Why was Carl at the bottom of the harmony stack?

[tpesky]

The live arrangements are where things get really tricky, largely due to personnel changing.  So in '64, Al would have sung Dennis's part on Surfer Girl, but once Brian left Al started singing the highest part for a long time. ( Bruce would then go on Dennis's part I guess).  Then in the 80's when Al stopped singing falsetto I'm not sure what happened. In 80 Al was on top. In that '81 clip it sounds like he is singing lower than he ever did at any point on Surfer Girl. Then he was back top for a little when Carl came back, before Jeff took it  Sometimes it sounds like Al sings higher than Carl on it throughout the 80s and 90s.  To cloud things further, how did they do it in 2012?

[donald]

Great discussion.  I have no real formal music training but as a lifelong BB fan I have tried to follow the harmony parts.  I can pick out individual parts here and there but I lose the thread after a point,can't follow the voice for more than a measure or two.   somewhere, on a boot or compilation, there  is a recording of Carl doing his part of, as I recall, Surfer Girl, alone without the other voices in harmony.   The melody sounds quite different with Carl doing that isolated part of the harmony.  anyone familiar with this recording and care to try to explain how the melody changes with the other voices out of the mix?

[c-man]

Great discussion.  I have no real formal music training but as a lifelong BB fan I have tried to follow the harmony parts.  I can pick out individual parts here and there but I lose the thread after a point,can't follow the voice for more than a measure or two.   somewhere, on a boot or compilation, there  is a recording of Carl doing his part of, as I recall, Surfer Girl, alone without the other voices in harmony.   The melody sounds quite different with Carl doing that isolated part of the harmony.  anyone familiar with this recording and care to try to explain how the melody changes with the other voices out of the mix?

I think that's the video Dr. Lenny was referring us to, from "Endless Harmony" (fitting source considering the title).

[metal flake paint]

Surfer Girl (Carl solo snippet, from Endless Harmony):

http://youtu.be/OAIyCu-oSJA?t=2m16s

[MarcellaHasDirtyFeet]

I hear Carl's usual live part on Surfer Girl, and that seems to be what Al is struggling with in that clip from '81, but I can't for the life of me follow Dennis' line. It seems to blend with Mike and Carl's to the point that I can't ever really hear it for itself. Does Dennis at times sing a note in unison with either of those two as his line moves about?

Brian friggin' Wilson... Jeez

[Autotune]

I hear Carl's usual live part on Surfer Girl, and that seems to be what Al is struggling with in that clip from '81, but I can't for the life of me follow Dennis' line. It seems to blend with Mike and Carl's to the point that I can't ever really hear it for itself. Does Dennis at times sing a note in unison with either of those two as his line moves about?

Brian friggin' Wilson... Jeez

I should go back to the original recrding to confirm if Carl's usual live part (the one Al is singing in that 81 show) is indeed his original part or Dennis'. Anyway, Al's usual live part starts on a D, and it's quite easy to follow, considering how low and tight those parts are.

An interesting aside: does't Mike sing an E over the Gm chord?

[zachrwolfe]

‍

[adamghost]

I'm not directing this post at anyone or any post in particular, but just offering a suggestion.

IMO, it doesn't do as much good to try figuring out who sang what, or whose voice was above another as much as it would transcribing and analyzing what notes of each chord they are singing, and how Brian's arrangements would feature the concept of writing "lines" on certain songs rather than blocking out chords starting with melody (top) then bass (bottom), then filling in the alto and tenor inner voices to fill in the chord of that moment. That was the Bach style, learned in every music theory class for a few centuries.

The line writing technique can create far more movement and more interesting interplay between the voices, so you get the chord sound but as the chords progress there are also interesting lines in each voice that flow more evenly than when a writer/arranger has two voices to fill, and in filling those usually middle voices after the bass and lead are set, the intervals you'll have the singers jumping can be crazy.

Not that some of Brian's charts don't do that very same thing, and I think he took that directly from some of those Bach "music theory" lessons he had taken, but when Brian called on the techniques he learned on his own from transcribing Four Freshmen arrangements, he had that more jazz-based, more modern line-writing technique in his bag.

Quick story:

I was taking a vocal arranging class at Berklee. The instructor had been a member of the Four Freshmen in one of their 1970's incarnations, touring with them as a singer-arranger-musician, as the membership had been changing off and on since the 50's. One class he opened it up for anyone who wanted to bring in a cassette of a vocal arrangement they liked, and he'd go over it with the class.

Someone else in the class had brought in Pet Sounds, wanted to see what was going on with Sloop John B, especially the soaring a capella break. So the instructor puts on the tape, it gets to the break. He plays it back, and goes to the blackboard. He starts writing lines, individual parts he had heard, by ear. Keep in mind, he had been doing this professionally since the 50's, it was in his blood and was his trade.

So he's sketching out parts, and after a few minutes he had the break, or at least a damned good sketch of it, enough to dig into the harmonies and what each part was doing, and how they added up to the chord changes.

Overall, it wasn't too complex, harmony wise, and just like I had sketched out California Girls on this board over a year or so ago, they are mostly triads underneath it all. But the way the individual lines worked in and out of the chords was the keeper, the takeaway. It sound brilliant, it sounds intricate, but ultimately it's simple triadic harmony anchoring some terrific individual lines.

I was stunned, still haven't gotten over watching someone do that in a matter of minutes after listening to a tape.

So I'll suggest again, trying to figure out who sang what isn't getting close to the magician's tricks, Brian being the magician naturally, and since at least one member could cover each band member's range convincingly, and since at least three of them when in a tight harmony could sound very close to the others to the point of sounding like the family they were (except Al, but hell he sounded like a Wilson too...), it's more fun to break down the actual notes on paper and see how Brian spun them together.

Good post, but disagree.  The notes are only part of what Brian did.  He was very specific (and we have both Alan's and Brian's own words to back this up) about casting the band's voices in specific roles.  I can tell you from years of singing harmony that it matters a lot who sings where.  My own voice kills in the low midrange.  I can also hit up to an F5, but unless you want the sound of breaking glass, you don't want me singing up there unless you want a shrill top.  I've had many situations where juggling the singers just doesn't sound good unless it's a specific lineup, regardless of who has the theoretical range.  The tone of the singer is just as important, and it's a trickier thing to understand and pin down than a straight vocal arrangement.

Same with the BBs.  Dennis and Al had similar ranges, but wildly different vocal timbres.  Same is true with Carl and Bruce.  Where you place them in the stack is essential.  Brian was brilliant at casting the singers where they'd resonate the best.  It is a bit of a rarified and obscure art -- which is why it's worth studying and thinking about.

[guitarfool2002]

I'm not directing this post at anyone or any post in particular, but just offering a suggestion.

IMO, it doesn't do as much good to try figuring out who sang what, or whose voice was above another as much as it would transcribing and analyzing what notes of each chord they are singing, and how Brian's arrangements would feature the concept of writing "lines" on certain songs rather than blocking out chords starting with melody (top) then bass (bottom), then filling in the alto and tenor inner voices to fill in the chord of that moment. That was the Bach style, learned in every music theory class for a few centuries.

The line writing technique can create far more movement and more interesting interplay between the voices, so you get the chord sound but as the chords progress there are also interesting lines in each voice that flow more evenly than when a writer/arranger has two voices to fill, and in filling those usually middle voices after the bass and lead are set, the intervals you'll have the singers jumping can be crazy.

Not that some of Brian's charts don't do that very same thing, and I think he took that directly from some of those Bach "music theory" lessons he had taken, but when Brian called on the techniques he learned on his own from transcribing Four Freshmen arrangements, he had that more jazz-based, more modern line-writing technique in his bag.

Quick story:

I was taking a vocal arranging class at Berklee. The instructor had been a member of the Four Freshmen in one of their 1970's incarnations, touring with them as a singer-arranger-musician, as the membership had been changing off and on since the 50's. One class he opened it up for anyone who wanted to bring in a cassette of a vocal arrangement they liked, and he'd go over it with the class.

Someone else in the class had brought in Pet Sounds, wanted to see what was going on with Sloop John B, especially the soaring a capella break. So the instructor puts on the tape, it gets to the break. He plays it back, and goes to the blackboard. He starts writing lines, individual parts he had heard, by ear. Keep in mind, he had been doing this professionally since the 50's, it was in his blood and was his trade.

So he's sketching out parts, and after a few minutes he had the break, or at least a damned good sketch of it, enough to dig into the harmonies and what each part was doing, and how they added up to the chord changes.

Overall, it wasn't too complex, harmony wise, and just like I had sketched out California Girls on this board over a year or so ago, they are mostly triads underneath it all. But the way the individual lines worked in and out of the chords was the keeper, the takeaway. It sound brilliant, it sounds intricate, but ultimately it's simple triadic harmony anchoring some terrific individual lines.

I was stunned, still haven't gotten over watching someone do that in a matter of minutes after listening to a tape.

So I'll suggest again, trying to figure out who sang what isn't getting close to the magician's tricks, Brian being the magician naturally, and since at least one member could cover each band member's range convincingly, and since at least three of them when in a tight harmony could sound very close to the others to the point of sounding like the family they were (except Al, but hell he sounded like a Wilson too...), it's more fun to break down the actual notes on paper and see how Brian spun them together.

Good post, but disagree.  The notes are only part of what Brian did.  He was very specific (and we have both Alan's and Brian's own words to back this up) about casting the band's voices in specific roles.  I can tell you from years of singing harmony that it matters a lot who sings where.  My own voice kills in the low midrange.  I can also hit up to an F5, but unless you want the sound of breaking glass, you don't want me singing up there unless you want a shrill top.  I've had many situations where juggling the singers just doesn't sound good unless it's a specific lineup, regardless of who has the theoretical range.  The tone of the singer is just as important, and it's a trickier thing to understand and pin down than a straight vocal arrangement.

Same with the BBs.  Dennis and Al had similar ranges, but wildly different vocal timbres.  Same is true with Carl and Bruce.  Where you place them in the stack is essential.  Brian was brilliant at casting the singers where they'd resonate the best.  It is a bit of a rarified and obscure art -- which is why it's worth studying and thinking about.

That's basically what I wrote on page one, about that blend and tone and Brian's unique quest for the little sonic touches that most listeners wouldn't notice. Alan Boyd in his comments to you said pretty much the same thing, only using different terminology, but yeah - I agree it came down to overall *sound* above all.

What I'm suggesting and perhaps didn't word it too well was an eye toward looking ahead, or even those who would look to use some of these sounds in their own music. Since we don't have access and will never again have access to two of the main singers in that blend, and since I'm guessing none of us unless by sheer luck and fate will have the chance to work directly with these vocalists, who-sang-what doesn't achieve much beyond confirming what has already been done and is up to 50 years old at this point.

From a musician's viewpoint, if you're really into that kind of sound and want to use it on an original song or arrangement, does it matter whether Al or Carl sang the flat 7th or the 5th on a stacked harmony, or would it matter more how that flat 7th and 5th of the chord were arranged in between three other voices in the harmony stack, and then how they resolved to the next chord?

I just thought it would be a better pursuit - for those musicians interested in copying and adapting some of that magic - to dig into the techniques and notes and take the cues from that, since it won't be Carl and Al singing your parts. Again, if the goal is more musical than academic/historical. 

[Autotune]

What part did Carl usually sing on Surfer Girl? The part directly below the lead? Because I always thought it was Al on that part, and that's exactly what he's singing in the '81 clip, if I remember correctly.

Orig recording: the one part right below Brian's lead as far as I can tell. Perhaps Dennis' tone would have killed the blend in such a tightly-harmonized sweet ballad.

Live: the same part.

In the 81 video, Al (who, when not singing lead sang Dennis' part) sings Carl's part.

In the 2012 Rolling Stone acoustic version, I think Brian sings Carl's part. He may be doubled by Bruce. And David may be doubling Al.

In the coda to the live version, Alan usually sings a part above Carl that i don't remember being on the original recording

[zachrwolfe]

‍

[zachrwolfe]

‍

[Autotune]

What part did Carl usually sing on Surfer Girl? The part directly below the lead? Because I always thought it was Al on that part, and that's exactly what he's singing in the '81 clip, if I remember correctly.

Orig recording: the one part right below Brian's lead as far as I can tell. Perhaps Dennis' tone would have killed the blend in such a tightly-harmonized sweet ballad.

Live: the same part.

In the 81 video, Al (who, when not singing lead sang Dennis' part) sings Carl's part.

In the 2012 Rolling Stone acoustic version, I think Brian sings Carl's part. He may be doubled by Bruce. And David may be doubling Al.

In the coda to the live version, Alan usually sings a part above Carl that i don't remember being on the original recording

OK, thanks. I always assumed Carl sang the third part on that song (it often being his role). I find it very difficult to tell who's singing what part in a stack on their 60s recordings. Later studio and live performances are quite a bit easier for me.

I never listened super closely, but on the Rolling Stone performance I think I remember Brian on the 2nd voice and Al and Bruce on the third, and being unable to hear David in the blend. Also, I think the coda and bridge both had five parts on the original as well (including lead).

I know it's not that significant, but I have to check now of course.

Confirmed, definitely five parts on the original in aforementioned sections. As for Rolling Stone, I hear Brian and Al on the second voice, and Bruce and Dave on third. Definitely weird delegation of parts (particularly Bruce on third) but I suppose it was a sound thing. Also don't know why they didn't have Scott doubling Scott instead of just playing guitar, but who am I to judge?

I agree about Brian + Al and Bruce + David singing the 2nd and 3rd part respectively on the RS version.
I think Bruce always has sung the 3rd part live, which is interesting.


Here's a weird version (listen to the bridge) with Carl singing 2nd part and Al singing 3rd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgTU0gTLDGk&feature=youtube_gdata_player


Now, this crazy vocal from Brian allows for the parts to be clearly heard. The stack from top to bottom is clearly Brian-Carl-Al-Mike. But, correct me if I'm wrong, Al sings above Carl during the bridge (and coda).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmDUAvCl87g&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[c-man]

>>Now, this crazy vocal from Brian allows for the parts to be clearly heard. The stack from top to bottom is clearly Brian-Carl-Al-Mike. But, correct me if I'm wrong, Al sings above Carl during the bridge (and coda).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmDUAvCl87g&feature=youtube_gdata_player>>

OK, so if there were definitely five parts in at least some places, and you list only four vocalists here, would the fifth part be Dennis (and was Billy somehow in the mix in '77)? This is one of the few songs on which Dennis always sang live, when he was there (except for that '81 version where Al took Carl's part).

[adamghost]

I'm not directing this post at anyone or any post in particular, but just offering a suggestion.

IMO, it doesn't do as much good to try figuring out who sang what, or whose voice was above another as much as it would transcribing and analyzing what notes of each chord they are singing, and how Brian's arrangements would feature the concept of writing "lines" on certain songs rather than blocking out chords starting with melody (top) then bass (bottom), then filling in the alto and tenor inner voices to fill in the chord of that moment. That was the Bach style, learned in every music theory class for a few centuries.

The line writing technique can create far more movement and more interesting interplay between the voices, so you get the chord sound but as the chords progress there are also interesting lines in each voice that flow more evenly than when a writer/arranger has two voices to fill, and in filling those usually middle voices after the bass and lead are set, the intervals you'll have the singers jumping can be crazy.

Not that some of Brian's charts don't do that very same thing, and I think he took that directly from some of those Bach "music theory" lessons he had taken, but when Brian called on the techniques he learned on his own from transcribing Four Freshmen arrangements, he had that more jazz-based, more modern line-writing technique in his bag.

Quick story:

I was taking a vocal arranging class at Berklee. The instructor had been a member of the Four Freshmen in one of their 1970's incarnations, touring with them as a singer-arranger-musician, as the membership had been changing off and on since the 50's. One class he opened it up for anyone who wanted to bring in a cassette of a vocal arrangement they liked, and he'd go over it with the class.

Someone else in the class had brought in Pet Sounds, wanted to see what was going on with Sloop John B, especially the soaring a capella break. So the instructor puts on the tape, it gets to the break. He plays it back, and goes to the blackboard. He starts writing lines, individual parts he had heard, by ear. Keep in mind, he had been doing this professionally since the 50's, it was in his blood and was his trade.

So he's sketching out parts, and after a few minutes he had the break, or at least a damned good sketch of it, enough to dig into the harmonies and what each part was doing, and how they added up to the chord changes.

Overall, it wasn't too complex, harmony wise, and just like I had sketched out California Girls on this board over a year or so ago, they are mostly triads underneath it all. But the way the individual lines worked in and out of the chords was the keeper, the takeaway. It sound brilliant, it sounds intricate, but ultimately it's simple triadic harmony anchoring some terrific individual lines.

I was stunned, still haven't gotten over watching someone do that in a matter of minutes after listening to a tape.

So I'll suggest again, trying to figure out who sang what isn't getting close to the magician's tricks, Brian being the magician naturally, and since at least one member could cover each band member's range convincingly, and since at least three of them when in a tight harmony could sound very close to the others to the point of sounding like the family they were (except Al, but hell he sounded like a Wilson too...), it's more fun to break down the actual notes on paper and see how Brian spun them together.

Good post, but disagree.  The notes are only part of what Brian did.  He was very specific (and we have both Alan's and Brian's own words to back this up) about casting the band's voices in specific roles.  I can tell you from years of singing harmony that it matters a lot who sings where.  My own voice kills in the low midrange.  I can also hit up to an F5, but unless you want the sound of breaking glass, you don't want me singing up there unless you want a shrill top.  I've had many situations where juggling the singers just doesn't sound good unless it's a specific lineup, regardless of who has the theoretical range.  The tone of the singer is just as important, and it's a trickier thing to understand and pin down than a straight vocal arrangement.

Same with the BBs.  Dennis and Al had similar ranges, but wildly different vocal timbres.  Same is true with Carl and Bruce.  Where you place them in the stack is essential.  Brian was brilliant at casting the singers where they'd resonate the best.  It is a bit of a rarified and obscure art -- which is why it's worth studying and thinking about.

That's basically what I wrote on page one, about that blend and tone and Brian's unique quest for the little sonic touches that most listeners wouldn't notice. Alan Boyd in his comments to you said pretty much the same thing, only using different terminology, but yeah - I agree it came down to overall *sound* above all.

What I'm suggesting and perhaps didn't word it too well was an eye toward looking ahead, or even those who would look to use some of these sounds in their own music. Since we don't have access and will never again have access to two of the main singers in that blend, and since I'm guessing none of us unless by sheer luck and fate will have the chance to work directly with these vocalists, who-sang-what doesn't achieve much beyond confirming what has already been done and is up to 50 years old at this point.

From a musician's viewpoint, if you're really into that kind of sound and want to use it on an original song or arrangement, does it matter whether Al or Carl sang the flat 7th or the 5th on a stacked harmony, or would it matter more how that flat 7th and 5th of the chord were arranged in between three other voices in the harmony stack, and then how they resolved to the next chord?

I just thought it would be a better pursuit - for those musicians interested in copying and adapting some of that magic - to dig into the techniques and notes and take the cues from that, since it won't be Carl and Al singing your parts. Again, if the goal is more musical than academic/historical.  

Well, again, good post, but again, disagree.  It matters a whole heck of a lot because if you don't understand how voices resonate, how to match timbres and timing, how to cast the singers in the stack, your harmony is going to suck.  I get what you're saying, but the fact that the particular magic of what Carl or Al (for instance) can't be exactly duplicated doesn't make it not worth studying, or learning from.  I've had my bellyful of Beach Boys fans that have to make records with the tympani sound from PET SOUNDS just so but it doesn't mean anything to the listener because the emotional context and resonance are missing.

Musicians trying to get into that magic who limit themselves to the notes -- sorry to be so blunt -- will fail.  Every element goes into synergy and while you can't duplicate the exact synergy, you CAN understand what went into it and apply it to your own case.   Writing a clever harmony part and singing it with dull and emotionless resonance with voices that don't fit (to oversimplify my argument) is not going to deliver anything close to what the Beach Boys did.  It's a great mistake that many musicians make to think that the idea, the thought behind something, is the thing.  It's not.  Execution is EVERYTHING.  To not study HOW the great harmonies were performed and constructed, just to focus on the black and white arrangements themselves, is to really miss a lot of the point.  You can't get a Carl and Al back, but you can get a Jeff and Frank and Bill who understand and apply those lessons to their own voices, and do something special.

Heck, asking the very question I did at the top of this thread -- why was Carl where he was? -- provokes people to consider the question.  And the answer was, for the most part, because that's where his particular voice was most resonant.  The fact that Carl Wilson himself is dead does not mean that the question that raises -- that these kinds of decisions matter -- isn't worth thinking about.  This is exactly the kind of subtle thing that a lot of people miss, and then wonder why their records don't have the spark they are looking for.  It's understanding the intangibles and making them tangible by absorbing them into your own musical journey that enables musicians to create a new synergy.  Just understanding the nuts and bolts won't get you there.  This stuff is important, all the more important because people don't think about it much.

[Autotune]

>>Now, this crazy vocal from Brian allows for the parts to be clearly heard. The stack from top to bottom is clearly Brian-Carl-Al-Mike. But, correct me if I'm wrong, Al sings above Carl during the bridge (and coda).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmDUAvCl87g&feature=youtube_gdata_player>>

OK, so if there were definitely five parts in at least some places, and you list only four vocalists here, would the fifth part be Dennis (and was Billy somehow in the mix in '77)? This is one of the few songs on which Dennis always sang live, when he was there (except for that '81 version where Al took Carl's part).

Well, I only hear four parts on the original recording. Zach hears five in certain spots; perhaps he can point some of them? And I also hear four on this version. The only places where I hear an extra fifth part is on certain live versions since the 80s, when Al sings a part in the coda that is not on the original recording. I think Dennis, when singing, sings the third part (the one he sang on the record) and Billy, if singing, may have doubled the second. Just speculating about Billy here. In truth, there is not much room in the stack for five parts except the coda and a few other spots where the lead soars significantly higher than the rest of the voices.  

What's remarkable about this late 70s version is that on certain sections Al and Carl seem to cross parts (Al switches momentarily to second and Carl to third). This may be more common than we think (for preservation of their voices, as singing thos aahs for a long time can quickly take its toll on your voice).

[guitarfool2002]

I'm not directing this post at anyone or any post in particular, but just offering a suggestion.

IMO, it doesn't do as much good to try figuring out who sang what, or whose voice was above another as much as it would transcribing and analyzing what notes of each chord they are singing, and how Brian's arrangements would feature the concept of writing "lines" on certain songs rather than blocking out chords starting with melody (top) then bass (bottom), then filling in the alto and tenor inner voices to fill in the chord of that moment. That was the Bach style, learned in every music theory class for a few centuries.

The line writing technique can create far more movement and more interesting interplay between the voices, so you get the chord sound but as the chords progress there are also interesting lines in each voice that flow more evenly than when a writer/arranger has two voices to fill, and in filling those usually middle voices after the bass and lead are set, the intervals you'll have the singers jumping can be crazy.

Not that some of Brian's charts don't do that very same thing, and I think he took that directly from some of those Bach "music theory" lessons he had taken, but when Brian called on the techniques he learned on his own from transcribing Four Freshmen arrangements, he had that more jazz-based, more modern line-writing technique in his bag.

Quick story:

I was taking a vocal arranging class at Berklee. The instructor had been a member of the Four Freshmen in one of their 1970's incarnations, touring with them as a singer-arranger-musician, as the membership had been changing off and on since the 50's. One class he opened it up for anyone who wanted to bring in a cassette of a vocal arrangement they liked, and he'd go over it with the class.

Someone else in the class had brought in Pet Sounds, wanted to see what was going on with Sloop John B, especially the soaring a capella break. So the instructor puts on the tape, it gets to the break. He plays it back, and goes to the blackboard. He starts writing lines, individual parts he had heard, by ear. Keep in mind, he had been doing this professionally since the 50's, it was in his blood and was his trade.

So he's sketching out parts, and after a few minutes he had the break, or at least a damned good sketch of it, enough to dig into the harmonies and what each part was doing, and how they added up to the chord changes.

Overall, it wasn't too complex, harmony wise, and just like I had sketched out California Girls on this board over a year or so ago, they are mostly triads underneath it all. But the way the individual lines worked in and out of the chords was the keeper, the takeaway. It sound brilliant, it sounds intricate, but ultimately it's simple triadic harmony anchoring some terrific individual lines.

I was stunned, still haven't gotten over watching someone do that in a matter of minutes after listening to a tape.

So I'll suggest again, trying to figure out who sang what isn't getting close to the magician's tricks, Brian being the magician naturally, and since at least one member could cover each band member's range convincingly, and since at least three of them when in a tight harmony could sound very close to the others to the point of sounding like the family they were (except Al, but hell he sounded like a Wilson too...), it's more fun to break down the actual notes on paper and see how Brian spun them together.

Good post, but disagree.  The notes are only part of what Brian did.  He was very specific (and we have both Alan's and Brian's own words to back this up) about casting the band's voices in specific roles.  I can tell you from years of singing harmony that it matters a lot who sings where.  My own voice kills in the low midrange.  I can also hit up to an F5, but unless you want the sound of breaking glass, you don't want me singing up there unless you want a shrill top.  I've had many situations where juggling the singers just doesn't sound good unless it's a specific lineup, regardless of who has the theoretical range.  The tone of the singer is just as important, and it's a trickier thing to understand and pin down than a straight vocal arrangement.

Same with the BBs.  Dennis and Al had similar ranges, but wildly different vocal timbres.  Same is true with Carl and Bruce.  Where you place them in the stack is essential.  Brian was brilliant at casting the singers where they'd resonate the best.  It is a bit of a rarified and obscure art -- which is why it's worth studying and thinking about.

That's basically what I wrote on page one, about that blend and tone and Brian's unique quest for the little sonic touches that most listeners wouldn't notice. Alan Boyd in his comments to you said pretty much the same thing, only using different terminology, but yeah - I agree it came down to overall *sound* above all.

What I'm suggesting and perhaps didn't word it too well was an eye toward looking ahead, or even those who would look to use some of these sounds in their own music. Since we don't have access and will never again have access to two of the main singers in that blend, and since I'm guessing none of us unless by sheer luck and fate will have the chance to work directly with these vocalists, who-sang-what doesn't achieve much beyond confirming what has already been done and is up to 50 years old at this point.

From a musician's viewpoint, if you're really into that kind of sound and want to use it on an original song or arrangement, does it matter whether Al or Carl sang the flat 7th or the 5th on a stacked harmony, or would it matter more how that flat 7th and 5th of the chord were arranged in between three other voices in the harmony stack, and then how they resolved to the next chord?

I just thought it would be a better pursuit - for those musicians interested in copying and adapting some of that magic - to dig into the techniques and notes and take the cues from that, since it won't be Carl and Al singing your parts. Again, if the goal is more musical than academic/historical.  

Well, again, good post, but again, disagree.  It matters a whole heck of a lot because if you don't understand how voices resonate, how to match timbres and timing, how to cast the singers in the stack, your harmony is going to suck.  I get what you're saying, but the fact that the particular magic of what Carl or Al (for instance) can't be exactly duplicated doesn't make it not worth studying, or learning from.  I've had my bellyful of Beach Boys fans that have to make records with the tympani sound from PET SOUNDS just so but it doesn't mean anything to the listener because the emotional context and resonance are missing.

Musicians trying to get into that magic who limit themselves to the notes -- sorry to be so blunt -- will fail.  Every element goes into synergy and while you can't duplicate the exact synergy, you CAN understand what went into it and apply it to your own case.   Writing a clever harmony part and singing it with dull and emotionless resonance with voices that don't fit (to oversimplify my argument) is not going to deliver anything close to what the Beach Boys did.  It's a great mistake that many musicians make to think that the idea, the thought behind something, is the thing.  It's not.  Execution is EVERYTHING.  To not study HOW the great harmonies were performed and constructed, just to focus on the black and white arrangements themselves, is to really miss a lot of the point.  You can't get a Carl and Al back, but you can get a Jeff and Frank and Bill who understand and apply those lessons to their own voices, and do something special.

Heck, asking the very question I did at the top of this thread -- why was Carl where he was? -- provokes people to consider the question.  And the answer was, for the most part, because that's where his particular voice was most resonant.  The fact that Carl Wilson himself is dead does not mean that the question that raises -- that these kinds of decisions matter -- isn't worth thinking about.  This is exactly the kind of subtle thing that a lot of people miss, and then wonder why their records don't have the spark they are looking for.  It's understanding the intangibles and making them tangible by absorbing them into your own musical journey that enables musicians to create a new synergy.  Just understanding the nuts and bolts won't get you there.  This stuff is important, all the more important because people don't think about it much.

But you cannot build *anything* without knowing how the nuts and bolts work or at least trying to understand how they work, specifically how they hold everything together. You'll have a pile of raw materials - hey, I know they used this brand of wood and this size nail and this color siding and this kind of brick - but what about the actual ways to construct the thing?

I'm also sick of musicians - Beach Boys loving musicians - who think it's just a matter of throwing in a little bit of this and a little bit of that and expecting to create a gourmet meal because you threw in a bunch of ingredients that someone else had used.

Maybe I'm missing the point you're suggesting, and I don't want to get into a pissing match here, but what is the point of knowing whether a particular singer sang a particular note in a chordal harmony if that person doesn't know how to voice lead a Dmin7b5 to a G7b9 to a Cmaj7 using four voices?

That's the nuts and bolts I'm talking about, consider why Brian voicing that ii-V-I resolution sounded different than Duke Ellington or Nelson Riddle arranging parts for the same chord turnaround.

And finding that magic resonance in a vocalists' range is a noble pursuit, but what if you are doing a one-man-band thing like a majority of musicians are doing today with their Mac and DAW program? You want to add a stacked harmony to a chorus of an original song, the chords are C Amin Fmin G7, and you're the only singer in the room. If that solo artist recording that song doesn't know what makes an F minor different from an F major, they're screwed. No matter how great their resonance and vocal projection, if they can't harmonize a triad they're going to suck. Unless they have some digital harmonizer to get the robot chorus harmonizing on their track.

I guess I'll agree to disagree here, but all i wanted to do was suggest that anyone here who is in that scenario of recording their music on their own - not having access to 5 singers who can not only harmonize but also blend like professionals - It would make more sense to me to look at the way Brian's arrangements flowed and connected *using the notes he chose to use* versus trying to pick out Al Jardine on a random track.

But that's my own bag, I'll cop to that. But let's not suggest learning the mechanics and nuts-and-bolts of the harmony isn't crucial to the whole deal, because it is.

And as far as intangibles, how many of us would love to be able to walk into Gold Star and capture that amazing room sound, with all the reflections and overtones and all those little scientific things that made that cacophony of instruments bounce off the walls and ceilings and create that "x factor" which gave Gold Star its trademark sound, not to mention the echo chambers, second to none acoustically and in the way they reacted to sound.

We can understand how and why and what gear was used and what the room dimensions were and everything else down to the type of material on the walls - but you're not going to ever capture Gold Star again because it's gone. Can you try to learn what went into making that room what it was and what they did in recording and mixing to create those amazing recordings, then apply it to your own available recording tools?

Absolutely. But again, without knowing the nuts and bolts of recording the way they worked at Gold Star, you're going to be out of luck. It doesn't matter a bit whether Larry Levine or Stan Ross worked the board, or whether they used Altec versus JBL if you can't set up a signal chain.

[Sam_BFC]

Well I think both Adam's point, regarding individual voice resonance, and Craig's point, regarding the nuts and bolts of the actual lines the respective singers are singing, demand attention and contribute to the greatness being discussed.  Each is greatly augmented by the other.

[Jon Stebbins]

What part did Carl usually sing on Surfer Girl? The part directly below the lead? Because I always thought it was Al on that part, and that's exactly what he's singing in the '81 clip, if I remember correctly.

Should be noted that Al's voice is not on the 1963 hit recording of Surfer Girl.

[zachrwolfe]

‍

[adamghost]

@Guitar Fool --

This is a classic example of a debate shifting mid-stream from where it started to somewhere where one of the participants (me) is left defending a position he never took.

OF COURSE it's important that people understand chord theory, how to arrange, the actual "nuts and bolts" as you say.  And so we're clear (agreed, not to pissing match), you're talking to a guy who makes part of his living stacking harmonies...I get paid to do a head arrangement and lay down double-tracked 4 and 5 part harmonies by my lonesome on pop songs on a regular basis -- and I generally have to do it under three hours.  I know this stuff cold....and while I DO understand chord theory, the reason my stuff sounds good goes far beyond being able to write this stuff down on a piece of paper -- which, in point of fact, I cannot do; I don't need to.  And these resonance lessons DO apply if you are a "one man band."  One reason I get hired is the recordings I make by myself do not, in fact, sound like one person made them.  By going beyond mere theory into how sounds flow and combine...which was something Brian excelled in and made an art of just as much of his arrangements -- and it isn't as if he just pulled them out of thin air.  He learned how, by obsessing over Spector and the Four Freshmen, etc.  It's not an intangible thing you can't be taught.  Anyhow.

What I objected to was your original assertion that this discussion wasn't worth having at all.  Even in the above post you talk about people should be studying the theory RATHER than studying resonance.  I don't think it's an either-or.  I'm not saying people should study resonance and blow off theory.  That would just be as counterproductive as the reverse, which is more or less how I read your original post.

Now your last post, as stated, I basically have no problem with other than what I have flagged above.  It's not, however, where the discussion started.  If I misunderstood you, fine and I apologize.  It's clear you have misunderstood me.

[adamghost]

Incidentally, I think this is one of those deals where which each have certain pet peeves or think things are lacking in the approach of people we see.  We just are observing two different things that are lacking and that's coming out in what we are focusing on.  You would RATHER see people focus on theory and I might RATHER see people focus on the finer and more subtle points of how sonics are made; because they are both blind spots depending on who you are listening to.  But they're both very important and often overlooked.  I know the phenomenon you are talking about; I've also seen plenty of people with a lot of theory and no sense of soul make technically perfect and totally uninvolving work.  To make really transcendent music, both are worthy of study, because music is more than one thing (and we haven't even talked about rhythm, which supersedes all).  Agreed?

And since I started this thread, it's about resonance and casting singers in a harmony blend.  We can talk about theory too!  And have.  Good stuff. But don't tell me this stuff doesn't matter or isn't a transferrable learnable skill by close listening and appreciation, just because Carl Wilson is dead.  It does and it is.  The blend didn't happen by accident.  It wasn't just the people involved.  If Bruce was on the bottom of the stack, and Mike was on the top, even if the part was in both their ranges, the harmony would suck.  Brian knew how to arrange the guys to their best advantage.  It wasn't an accident and it's something anybody recording a multiple harmony, alone or with a group, needs to think about.

[c-man]

What part did Carl usually sing on Surfer Girl? The part directly below the lead? Because I always thought it was Al on that part, and that's exactly what he's singing in the '81 clip, if I remember correctly.

Should be noted that Al's voice is not on the 1963 hit recording of Surfer Girl.

Jon, that was my original assumption based on Al's name being absent from the AFM contract, but now I'm not sure we can say that Al's not singing on the "Surfer Girl" single...as we've known all along, the June 12, 1963 "Surfer Girl"/"Little Deuce Coupe" session was held several weeks (or even months) after Al's return to the band, but the absence of his name from that contract always bothered me, especially since even Mike's name was included - Mike being a non-instrumentalist, vocals-only contributor to that session. But it now appears that the basic track for "Catch A Wave" was also laid down at the same session (despite that title not being listed on the contract), which would mean that Al was definitely present, since's he's for sure playing bass on "CAW". It's just a guess, but an explanation for the absence of Al's name from the AFM contract could simply be that he hadn't yet rejoined the AFM union.

[Jon Stebbins]

What part did Carl usually sing on Surfer Girl? The part directly below the lead? Because I always thought it was Al on that part, and that's exactly what he's singing in the '81 clip, if I remember correctly.

Should be noted that Al's voice is not on the 1963 hit recording of Surfer Girl.

Jon, that was my original assumption based on Al's name being absent from the AFM contract, but now I'm not sure we can say that Al's not singing on the "Surfer Girl" single...as we've known all along, the June 12, 1963 "Surfer Girl"/"Little Deuce Coupe" session was held several weeks (or even months) after Al's return to the band, but the absence of his name from that contract always bothered me, especially since even Mike's name was included - Mike being a non-instrumentalist, vocals-only contributor to that session. But it now appears that the basic track for "Catch A Wave" was also laid down at the same session (despite that title not being listed on the contract), which would mean that Al was definitely present, since's he's for sure playing bass on "CAW". It's just a guess, but an explanation for the absence of Al's name from the AFM contract could simply be that he hadn't yet rejoined the AFM union.

Sure with that in mind it is possible. I wasn't aware CAW was recorded that early, that's news to me. I guess I've trained my ears to assume he wasn't there, mainly based on Murry's assertion that Al be allowed to tour as Brian's fill-in but "no sessions, no royalties"...of course we know that the session stipulation was eventually eased, as Al is definitely on some Surfer Girl LP tracks, and he did begin to get a "partial" royalty share sometime after that. But it seems, at first, he was utilized more as a bassist to free Brian to play keyboards on the basic tracks, than as a vocalist. I guess it comes down to... is his voice on there, or are we hearing two Brian's?

[guitarfool2002]

To adamghost: Often when I get going on something which I feel strongly about, I can get derailed a bit. I think there were misunderstandings, for sure. I'm all about sound too, and resonance, and all of those "x factors", and have commented on those issues many times in the past. Also, I enjoy your music and respect you as a musician, so none of this is or was a direct challenge or anything.

I never meant the whole thread/discussion wasn't worth having at all, in fact i don't believe I ever said that and if I did suggest it than it's my bad. Because it is worth having. However, I still think there may be a disconnect with my perspective versus that of the thread.

Learning music theory for any musician is, I think, a very worthy pursuit, not saying anyone here said things to the contrary. And it's not all about being able to write notes on a paper. In all honesty, the times I have *ever* had to write a vocal part in notation on paper in the past 15 years, where I've been compensated for the work, I could count on one hand if that. Most times it's feeding the lines or the notes to whatever singer(s) are involved, much like Brian did with the Boys. And the lyric sheets if anything are chord charts or just plain lyrics. So it's possible to not even need to read or write traditional notation in order to apply the basics of harmony to one's music.

But knowing how it all works, is I think crucial for those looking to do things with their own music beyond just playing as part of a group, or any other similar deal. If anything, *that* may have been one of Brian Wilson's biggest strengths, that knowledge and familiarity with harmony and music theory which allowed him to do things in a self-contained way that the Beatles needed George Martin to do, and numerous bands through the years also needed an outsider to sort it all out if they wanted to orchestrate or have a full arrangement on their tracks. Brian's knowledge made the BB's a self-contained unit

And I may have misunderstood some of the comments, in fact I probably did, but I think anyone looking to Brian for influence might be just as well served spending time studying what he studied in terms of theory as much as which voice sang what. They are both essential to the sound, and I may have both misunderstood and then misstated some of the followups here.

I think too there are many more people today recording solo, or who simply don't have access to a group of musicians or singers to perform their music. And quite a few very skilled lead vocalists and solo singer-songwriters who I worked with in the past had little or no idea how to sing harmony, and had to be coached or given a crash-course in how to do it in front of the studio mic. Which is understandable, if they're the frontperson and lead voice, but at the same time they wanted harmonies on their song, they didn't have a group, and didn't understand the difference between adding a minor 3rd versus a major 3rd at a given point in their tune. So it took extra time to work it all out.

So the basic knowledge of chords might have both saved them time and also opened up new doors in their music. Thinking texturally and harmonically versus having chords and lyrics. And I know the types of people into these threads like this are either for the historical angle or the musician angle. I guess I had a picture in my mind of someone who wants to add some of this "magic" to his/her own tracks spending time listening to a chorus of a BB's song trying to pick out voices rather as taking precedent over learning the actual notes and how/why they work together. And by learning notes I don't mean writing everything down in correct notation, but just picking apart the ways they were arranged. It helps to see it written out, but it's obviously not essential to digging in deeper and sussing out what's going on.

It's probably more general than specific, but if anyone wants to apply some of that magic they hear on BB's vocals to their own track, take it all into consideration, but - just my opinion - learn the notes of the chords first, or at least spend time working out what each voice is doing before focusing on who is actually singing it. That element comes later, when you know what notes you're going to be singing on your track(s).

Adam, a direct question: As a working musician, have you been in situations where someone is coming in to either audition or jam or whatever else, and they talk a really good game - They know all the details, if you're covering a Beatles tune they can quote chapter and verse what kind of guitar and amp was used, the date it was done, and then you get players too with massive amounts of expensive flashy gear - guitarists with boutique pedalboards loaded with stuff, Paul Reed Smith $5,000 guitars with hand-built tube amps, bassists with all the blinged-out custom Laklands and whatnot, drummers, etc. So the expectation is that they will be on a certain level as players...and the groove kicks in and that person can't hold a steady beat for more than a few bars?    That's a case of needing to spend more time on the nuts and bolts of the music rather than the finer points.