Secrets of Producing Like Brian Wilson

[guitarfool2002]

Also keep in mind how much anyone recording today on any given DAW relies on EQ, effects plug-ins, and basically an overuse of the concept "fix it in the mix". That concept surely existed around the time of Pet Sounds, but again if you want to get into Brian's production mindset you cannot enter a session where you have a dozen or so musicians on the studio floor with a "fix it in the mix" mentality!

Same deal with trying to isolate various instruments versus allowing an "ensemble" sound with all kinds of bleed-through between the mics capturing everything.

Everyone wanted the control that opening more tracks would soon offer, so you could isolate more of the individual parts. At the same time, the bleed-through and the way you captured all the sounds bouncing around a single room like Gold Star or Western #3 was a pain-in-the-ass for the engineers at times, but that was "the sound" we're all trying to decipher in how Brian cut those records.

Again, before we get into yet another debate about my thoughts on hi-hats or cymbals and vocals versus someone else's, keep in mind it was a different plan of action and method of recording that required a slightly different mindset than exists now. And there was no "track it now, fix it in the mix" mentality when you had a Spector or a Brian cutting Be My Baby or Pet Sounds.

[bringahorseinhere?]

if anyone wants to check out the importance of mixing and recording live simultaneously...... check out the doco on Les Paul called 'chasing that sound'..

Magic Stuff....... he basically invented the overdubbing technique Brian used, but did it in the 40's.

RickB

[DonnyL]

Not sure if you guys saw this or not, but I found it to be very insightful and moving:

http://vimeo.com/66822387

[monicker]

Most of what has been discussed in this thread is more arranging than production. But i think that’s one of the things that made Brian so special, the fact that the same guy who was arranging was also producing (and performing and writing, of course), so he had the whole picture in mind from the start. Compare that process to that of Spector's, who had Jack Nitzsche arranging most of his productions and writers like Goffin/King, Mann/Weil, Barry/Greenwich, etc. behind the songs.

I love Brian’s approach to drums, how he eschewed cymbals and a steady “beat” (the drummer just keeping time), and in place of a conventional rock drum approach, he filled out the arrangements with different percussion parts that, when combined, formed something greater than its parts, that interplay between, say, a tambourine, a pair of temple blocks, and sleighbells all making an interesting rhythmic figure. One of my favorite small details of his trademark sound. It's in line with how 20th century composers used percussion.

Like the man himself once said, i hate rock & roll 

[Sam_BFC]

Not sure if you guys saw this or not, but I found it to be very insightful and moving:

http://vimeo.com/66822387

Very good.

So it was Van Dyke who came up with the Good Vibrations cello part?
And Van Dyke never took LSD?

Sorry to derail, should add that discussion of The Beach Boys forms a very small part of what is a great, extended insight into Van Dyke the artist.

[DonnyL]

Most of what has been discussed in this thread is more arranging than production.

That's true to a degree, but with Brian's '60s productions, it's surely a fine line!

And, in general ... since Brian didn't actually compose traditional 'arrangements' per se, I would personally call the whole thing 'production'.

A producer can simply show up and let everyone do their thing, or he can control every minute detail intimately ...

[monicker]

Not sure if you guys saw this or not, but I found it to be very insightful and moving:

http://vimeo.com/66822387

He mentions the bat cave! Static in the bat cave! 

[Micha]

Keep in mind:

- I specifically said mid-60's, when Brian's arrangements became more reliant on larger groups of musicians, and those often played live in the same studio at the same time. Surfer Girl has a basic rock group setup, 2 guitars-bass-drums, that's it. Not the same sonic issues as "Sloop John B".

- Consider your own experience is in modern times, not 1965. I doubt you're recording 12 musicians at the same time in the studio, recording to 4-track, bouncing tracks several times, adding and doubling stacked vocals, then going to a mono mix, and mixing for maximum impact on AM radio. 

- It's not just hi-hat. If you listen to a great 60's radio single like "She Loves You", the cymbals are washing out all over the place but it works for the energy of that song. That sound would not work as well for Pet Sounds' arrangements, would it? That's the point.

Obviously I wasn't paying attention enough, as now I think we were talking past each other. I didn't refer to Pet Sounds kind of arrangements. The lack of hi-hat bugs me on basic rock group setups as on the Surfer Girl or LDC album. Songs as No-Go Showboat or Custom Machine would IMHO benefit from a decent hi-hat because it would, as you worded it, "work for the energy of that song". ("She Loves You" was my most favorite song at the age of about 6, still love it today.) The best example is the song "Hawaii", which is to me the most failed early BW production. The drums just drag along, and Hal Blaine's timbales add no drive at all. IMHO Dennis wasn't good at playing without the hi-hat (yet). How great in comparison are the 1964 live versions, Dennis banging away on drums, hi-hat and cymbals driving the song to an energy the studio version does not have one tenth of. What do you think?

[guitarfool2002]

Keep in mind:

- I specifically said mid-60's, when Brian's arrangements became more reliant on larger groups of musicians, and those often played live in the same studio at the same time. Surfer Girl has a basic rock group setup, 2 guitars-bass-drums, that's it. Not the same sonic issues as "Sloop John B".

- Consider your own experience is in modern times, not 1965. I doubt you're recording 12 musicians at the same time in the studio, recording to 4-track, bouncing tracks several times, adding and doubling stacked vocals, then going to a mono mix, and mixing for maximum impact on AM radio. 

- It's not just hi-hat. If you listen to a great 60's radio single like "She Loves You", the cymbals are washing out all over the place but it works for the energy of that song. That sound would not work as well for Pet Sounds' arrangements, would it? That's the point.

Obviously I wasn't paying attention enough, as now I think we were talking past each other. I didn't refer to Pet Sounds kind of arrangements. The lack of hi-hat bugs me on basic rock group setups as on the Surfer Girl or LDC album. Songs as No-Go Showboat or Custom Machine would IMHO benefit from a decent hi-hat because it would, as you worded it, "work for the energy of that song". ("She Loves You" was my most favorite song at the age of about 6, still love it today.) The best example is the song "Hawaii", which is to me the most failed early BW production. The drums just drag along, and Hal Blaine's timbales add no drive at all. IMHO Dennis wasn't good at playing without the hi-hat (yet). How great in comparison are the 1964 live versions, Dennis banging away on drums, hi-hat and cymbals driving the song to an energy the studio version does not have one tenth of. What do you think?

I agree with this, I actually had the thought of Dennis' live performances in my mind as I was writing much of the previous stuff in this thread. I feel that when there is a basic rock band setup as on the earlier albums and songs you mentioned, and the song being recorded has that rock and roll groove and feel to it, the hi-hat adds a lot of flavor and drive to the production. It's basically like having the rock band playing live in the studio, as they would on stage, trying to capture that energy. Those earlier Beatles singles like She Loves You and I Want To Hold Your Hand are prime examples, and can you imagine *not* having Ringo playing cymbals and hi-hat as he did on those tracks? They'd sound empty in some ways.

Great point about the BB's live, with Dennis. For the issues he may have had with time and tempo, chalk that up to adrenaline and pure energy, because the guy was a terrific live rock drummer, just pure rock energy on stage behind his kit. But as often happens, what is a terrific element on stage can be too uncontrolled for the studio, and vice versa. Which is why sometimes I think his studio parts were kept more simple and more subdued than obviously he'd play the same songs on stage. But in both cases, they worked for the context they were in.

And keep in mind, too, that I think the basic BB's live setup on stage in the early and mid 60's was that pure, basic rock band with no additional musicians. So you would then need other elements within that core group of instruments to "fill in" live, where in the studio there would be more instruments and different concerns for how to deliver the full sound the songs might need.

[guitarfool2002]

Most of what has been discussed in this thread is more arranging than production. But i think that’s one of the things that made Brian so special, the fact that the same guy who was arranging was also producing (and performing and writing, of course), so he had the whole picture in mind from the start. Compare that process to that of Spector's, who had Jack Nitzsche arranging most of his productions and writers like Goffin/King, Mann/Weil, Barry/Greenwich, etc. behind the songs.

I hope what I had added to this thread wasn't too wordy or detailed to obscure the main points, but what I've been suggesting is that the "control room" jobs in the process, from "producer" to "engineer" to "arranger", feature elements of each defined role.

Or more simply put, the strict definitions began to blur quite a bit and are in many cases since the 1960's at least, antiquated definitions. The role of producer isn't what it was, yet in some genres and settings it may be. Same with arranger, engineer, etc.

What I wrote touched on elements of mixing, arranging, producing, performing, the whole spectrum. And those elements and who is responsible for them changes from project to project.

I haven't had any public success, far from it, but I have in the past 20 years been credited as "arranger", "producer", etc on some projects, both live and studio. As arranger, in one case someone with a live band wanted to use an arrangement I had written for a Brand New Heavies song featuring horns. So we struck a deal, I gave him the score and the parts, and I never heard his band play the arrangement. Another case, someone who had a family wedding coming up was a singer-songwriter who had written an original tune on guitar and wanted to have a string quartet play it at the wedding. So we struck a deal, I got a tape of his demo, and I scored it for string quartet and gave him the parts for the quartet to play. I never heard the performance.

That's the old-school definition of arranging, where you'd hire someone to add, sweeten, or develop an already existing song, but it was like putting icing on a cake which had already been baked but needed something more, or had to be developed for a different purpose. Most cases the arranger, unless he/she was conducting the band in the studio, would not even be present after the charts were delivered and the money paid.

With production, most times it was a case of someone coming in with either a guitar-vocal demo or playing a song idea live in front of us, and that was the basic idea which they wanted to develop. So as "producer", I'd listen, chart out the form and chord changes, and start from there. Sometimes it was adding, editing, or changing a section in the song form, sometimes it was changing key for better impact in the vocal, sometimes the "demo" was spot-on and only needed to be built up with instrumentation appropriate for what that performer was looking for.

So after the brick-and-mortar work was done, the production began through the recording. And that involved who would play, how they'd play, and what they'd play with an eye toward the finished product. Then after that, the basic tracks were done, the overdubbing and additions would begin. Were there harmony parts needed, did it need an organ part, how about a group wordless vocal versus a harmony vocal following the lead? All of that stuff.

Then the mix, etc.

So as "producer", I (or we) did not call in or hire an outside arranger at any time, it was all done as part of the production process with the ultimate goal of a finished song production to hand to the client. From arranging the vocals, to deciding who and what would play in the bridge versus the 2nd chorus, it was part of the big picture.

Where in previous decades, there may not have been such a melding of these different jobs into one main role in the process.

I wanted to give those examples as support for the idea that arranging, production, and engineering are often bringing in elements from each job definition rather than having specific roles being given to specific people in the process.

And where Brian Wilson was concerned, he did cover all those bases in his early 20's. Yet, he also had guys like Chuck Britz there, and even his role as engineer brought in a certain level of production and arranging as he worked with Brian developing the tracks in the studio. Same with Spector, Nitzschke, and Larry Levine as they recorded the Wall Of Sound. It was part of the old-school big band scene to credit Jack as "arranger", but I'd say each of them brought pieces of each other's job into the process as the song was developed, and as the roles were not as strictly defined and were beginning to change in the 60's.

[Micha]

You know where the hi-hat really bugs me? Good Timin'. That would be much better if instead of the hi-hat some not so harsh and piercing percussion would have been used. I loved the unplugged version they played during the 2004 SMiLE tour.