Guess You Had To Be There

[Summertime Blooz]

It's so great to have someone who's in the know like Ray Lawlor being able to contribute to the conversation and even to set the record straight when needed. It's silly that people were projecting this BB50 theory on Guess You Had To Be There when it really crumbles under any close scrutiny.

[SloopJohnB]

I don't know if it's auto­tune, "Pro-Tools" (remember how everybody on this board used to complain about "Pro-Tools" on every song? Auto­tune is the new Pro-Tools), vocal gloss, reverb, vocal stacking, Kacey Musgraves sniffing helium, rats eating studio wiring or whatever, but there's something VERY WRONG with the vocals.

Sure, it could be due to the fact that this is a low-quality stream, I've heard that explanation a hundred times, and guess what: each time, that annoying effect could still be heard on the CD, less obvious but still easily noticeable.

[Bud Shaver]

Sorry guys but I have to jump in here , as you could not be more off base with this interpetation. This song has zero to do with the C50 breakup , and everything to do with the 64-66 period in BRIAN's life.  When I was out there, Brian had already written the lyrics to the chorus' and then he recorded the chorus vocals. His kids were very into Kacey's record , so he had been listening to it and liked her voice and her lyrics; he really liked the lyrics . The first time they met , she had flown out to LA just to sit and discuss the song with Brian , and what his vision of it was. They talked about how it was when their individual careers got rolling; Brian asked her to write the lyrics for the verses talking about that, which is what you are hearing in the verses. For example, the part " guess you miss some of the gold " ( relationships , friendships, happiness) "when youre too busy chasing the shine" (chasing money and fame).

My recommendation is that you have a good listen to what I think is a great record, and all this distraction from enjoying it turns into a headache.

I was right! Thanks for setting the record straight, Ray.

[Lowbacca]

Autotune... people.....




Anyone who's hearing autotune on the 2015 BW tracks so far make fools of themselves..

[Ron]

The whole point of the thing with Kacey is : she doesn't sing anything out of her range, which is pretty limited.  Nothing on this song is a stretch, at all, for anybody to sing vocally.  All of her music is like that, she sings what's in her wheelhouse, because ultimately she's more of a songwriter than a singer.  I linked a video of what her typical live performance is like.  Solid vocals that are right on key, because she's singing competently in her space.  She's very good at it, and all of her songs anybody can sing along to. 

Since we can probably all agree that what she's singing isn't very hard to sing, and it's evident in live performances that she sings in key, why is it so hard to believe that they didn't have to 'autotune' her voice?  Autotune is a pitch correction tool.  If they're singing it on pitch, there's nothing to pitch correct. 

If you hear it on her voice, she's luckily singing words, so each part of the song is easily identifiable as a word.  So tell me the word that's been pitch corrected with autotune.

If you say it's just a 'sound' on her vocals, that's not autotune it's a combination of her natural sound (she has a very clean, almost sterile speaking voice without much of any accent at all) and the multitracking/reverb that's obviously all over the song (and most of Brian's songs). 

Saying a woman's vocals that are pretty simple to record or sing had to be autotuned is insulting.

-------------------------------------------------------------

So it all starts with, hey, 70 year old Brian Wilson was a drug addict, had mental illness, and it ruined his voice.  Now he uses autotune on his voice!

Then it went to "You know, on some of his songs I can't even hear it, they did a better job of hiding it!" .  It's never even considered that, oh, maybe there's no autotune on it at all. 

All the while we have moments where he sings in concert straight in key.

So then it becomes, well, when he sings live, they use LIVE AUTOTUNE!  If you're in the arena, they're running his microphone through the effect!  They're doing it on the fly!

Then it becomes, The entire band is being autotuned!  Al Jardine (who sounds great in any recording... EVER) is being autotuned.  He's now robo al.  Of course he's also 70.  He just can't cut it anymore, so they touch his vocals up.

Then for awhile people were saying Foskett's stuff was autotuned on the BB's album.





Now we've gotten to, Hey, the 25 year old starlet who's in the prime of her career, singing a <1 octave range is being auto-tuned... because it was recorded by Brian Wilson. 

The reason it sounds like that is because a pro producer got together with a pro singer and they made that sh*t FAB

[startBBtoday]

Where's the autotune on this track? Not all autotune is as obvious as T-Pain, but if it's on this track then you should be able to detect it. Where is it? What's the time marking on the song?

Vocal gloss is not auto-tune. I hear vocal gloss on Kacey's vocals, but for the life of me, I cannot hear any autotune.

Saying, "you weren't there, so you don't know if there's autotune" seems very strange when there's no evidence of autotune.

The totally garbled, warbly sheen over the entire vocal of this song (and every other song that's surfaced, while admittedly much worse on every other song. Especially Brian's vocals, which is telling), only achieved by this particular effect and not multitracking, digital reverb, etc. etc. etc. and that's already heavily present on every one of Joe's productions for Brian in the last few years?

I can admit I wasn't there and say I could be wrong. Some folks on the other side of the fence refuse to be wrong and saying things like "these are the facts" and "you should be ashamed" etc. and using it "prove" they're right about this. It's like when kids angrily say "AND THAT'S FINAL" because they're out of things to say and just want to shut the conversation down.

Can we compromise and please call it something else? Because that's not how autotune works. Autotune is pitch correction. It's when a vocal is tweaked to hit a certain note that the singer couldn't hit naturally. It is obvious most of the time.

That's not happening (as far as I can tell) at all on this track. You have an issue with some sort of effect, not autotune or pitch correction.

[HeyJude]

Since we can probably all agree that what she's singing isn't very hard to sing, and it's evident in live performances that she sings in key, why is it so hard to believe that they didn't have to 'autotune' her voice?  Autotune is a pitch correction tool.  If they're singing it on pitch, there's nothing to pitch correct.  

That a singer doesn't need autotune is increasingly becoming irrelevant, unfortunately. Many singers who don't need it have had it applied (and not just in the "sure, they might sound off here and there, but that's okay" way, but in the "they sing fine and autotune is still added" way).

It *is* being used as an effect on many songs. The subtext in the autotune discussion that it implies the singer sucks and needs a NASA supercomputer to fix their voice isn't really at play. That probably happens too. But it's also being used as trendy effect for fine singers. So at a certain stage, when someone says "ew, that sounds like autotune", they're not calling the artists' abilities into question. It's just a distracting effect for some. I repeat, I don't believe most people are calling the artists' integrity into question. It's more like a lament; this was certainly the case with "From There to Back Again."

If you hear it on her voice, she's luckily singing words, so each part of the song is easily identifiable as a word.  So tell me the word that's been pitch corrected with autotune.  

That's not how autotune always works. Yes, it *can* be used to do tiny fixes for individual words or syllables. But whether it's there or not, it's vividly clear that the people hearing autotune on stuff like the song in question are hearing it *throughout.*

To use the "reverb" analogy that has been used, if reverb is added to a lead vocal track from beginning to end and one doesn't like it, they can't then single out "one word" where they hear it. It's on the whole thing.

[Peadar 'Big Dinner' O'Driscoll]

Think the mods need to use that board function where a replacement word for autotune, auto-tune or any possible variation is automatically inserted when someone types it. Suggestions?

Yeah, good idea, let's stifle (mostly) constructive criticism, with the music's best interest in mind, of everything. Maybe change the board theme to be a bit cheerier, maybe a nice blue color, and at the top they can rename it the "Love it or leave it, asshole" message board in bold, red Comic Sans font.

Criticize all you want. Personally I have a bigger problem with the overall quality of the songwriting rather than any performance/production flaws. It seems a bit Brian-Lite to me, like he started the songs but didn't finish them (although that was part of his q&a songwriting advice I think...to finish them). Before people try track me down and murder me...Brian Wilson is easily my favourite songwriter of all time...maybe I just expect too much. Sorry.

[HeyJude]

It's so great to have someone who's in the know like Ray Lawlor being able to contribute to the conversation and even to set the record straight when needed. It's silly that people were projecting this BB50 theory on Guess You Had To Be There when it really crumbles under any close scrutiny.

It's not silly. It was just a theory, and one that actually made enough sense to be plausible. Why are people so worked up about it, and still giving Wirestone s**t about it?

This is a board that once had a thread about "What would the BB's be like if they had been born female?"

Wirestone, did you get the memo about the TPS report? Did you? Did you?

[HeyJude]

I don't know if it's autotune, "Pro-Tools" (remember how everybody on this board used to complain about "Pro-Tools" on every song? Autotune is the new Pro-Tools), vocal gloss, reverb, vocal stacking, Kacey Musgraves sniffing helium, rats eating studio wiring or whatever, but there's something VERY WRONG with the vocals.

Sure, it could be due to the fact that this is a low-quality stream, I've heard that explanation a hundred times, and guess what: each time, that annoying effect could still be heard on the CD, less obvious but still easily noticeable.

That's apparently what needs to be done now. It would probably be easier to stop saying autotune (apparently even if it REALLY sounds like it to you), and just say you don't like the "sound" of it. Then, even when you say you LOVE the song even if you don't like exact mixing or timbre or ambience of the vocal, we'll see if people still jump down your throat about it.

[HeyJude]

Anyone who's hearing autotune on the 2015 BW tracks so far make fools of themselves..

Ridiculous. Now we're calling people "fools"? 

[HeyJude]

Can we compromise and please call it something else? Because that's not how autotune works. Autotune is pitch correction. It's when a vocal is tweaked to hit a certain note that the singer couldn't hit naturally. It is obvious most of the time.

That's not happening (as far as I can tell) at all on this track. You have an issue with some sort of effect, not autotune or pitch correction.

Whether any pitch-altering effect is at play is questionable. It may not be the actual "AutoTune" plug-in. It could be any number of plug-ins that incorporate pitch correction elements. But I don't think we're just getting caught up on calling generic tape "cellophane tape" instead of "Scotch tape."

I don't think it's out of line to question whether some sort of plug-in that incorporates some level of pitch correction/alteration/sustain might be at play.

Googling "plug-ins that sound like autotune" results in a number of *other* software suites that do the same or similar things, and can do everything from correcting one note to giving a sheen to the whole performance, to sounding like a robot, to turning one voice into a choir.

Every mention of these software suites notes that they are *standard* studio equipment now. I presume Brian has probably migrated exclusively to digital recording now (and even if he tracks stuff on analog tape, it's then dumped into ProTools or some similar program).

It all is too hazy to know WTF is going on. We can try saying something other than autotune (even though I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilities that the literal Antares program Auto-Tune could be at play) I guess. I don't know if that's going to help, though.

[bgas]

Anyone who's hearing autotune on the 2015 BW tracks so far make fools of themselves..

Ridiculous. Now we're calling people "fools"? 

Right! should have used " Tools"

[Steve Latshaw]

To clear this up for Ray and everyone else, I didn't postulate a "theory."  I simply asked a question.  Over the last many months, official sanctioned PR on this album noted the presence of a forthcoming song on the album that dealt with the aftermath of the 2012 reunion.  I found the lyrics - which have a great dramatic arc from positive to negative - fascinating and simply wondered if this might be the song in the PR blurbs.

Here's my post:

"3.  No one has yet commented on the lyrics.  Is this Brian's subtle take on the 2012 reunion ending?"

A question.  Simple as that.  Nuff said.

[Lowbacca]

Anyone who's hearing autotune on the 2015 BW tracks so far make fools of themselves..

Ridiculous. Now we're calling people "fools"?  

It's a figure of speech, mate. But I guess you know that. So.. bait not taken.

Anyone who's hearing autotune on the 2015 BW tracks so far make fools of themselves..

Ridiculous. Now we're calling people "fools"? 

Right! should have used " Tools"

[Wirestone]

This debate has been going on in one form or another since Imagination. Whatever program it is, whatever you want to call it, it's more than likely that some sort of pitch correction software has been used on some Brian Wilson recording of the past 17 years.

The question is, what do you do about it? What real contribution does it make to the discussion to start going back-and-forth about the technology's use? All the pitch correction in the world cannot make a bad performance good. If that were the case, GIOMH would be considered a great classic. It's a tool, one of an arsenal of tools available to modern recording artists.

If there was any indication that Brian was half-assing this record, or that Joe Thomas had secretly whisked the tapes away to Illinois to finish them without Brian's knowledge, that would be one thing. But by all accounts, Brian was as active and engaged in the recording of this album as any of his solo projects in the past quarter century.

So whatever is on the record is on the record. Brian liked it or signed off on it in some way. What we now need to do, is figure out a way to talk about the record and its contents without having every discussion derailed into a autotune versus no autotune versus insert pitch correction software name here debate.

Whatever was used on the Beach Boys record was, in my opinion, too much. This album though, sounds to my ears more naturalistic. It's still polished, and it still has a sheen. Again though, that's the choice of the artist. And the ultimate artistic intent and goal is what's worth talking about.

[Wirestone]

To clear this up for Ray and everyone else, I didn't postulate a "theory."  I simply asked a question.  Over the last many months, official sanctioned PR on this album noted the presence of a forthcoming song on the album that dealt with the aftermath of the 2012 reunion.  I found the lyrics - which have a great dramatic arc from positive to negative - fascinating and simply wondered if this might be the song in the PR blurbs.

Here's my post:

"3.  No one has yet commented on the lyrics.  Is this Brian's subtle take on the 2012 reunion ending?"

A question.  Simple as that.  Nuff said.

I'm the one who went further, Steve. Your question was fair. I'm to blame on this one.

[Summertime Blooz]

It's so great to have someone who's in the know like Ray Lawlor being able to contribute to the conversation and even to set the record straight when needed. It's silly that people were projecting this BB50 theory on Guess You Had To Be There when it really crumbles under any close scrutiny.

It's not silly. It was just a theory, and one that actually made enough sense to be plausible. Why are people so worked up about it, and still giving Wirestone s**t about it?

This is a board that once had a thread about "What would the BB's be like if they had been born female?"

Wirestone, did you get the memo about the TPS report? Did you? Did you?

Does anyone think that were people passed out on the floor during BB50? (unless it was afternoon nap time for the old fellers) As I stated, the "theory" didn't hold water, and yet like wildfire, people were jumping on the bandwagon that the song was about BB50.  I'm guessing that some people were blinded by the thought they had new fuel for their Mike Love-bashing. That's my silly theory. P.S I think Wirestone's posts are pretty swell as a rule.

[Bud Shaver]

To clear this up for Ray and everyone else, I didn't postulate a "theory."  I simply asked a question.  Over the last many months, official sanctioned PR on this album noted the presence of a forthcoming song on the album that dealt with the aftermath of the 2012 reunion.  I found the lyrics - which have a great dramatic arc from positive to negative - fascinating and simply wondered if this might be the song in the PR blurbs.

Here's my post:

"3.  No one has yet commented on the lyrics.  Is this Brian's subtle take on the 2012 reunion ending?"

A question.  Simple as that.  Nuff said.

I'm the one who went further, Steve. Your question was fair. I'm to blame on this one.

No supper for you! Now go to your room...

[Wirestone]

Just don't argue about me. I'm a big boy and can deal with whatever comes my way. I've made a bunch of posts in the past that are stupid, and I'm sure I'm going to make a bunch more.

[HeyJude]

It's so great to have someone who's in the know like Ray Lawlor being able to contribute to the conversation and even to set the record straight when needed. It's silly that people were projecting this BB50 theory on Guess You Had To Be There when it really crumbles under any close scrutiny.

It's not silly. It was just a theory, and one that actually made enough sense to be plausible. Why are people so worked up about it, and still giving Wirestone s**t about it?

This is a board that once had a thread about "What would the BB's be like if they had been born female?"

Wirestone, did you get the memo about the TPS report? Did you? Did you?

Does anyone think that were people passed out on the floor during BB50? (unless it was afternoon nap time for the old fellers) As I stated, the "theory" didn't hold water, and yet like wildfire, people were jumping on the bandwagon that the song was about BB50.  I'm guessing that some people were blinded by the thought they had new fuel for their Mike Love-bashing. That's my silly theory. P.S I think Wirestone's posts are pretty swell as a rule.

Brian's wife Marilyn also didn't literally "glow" either as far as I know (and hey, some still swear "Caroline, No" has nothing to do with her). Point is, I've seen *far* crazier theories than the one Wirestone offered. Interpreting lyrics is a minefield of subjectivity. Sometimes even the authors don't know wtf they're saying, or won't say.

I didn't for one second see an angle to bash Mike Love in Wirestone's comments. I understand why one might think that was possible, but I think that speaks more to people who have a distaste for negative comments about Mike Love looking for something to jump on, waiting in the wings for more evidence of nothing more than the possibility of something that could be interpreted as "Mike bashing."

Even if you thought Mike was a total d**k and thought Brian was writing specifically about Mike being a d**k in that song, that wouldn't negate the mere theory of the song being about C50.

One could say "I don't think Mike is a d**k at all, but it sounds like Brian does in that song!"

[HeyJude]

This debate has been going on in one form or another since Imagination. Whatever program it is, whatever you want to call it, it's more than likely that some sort of pitch correction software has been used on some Brian Wilson recording of the past 17 years.

The question is, what do you do about it? What real contribution does it make to the discussion to start going back-and-forth about the technology's use? All the pitch correction in the world cannot make a bad performance good. If that were the case, GIOMH would be considered a great classic. It's a tool, one of an arsenal of tools available to modern recording artists.

If there was any indication that Brian was half-assing this record, or that Joe Thomas had secretly whisked the tapes away to Illinois to finish them without Brian's knowledge, that would be one thing. But by all accounts, Brian was as active and engaged in the recording of this album as any of his solo projects in the past quarter century.

So whatever is on the record is on the record. Brian liked it or signed off on it in some way. What we now need to do, is figure out a way to talk about the record and its contents without having every discussion derailed into a autotune versus no autotune versus insert pitch correction software name here debate.

Whatever was used on the Beach Boys record was, in my opinion, too much. This album though, sounds to my ears more naturalistic. It's still polished, and it still has a sheen. Again though, that's the choice of the artist. And the ultimate artistic intent and goal is what's worth talking about.

All good points.

I agree there is nothing on NPP on the magnitude of TWGMTR as far as wonky autotune-ish effects. I think it's quite possible that was in response to complaints from fans and spectators. Maybe Joe Thomas just *really* listens to what Burton Cummings thinks. 

We are indeed getting hung up a on lot of semantics. I would submit that a solution would be for everybody to acknowledge that some folks might think autotune is on these recordings, and to feel free to ignore such theories. Everybody just accepting essentially the simple idea that everybody has an opinion (and implicit in almost every post here is that it is just an opinion, even if it is stated in very plain language (e.g. "autotune is on that!")) would be far easier and more fair than asking people who think autotune is on a given recording to just *not* say anything.

[startBBtoday]

Can we compromise and please call it something else? Because that's not how autotune works. Autotune is pitch correction. It's when a vocal is tweaked to hit a certain note that the singer couldn't hit naturally. It is obvious most of the time.

That's not happening (as far as I can tell) at all on this track. You have an issue with some sort of effect, not autotune or pitch correction.

Whether any pitch-altering effect is at play is questionable. It may not be the actual "AutoTune" plug-in. It could be any number of plug-ins that incorporate pitch correction elements. But I don't think we're just getting caught up on calling generic tape "cellophane tape" instead of "Scotch tape."

I don't think it's out of line to question whether some sort of plug-in that incorporates some level of pitch correction/alteration/sustain might be at play.

Googling "plug-ins that sound like autotune" results in a number of *other* software suites that do the same or similar things, and can do everything from correcting one note to giving a sheen to the whole performance, to sounding like a robot, to turning one voice into a choir.

Every mention of these software suites notes that they are *standard* studio equipment now. I presume Brian has probably migrated exclusively to digital recording now (and even if he tracks stuff on analog tape, it's then dumped into ProTools or some similar program).

It all is too hazy to know WTF is going on. We can try saying something other than autotune (even though I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilities that the literal Antares program Auto-Tune could be at play) I guess. I don't know if that's going to help, though.

Can you point to a song that uses autotune or pitch correction that sounds like Kacey Musgraves' vocals on this song?

[b00ts]

I was very pessimistic about this album until yesterday. The Amazon and Google samples didn't sound promising, although "Right Time" had grown on me.

When I listened to the samples, "Guess You Had to Be There" seemed catchy but unremarkable. Now, hearing the whole song, it's a very nice piece of work.

I've never been a huge fan of the guest vocalist idea, aside from Al and Blondie. It has negative precedents in Stars & Stripes (I forget which volume) and Gettin' In Ober My Head.

This is my first time hearing Kacey Musgraves sing. Her performance is excellent. She doesn't go overboard or over-emote (like Ruess seems to) and she delivers the lyrics with conviction.

The effect on Kacey's voice that some people are hearing as Autotune is most likely either some chorus-type effect, or just the sound of two or three vocal tracks layered together (perhaps with some reverb). It was jarring to me at first - Kacey's lead is produced a little too slick for my liking, when juxtaposed with the backing track and Brian's vocal.

Brian has been stepping up his latter-day vocal game continually since Brian Wilson Presents SMiLe. He's tried new things, from growling on "Goin' Home" to softly crooning on "I Loves You Porgy" from the Gershwin album.

I felt like Brian's vocals on Thats Why God Made the Radio were a step back overall. Probably about the quality level of Brian Wilson Presents SMiLe. I always wondered why this was, considering his stellar, largely non-pitch corrected vocals on Brian Wilson Reimagines Gershwin.

On No Pier Pressure, Brian has some very gifted vocalists singing lead. It sounds like he is once again stepping up his game, and trying new things vocally in order to match and complement the work of his guest vocalists. He sounds fantastic on "Guess You Had to Be There."

Production aside, the song itself could have fit on That Lucky Old Sun. I'm curious whether Scott Benett helped write the lyrics. It is very much in the vein of "Goin' Home" lyrically, with Brian wryly looking back on his early years. In this case, it seems like he is singing about how his success was a mixed blessing (I'm thinking specifically about the SMiLe era).

The backing track reminds me a little bit of a "I've Got Plenty of Nothin'" from the Gershwin album, but with a backbeat. It's a fairly economical arrangement, with marimba, banjo, bass, and guitar (and maybe mandolin) weaving arpeggios together. The arrangement settles down and opens up in the verses, and seems to gain momentum with every chorus.

This is a rare example of a Brian Wilson song that uses a prominent electric guitar solo and rock and roll drums effectively. In other words, it's the opposite of "Bluebirds over The Mountain." The abrupt ending is also nicely thought out - reminds me of the kinds of little details we hear in McCartney's best work.

The evolving harmonies add significantly to the momentum of the song. As with Brian's best work, the harmonies are almost like a song unto themselves.

* Edited to remove redundancies, and to add that Kacie definitely has reverb on her vocal, as well as double- or triple-tracking. At one point, you can hear her vocal in the left channel begin slightly before the rest of the voices. I'm guessing maybe three vocal tracks.

[SMiLE Brian]

b00ts!!!!!