Carl or Brian on God Only Knows?

[Wirestone]

Regardless of whether I have or not, it's still objectively Carl.

You may think it’s Carl. You may believe so strongly. But there is simply no way to say that it’s objectively Carl. The only person you might say it was objectively — given the official credits and words from authorities ON THIS VERY THREAD — is Brian. That simply has to do with what the word objective means.

Except it is Carl's voice.  There is objective truth in this world.  The argumentum ad verecundiam is not convincing.

So David Leaf, Mark L., Craig and Alan Boyd are all liars / mistaken?

It’s attitudes like yours (personal, subjective judgment at the expense of professional expertise) that led to the Trump administration and the decline of democracy in the West. And I am most assuredly not kidding.

It was Brian when he recorded, and it’s Brian now.

This is utter nonsense, and I regret posting it. My apologies, gents and gentleladies.

[18thofMay]

Regardless of whether I have or not, it's still objectively Carl.

You may think it’s Carl. You may believe so strongly. But there is simply no way to say that it’s objectively Carl. The only person you might say it was objectively — given the official credits and words from authorities ON THIS VERY THREAD — is Brian. That simply has to do with what the word objective means.

Except it is Carl's voice.  There is objective truth in this world.  The argumentum ad verecundiam is not convincing.

So David Leaf, Mark L., Craig and Alan Boyd are all liars / mistaken?

It’s attitudes like yours (personal, subjective judgment at the expense of professional expertise) that led to the Trump administration and the decline of democracy in the West. And I am most assuredly not kidding.

It was Brian when he recorded, and it’s Brian now.

I hate Trump, and I love Brian... This is Carl.

[John Brode]

While some of this debate is interesting, it's arguably pointless - my original intent behind this post was to find out if David Leaf really apologized for making an error. If that's true, can anyone provide some evidence? I've only seen a couple people say it on here. (btw, if he did say it was an error, I would believe him that it's Carl..which is what I am currently leaning towards)

[Rocker]

Regardless of whether I have or not, it's still objectively Carl.

You may think it’s Carl. You may believe so strongly. But there is simply no way to say that it’s objectively Carl. The only person you might say it was objectively — given the official credits and words from authorities ON THIS VERY THREAD — is Brian. That simply has to do with what the word objective means.

Except it is Carl's voice.  There is objective truth in this world.  The argumentum ad verecundiam is not convincing.

So David Leaf, Mark L., Craig and Alan Boyd are all liars / mistaken?

It’s attitudes like yours (personal, subjective judgment at the expense of professional expertise) that led to the Trump administration and the decline of democracy in the West. And I am most assuredly not kidding.

I have to step in here, although I want to keep any political things out of the discussions.
First, aejitzsche never called anybody a liar. Everybody can make a mistake, that includes David Leaf, Mark Linnet and Alan Boyd. A lie is telling untrue things that you know are not true.


Secondly, no, what led to Trumpism and this whole post-truth movement in the democracies that is going on for a couple of years now, can be traced back (among other things) to people giving a sh!t about the insights of the Enlightenment, namely having the ability and the right to form your own opinion by free access to the facts. Based on them you can build an opinion. Only then it is an opinion, but many people just burst out gut feelings without any kind of reflection and call that an opinion, because they think that freedom of opinion means just that. Every sense of rationality is gone and instead you have tribes of people who only know that they feel angry or left behind, people who can't cope with the complexities of the modern world we live in (btw - they are not to blame for feeling that way, they should be helped to find out of that). Then along comes a demagogue like Trump who tells them who's to blame for their fate, lies about everything (big or small) and gives simple answers to complex things and they fall for him because now they have a target (or more than one) they can blame.

aejitzsche, though, has simply stated that objectively (meaning without any bias) it's Carl. The reasons given are empiric, since the singing style and the phrasing is Carl's and we never had a recording of Brian singing that way. Now, you can say you don't agree with that because the credits on the CD releases say something different. But that's not a cogent argument (it's the argumentum ad verecundiam that aejitzsche mentioned), 'cause aejitzsche's is based on the actual evidence (the recording itself and other recordings of Carl singing).
And here comes the other reason why our democracies are so troubled: no one is willing to admit he was/is wrong about anything. For whatever reason that seems to be considered as a weakness or whatever.  Who knows. The point is though, that all the evidence points to this being Carl and that you are probably wrong. There's no reason to be ashamed of that. But one should be willing to acknowledge it, 'cause only that way one can learn.

That's it from me in this thread. I don't want to fill this place with my diagnosis of Trump, the U.S. and western democracies. I just felt offended that someone who built his opinion on reason and empiricism gets blamed for the whole Trump fiasco which itself is far from reason.

[HeyJude]

People, listening to the recording is not "evidence." It's YOUR subjective opinion.

Seriously, every person who is saying "It's Carl, end of story, anybody else is wrong and provably wrong" is losing credibility in doing so.

WTF is so hard about saying you don't know?

Believe me, I'm most assuredly *not* a fan of fence-walking and trying to pick the middle for the sake of it. But I think it's ABSURD that *I'm* just about the only person (though Wirestone also allowed for the possibility) allowing for the possibility that it's BOTH Carl and Brian double tracked.

I personally am highly skeptical that both parts of that double-tracked vocal are Carl. What I'm MORE skeptical of is refusing to allow for all of the combinations/possibilities.

To me, saying "Hey, a bunch of the regulars who work on all of these archival releases seem to think it's Brian" isn't a case of "argumentum ad verecundiam", as I don't think the assertion is that we should blindly trust them or that we should absolutely assume they are 100% verifiably accurate. Rather, it's a case of "hey, these people know Brian and Carl's voices too, and they also have access to listening direct from the 1/4 inch master reel instead of a 16/44.1 CD, so maybe their opinion should ALSO be weighed and not dismissed out of hand because some person online says it's Carl and that I should "just trust them."

Ironically, the "It's Carl. Period. Trust me. Any other answer is WRONG" is sometimes colloquially referred to as the "just because" logical fallacy.

[HeyJude]

I also find it super weird that *this* particular track is such a sticking point and seemingly out of the blue causing some people to be so close-minded and dismissive of alternate theories. Why there's so much "It's Carl!!!" and then running away with fingers stuck in the ears is just strange.

The fact that multiple official releases of the track say "Brian", while others hear Carl and yet others (I guess mainly just me and maybe a few others) genuinely hear BOTH, all add up to something that makes me more intrigued and more open to any number of ideas and theories. What it *doesn't* do is cause me to become *more* close-minded and arguably disrespectful and dismissive of anyone who doesn't "hear" what one person hears.

[HeyJude]

aejitzsche, though, has simply stated that objectively (meaning without any bias) it's Carl. The reasons given are empiric, since the singing style and the phrasing is Carl's and we never had a recording of Brian singing that way. Now, you can say you don't agree with that because the credits on the CD releases say something different. But that's not a cogent argument (it's the argumentum ad verecundiam that aejitzsche mentioned), 'cause aejitzsche's is based on the actual evidence (the recording itself and other recordings of Carl singing).

With all due respect, I don't know where you're getting any of this, that one person's ears and nothing else can offer "empiric" and "non-biased" judgment. "I think it's Carl because I believe it's Carl" is not "objective" whatsoever.

Again, anybody that says "It's Carl" without one modicum of equivocation or being open to other possibilities loses a *ton* of credibility in my opinion. I doubt that concerns anyone, but that's how it is. This isn't like some far-flung weird theory, as if we have film footage and corresponding audio of one person singing it but someone insists it's an elaborate cover-up. We have a recording where people CLEARLY disagree as to who is singing.

I haven't a clue why a group of people saying "I think it's Carl" and then a group of people saying "I think it's Brian", and then others saying it's both results strangely in a few people DOUBLING DOWN and becoming, I guess, even *more* certain of their answer.

The point is though, that all the evidence points to this being Carl and that you are probably wrong.  

Again, this is 100% wrong and I'm not sure where one would even come up with this. What's *abundantly* clear is that there is SCANT hard evident of *any kind*, and the available evidence (meaning basically our ears; that's about it) does not "ALL" point to this being Carl.

[Rocker]

aejitzsche, though, has simply stated that objectively (meaning without any bias) it's Carl. The reasons given are empiric, since the singing style and the phrasing is Carl's and we never had a recording of Brian singing that way. Now, you can say you don't agree with that because the credits on the CD releases say something different. But that's not a cogent argument (it's the argumentum ad verecundiam that aejitzsche mentioned), 'cause aejitzsche's is based on the actual evidence (the recording itself and other recordings of Carl singing).

With all due respect, I don't know where you're getting any of this, that one person's ears and nothing else can offer "empiric" and "non-biased" judgment. "I think it's Carl because I believe it's Carl" is not "objective" whatsoever.

Again, anybody that says "It's Carl" without one modicum of equivocation or being open to other possibilities loses a *ton* of credibility in my opinion. I doubt that concerns anyone, but that's how it is. This isn't like some far-flung weird theory, as if we have film footage and corresponding audio of one person singing it but someone insists it's an elaborate cover-up. We have a recording where people CLEARLY disagree as to who is singing.

I haven't a clue why a group of people saying "I think it's Carl" and then a group of people saying "I think it's Brian", and then others saying it's both results strangely in a few people DOUBLING DOWN and becoming, I guess, even *more* certain of their answer.

The point is though, that all the evidence points to this being Carl and that you are probably wrong.  

Again, this is 100% wrong and I'm not sure where one would even come up with this. What's *abundantly* clear is that there is SCANT hard evident of *any kind*, and the available evidence (meaning basically our ears; that's about it) does not "ALL" point to this being Carl.

Ok, one more post, since I don't want to be belied, but then I'm through.
You mis-represent my statement. Read my post again. It doesn't say that "listening" is evidence, but listening and comparing the singing style and phrasing with other performances of Carl and Brian (for example the Carl-sung "Good vibrations" demo). That is empiric, objective evidence.

Andrew Doe once stated that Carl sang the Wild Honey version of "Here comes the night" iirc. Obviously it is Brian. What now? Do we say from now on it is a mystery who sang it?

[HeyJude]

aejitzsche, though, has simply stated that objectively (meaning without any bias) it's Carl. The reasons given are empiric, since the singing style and the phrasing is Carl's and we never had a recording of Brian singing that way. Now, you can say you don't agree with that because the credits on the CD releases say something different. But that's not a cogent argument (it's the argumentum ad verecundiam that aejitzsche mentioned), 'cause aejitzsche's is based on the actual evidence (the recording itself and other recordings of Carl singing).

With all due respect, I don't know where you're getting any of this, that one person's ears and nothing else can offer "empiric" and "non-biased" judgment. "I think it's Carl because I believe it's Carl" is not "objective" whatsoever.

Again, anybody that says "It's Carl" without one modicum of equivocation or being open to other possibilities loses a *ton* of credibility in my opinion. I doubt that concerns anyone, but that's how it is. This isn't like some far-flung weird theory, as if we have film footage and corresponding audio of one person singing it but someone insists it's an elaborate cover-up. We have a recording where people CLEARLY disagree as to who is singing.

I haven't a clue why a group of people saying "I think it's Carl" and then a group of people saying "I think it's Brian", and then others saying it's both results strangely in a few people DOUBLING DOWN and becoming, I guess, even *more* certain of their answer.

The point is though, that all the evidence points to this being Carl and that you are probably wrong.  

Again, this is 100% wrong and I'm not sure where one would even come up with this. What's *abundantly* clear is that there is SCANT hard evident of *any kind*, and the available evidence (meaning basically our ears; that's about it) does not "ALL" point to this being Carl.

Ok, one more post, since I don't want to be belied, but then I'm through.
You mis-represent my statement. Read my post again. It doesn't say that "listening" is evidence, but listening and comparing the singing style and phrasing with other performances of Carl and Brian (for example the Carl-sung "Good vibrations" demo). That is empiric, objective evidence.

Andrew Doe once stated that Carl sang the Wild Honey version of "Here comes the night" iirc. Obviously it is Brian. What now? Do we say from now on it is a mystery who sang it?

I read your post; several times in fact. You're simply saying one person's ears and subjective analysis should not only be trusted more, but should be taken as objective in any way when there's pretty much nothing of the sort possible with this particular recording. All we have is the recording and our ears and our analytical skills. *All* subjective, *all* opinion.

Doesn't the fact that someone (especially someone pretty well-versed in BB history, the sound of their voices, etc.) listened to the WH version of "Here Comes the Night" and decided it was Carl singing (presumably based on comparing to other performances/recordings) *disprove* your assertion that some *other* person who would be doing the EXACT same thing when listening to the GOK alternate is somehow reaching some sort of "objective" conclusion? It's *all* subjective listening and subjective comparison/contrast.

A person using their *own opinion* to compare Carl's singing on other recordings to the GOK alternate is not "objective" analysis. It's absolutely 100% subjective! It's one person listening to two things and coming to an OPINION as to whether it's the same person.

Yes, we weigh these SUBJECTIVE opinions accordingly, and the more knowledgeable one seems to be regarding any or and all facets of the BBs, the more we might trust that subjective opinion.

Knowing what I know about the BBs, and what is and isn't easily verifiable, I'm highly skeptical of any firm, immovable opinion on this GOK alternate.

If someone had said "Wow, yeah, I can see how this is difficult to discern. Here are some timecodes in the song where I think it sounds just like Carl on such-and-such other song", I'd be quite open to more analysis.

But this "It's Carl, I'm right, you're wrong, and if you simply assert the weighing of the opinions of Boyd or Linett or Leaf then you're using an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy", that sort of stuff, absolutely 100% undercuts credibility in my opinion.

[HeyJude]

Let it also be known that few if any other bands have been known to so often have the ability to sound both *like each other* (and again, including NON-FAMILY members), and also seemingly randomly sound quite different on one song than another.

Think of something random like "How She Boogalooed It." WTF is that lead vocal? I can't say it's completely dissimilar from anything they ever sang, but that's not a "voice" that Carl or any of the members used often on record.

Indeed, I've always found that Carl's voice did some weird stuff in the mid-late 60s. A good hunk of "Wild Honey" has him sounding pretty different from either "Girl Don't Tell Me" or "God Only Knows", or stuff that came after on "Friends", "20/20", etc.

How many fans prior to having some liner notes or other sources never knew it was Al singing those lines on "I Know There's An Answer?"

I've run into pretty big fans that never knew both Carl and Al are singing on "In My Car."

People STILL debate "Be Here in the Morning."

Hell, even *Mike and Brian* could sometimes start to sound like each other.

We debate whether it's Brian or Foskett (or some technical manipulation) doing the falsetto on "Getcha Back."

Wanna get into even more heated discussion? Try debating John vs. Paul on the wordless "aaaahh" bridge leading into the final section of "A Day in the Life." There, there even WAS some amount of truly hard evidence about what existed on which track of the multi-track that might help (though not firmly prove) who was singing it, and people on both sides of that (though more on the "John" side) are stunningly stubborn on that one.

[HeyJude]

Let it *also* be known that folks on this board (and authors who have posted here) have done some truly amazing sleuthing and fact-finding, both in the musical and non-musical realms.

Sluething out the whole "dental school" story with Al, tons of stuff about the early era from Murphy and Stebbins/Marks. Digging into AFM contracts and listening to namechecks on session tapes to figure who was or wasn't there. And so on. I could list dozens if not hundreds of things.

No such hard or revelatory info has come out regarding this GOK alternate. It has, thus far, been purely in the realm of listening acumen and subjective analysis, and a bit of citation of what we know/assume some experts on the BB archival teams have (presumably) believed.

[Joel Goldenberg]

It's Mickey Mouse with a sore throat. Point finale.

[HeyJude]

Nah, I'm pretty sure it's Bernard Purdie....

[Joel Goldenberg]

Dennis, Purdie and Hal Blaine triple-tracked.

[Dove Nested Towers]

Zeppo flown in.

[Dove Nested Towers]

Three is a huskier timbre to Brian's lower range that is present here, and when he strains to hit "stars" it is also inimitable. I'm frankly surprised that there is so much dissention. Flame away....

[37!ws]

Wait, you're surprised that this board has so much dissention?? I'm doubting that "Posts: 806" thing in your sidebar.

[GoodVibrations33]

Time for a couple random thoughts...

Double tracked vocal with a strong Carl presence throughout.  To my ears, most of the time, it sounds like a predominant Carl lead with some Brian here and there at some parts.

Maybe mentioned earlier, but it even sounds like in the released version there's some (possible) Brian vox punch-ins near the end of some vocal lines.  Check it out. (a la IJWMFTT)

Crazy random thought Carl double tracked vocal, with added reverb from a take of Brian singing the lead!  (was that even possible back then?)

Anyone agree with any of this?

[Custom Machine]

... Believe me, I'm most assuredly *not* a fan of fence-walking and trying to pick the middle for the sake of it. But I think it's ABSURD that *I'm* just about the only person (though Wirestone also allowed for the possibility) allowing for the possibility that it's BOTH Carl and Brian double tracked. ...

Hey, I just want to go on record, as stated in my post below, that while first stating it was Brian, after reading c-man's post about the double tracking and doing additional careful listens, I also stated that it makes sense that it could be both Brian and Carl.

... Getting back to the question at hand, yes, this has been debated for ages, and I agree that many of the vocal intonations do sound like Carl would be expected to sound. Others are distinctly Brian. So my presumption was that Brian was singing while attempting to give the song a Carl style delivery. I hadn't considered a double tracked version done by both Brian and Carl until I read c-man's post. The recording in question is most certainly double tracked, so it makes sense that it could be both Brian and Carl, although overall I hear a lot more Brian than Carl. As far as I'm concerned, there is no way this track is Carl by himself. And we can be very thankful that this vocal track was not used for the released version as it sounds nowhere near as good as the one we all know and love with Carl's lead. ...

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Wait, you're surprised that this board has so much dissention?? I'm doubting that "Posts: 806" thing in your sidebar.

Let it *also* be known that folks on this board (and authors who have posted here) have done some truly amazing sleuthing and fact-finding, both in the musical and non-musical realms.

Sluething out the whole "dental school" story with Al, tons of stuff about the early era from Murphy and Stebbins/Marks. Digging into AFM contracts and listening to namechecks on session tapes to figure who was or wasn't there. And so on. I could list dozens if not hundreds of things.

No such hard or revelatory info has come out regarding this GOK alternate. It has, thus far, been purely in the realm of listening acumen and subjective analysis, and a bit of citation of what we know/assume some experts on the BB archival teams have (presumably) believed.

Hey, remember when a certain someone stated here that Brian was not on that Daddy Dear song and that it was only Al, and people disputed it (I had always stated I heard two people there too) and Marilyn apparently confirmed it was Brian?

[c-man]

I'm sure this won't convince anyone one way or the other, but, for what it's worth, here's a look at the various dates we have for recording and mixes:

Basic track (at Western) - although the between-take chatter from the IKTAA vocal session has Brian announcing that he will be cutting "God Only Knows" the following Sunday, it appears he changed his mind and instead cut the track for "I'm Waiting For The Day" on that day (March 6, 1966), and "GOK" the following Thursday (March 10), from 12:30am-4:15am.

First vocal session (at Columbia) - from notation on the track sheet, the initial vocals were done ALSO done on March 10 - whether immediately after the tracking session at Western, or later in the day, we don't know - but Columbia was just across the street from the United/Western complex, so the former is certainly possible.

Mix # 1 - this appears as the "Sax Solo" version on the Capitol Pet Sounds Session box set - this has what MAY be the Brian doubled lead (with Carl mixed in), a sax solo instead of vocals in bridge, what seems to me to be a mix of Carl and Brian on the first line of the tag, and the ensemble vocals in the tag - this mono mix bears the date 3/12.

Mix # 2 - this has the Brian-Carl dual lead (IF that's what it is), no vocals or sax on the bridge, and the familiar Brian-Bruce tag. This mono mix appears on the Goodbye Surfing, Hello God bootleg box set, and is dated 3/22.

Mix # 3 - this appears as the "Brian sings lead" version on the Capitol box set - this has the same Brian doubled lead (with Carl) - IF that's what it is - but maybe with a bit more reverb - the bridge vocals are in place, but here Brian seems to be doubling Bruce's part - this mono mix is also dated 3/22.

And, then there's the "with a capella tag" version on the Capitol box set - this appears to be "Mix # 3" above, except that it fades out when the ensemble vocals - in stereo - fade in, unaccompanied by instruments. Obviously a modern composite mix, rather than a vintage mono rough mix.

Second vocal session (at Columbia) - another track sheet bears the date of April 11 - and it would appear the final lead vocal and bridge vocals were recorded at this session. This was a Tuesday, though - and Carl recalled doing the lead vocal on a Sunday...but who knows.

[felipe]

God Only Knows has "Girl Don't Tell Me/All Dressed Up For School" Carl in the early take and "Good Vibrations/Windchimes" Carl in the master. If you think it's Brian, compare the tag lead vocal from the version we're talking about with the MONO released real Brian tag... they don't sound alike. Now compare with the STEREO released tag(Carl) and you'll find your singer.

ps1.: Here you can hear didactically both Carls in the tag. Isolated and single-tracked. Sweet Carl in the first line and rough Carl from the second line beyond
ps2.: it can be Carl and Brian together, but definitely not Brian alone

[Lee Marshall]

Although I could have sworn that I heard Brian singing along with Carl on a couple...maybe 3...lines early on in the Rocker posted version...For the most part...it is clearly Carl on both.  He also seems to get into the groove more as the song progresses and nails it to the point where a couple of the lines sound like the finished /final/chosen 'take'.

Those certain that it's Brian were fooled like I was on a couple of lines...but how they missed Carl's oh-so-distinctive nuances is beyond me.  It's true that some of the guys could sound eerily similar...Brian, Carl and Al to be exact... ... ...but NO ONE could sound like Carl.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

aejitzsche, though, has simply stated that objectively (meaning without any bias) it's Carl. The reasons given are empiric, since the singing style and the phrasing is Carl's and we never had a recording of Brian singing that way. Now, you can say you don't agree with that because the credits on the CD releases say something different. But that's not a cogent argument (it's the argumentum ad verecundiam that aejitzsche mentioned), 'cause aejitzsche's is based on the actual evidence (the recording itself and other recordings of Carl singing).

With all due respect, I don't know where you're getting any of this, that one person's ears and nothing else can offer "empiric" and "non-biased" judgment. "I think it's Carl because I believe it's Carl" is not "objective" whatsoever.

Again, anybody that says "It's Carl" without one modicum of equivocation or being open to other possibilities loses a *ton* of credibility in my opinion. I doubt that concerns anyone, but that's how it is. This isn't like some far-flung weird theory, as if we have film footage and corresponding audio of one person singing it but someone insists it's an elaborate cover-up. We have a recording where people CLEARLY disagree as to who is singing.

I haven't a clue why a group of people saying "I think it's Carl" and then a group of people saying "I think it's Brian", and then others saying it's both results strangely in a few people DOUBLING DOWN and becoming, I guess, even *more* certain of their answer.

The point is though, that all the evidence points to this being Carl and that you are probably wrong. 

Again, this is 100% wrong and I'm not sure where one would even come up with this. What's *abundantly* clear is that there is SCANT hard evident of *any kind*, and the available evidence (meaning basically our ears; that's about it) does not "ALL" point to this being Carl.

Ok, one more post, since I don't want to be belied, but then I'm through.
You mis-represent my statement. Read my post again. It doesn't say that "listening" is evidence, but listening and comparing the singing style and phrasing with other performances of Carl and Brian (for example the Carl-sung "Good vibrations" demo). That is empiric, objective evidence.

Andrew Doe once stated that Carl sang the Wild Honey version of "Here comes the night" iirc. Obviously it is Brian. What now? Do we say from now on it is a mystery who sang it?

In all fairness, Doe by his own admission has had hearing problems for years;that’s not me holding a grudge , that’s by his own admission.

C-man, thank you for that info.

[Stephen W. Desper]

COMMENT TO EVERYONE: !!

I CANNOT BELIEVE YOU ARE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION.  THERE IS ABSOLUTLY NO DOUBT THAT CARL WILSON SANG THE LEAD VOCAL, AND THEN DOUBLED IT, ON THE LP RELEASE OF GOD ONLY KNOWS .

I REFER YOU TO THE PRODUCER, BRIAN WILSON   AS HE TALKS WITH GEORGE MARTIN ABOUT GOD ONLY KNOWS. IN THIS VIDEO YOU WILL SEE AND HEAR THE ISOLATED VOCAL TRACKS FROM THE GOD ONLY KNOWS MASTER MULTI-TRACK.

IT WILL SETTLE THIS STUPID ARGUMENT.  

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-watch-george-martin-los-angeles-god-only-knows-brian-wilson-20160309-story.html

SEE:  3:18 TO 3:48  

You can also hear the isolated vocal tracks at http://swdstudyvideos.com  --  page 3  --  "God Only Knows" button.    ~SWD