CONCERT: National Memorial Day Concert for 2016 with The Beach Boys

[Stephen W. Desper]

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

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

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I don't hear any post processing on any singer

Not even on Jeff?

[Stephen W. Desper]

I don't hear any post processing on any singer

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

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

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.

[18thofMay]

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

[donald]

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

[Stephen W. Desper]

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

[HeyJude]

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. 

[JK]

Of course, I still see a 30-year-old when I look in the mirror.

Thank you for those enlightening links, sir.

[bb4ever]

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. 

[mikeddonn]

I don't hear any post processing on any singer

Not even on Jeff?

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.

[HeyJude]

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.

[kermit27]

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.

[kwan_dk]

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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.

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

 

[HeyJude]

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.

[Stephen W. Desper]

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

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

[Ram4]

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.

[Jay]

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

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.

[HeyJude]

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.[/size] ~swd

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.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

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...)

[Stephen W. Desper]

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     

[HeyJude]

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.