's (potentially) dubious credit is that Kaye's is actually controversial. Pohlman's Fender bass work on the verses is accounted for by Slowniski as well as in The Pet Sounds Sessions liner notes. That being said, we don't have the best source for his credit (it is too ambiguous). However, there's no reason to remove it. You can listen to the Feb 14 track and see that its verses are identical to the single's. A better reliable source will eventually show up with Pohlman's credit.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Keith Badman book cited elsewhere in the article lists both Kaye and Pohlman playing on different sessions. I've added credits for both, citing Badman, and explained in the text that sources differ on who played the final track. Kaye's claim to this track has been published in several reliable sources, which have been cited in the article. Also, unlike with certain other of her claims, I am not aware of any reliable sources directly challenging her on this one. I have, however, cited another source which identifies only Pohlman on the track, with no mention at all of Kaye. Please do not remove either credit unless you have a reliable source stating for sure who is on the final track, as otherwise would be a violation of WP:NPOV. 192.251.46.111 (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the point of this edit. For one, Badman is another example of a controversial source that must be used with discretion. His book conflates Hawthorne, California with Hawthorne, Florida. Two, the pages you cited from that book fail to state that any of those people can be heard on the single; they only say that they played a session. Three, Wilson is also shaky with his recollections; there is no reason to highlight the fact that he believes Kaye played on the song. There is no disputing that she did. What is disputed is whether she played on any of the edits that made it to the single. As of yet, it cannot be stated definitively whether she is part of the song's personnel. Don't flood the section with questionable sources that just repeat what Slowinski has already challenged. He's listened to the tapes and made an in-depth assessment, these other people have not--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Badman's book is cited elsewhere in the article, so I had presumed it was an acceptable source. However, on closer inspection, it certainly raises a few red flags. The Hawthorne confusion is one factual error, but a (very informal) glance through the [http://www.amazon.com/Beach-Boys-Definitive-Americas-Greatest/product-reviews/0879308184/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_btm?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=recent Amazon reviews] reveal more serious allegations of plagiarism, as well as ethical concerns like printing the musicians' Social Security numbers. That's something worth looking into more formally. Let's address this one separately, since it seems to be a whole can of worms unto itself.
I did not intend to claim anything other than what you state: that these people played a session. If I came off as saying otherwise, then frankly it was sloppy editing on my part. I concede that Wilson's recollections are unnecessary and come across as giving Kaye's claim undue weight.
I'm not sure we can say who was on the final mix unless we have a source explicitly stating as much. Right now, I don't think we do:
  • A post on an Internet forum citing personal email communication is WP:NOTRELIABLE. It may be true, but we need verifiability, not truth.
  • The Smile Sessions liner notes may have that information, but we still have to be careful. If we only have a list of who played on each session, and a separate list of which sessions made the mix, then combining the two to determine who made the final mix sounds like WP:SYNTHESIS to me. [Disregard this overly literal reading on my part. 20:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)]
  • Comparing the tracks for ourselves is original research, and should not factor into this discussion at all.
  • I'm also concerned that relying too heavily on Slowinski is bordering on WP:ONESOURCE.
In short, unless we have a definitive source for personnel on the final mix, I think it would be better simply to list identified session personnel, and indicate we're doing as much in the text. Then we could summarize, with in-text attribution as necessary, what is and isn't known about the final mix.
What do you think? Perhaps at this point we should consider getting a third opinion? 192.251.46.111 (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications

On the contrary, all this original research does factor in the discussion (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). As soon as I can get a look at what exactly the liner notes say, it should be the only source used in the section, simply for the fact that Slowinski's informed assessment renders everybody else's 50-year-old recollections and/or parroting-what-other-people-have-told-them as null. Maybe @Andrew G. Doe: has a copy of the liner notes with him to settle this?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, WP:ONESOURCE is about articles which only use one source to demonstrate notability. It has nothing to do with using a single source to verify a statement. In most cases, you only ever need one.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would still hesitate to rely on any source before consulting it myself, but yes, let's see what the liner notes say. 192.251.46.111 (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cost in "today's" dollars

[edit]

Throughout the article, there are references to what the recording costs would be in today's dollars. We should specify a year, is it 2016 dollars, or an earlier year? Tidewater 2014 (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The number is calculated by {{Inflation}}. You are right though, apparently, a year is supposed to be specified by {{Inflation-year|US}}.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A thorough editorial eye needed

[edit]

I just gave the article a quick read-through and light copy edit: [5]. I mean no disrespect to the reviewer, but I have to say, I'm really surprised this article made GA last month. There are still failed verification tags (in the Sessionography box) and there's a mix of styles for online retrieval dates: written out in dmy and mdy formats; in numerals; or with no retrieval dates at all. There's information that's not sourced – e.g. the first two paragraphs under Release history. (Well, there's a dead link to a Record Store Day page, but did that really support statements re Smiley Smile and Good Vibrations: Thirty Years of The Beach Boys?)

Also, there are a few details sourced to "Gigs66"/Esquarterly.com (currently ref #46) that don't stand up to scrutiny. For example, at the start of Development, almost nothing in "but on its master tape, Wilson distinctly states "'Good Vibrations' ... take one." After twenty-six takes, a rough mono mix completed the session. Some additional instruments and rough guide vocals were overdubbed on March 3." is given on the Gigs66 page, as far as I can see. At the end of Development's para 3, there's no source at all for the statement "In the meantime, he worked on writing and recording material for the group's forthcoming album, Smile." Those are some examples I noticed from skimming through pretty quickly, and I think the prose could do with some polish. (For instance, again under Development, "The original version of "Good Vibrations" contained the characteristics of a "funky rhythm and blues number" and would not yet resemble a "pocket symphony"" – whose descriptions are these?) It also seemed to me that names and terms weren't always linked at the first mention.

I was going to add a range of tags but I think they just deface the page. It would be good if someone could give the article a pretty thorough check … JG66 (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"...they just deface the page". No, they make things easier for everyone. If the source fails verification, it will almost certainly be covered in Badman.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"No, they make things easier for everyone" – you're obviously forgetting other editors' comments at an article you defaced. What about the other issues I mentioned – inconsistent formatting for retrieval date, unattributed floating quotes … JG66 (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're absolutely right, Wikipedia should abolish the use of inline clean-up tags. We all know they've never helped anyone. While we're at it, could we get rid of {{refimprove}}? I don't particularly like it when there's a big ugly box on the top of a page. Also, I assume that there's a bot somewhere that can handle formatting consistencies. I don't know what a "floating quote" is. Every quote here is attributed to someone as far as I can see. Again, don't bother adding tags like {{says who}} for unattributed quotes - that would be "defacing" the article. We want to let people know that an article has an issue, but we don't want to do something so crazy as to name specifics, neither do we want to place signals for people that don't check every talk page of every article all the time. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being silly. None of those tags need banning – what's needed is some consideration rather than "tag bombing" an article, as another editor referred to your OTT approach. You're also ignoring the fact that as a recent GA, this article just shouldn't need them at all.
I've said where the unattributed quotes are: (under Development) "The original version of "Good Vibrations" contained the characteristics of a "funky rhythm and blues number" and would not yet resemble a "pocket symphony"". JG66 (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sessionography

[edit]

I'm moving this table here until better sources can be found:

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Good Vibrations. 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:

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

checkY 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) 02:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theremin problem

[edit]

The presence or absence of a theremin in this piece is an ongoing dueling point among music-nerds worldwide, and I'm afraid this article demonstrates the hash that a dozen-odd music-nerds can make of a crowd-sourced encyclopedia entry about it. After 18 clear references to a "theremin" (OK, 17 clear references and one implication), with only about a third of the long article to go, we encounter this line:

"Even though the song does not technically contain a theremin, 'Good Vibrations' is the most frequently cited example of the instrument in pop music."

Huh? (Also, I remind you that you've already told me 17 1/2 times that it does contain a theremin.)

I'm not going to stir this pot, but I'd just like to point out that we have a problem here. For the record, I'm an antithereminite. The instrument in question is properly an Electro-Theremin, which is not in fact a theremin, for the same reason a piano is not a harp even though it does have one inside it. But I ain't tryin' to whack that hornet's nest.

Perhaps someone haler than I can strip out all the unqualified references to "theremin" and add a clear, unequivocal line at the first reference of "theremin", acknowledging the confusion, explaining it, and boldly pointing out that there is, in fact, no theremin in Good Vibrations. I suspect this article is being referenced wherever combative music-nerds meet (it's how I ended up here) and as written, it is at present not contributing to the cause of world peace. Laodah 03:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. To my understanding, "no physical contact" is a requirement for a theremin to be a theremin. This should be clarified as soon as the instrument is mentioned.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Good Vibrations. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B Side

[edit]

Let's Go Away for Awhile is mentioned as the B side of Good Vibrations, but I believe this was only in the US. I remember Wendy being the B side in the UK, & this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_(song) suggests this was the case everywhere outside of the US, so it would be good if this was referenced in the main page for Good Vibrations.

Fletch99 (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modern standard of recording costs

[edit]

"Good Vibrations" was not an extraordinarily expensive single because it had all sorts of bells & whistles that were considered state-of-the-art for 1966, it was expensive because of how much time was invested in getting its performance and arrangement right. There is no act today that could record a song in their bedroom and have it come out like "Good Vibrations". You have to be in a professional studio space working with actual humans and magnetic tape. However, today it's much easier for artists to plan out their arrangements with software. If Wilson was able to hear his completed arrangements before entering the studio, then certainly it would have saved a lot of recording time, which means less hourly costs.

But actually, that was never the point. The reason to note inflation is to acknowledge the fact that $50,000 had over 7x more value in 1966 than it does in 2017. It does not suggest that you still need $300k to make a record like this in 2017. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Good Vibrations. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Good Vibrations. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel

[edit]

There exists video footage of some of the recording sessions, which show not just Mike, Carl and Brian participating in providing vocals, but also Al, Dennis and Bruce in the backing. It's obvious they all appear on the final song as their voices can be heard (the chorus alone has nine distinct vocal lines). Does this footage suffice as a source, or does it need to be written down somewhere? CityFeedback talk 22:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fyi I have used audio recordings as references (for instance, radio interviews), would not hesitate to use video evidence as well. Of course, always waiting to get shot down, but how else do we make progress?Tillywilly17 (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I watched video, two witnesses nowTillywilly17 (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Film footage is a primary source and an interpretation of film footage by Wikipedia editors is original research. We can only use published secondary-source material. freshacconci (✉) 04:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about the fact that more than three voices can be heard in the song? Is this an "interpretation" that needs to be found written down? CityFeedback talk 16:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this edit

[edit]

[6] I think this is the right source interpretation but I'd appreciate if someone else could look at it and fix or change if appropriate. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BA60:8FCB:EA4E:7FBD:4814 (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Wilson version

[edit]

Differences/similarities between original and 2004 Brian Wilson version of Good Vibrations? 2600:1700:5F20:5E40:D463:52EA:1C0D:228B (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to revive this question. The 2004 BWPS version uses different lyrics (the original Tony Asher one?) and seems like it deserves a discussion, maybe in the "Releases" section. · rodii · 16:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al and Bruce are credited on the booklet

[edit]

Both Al and Bruce are credited with backing and harmony vocals in the smile sessions booklet/sessionography. If you want to see it, this link has the booklet free to view on page 13. https://archive.org/details/the-beach-boys-the-smile-sessions-book-small-pages-deleted/page/n12/mode/1up?view=theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.251.66.182 (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Good Vibrations

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Good Vibrations's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "GIGS66":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Campbell

[edit]

Glen claims to have played guitar on this record and some sources confirm this, while other sources say he was absent for the recording and giving that he's not listed in this article, does anyone have more info on this? 2601:242:8200:A970:3D2C:682F:94BE:F87 (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup: neither the AFM contracts nor the session tapes support Glen's claim to have played on "GV". Granted, the AFM sheets could be in error, but if he did play on any sessions, then no-one, including Brian, ever mentioned him by name! Andrew G. Doe (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Good_Vibrations&oldid=1211811193"