The Smiley Smile Message Board

COMMENT:

You may view the Washington DC National Memorial Day Concert for 2016 at >>> http://www.pbs.org/video/2365765896/

THE BEACH BOYS segment starts at 42:00 minutes into the presentation.

Excellent production values and performance by all.   ~swd

Great music and good show, I specially liked the orchesta sound behind... but what about robo-mike???
His voice was fulled with auto-tune. You can tell all the concert was "sweetened", but his voice does not sound real... I wonder how it sounded live.

COMMENT:  I've been to several of the Mike/Bruce shows (and of course mixed many hundreds of other shows with the full group) and this show is typical of any performance. To answer your question . . . Mike and the other band members sound the same live as in this show, which was also a live show. I seriously doubt there was any post-production sweetening or other manipulation done in the last 24 hours -- what you saw and heard was the same as if you were there.  Do you doubt its authenticity because the singing was so good and so right-on?  Remember Mike and Bruce and many others have been singing these songs in concert since the '60s. They are professional singers. And YES, it was wonderful to hear real strings and horns. It reminded me of the days when we carried violin, cello, and horn players with us on tour. It was not uncommon to have a small orchestra backing up the front instruments -- just as you saw in this DC concert. ~swd

At least to my ears, every vocal track sounds like it has pitch correction. Even Jeff's. I don't understand the need for it as they are all fantastic singers.

To my ears its sounds horrible.

I listened and watched on the PBS HD feed. The sound on the Mike portion sounded like it was recorded in a tin can (no fault of Mike), and seemed to be mostly or wholly mimed (common for these types of shows). The lead vocals also sounded autotuned or otherwise relatively heavily processed (again not the fault of Mike, but ironic considering a past verbal swipe from him regarding autotune from Brian).

I don't believe Mike's shows typically sound like this. Sounds (and looks based on the miming) like they pre-recorded some stuff and in the process it was autotuned or otherwise processed.

Yep, I have to agree with everyone else here and unfortunately disagree with SWD. The breakdown around 46:40 is heavily pitch corrected.

It appears that everyone on stage is miming to a live pre-recorded track.   Some of Cowsill's fills don't match up with the sound and I even caught a few moments where he's playing on the ride yet we hear him playing on the hi-hat.  Since it was a live televised event, maybe all parties felt it was safer to have it pre-recorded for a flawless performance.

Yes on closer inspection there are many instances of things not looking as they sound.
I guess it was Joe's fault again....

COMMENT:  Well you-all could be right. Perhaps my casual viewing was not as precise as it could have been. I dropped Bruce a note to see what light he can shed on this issue, as I'm just as curious to know, as you are, what was done to the tape or how much was lipsynced. Upon making a more studied viewing, I can agree with the points many of you make. We shall see . . .
~swd

Stephen, I personally want to thank you for magnificent contribution to not only the band we all love, this board but also to music in general. I did not mean in any way to undermine your original post!
Thanks again!

As soon as I heard Foskett 'sing' the first few lines of GV, I knew there was no way that was a live vocal. Not just for the processing, but for the complete lack of ambient reverb.

Yep, big clue 'There Isn't A Mic In Sight On The Drum Kit'

I can't tell if they're lipsyncing or not, but they are definitely autotuned.

COMMENT:  After viewing the show again and again, and listening in detail, I'm going to support my first impression as stated above.

First, I have more experience, first hand experience listening to these guys sing, both in concert and in the studio, than anyone out in fan-land. I'm not boosting, just stating a fact. IMO Mike Love needs to use autotune as much as I need to use a hearing aid.  In listening to the concert I just don't hear any of the innertonational distortion that autotune introduces, even in its latest iteration. Mike Love using autotune would be like Frank Sinatra or Tony Bennett using the device. Listening and watching Mike sing in this concert, I don't see any lipsync going on. Note the end of the songs end with all on stage on the same note and beat -- lipsync is hard to end smoothly, I can tell you from experience. Listening to Mike's voice react to his distance and direction from his microphone and also how the sound character changes as his hand cups or opens around the diaphragm -- following the sound changes produced exactly. The other singers response patterns also follow as they move about the directional characteristics of the mikes in use. As far as lipsync to a pre-recorded track -- I noticed that every other string player is miked and every horn player seemed to have a mic. The drums were all close miked. I would guess that at least 40 or 50 sources of sound were being fed into a mixer for the live show and into a multi-track for the re-play. Yes it does sound like a very critical mix was made from a multi-track somewhere along the way, but did they first record the show without an audience, (perhaps) in an earlier rehearsal, and then lipsync the live event ... why? And who pays for all of the orchestra's extra time? That would be six figures easily. That is a possibility, but is it necessary? Certainly all the orchestra players could follow the written music and play that music on cue. It's not complex music -- at least for a classical player ... in fact, it's simple stuff. So no need to lipsync for the sake of the orchestra.
Still waiting to hear back from Bruce who may tell us the facts and cause me to eat my words, but at this point I still think it was a live -- for real -- performance.
~swd

Thanks for your input Stephen--I certainly value your views on the matter better than anyone!

Looking at Mike Love's photo album from over the weekend it appears that a lot of preparation went into the performance.  Perhaps they recorded a live performance of the core band (sans orchestra) during rehearsal and then played to a pre-recorded track with the orchestra playing live behind them on the actual live telecast?  My guess is that because the medley forced the songs to have very specific and intricate stops/changes as they went from one song to another--producers may have felt it was safer to have it pre-recorded to ensure a flawless performance?  It was a live performance to air, I believe.  Adding to the risk factor, the orchestra would only be playing the music once--during the telecast--so maybe it was decided to remove any form of risk in the proceedings by having it pre-recorded?

If it turns out it was all completely live--I wouldn't be that surprised because these guys are pros and wouldn't put it past them to nail it at showtime.

(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/13268394_1043368035742037_7156564776615821405_o.jpg)
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/13346379_1043368289075345_1249915455418966429_o.jpg)

I look forward to hearing what Bruce has to say.

If it was live without any sweeting then they all managed to sound younger than they have for a long time, with added cheese thrown in!  ;D

Stephen, I respect your work with the group but the reason people suspect autotune is the guys were flawless and that is not bourne out by all the shows they have done over the years.  Fabulous singers they may have been but age catches up with everyone.  They are still great but the voices are not what they once were when you worked with them.

Not only that, but  (to use an example) Jeff sounded almost nothing like Jeff.

AS SOON JEFF STARTED I WAS ....WHAT IS THIS...IT DOESNT SOUND LIKE JEFF...EVEN MIKE SOUNDED LIKE A ROBOT..

LEAVE THE AUTOTUNE GUYS...YOURE GREAT WITHOUT IT.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eF8JIoAp310

COMMENT:  Take another look.  There is a clip or close-up mic on the back tenor tom, the front tom, and the snare, two mikes pointing straight up under each side of the kit (presumably to catch the cymbals, and a boom mic with its microphone stuck into the kick drum's hole (right by the girl's breasts). Hard to see other mics, but then that's the whole idea, make it as non-technical looking as possible. Also, each guitar amp has a microphone in front of it. I see plenty of mics all over the set -- you just have to know how mics can be hidden.

Then there's the story of the creative sound man who was challenged to get a vocal pickup mic to work on a 'Vagas striptease dancer who sang as she took her cloths off, until naked.  Solution? He hid a miniature mic and transmitter in her hairdo.  :afro     ~swd

Someone tell me then at 3.30-3.33 what happens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF8JIoAp310

I think everyone is correct. Looks like a live orchestra playing along to a pre-recorded track, maybe a few live instruments, with a mix of lip-syncing and some live vocals.

At 3:30, the high hat doesn't seem to be touched. Besides, the high hat doesn't make that shaking sound.

There is obviously autotune. Can't you hear the robotic-quality that on Jeff and Mike's vocals. Also, Bruce is damn near inaudible. Noticeable on the "I wish they all could be California Girls"

I watched it last night, and I did think Mike's voice sounded unusually processed. Foskett sounded fine to these years, but I'm not nearly as familiar with his voice. I thought they did good - and that's coming from a guy who still has a hard time seeing this band of mostly - to me - anonymous musicians performing as The Beach Boys. Joe Montegna's (sp?) introduction made me cringe. Now, before anyone gets defensive, let me say I get equally annoyed when people imply that Brian was the only Beach Boy that mattered. I will always think of the Beach Boys as being Mike, Carl, Al, Brian, Dennis and Bruce. And David.

Of course it's fake just like they're the fake BB's. myKe luHv is a fake who will do anything he can to make himself look good including this. So damn obvious what's happening here. ::) ::)

COMMENT:   That "shaking sound" as you call it sounds to me like an electronic Lesley on idle. A mechanical one makes the same sound, but I assume an electronic mimic is being used. The Doppler effect on the organ is being generated by an electronic Lesley. That shaking sound that I am hearing is a Lesley on idle sound. You can only hear it when the input (in this case the organ or synthetic organ) is so low it is below the idle sound of the Lesley. You can hear the organ Doppler, but it is soft enough to also hear the Doppler effect generator modulations. The modulation noise is a byproduct of the effect.

I don't know about the orchestra being mute. I do know that I've mixed enough of these high profile shows to expect an orchestra of professional musicians to be able to play about anything on the first time around and certainly after one sweep. I would expect the PBS show we are hearing to have had the mix tweaked from a multi-track ... but remember, all this production fuss -- either post or pre -- is enormously expensive. Every show has a budget. PBS is not a bottomless money pit. When you pre-record a track the musicians get paid. Then paid again for pretending to play. That is a huge expense for so many players. And what does it buy you? Why not just play the show and pay once. Believe me, this band and that orchestra is perfectly capable of offering up a near perfect performance with little rehearsal. It's done all the time -- Emmys, Academy Awards, Super Bowel Halftime, Olympics, and many other super shows pull of far more complex live events with very few mistakes than this Beach Boy offering. Even putting together the evening news on your local TV station is more technically complex than this show. And how many shows do they have under their belts?

I just don't see a reason why any tricks of the trade would be needed to feature a seasoned rock band backed by an orchestra. I don't hear any post processing on any singer. There are no dancers or a singing and dancing lead singer (like Madonna). They just stand there and sing without much animation. Bruce didn't even hoop or skip once. Mike moved his fingers. Maybe I'm getting too old to read into this show all the technical stuff you-all think you hear. It seemed like a natural/organic performance to me. ~swd

Not even on Jeff?

COMMENT:  What are you hearing?  I don't hear that autotune signature sound. I hear some limiting if I listen carefully. Someone said it did not sound like Jeff. Not being that familiar with his voice I couldn't say, but the vocal I hear sounds natural to me. Am I missing something and if so please detail it to me or give me a point to listen for. ~swd

That was me who said it didn't sound like Jeff, and it really didn't at all. Now, granted, the headphones I heard it on were mid-range consumer grade as opposed to studio head phones, but I could definitely hear *some* sort of audio artifacts due to some sort of pitch quantization being used.  I'm at work and don't get home for a few hours, so I can't go into much further detail as of yet, but will update later.

At around 3.30 the keyboard, chord/key changes are of interest to me.

It all sounded and looked a little odd to me.    but I've seen them liv e several times.     I have never seen this lineup on film under such lighting, close ups, or fro that matter with an orchestra..    and maybe too, they were hyper attentive to getting the performance right and in sync with everything.......a major gig!    but the guys seemed a little tight if not wooden in their performance, relative to the bang up show they usually deliver.   wished the country could have seen a typically high quality show of Mike and the band

COMMENT: 

Here's some interesting industry or trade talk . . .

AutoTune >>> http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/picking-up-better-vibrations-beach-boys-succumb-to-auto-tune-for-new-album-8709963.html

Where do you stand on the issue of Auto-Tune?  (Question to Bruce Johnston via UNCUT magazine.)

We don’t use it onstage. You’re telling me they used Auto-Tune on the 50th album, after the fact? You know more than I do. I had nothing to do with the production of this album. Well, I’m sorry to hear it. We seem to be living in pitch-corrected times. Perhaps they should start a Grammy category for Best Pitch-Corrected Recording. But take it from the horse’s mouth: we don’t use it onstage. I generally think I have decent pitch. Of course, I still see a 30-year-old when I look in the mirror.
 
INTERVIEW BY DAVID CAVANAGH
Read more at http://www.uncut.co.uk/reviews/album/the-beach-boys-live-the-50th-anniversary-tour#0xiqPz0Q17SLi3kY.99

~swd

I don't think anyone, even detractors of Mike's tour, would suggest that his band uses autotune on stage during their normal tour dates. I've seen and heard many examples of his live show with Bruce, and I've never heard autotune. They frankly don't need it, especially with a good hunk of the setlist being sung by younger sidemen.

I think the fact that this Memorial Day thing may have been autotuned or otherwise processed somewhat heavily has everything to do with it being a pre-recorded deal. That Memorial Day show sounds very different from the other examples I've heard and seen of Mike's tour. I've also of course heard Foskett sing with the BBs and Brian's tour countless times in person and on recording, and he (and Mike) sounded very processed.

Brian's tour doesn't use autotune either.

The "50th Anniversary" live album (and the accompanying studio album) is autotuned up the wazoo, but that was all done in post-production and has nothing to do with what it sounded like live.

Autotune (or, again, somewhat similar) was used on very early dates on the C50 tour, resulting in a really weird robo-Brian sound. I think, for once, the criticisms were heeded and thankfully they stopped using that on tour very early on. 

;D

Thank you for those enlightening links, sir.

I just love it any time the beach boys' music gets attention - tv, radio, movies, department stores, fox news, elevators, etc.  So, of course, I watched the Memorial Day concert.  I really appreciate Mike and the group keeping their music alive even though my two favorite band members aren't.  I was, however, uncomfortable watching Mike -- It might have been all the hand motioning, which only drew attention to his polished nails. 

When I mentioned that sounded 20 years younger I meant Jeff didn't sound like Jeff.  Than Howie Edelson mentioned on another thread his friend described Jeff as "blissed up"! I couldn't have put it better.  It all looked very cheesy and 'fake'.  Maybe even post production on the visual side as well as autotune.  The guys themselves didn't look right.

Stephen I love all the work you have done over the years with he group but are you really saying that they naturally sound so perfect?  Many of us have been to several Beach Boys shows in recent years and they don't sound like that anymore.

I also think a disconnect can sometimes occur because some might think others think they hear autotune because the singing sounds "so good" or "too perfect." Not the case on this show. It sounds unnatural. When I hear Jeff and Mike's vocals, I'm *not* thinking "They must be using autotune because that sounds exactly like someone much younger would sound!"

It sounds like autotune because, well, it sounds like autotune. Robo-voice, synthetic, overly-smoothed-out, etc.

Foskett's voice is more or less intact compared to the 80s. It's not that Jeff's voice on this PBS thing sounds like "Jeff 20 years ago." Jeff now at a normal show sounds pretty similar to 1989 Jeff or 1999 Jeff. On this PBS thing, he sounds like robo-Jeff a bit.

It's not the most heinous, overdone autotune I've ever heard in my life or anything. It may not even be the actual autotune plug-in effect. But it's pretty heavily processed through something, and likely some sort of pitch correction plug-in.

I heard it very clearly on Cal Girls - Mike's a complete robot on the word "Farmer's" and Jeff sounds especially fake on Wouldn't It Be Nice. It's a shame because I would have enjoyed them with their natural voices playing with the orchestra.

No chance in hell this performance wasn't doctered in some way!

The vocals are pitch-corrected up the wazoo, and unfortunately they sound way bad. I'm sorry to say, but it's the truth. Maybe it's the fault of someone else other than the band members themselves; perhaps they didn't even know this pitch correction would be applied, and it's entirely someone else's fault. That doesn't make the end result suck any less. There's virtually nothing I hate sonically more than bad Autotune. I'll gladly take the shrill drum machines on Summer In Paradise any day in place of bad Autotune. Give me bad drum machines on BB recordings forever; they're much, much easier to stomach by comparison.

I don't like Autotune on any BB member's voice, but I think in particular it sounds comparatively the worst on Mike's voice, and in particular on songs where he amps up the nasal delivery.

Another blaring poor example of Autotune (or whatever program was used) on Mike's voice on California Girls, this is from the officially-released CD of Knebworth 1980:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg0pQZQdTl0

"the west coast has the sunshine..." from 1:34-1:40
"I've bee-een" 1:47

 :-\

I've never been absolutely certain autotune was used on the Knebworth 1980 release (Mike was using a bit of a phasey/flange-ish effect on his mic around this time; you can hear on vintage recordings of the July 4th, 1980 DC gig). But if autotune was used on the Knebworth show, then it would be a better example of using it to spot-check/spot-fix something rather than turning it up full-blast for an entire length of a song.

I'd rather always hear warts-and-all recordings, but if there's just a flat note here or there and they patch that up, that's far less intrusive than applying it from beginning-to-end on a recording.

COMMENT:  I don't know whatever you think you are hearing but it ain't Autotune or any pitch correction device. Autotune was invented by Dr Andy Hildebrand, a former oil industry engineer, as a computer programmer, and came onto the market in 1996. Knebworth 1980 was sweetened using punch-in replacement of some vocal tracks. I know, I did much of it. I don't approve of this type of manipulation, but a fellow has to make a living. ~swd

I watched the performance on PBS Sunday night and I immedaitely thought the vocals sounded processed in some way and a little strange.  Similar to how they sounded on the C50 release.

It's pretty clear to me that Jeff is lip syncing.

Hi Stephen, I will admit that I am just trusting my ears, which aren't infallible. But I think that on Knebworth, I'm hearing some warbling pitch-correction artifacts which I was assuming was applied at a late stage in post-production before the CD was released.

Although auto tune wasn't released before 1996, and the concert was recorded in 1980...remember that the cd/dvd didn't get officially released until the early 2000s....

And yes, I do hear it too.

The Knebworth material was newly mixed and mastered circa 2002 for the 2002/2003 release of the show on CD and DVD.

Perhaps someone could compare the vintage radio or soundboard recordings of the Knebworth show (I believe there are radio broadcasts circulating, as well as very rough pro-shot raw video footage with rather poor sound, as well as a presumably compiled 14-track "album" itself which of course was never released) to the 2000s release and report back. I'm not able to do that at the moment.

I have, and yes, they definitely sound much different (and IMHO, better...)

COMMENT:

I am trying to understand all of the problems you-all are hearing. Here is one thing I did and you might try doing it too.  I used two screens on my computer (or a split screen) and the pause/play button to compare.

Screen one was >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USe4ZI8rHsI&feature=youtu.be
California Girls (1969) starting at 5:11

Screen two was >>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF8JIoAp310&app=desktop
California Girls (2016) starting at 5:44

Once you get the two screens set up you can easily toggle between performances of 1969 and 2016. Set the levels around the same. Apart from the fact that my mix sounds more musical and that there are three more Beach Boy voices in the blend, concentrate on Michael’s delivery, especially in the verses. Although there is 47 years separating the two shows and thousands of times Mike has sung this song, his performance is remarkably consistent. The ’69 performance is not “doctored” in any way. Back then I used about a 2dB boost at 2k for Mike, no limiting, no nothing else. I have no idea what is being used on the 2016 version, but I must admit, it does not sound as musical.

Let me relate an incident that happened to me about a year ago. Professor Conner and myself were given some tickets to see the Mike & Bruce Beach Boys show at our local theater here in Clearwater, FL. (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://thingstodo.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/photos/Ruth-Eckerd-Hall.jpg&imgrefurl=http://events.tbo.com/things-to-do/destination-detail/ruth-eckerd-hall/4419&h=310&w=370&tbnid=L9qSjytabMj7xM:&tbnh=160&tbnw=191&docid=GXPtKpqnbAID_M&itg=1&usg=__Rzjxs5nTaRCH-yiHVOISckGEA38=)
As you can see it’s a modern, well-equipped music hall. With more than enough speakers flying over stage and on both sides, the show started. One song in and I turned to Conner to complain how awful the sound was. Not only was it too loud, but something sounded wrong … just wrong to my ears. I didn’t like it. It was not pleasing. It didn’t sound like any concert I had mixed in the past, nor attended in that hall that year. I couldn’t put my finger on it. The rest of the audience was in a groove, so I guess they got their money’s worth, but I was cringing. During the intermission I abandon my $200 seat and moved back to the console, got permission to stay a watch the rest of the show back there. Within 30 seconds I knew why I hated the sound. The entire show was digital. I was listening to a damn computer mimic the vocals I had grown to know. Talk about processing … the engineer never looked toward the stage, instead keeping his head buried in one computer program and graph after another. Switching from one channel to the next, making on-screen graphic changes and missing one musical cue after another. Now I don’t know if in one of those algorithms was Autotune or not. I do know that if I had paid for my ticket I would have demanded my money back. When I go to a concert I go to hear the artist(s) not a computer representation of them. I can do that by playing a CD at home. The console was certainly State-of-the-Art, and could turn any sound inside-out, but to what end?  It was not musical. It was like the comparison of the two sounds from above – 1969 versus 2016.

When digital came into the professional world I stayed with analog. But many artists embraced it and gradually became use to the sound, until now that seems right and analog seems dull. But for me, no matter how good the digital is, no matter how high the sample rate is, it still is a sample and I hear it – or rather, I don’t hear it – I don’t hear the complete waveform. I don’t know how to explain it. Maybe I can’t hear a good algorithm version or slight amount of Autotune because digital all sounds like crap to me (like crap compared to analog, that is). Perhaps I have not developed the ability to distinguish one type of digital distortion for another. I prefer analog. At least in analog the distortions are musically related, and in some cases can improve the musicality of the waveform.

Try the two-screen comparison (above) for yourself. It is most revealing.  ~swd     

Also, a good example of something that was overdubbed in post-production but all done back contemporaneously would be the July 4th, 1980 show, which was released on Japanese DVD. It has some obvious overdubs (mainly an electric keyboard, and some backing vocals), but it's all still relatively organic sounding.

Ahhh...that would make sense. I've been working in the digital realm for almost 20 years now, and my ears are like Banana & Louie when it comes to that :lol

COMMENT:  You may be right as I have not heard the CD. I have an LP reference copy.  The CD/DVD may have been re-done with Autotune. Actually I think I do have the DVD somewhere, just never listened that closely to it. I'm stuck in analog.  ~swd

Yeah, you should probably check it out...won't have it playing too long, I'm sure.  Drives me nuts....I *hate* that sound on a live performance.

COMMENT to ♩♬ Billy C ♯♫♩ :  Someone of your talent should have no problem setting up the comparison I cited in post #48 on page two of this thread. Set up only takes a few minutes, but it is most telling. Listen to both in Mono. Let me know what you hear.

Has technology brought us forward or backward?  I did that entire '69 show by myself and one stagehand set the stage. I even did the monitor mix too. How many technicians did it take to do the 2016 version with how many add-on do-dads and such. We have come to place such importance on the technical that we have lost the music. Like that mixer in the Mike & Bruce show I attended, our heads are buried in the silicon sand of digital chips so far that we are missing reality -- as I see many people these days who are going through life, their life, lost in a smartphone screen's image, while the real substance of life passes by, never to be gained again. ~swd

Will do when I get home...interested in hearing it!

Stephen, I believe that technology has brought us backward on this matter; excessive use of Autotune and digital manipulation has become well past the point of being ridiculous. I'm sure no artists (other than some rappers, and Cher on "Believe") actually *want* the usage of Autotune or pitch correction to be noticeable to the listener; it's supposed to be transparent, not an obvious "fix" like a bad Howard Cossell toupee. It's very much like the overuse of bad, obvious CG in modern films; I cannot stomach it.

A lot of people on her upset just because they sounded so great.  If it was auto-tune, who cares??  Brian seems to love auto-tune, after all.

This is how the ML that I saw/heard in concert a few weeks ago...and enjoyed. Nothing like the Memorial Day thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32RpEwwxT1I

COMMENT to Terry:  A few (?) weeks ago, more like a month-plus, Mike was fighting with a cold. It was one of those that comes and goes -- like you think it's gone and then bam, it takes you down again. Don't know it this performance was during a "cold" time or not, but -- the show must go on.

Do try the comparison of the 1969 and 2016 California Girls I wrote about at post #48, page two. Very revealing and worth the trouble.  ~swd

Stephen: There are fan videos of the rehearsals held prior to the show on the National Mall, specifically check out Good Vibrations. If you try lining that rehearsal up with the official PBS video of the evening concert, the performances seem to match perfectly, everything from tempo to phrasing and inflections from vocalists and instrumentalists. Curious to hear your thoughts, if you get a chance to try that.

I'm not a technical minded person, but what you are saying reminds me of my experiences recording with digital vs analog. My analog recording was on a portable 4 track cassette deck. And yet, I listen to the sound of the vocals on some of those old tapes and find myself preferring that sound to what I get recording digitally. Unfortunately, digital is where it's at these days, we're stuck with it, but I think you hit the nail on the head with your observations.
Some day in the distant future, in a galaxy deep in space, I will win the lottery and spend my winnings on doing a proper analog recording in a professional studio.
Thank you for your contributions to this thread, Mr. Desper.

I'll bet dollars to donuts it was Melodyne.


Not for nothing, but I *miss* recording in analog...been since my college days, so about 16 years since I've been able to record in that medium. With my own music, everything is digital for budget and availability reasons, but there've been times where I've been SO desperate for that nice warm sound, or something approximating that, that I've actually hiss to recordings, or even sampled the ambient sound of something I previously recorded on tape. Not any of the instruments, just the ambiance before the actual song began.

Mike was using some sort of vocal effect on at least a few songs during the 1980 tour. Check out his lead on "Barbara Ann" (especially the beginning) from the Washington DC 1980 show. It's near the end (of course), around the 49 minute mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0KdUAA6Do4

I believe all of the lead vocals on this are the originals, it was mainly a keyboard and some backing vocals added in overdubs, and of course the overdubs and mixing all hail from 1980 (for the HBO TV special in question).

The vocal effect is interesting; doesn't really sound a great deal the same as autotune, but a bit of a similar robotic effect.

   

I agree it sounds like all of the vocals are running through Melodyne.

I actually thought Mike and the entire band sounded great when I saw them a couple weeks ago and didn't see any sign of Mike being sick or anything. I do agree that his phrasing, etc has not changed much throughout the years, and he actually sounds better now than he did in the 90's.

Mike sounds MUCH better on fun fun fun here! I cant stand auto tune and i actually think it sounds worse then an old out of pitch voice! Mike still sounds great here without auto crap!

Yep.  I'm sure playing back and mime-ing a precorded track was necessary or else the band would've chosen to do it live.  I saw them live last year and the new lineup is IMHO the best sounding live touring version of this band in the last 15 years.

Not to get too forensic-y, but I enjoy the details so here I go:

Scott has that unmistakable pitch corrected sound on his solo part before the rest of group comes in: https://youtu.be/eF8JIoAp310?t=269
Also, who is singing the Ba ba ba ba ba with Mike?  Clearly the louder voice on that part isn't Mike.  I don't actually hear Mike at all singing that part, but his lips are.  It sounds like Brian E, but Brian E is miming the higher falsetto part behind Mike.  And I hear Cowsill in the GV choruses but he has no mic at this show.

COMMENT to DC310:  Here's a couple of answers that may help.  "LIVE" in broadcast terms does not necessary mean that what you are seeing on your TV tube is happening at the actual same time you view it. When a program is said to be "live" it means it was performed before a live audience in one complete pass, that it was not taken in segments and edited together to form a story or show. However live does not presuppose that some post production tweaking was not performed. For this DC show, I really do not know if it as pre-recorded live, that is, performed before an audience with cameras rolling and then broadcast at a later time, or if it was the actual real-time broadcast of a real-time performance. In any event, the show that we keep going back and viewing is certainly a performance before a live audience that is a re-play. I suspect the show was pre-recorded and then broadcast as if live into the different time zones around the United States. So let's go with that assumption.

Looking around on stage I see at least 35 to 40 microphones -- could be more. Each of these mics is feed to a splitter with one signal used for the actual live audience "house mix" or a mix done at the time of performance. The other signal, representing each microphone, is recorded on separate tracks. After the live performance the multi-track is set aside. Next the same thing has happened to the video where each camera has been recorded separately. Further, cameramen have been out in the audience during the performance taking cut-away shots of various people keeping time or dancing. These are called "reaction shots." The director then decides what camera shots will be used and intercut with which reaction shots. Thus, the video portion of the show is assembled.

Next it is put in sync with the audio tracks. The mixer now has control over every microphone (without fear of feedback) and can see what person or instrument may be in a close-up or is featured in the video that the viewer will see. The mixer can now listen to each singer and, if necessary, apply pitch correction, or just ask the performer to re-sing his part or part of his part via a punch-in. The correction may be for a line of vocal or a word. It may be to correct a missed part or a mis-sung part. Using the punch-in technique is the most natural and is the way all recording of albums is done. It is called sweetening or vocal replacement.

It's the same technique as is used in movie making called dialog replacement. You know that all movies re-record all speaking by actors and most all of the effects. Everything is contrived. Nothing is what it seems. Further, the mixer usually will feature in the sound mix (that is boost a little) whatever the video editor has featured in the picture. If it's the drums, their level is raised slightly to match the picture. If it's a person singing, that person will be boosted in the mix. You don't actually hear it, but it adds to the realism of the whole thing. You pointed out that Mike was singing, but it didn't sound like him. That may be. His actual voice may have been replaced at that point in the presentation. This is legal. Especially if you look at this DC show as a "production" much like a movie or musical. Don't look at it as a show, but as a production. In this context, ADR (automatic dialog replacement) is very much the way things are done. (( Educate yourself about ADR by view this video >>> https://vimeo.com/110213154 )).

When I worked for the Boys, and we did a TV special or part of some movie, we always went back and replaced parts of vocals, re-worked them to more of a perfect sound, and used dialog replacement techniques to our advantage. Carl especially, insisted on using dialog replacement to correct every little missed entrance or out-of-tune vocal. (( You think it was Audrey Hepburn who sang all those beautiful songs in "My Fair Lady"?  Wrong !!  Take a look >>> http://www.samefacts.com/2014/06/culture-and-civil-society/film-culture-and-civil-society/the-secret-dubbing-of-audrey-hepburn-in-my-fair-lady/ )).

What I see happening here in this thread is the "discovery" by young fans of the techniques used by film makers to produce a more perfect product. The young fans think the Beach Boys are being deceptive and cheating on their talent, but in fact, are just following along with practices that have been in vogue for decades.

When I first started working in the movie industry, one of my first Union (Hollywood Local 695)  assignments was to run "playback" for the movie Thoroughly Modern Millie, staring Julie Andrews and Carol Channing. Their singing had previously been recorded in a studio, so my job was to playback that studio track on the set as each actress sang and animated (danced) their character as per the script. Watch the entire movie on line or look at this trailer and know that I'm supplying the music cues for each music and dance scene. Especially rewarding were the playbacks for Carol Channing. (( Trailer >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCug0golA6c )) I'm telling you this so that you realize what Mike and Bruce and all that group did on this DC Memorial show was not anything new. It's been going on for decades. You-all are just discovering the techniques.

At the beginning of this thread I said what I heard was just good singing. I meant that statement within the context of sweetening. I know each Beach Boy can sing and sing with extreme talent. How many thousands of punch-in's have I done to make it sound as if they are perfect singers. Is that cheating?  Have you ever criticized the use of over-dubbing via punch-ins on a record to get a sound right?  You don't hear it. Yet not one song is recorded without using some type of correction technique. Now all of a sudden, it's something of a big deal. Sorry, but that is just the way it's done. Enjoy the music. Don't be like me who when going to the movies doesn't see a story, but sees all the technology used to tell the story. Don't fall into that trap. Don't let the technology overcome your enjoyment of the final musical product.    ~swd 

The fan video of the GV rehearsal from earlier that day can be put into near-perfect audio sync with the actual telecast of the concert later that night just by opening the two YouTube videos and lining them up using pause and play on YT. That's what stuck out to me, I thought two separate performances shot on video (one pro, one audience) at different times of the day would not line up perfectly unless it was a prerecorded track.

COMMENT to Guitarfool2002:  Ever hear of a click track?  What do you think each performer (including the horn players wearing headphones and the orchestra conductor) hears over their wireless in-ear headphones? The entire performance is synchronized using click tracks usually with verbal indications of changes (or verses or bridges). Therefore all the music, camera blocking, lighting changes, and (if used) fireworks, are all synchronized beat by beat to be the same. Every performer, every camera man, every lighting technician, and every mixer is hearing that click track with indications for verses and choruses. this makes each performance equal in length and in time -- to the beat. Each starts at the downbeat and by the end of the entire set, ends with each player/singer on the same last beat. Everyone is perfectly in time at all times. It does not need to be a pre-recorded track to line up perfectly because every take is started with a sync beat. How do you think mega-shows come off so integrated, so exact in timing?  How do all those fireworks at the Super Bowl seem to line-up with the musicians on stage. It's because everyone is hearing a click track over their headphones.

I've mixed shows that used click-tracks. There are pros and cons. It makes every show meet a standard for consistent performance value, but it also limits shows preventing the musicians from raising above the standard, for that once-in-a-while extremely wonderful performance. The click track prevents the musicians from connecting with their audience, but it also provides every audience with a relatively good show.  ~swd   

I just gave my students last week a lesson about the importance of playing to a click track, and practicing to one while wearing headphones during a talk about setting up and doing basic tracks for a recording. But that's not what it was about these videos, it was everything from the vocal inflections and phrasing to each and every beat and note lining up between what the afternoon audience heard at the rehearsal and captured on video and what the audiences watching the actual show on TV later that night heard on the broadcast. It was the same tracks.

COMMENT to Guitarfool2002, So what is your point?  Each show was the same?  Each could be intercut to the other?  ~swd

It appears that way.  Going back and forth on "Good Vibrations" from the telecast to the rehearsal video focusing on Jeff's lead vocal; it's pretty clear I'm going back and forth on the same audio recording between the two.  Every inflection is there: "close my eyeess....somehow closer nooooww..." 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfj2D52eLtk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF8JIoAp310

I can only conclude from what I heard and saw that it was the same prerecorded audio track for GV which was used and heard by the audience who saw the rehearsal, and the later audiences who saw the actual concert in DC and watched the broadcast.

I'll rephrase what Justin posted with these links.

This is the afternoon rehearsal of Good Vibrations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfj2D52eLtk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfj2D52eLtk)

And this is the PBS broadcast of the evening concert, GV is the opening song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF8JIoAp310 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF8JIoAp310)

If you open both videos at the same time, play one until a certain musical beat comes up, then start the other one and sync them up manually, they line up perfectly, musically and with time-tempo-phrasing. It would be uncanny unless it was a prerecorded track that was used, and both the rehearsal and the actual broadcast used that same track. The only difference between the two is the introduction.

COMMENT to Guitarfool2002:  Are you saying that the broadcast was primary and the live show was secondary?  That makes no sense so you must NOT be saying that. The live to an audience has to have been first. Or was the broadcast tape made first and then shown to the audience with the band and orchestra miming the entire performance. Is that what you are saying? ~swd

COMMENT to guitarfool2002:  So are you saying that the entire show (or its musical performances) was recorded at an earlier date with the actual performance just mimed or lip-synced? ~swd

I have no idea what was taped or when it was taped, but both Good Vibrations videos recorded at separate times sound like exact audio duplicates, except the spoken introduction. I cannot think of a way that could suggest anything other than the audio of the performance was not "live" if they were feeding the same audio track to the crowd in the rehearsals as they fed to PBS's broadcast that night at separate performances. It is uncanny how easily two videos of separate performances can be put into sync just by using play and pause. There is no musical variation between the two audio tracks during the song.

COMMENT to guitarfool2002:  Doesn't that suggest the use of a click track? You saying that using a click track even professional performers, who have performed these songs for fifty years and thousands of times can't do it again and again on the same day? So if you are saying that it can't be done, then why bother placing all the mics on stage?  A few will do for the deception. At that, why bother paying for such a large orchestra when a few will do?  ~swd 

Of course it does, but couldn't it also suggest the performance was done to a prerecorded backing track rather than live? Maybe the question comes back to the old slogan "is it live or is it Memorex?"  :)  Seriously though, it's too perfect a match otherwise I wouldn't have noticed when I first heard the rehearsal audio after hearing the broadcast audio, they sounded the same. Then the audio of both YouTube videos also lined up, I thought it was uncanny to have such a match. I could see the tempo and bpm lining up with a click even on a track with groove and tempo changes like GV, but not the individual musical performances matching as they do.

COMMENT to guitarfool2002:  You would be impressed at what professional and seasoned performers can do. ~swd

Why doesn't someone ask PBS, it would be on them I presume as to how it was done and presented.

I can appreciate that and will be following suit!  :)

The same sync issues hold true for the rehearsal video of Sloop John B into WIBN combined with the PBS concert broadcast, I just tried it for fun and nailed the sync on "...Nassau town", then they both locked in together up to the final orchestra ritardando at the end. That was even more uncanny than GV.

Rehearsal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci4mxpH8EQo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci4mxpH8EQo)

PBS (Sloop at 7:01):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF8JIoAp310 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF8JIoAp310)

It wouldn't surprise me if they either mimed to a track or played and sang to a track, especially for a TV performance. It's more common than not. McCartney mimed to tracks when he did the Super Bowl years ago (sorry, folks. Watch closely and he muffs miming to "Hey Jude ") and Beyoncé did the same when she "sang" the National Anthem at the Super Bowl. Obviously someone like Beyoncé would have no trouble singing live but with the pressure on to make the TV broadcast perfect, it's usually up to the producer to ensure that happens....unless you're Prince and you tell everyone else what to do and insist on playing and singing live but not everyone is Prince.

When the rehearsal audio is laid over to the performance audio, it is identical. Not close like you'd expect from professional, seasoned musicians who have played these songs thousands of times.  Identical.

If they had played to a click, or just prerecorded instruments with live vocals, there would be some noticeable differences, in the same way that there are noticeable differences in the double tracked lead vocals in many of our favorite Beach Boys tracks.  You can watch 10 different live versions of Jeff singing Good Vibrations over the last few years and pick out slight differences in phrasing and pitch if you are paying close enough attention.

As I said earlier in this post, I doubt it was the band's choice to mime it.  It isn't a big deal that it was prerecorded.  I just wish some of the vocal processing was more transparent.  But I thought that about the C50 live release as well.

Curious to hear if Bruce offers any context for the prerecord.  Good discussion on here.

COMMENT:  So the surmised conclusion is that a click track was used with pre-recorded, pitch corrected vocals. The singers mimed their parts in performance with the pre-recorded vocal tracks blended with an otherwise live performance by the orchestra and perhaps band instruments. This entire presentation was captured on camera and presented live on the air.  Fairly standard and safe, but without integrity. Glad I have my memories of more organic times.

reminds me of that BG's special . . .

OH!
~~~OOOH !
~~~~~OOOOOOH!
Staaay'n Alive.

~swd

Perhaps the orchestra was live, but certainly the band was playing along to a prerecorded instrumental and singing along to prerecorded vocals.  The audience (in person and broadcast) heard only the prerecorded track.

Visual example of prerecorded instrumental (watch keyboard hands) : https://youtu.be/eF8JIoAp310?t=392
Visual example of prerecorded vocal (watch Jeff on the word "nice") : https://youtu.be/eF8JIoAp310?t=541

Also you can hear Cowsill in the mix but he has no mic.

Removing any further doubt, this medley on German TV earlier this year uses the exact same prerecorded tracks, though the medley itself is different: https://youtu.be/f2uckN9U6Vo?t=498

And if anyone saw the post this morning about the BBs live on Fox, the exact same prerecord from the German TV show was used for the Wouldn't it Be Nice/I Get Around medley: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4926123898001/after-the-show-show-the-beach-boys-perform-/?playlist_id=930909787001

I'm guessing this is a way to ensure that they get a decent mix instead of relying on in house sound people for whatever show they are on to do a good job. 

  COMMENT to DC310   

The German track sounded different -- Mike not the same delivery

But otherwise, such a shame. This is one foot in the grave performing.  In the future when all of the Beach Boys and band have departed, some young robot genius will get the idea to use automatons on stage, with these tracks, to give Beach Boy fans of 2075 a good show.  The only difference between that future vision and this present display is that the robots are still human. Everything else has been displaced or replaced, Replacing the last element, the humans on stage, with animated robots is the final step to the future of what will become The Beach Boys.  Perhaps you will live to see such a show.  Maybe you will be the one to bring it into being. Who knows, maybe some day you can just buy a Mike Love, Brian Wilson, Michael Jackson, or JS Bach robot to entertain you whenever you flick the switch to on. Maybe the Love robot will have a personality selector switch -- the performing Mike -- the insulting Mike -- the asshole Mike -- the congenial Mike -- the meditative Mike -- the charming Mike. The model Brian robot will even smoke a joint with you while playing the bass guitar. The possibilities are endless.        ~swd

What I really do not want either me or my hypothetical grandchildren decades from now to see is a "concert" that consists of anonymous backing musicians performing in front of a video screen or even a 3D hologram of a departed singer or even a band, and billed by whatever estates may exist to control such things as a legitimate concert experience.

I remember a time not long ago when a lot of purists balked at having Natalie Cole sing a duet with her deceased father, which if I recall set off a trend of sorts to have other artists follow suit. Some of the "collaborations" were actually enjoyable, but i could also see the point of the purists who didn't like to see the time and space continuum futzed with in order to sell more records.

Then in the late 90's or so, I remember a friend who was a guitar player and a big Elvis fan got to see the Elvis shows, where they had the TCB Band still led by James Burton performing live on stage while Elvis' archival live vocal tracks were fed through the mix and a video screen projected Elvis' performances behind the band on stage. I was a cynic, but after hearing how excited my friend was - and he was an Elvis fan to the core - I softened up on my opinions against such things. It was the original band, whatever surviving members were there with Burton on stage and the same guys who played the original tracks and shows, so it wasn't as bad in reality as the concept seemed to suggest. The Beach Boys started doing that too during C50 with the audio/video tributes and performances with video and audio of Carl and Dennis, and fans loved it. It worked for what they were trying to convey to the fans especially during C50.

But if there is a Beach Boys live tour 50 years from now, or a Beatles/Stones/Who/whatever tour featuring nameless players or even robots or holograms being presented as an official live concert with a full band or images of deceased band members, I will be pissed off as I'm in the rest home watching Matlock reruns under my blanket taking my food pills. Because at some point it ends, or it should end, and the legacy is whatever came before and will be carried forward. Just my two cents about the real versus manufactured concert experiences.

I also heard that Frankie Valli performs entire shows where he lip-synchs every vocal. For those diehard fans I guess that's OK if you want to be in the same room as Frankie Valli, but if you can deliver a live vocal and charge people to watch you lip-sync medleys of hits, it may be time to hang up the tux and Shure 58 and do meet and greets instead.

Craig, did you see the Monkees when Nez came back?

Thanks again for your comments, Mr. Desper. I do some recording myself, so I know about punch-in's and all that. Is it cheating? I don't think so (okay, a little voice in my head says 'yes it is" :(). I have done vocal punch in's when the vocal was fine up to _x_ point; have done more guitar solo punch in's than i'll ever admit to, cause I'm not a lead guitarist but have had to become one the last 3 years. I figured the same was done for tv and movie presentations. Not a thing in the world wrong with that, if the goal is to give the best presentation possible.

COMMENT:   Sorry Guitarfool2002, but it's already here -- and people are paying big $$$ to see it !!

Billed as "Live at the MGM"  >>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um-jOMvL-og

The Making Of >>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDR3hSeQ8pk

~swd

In fact, it was about 90% of the original band, maybe even more. A couple members of the Stamps (J. D. Sumner died before they started the worldwide touring) and one or two of the Sweet Inspirations had changed. But that's about it. F*cking awesome band the boy handpicked himself.
But now Jerry Scheff has quit so they had Norbert Putnam filled in for a while (whose a fantastic player and played with Elvis on some studio recordings). But if I'm not mistaken they now started doing a similar thing using musicians who weren't even born when Elvis died. Not that they are not good (at least I hope they are) but it's a shame what is done to Presley's legacy. Add to that those terrible remixing sh!t going on á la "Viva Elvis" and you don't have to wonder anymore why one of the greatest performers of the 20th century whose cultural impact is probably second to none other musician is considered a parody. And everything sanctioned by the official side. So you see, what it comes down to is: it's really just about making a quick buck.

Listening to these two recordings, it's very clear to me that much of it if not all (certainly the lead vocals) were pre-recorded.  I've watched many videos of GB being performed live by the current lineup, and while it generally sounds good, 1).  It really doesn't sound like this and B).  It's easy to hear differences in intonation, volume, etc. between any two versions.  These two versions are the same. 

Whether that's a good or bad thing for a one-off performance is another question--it's clear to me that the touring BB's really do sing live, at least most of the time.  But they aren't singing live here. 

I just checked in on this thread after some time away, so here's my 2 cents. I don't doubt that Stephen Desper is a consummate pro in regards to sound technology matters and what is and has been done to sweeten the experience for all of us viewers in TV land. But sometimes too much sugar makes me feel a bit pukey...and that's the experience with this broadcast for me! There's just so much phoniness in this world that we are told to swallow....at what point do we gag and say 'enough'. I don't care if these guys are great singers, I crave the experience of a live performance, warts and all...let me have the real live experience and judge for myself. Stupid happy expressions lip synching to pre-recorded tracks just turns me off! Next you'll be telling me Neil Young does it all the time (I somehow doubt it)....