The Smiley Smile Message Board

So for the last few days I've been going through the tracks on Back To Mono, listening to some of the Good Vibrations sessions, and revisiting the Spector produced Death of a Lady's Man.

I wanted to start a thread specifically to talk about this type of production, how it was accomplished on a technical level, the best examples of its' execution, and its' importance to Brian Wilson's production work.

It took me a long while to notice how some of the sounds on particular records were actually multiple instruments that had been combined. From some of the interviews I've read about Spector, his collaborators have identified not only the echo chamber, but the studio space itself, the physical presence of so many musicians, and even the unique configuration of Gold Star's mixing board as key factors.

Can anyone with some engineering knowledge go into a little more detail about this, how it worked on a technical level? What about in the performance of classical music? I assume that this effect is a natural consequence of the acoustics of concert halls, and that the conductor is preforming a role similar to the producer during a symphony.

Let's get a discussion going, or at least share some of our favorites.

Here's a good one, with some cool blendings:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh1yBV5zXf0

I've always really liked the combinations on I Can Hear Music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqyx4TW4Ptw

What's the hang up guys, are you telling me you *don't* like yourself some Spector? What's the world coming to

Do you have access to a recording setup where you can add effects like reverb and delay, and switch the order of those effects? Either in a DAW or with external rack units or even guitar fx pedals? It's cool to actually try these things and hear the results, if the topic is how Spector got some of those sounds to happen.

Unfortunately I don't. I've never learned to play an instrument, and I've never had any first hand experience with recording anything. I've pieced together my understanding thus far from random interviews I've seen with Brian, Larry Levine, etc, and from things I've read on this board, as well as just close listening to the actual music.

I have a sort of intuitive grasp of it all, but that's all. Hence this thread, I'd like to just read what everyone else has to say. I'm hoping some of the excellent posters here could educate me a little, and maybe we could all learn from one another in the process.

Aside from the aforementioned ensemble setup, room sound, echo chamber, and combining multiple instruments into one, tape bouncing was a big part of Spector's sound (and partially what separated his sound from BW's).

Spector loved murk & mud. The chamber was used as an instrument, and he worked on 3-track for most of the songs (later, 4-track). The 'wall' would be bounced machine to machine as overdubs were made, which created a certain kind of saturation (or 'compression', as some like to call it).

In my opinion, the 45 version of 'Heroes & Villains' is the closest BW came to truly getting Spector down in the back track (which bears a striking resemblance to Ike & Tina's Spector-produced cover of 'Save the Last Dance for Me'). BW even got the drums to become part of the murk, which is a hard thing to do. no definition in anything in that track ... brilliant if you ask me.

Most important thing to have for this is the vision of the final result ... Spector and Brian (and I believe, Sonny Bono) had a specific idea in mind, an energy they wanted to bring forward, and they wouldn't rest until the sound was 'one'.

That's cool, I was just wondering if you would be able to try anything out and hear the results.

The old saying: If you love music, it's never to late to learn. Seriously, consider getting an instrument (guitar...guitar...) and giving it a go.

This is one of the purely technical tricks that was revealed about how Spector got his "Wall Of Sound", electronically. I think, and I think most would agree, that there were so many things at play when that Sound happened that it can't be narrowed down to a few specifics. From the songs, to the instruments, to the musicians, to the way Spector worked the musicians, to the size of the room, the height of the ceiling in that room, the recording equipment, the guys running that equipment...overwhelming to go through but each was crucial.

Spector's Wall Of Sound was a very specific kind of "huge sound" with echo and whatnot, sometimes sounding like it would swallow up the singer or lapse into echo-driven feedback (think that neat fadeout to Pleasant Valley Sunday). Those productions sounded huge, though the room was small.

Bones Howe revealed what Larry Levine told him he did different with Spector to create that, in a Tape Op interview. Spector's sound was taking the source sound from the board, sending it through a tape delay, then into the echo chamber, then back through the board and mixing it back in with the source. It could feed back on a whim according to Bones but when they got it right, it was that signature sound.

The difference was reversing the order of the signal being sent into the tape delay then into the echo chamber versus the other way around, or minus the tape delay all together. Spector's order of effects would have a bigger sound going into the echo chamber caused by the delay making the original signal longer and would create even more sounds bouncing around inside that echo chamber room, so it was I guess an illusion of depth and size caused by that delay.

It could be replicated by sending anything through an effects chain where you can change the order of the signal going into and out of these effects, a tape delay simulation and a room/chamber reverb-echo type of thing, and play with the delay times and levels as it goes into the reverb and how much of that wet signal you mix in with the original.

Has anyone mixed using that kind of recipe to get the Spector vibe happening?

Great responses right off the bat.

I don't think I would necessarily say that Spector was about murk. I think there's something more than that going on, the Spector sound is this very sort of soft, cotton candyish cloud (I always imagine the color pink I guess). It's formless, and expansive, taking up the whole tape. The sound is indistinct by virtue of really lacking definite edges, but it also sounds very far away. That's something I've really noticed, even though the "wall" seems to take up the entire universe of the song, it also sounds distant and faint. Spector songs always feel quieter than they really are for some reason.

I've heard Levine say that they didn't really use much isolation, but that the shear number of musicians worked to partially dampen the sounds. So Phil would start by working on the guitars, and then the pianos, and so on until he got to the drums. Once he introduced the drum part Levine said that it start bleeding into all the other microphones. So I imagine that once some of the instruments got sent to the echo chamber, they'd each be accompanied by a different aspect of the percussion based on how the drums bled into those particular microphones.

But what about tape delay, are you saying that the sounds would already have an artificial echo on them before they got sent to the echo chamber?   

I've heard numerous times that Gold Star had two echo chambers, how did that figure in? Would Spector send the output from one to the other simply to give it more echo? Or would he mix a few instruments in the first chamber, and then mix the combination with other instruments in the second?

How exactly would the multitracking work DonnyL? I've hard Levine say that 1.) Everything ended up as a single track on three track at the end of the session and that vocals and strings would fill out the remaining two tracks during other sessions. 2.) He recorded the backing track onto two tracks simultaneously in order to make it seem "louder" for Phil.

The way I'm conceiving of it though is that Phil would start by selecting just a couple of signals to combine. He'd send those to the first echo chamber and blend them together. Then he'd take the output from that echo chamber and send it into the second echo chamber along with additional signals. He'd blend all those sounds together, and then put the output onto a track of tape so that he could then send it back into the first echo chamber and add further signals. And in this way he'd bounce between tape tracks and between echo chambers until he eventually got the whole thing put together, one piece at a time.

But I wouldn't ever pretend to any knowledge about all this. This is sort of my working conception of things, and I may be misunderstanding it all entirely so I'd appreciate corrections or additional commentary from everyone.

Also what do you guys all think of the original Good Vibrations track as heard on The Pet Sounds Sessions? I'm amazed at the chorus of that version, there's some really wonderful mixing of instruments going on there. I'd recommend anyone who hasn't listened to it in a while go back and check it out.

Addressing just these two points:

Yes, that is correct, it was sending the signal through a tape machine for delay, then into the echo chamber. Tape delay is a repeat effect where the sound quality deteriorates slightly with each repeat of the original, I've heard 60's sessions where they ask for "repeater echo" and that's a great name for the sound. So you're in effect adding more sounds to follow the original, which adds to and lengthens the sound which is going into the echo chamber.

The echo chamber itself is just a room with a speaker and a microphone, and you send the signal from the board into that speaker, the mic picks it up from another part of the room, then you send it back into the board to mix together.

Imagine standing in an empty room with very reflective walls, and you clap your hands. That clap sort of bounces around for a bit, then that's it. It's not like an echo, it's the room sound, only in a more workable acoustic environment (or a room that just happens to have a great reflective sound by pure coincidence, either way...). Now clap your hands several times in a row, and the sound being reflected by those walls is increased, and the sound changes. If you put that clap through a delay, and set it to repeat, say, four times, you'll have now four claps bouncing around the room at slightly different times, and it will sound a lot bigger and more spacious.

That's the best I can do finding a comparison for what a tape delay versus a dry signal would do in Spector's Wall Of Sound effects chain, at least according to what Levine told Bones Howe. It makes sense, and it is a neat little subtle trick that would seem to be a signature sound.

On the other point, I read Levine saying something similar, and in that context he said he did this to impress visitors to Phil's sessions, and to basically pump the speakers a bit more. Since it was all mono, you'd have people in the room and then push it through two speakers and it would be more intense...at least that's my impression of what Levine was saying. He was showing off for guests to the studio or Phil as they listened to playbacks, I don't think it was connected to the actual mixing at all...but I could be way off on that.

Obviously this varied from session to session, but my understanding was his method involved recording to 3 tracks on one deck, mixing to another 3-track, adding 2 more tracks, mixing back to the first 3-track, and so on, until he had the 'wall'. So the end result would be: 1-wall, 2-strings, 3-vocals. In the case of 4-track, I think it might be 4-horns. my understanding is the 'wall' was essentially the rhythm track.

you don't have to call it 'murk', but he liked the glued-together, everything-playing, 'one' sound. and even in the era of 8-track, he still preferred the 3-track and mixing as you go to get the sound of the tape generations. That 'far away', soft thing you're talking about has a great deal to do with bouncing over and over again.

to clarify the tape-delay thing ...

tape delay is that 'slapback' Elvis type sound. you send the signal to a separate tape deck, it plays back slightly after it records. you can vary the length of delay with the speed of the tape (other ways to do it as well).

you can send the direct signal to the machine, or you can send the echo through the delay as well ... meaning the echo would start slightly late. The Beach Boys used this a lot later on. you could do the reverse, use the delay first and send the delay into the chamber. or the delay-ed single into the chamber, vice-versa, etc ... endless options. if you send a delay into itself, it'll feedback at some point (an endless loop) ... you hear this in that one version of 'heroes & villains' where is sounds like an explosion building. you can control this with your mixer and find a 'sweet spot' ... just on the verge of feedback.

you can get all kinds of unique and unpredictable phasing happening as well ... creates a bold sound. hard to replicate unless you go all the way, and even then, you'll end up with your own unique take on it.

How would that work do you think? I heard that the mixing board at Gold Star had 12 inputs. How would those 12 inputs be divided between the three tracks? Would they be "dry"? Or would they have echo on them? Did they stop periodically during each session in order to mix down the three tracks using the echo chamber/tape delay method? Where would Spector start essentially, what got blended first, or did everything get blended all at the same time in just one echo chamber? That's not the way that I've taken descriptions so far, I get the impression that Spector was blending just a few of the signals at a time, and then blending the blended signal, and so on in an essentially iterative method.

Super fascinating stuff both of you.

hmm, who knows, doesn't really matter too much. I'm sure he had specific methods he liked. the # of inputs don't really matter that much either. they'd probably have some submixers going into the board if needed. there would probably also be one mic on multiple instruments as well in places.

so you might have drums, basses, guitars on one track. maybe piano, harpsichord, organ on another.  percussion, etc. on a third. mix it down w/ echo wherever you want it, however he wanted it for that song, and so on.

the echo could be added during tracking, during submixing, and/or during final mix. in any combination.

Maybe we could focus on just one track, Good Vibrations, Heroes, River Deep, Lovin' Feeling. One of those, and then try and dissect the sound a little bit.

The number of inputs is just the number of lines you could put into the board. I also don't think it mattered in what combinations they were put onto the tracks, but I'm sure they all had a preferred way of doing it.

This is the Gold Star board, circa Feb. 1966:
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/Blog%20Post%201/boardtest.jpg)

Notice the 12 channels.

How many send/returns did that board have? Would I be correct in remembering 3?

I'll leave that to the experts ... no way to tell without having been there taking notes.  all of this stuff was 'fly by the seat of your pants' 1960s-style recording.

'pet sounds' as an album is probably the easiest one to pick apart, and those you tube videos some people made regarding how the tracks were put together are pretty revealing. 'pet sounds' has something of a formula that makes sense. only effects were echo, tape delay, and compression. compression was running on the board output, so you'd get lots of individual elements with no compression, then compression added at the end, AFTER everything else in the chain. so when things get louder, reverb goes away. when things get soft, reverb comes up.

I've learned a lot about recording from studying 'pet sounds' and the simplicity in the recording chain. the fewer options you have, the more creativity opens up.

I think you can actually hear the compression (or something) in Good Vibrations, right at the beginning.  The organ (I suppose?) is playing, and after the "Ayeee!... I love the colorful clothes she wears", the organ changes slightly.  Is that the compression altering the sound?  I always thought it was strange, there may be a splice there, because on the demo version, Brian's vocal comes in after that line. 

So I never could tell if it was a splice, or something strange going on with the compression.

Since this is a Beach Boys board, I think it ties in perfectly to do an A/B comparison with The Crystals "Then He Kissed Me" and the Beach Boys' "Then I Kissed Her".

It's actually a terrific way to hear just what made Spector's productions different. Brian was trying to copy Spector, that's a given. He's using the same musicians in a few cases, he's going for the Spector Wall, he's doing a song that was  Spector hit.

Yet, the terrific lead male vocal aside, the Beach Boys version lacks the power and the depth/size of Spector's record. There are times on the Crystals record where the song reaches a crescendo and the sound of that mix seems like it will erupt into thunder or fall off the cliff, either one, yet the vocal holds it together. The whole mix swells and builds with the arrangement, and it's like a massive wave forming and just getting ready to break.

Listen specifically for the "size" of Spector's sound versus Brian's. Spector's sound is muddier, more full and harder to hear individual instruments, but that was his whole point and that delay-echo effect is heard best on the drums. It adds so much size to the sound, and more power as a result.

The drums on Brian's tracks sound dry, almost too dry, even though he's going for Spector's drum vibe...yet the lack of that resonating echo makes the sound more clear and present but less powerful.

I hear on the Crystals record the sound of an engine idling underneath everything, just that mysterious groundswell of noise that's unidentifiable, yet it's a presence, a low rumble. Spector's mixes sound loud to me, but yet Brian's has more separation and clarity...and I think Spector's worked better for the song and the market he was aiming for because of those very reasons.

That low rumble (I won't say *menacing* because too many reviewers use that to describe Spector's 'Wall') makes those records sound huge, and I hear the effects coming from the delay-echo chamber setup with Spector that add elements (especially on drums) that Brian's is lacking.

So that's one example where you hear the original versus a copy and can check out some of the variations.

That's not compression, that was a glitch in the tape. It actually does a bit of a tape phase-shift more than anything, compression doesn't change EQ like that.

Compression is McGuinn's guitar on Mr. Tambourine Man...actually three compressors or something...it's more subtle and not as much of an effect.

I always heard it as a compression artifact as well (sort of like the kind of thing that happens to the whole mix when you pop a 'P'), but the general consensus seems to be that it's tape damage.

Didn't someone confirm it was tape damage, like Mark Linett? I don't recall.

I'm open to suggestions! I listened to this:

You can *clearly* hear that pumping/swell/noise from the compressor on Carls' vocal on this stereo remix but the organ is unaffected: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwrKKbaClME (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwrKKbaClME)

Noisy as hell from :10 to :15 on that clip. Maybe just a bad punch-in combined with a weird compressor reaction? Whatever it is, it's only on the vocal.

Then on the released mono mix, the vocal does ride on top of everything...which could interact and phase/cancel out with the organ part...very interesting.

This is a really wonderful take on the song.

Lets look at some Beach Boys songs,
One that I've always really noticed is on Let's Go Away. It really sounds like there's at least one bass being specifically combined with a piano or keyboard of some type. Sometimes it sounds like one more than the other, sometimes it sounds indistinguishable. It's like he was making new instruments.

How about the bridge on Here Today. We have some organ, a bass or guitar playing notes, and drums/percussion. In the second part, listen as the it sounds like the guitar is mixing with some piano, and then possible a woodwind? But they become really indistinguishable, and it becomes a challenge to pull the particular sounds apart.

These moments are all over Pet Sounds. With Spector it's different, he blends *everything* together. He essentially creates one giant, super instrument.
With Brian things are kept more distinct, he doesn't go all the way to that conclusion, he leaves some of them alone and it creates a contrast. As you hear both the combined groups and the unaffected instruments. So the effect becomes all the bolder, the "new" instruments sound all the more lucid and novel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awk-qcTckuw

I think he explains it very well in this interview, starting at about 1:45. What he's describing is exactly what I'm hearing. Effectively new instruments, built up from several component sounds.

If i'm not too far off topic, what's the reason for the vocals changing right there?  Brian's 'demo' vocals start with "She's already working on my Brain"... but there's not "I, I love the colorful clothes she wears".... so which was recorded first, if Brian left a hole for the later vocals?  Craziness!  The damage/artifact right in that area makes it even more confusing.  What the hell was going on with the first 5 seconds of that song? lol

Very interesting topic!

My 2 cents:
1. There's a Danny Hutton interview on YTube that says the wall of sound started with Leiber&Stoller productions, in New York. (songs like Spanish Harlem, Stand By Me etc) Spector learned from it and developed it further in LA.
2. In the bio He's A Rebel is stated that a key element in the Wall Of Sound was to reuse the sound allready recorded, play it through the speakers and combine it together with new sounds on tape.

I think you're making it more complicated than it is.

From what I understand, Spector "always" recorded the track to mono.  The bootlegs mainly seem to back this up--we don't get the stereo mixes were used to from BB boots of the same era.  I don't get the sense that Phil did any more bouncing than Brian.  Most of the Bootlegs seem to indicate that it was:

1. Track
2. Strings
3. Vocals
4. Backing Vocals


To compare Phil and Brian's working methods, keep in mind that you have to think of the tracking sessions as mixing sessions also, because, particularly when Phil's doing the whole track to mono, they are mixing live.  They will not have the chance to redo the mix later.  In Brian's case there is still some leeway, but not much.

Brian had a fairly regular pattern of use for the 3 tracks he'd cut his tracks on.  It doesn't hold good universally, but in general, particularly on Pet Sounds:

1.  Horns
2.  Basses, Piano, Drums, Rhythm Guitars
3.  "Highlight" instruments, lead guitars, accordions, etc.


So let's say we're recording Wouldn't It Be Nice at Gold Star.

That was a track cut on three tracks with no later instrumental overdubs.  It is also one of the larger sessions Brian did in that studio.  

With 12 inputs (and some coupling inputs, I think) we'd have a layout something like this:

Tracks:
1.  Bass Drum
2.  Drum Overhead
3.  Fender Bass
4.  String Bass
5.  Danelectro 6-string bass
6.  Archtop guitar
7.  Piano 1
8.  Piano 2
9.  Accordions
10.  Horns
11.  Percussion
12.  Intro/Bridge Guitars

At this point in time, the mixing consoles were had three busses, that is, you could group any of the 12 tracks into 3 separate and discrete outputs.  These outputs would be linked up to the 3, and then 4-track machines.

So we end up with, I think I remember correctly:

1.  Horns
2.  Basses, Drums, Percussion, Rhythm guitar
3.  Accordions, Intro Guitars, Pianos

Linett and others have told me that Gold Star only owned one compressor until very late, which they used more at the mastering stage.  Western likely had one compressor in-line with each of the 3 output busses.  In other words, compression was limited and could not really be done to individual instruments.

In addition, there was, as has been mentioned, tape delay and reverb chamber.  This, in general, was all added live, and not later.  I have not been able to figure out what the exact method was.  Western had access to many different chambers, including United's chambers across the parking lot.  (Now there's a building in between the studios...)  Gold Star had the two.  I don't know if Brian tended to use one chamber and one tape delay machine for everything or not.  The send pot was pretty primitive and, without a lot of patching, would have been a pre-buss operation.  In other words, what was being mixed would not be dry, it would be "effected" before going down the buss to the master outputs feeding the tape machine.


As for Phil, going straight to mono, this was even simpler.  The 12 inputs were combined with their reverb and delay returns all together at the same time, straight to tape.  He may have gone through two echo chambers, he may have added more reverb to the already reverbed track at the mixing stage, but I don't think there's any evidence that he was doing the process that you describe.

I might add that I suspect the Wall of Sound process has fallen victim to the "conventional wisdom" problem a bit.

People wanted to get that sound, tried, and failed--and then when they started investigating it more, they jumped on every little detail, like we have.  But then the little one-offs and stories start to take over and the specific is substituted for the general.

"How did Spector get that amazing sound?"

It's hard to accept that the man just knew how to work a studio.  There's nothing occult about it, really.  He was using the same studio and musicians as everybody else. 

People just refuse to believe that it could be so simple, and so we blow up the experiments into the general method.

You know, Brian tried recording some vocals in his pool so it becomes "Brian recorded Smiley Smile in his pool."

Spector one added reverb to an already reverbed track, and then added reverb to that--and the next thing you know, the story becomes that he did that every time. 

I don't buy it.  The magical sounds we hear are by and large not due to weirdness but built on the very same building blocks we use at our little DAWs:  A great room, mic placement, structuring the input levels; and then adding effects.

I may have misunderstood something I read ... that final tape went through up to 5 'bounces' or submixes before the final ... re-reading it (It was actually Mark L. on the Spectro-pop group!), the bounces were apparently for strings and vocals! Which almost emphasizes the bouncing on the 'wall' even more ... to go through 5 bounces.

[original quote:

"Spector only worked on 3 track and always cut the track
in mono bouncing the combined vocal overdubs to
successive 3 tracks and overdubbing the strings. This
resulted in the track being copied as many as 5 times
before the final 3 track containing the track, vocals
and strings was mixed for the record. The recordings
were never designed for stereo, nor for that matter
were most rock records recorded before 1966 tho there
are exceptions.......Mark"]

I've read other things to support this idea that Spector loved bouncing, and wouldn't work with high track counts, even when they were available.

I agree with most everything you've written here ... with one exception: I think you need tape recorders as well.

Great responses, really informative.
I'm going to give WIBN a close listen later today before responding any further, that post was incredibly useful aeijtzsche

Excellent discussion all around - great reading. I think the technical side is only one part of it, as mentioned before...an important part, and yes Gold Star did have a mythical quality about it among those who worked there and those who study and love the records made there, but ultimately it was a small room.

I think one of the "x factors" is the people and how they worked in that environment. Focus on Spector's relationships with the musicians for now.

He worked them hard. Very hard, to the point of them being exhausted and sometimes suffering physical effects afterward. I learned this from an account of Howard Roberts refusing to work with Phil Spector. Howard got a call to play acoustic 12-string for Phil, I don't know what song it was. Phil had a part that was strenuous especially on a 12 string acoustic which is tough to play for long periods of time anyway, and he ran take after take after take having Howard play that part within the group. It caused damage to Howard's hand, requiring medical attention and therapy to get his hand back to health, and he couldn't play for a period of time due to this. So it cost him money, and potentially his career, for Spector to keep running that part. So that, combined with some of Spector's gunplay in the studio, caused Howard not to work with him anymore.

And he wasn't alone.

Levine mentioned this as a deliberate way Spector would get the performances on tape. He'd physically exhaust the musicians so they'd lay back and fit into more of an ensemble sound - there was no one standing out or playing out more than the others. It was Phil's "Wall Of Sound" where no brick was more important than another, it was one huge glob of music, made even more strong by the mono mixing.

So take a group of LA's finer players, literally cram them into a room so small that they had to climb over each other, and stands, and mics, and all else in order to take a bathroom break or something, and work them until they were beat. Then play take after take, having a reel of previous takes ready to play if one of them forgot what they played 2 hours ago and Phil wanted them to repeat it. Then record them...and there are the results.

We hear this on those Spector session outtakes, sometimes the take numbers are into the two dozen or more range. Not that this was uncommon, even Brian did it, but the way Spector did it bordered on him being a taskmaster.

Yet a core group of those players returned to him again and again. And others like Howard Roberts refused to take part in that. I think Phil was a manipulator at best, at worst he was using these folks to get what he wanted and didn't really care what it did to them.

Yet, above all, listen to the results - you have classic records that feature a band which is worn out yet playing exactly what the song required. There was a group-think that Spector drove through this method, and the ensemble was tight as hell, one massive whole formed by a group of musicians crammed together in a small room. No matter how upset or mad they may have gotten, or no matter how "fun" some might say Phil's sessions were, the results became legendary either way, and Phil got what he wanted.

It worked - I think the psychology and combination of those personalities among those on the sessions contributed to it. And I also think when someone tried to replicate that, they fall short because there isn't the same drive, that same work ethic, and that sense of driving the musicians is replaced by nostalgia and a younger generation fan/producer being more swept up in the nostalgic "let's do it like Spector at Gold Star" ethic than wanting to record a hit record and wanting to make money, which was Phil's goal.

Timing, too - the Wall Of Sound worked because of the limitations of the studio in 1963-66.

Not sure if this is posted, but I love this production http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOrVjcT1Mxw&feature=related

A distinction needs to be drawn between the "lets make a Spector record" mentality and the desire to adapt his attitude and methods to modern recordings.

I absolutely agree with everyone who's forwarded the sentiment that Spector relied on a variety of techniques in order to create his sound. Spector made Spector records, that's where the art of these records come in, only he was able to do it. They're an expression of his personality, and there's no one else who could have ever recorded those songs for that very reason. As he developed his style he came closer to what his imagination seemed to demand of him.

I don't think it's useful to get too hung up on the totality of the effect. Every work of art is a mixture of techniques, and I think a top down approach runs the risk of being demoralizing. A purely mechanical understanding is no good, because ultimately I think we all agree there was a certain "x factor", a bit of magic that doesn't really seem to correspond plainly to any particular factor.

That x factor rests in the interaction of the parts, it's not any one positive thing, it's more of a negative quality. It's the relationship between the parts, not the parts themselves. Spector intuitively was able to just pick all the right elements, he understood what it was he wanted to accomplish, and he found all the best tools in order to achieve that. That's where the x factor comes into play.

Spector picked each technique he employed because it added something that he thought the record needed. When you understand what each technique was, and why that technique worked, and what specific things that technique was capable of providing, then you can make use of those techniques freely. Instead of making Phil Spector records, you can have more freedom to make guitarfool records DonnyL records, because understanding the aesthetic and psychological contribution of those techniques will give you access to a greater vocabulary in the recording studio, and allow you to articulate your personal musical ideas in a more controlled way.

If that makes sense.

It is great to study and dissect the methods of the classic productions, I've done it myself at one point for course requirements and grades and now for a fun hobby. At the same time a sense of realism has to enter the picture, and it can come down to a conclusion that Spector and the Wall Of Sound were successful ultimately because of the timing. It was just the right time for that kind of music, on many levels. And the preferred delivery method for that time was the 45 rpm single, which would also be broadcast on AM radio and on shows like Bandstand or others geared toward the teenage market.

And what that AM radio had in common with television was how those teenagers were listening to those programs through what was usually a speaker measuring no wider than a few inches, and being very limited in the range of frequencies it could reproduce.

So take this producer Spector who gathers together all the tools he needed to best exploit that particular delivery method for music to reach his target audience with his "teenage symphonies". He fills the grooves of that record to the brim, loading everything into what today would be considered a fairly narrow spectrum of sound, yet you get the qualities of all ranges from the basses to the drums to guitars to high string parts, with a vocal riding neatly on top.

You also factor in engineers who knew enough to mix to that format, and in effect invent the process of bringing in nearfield monitors like the standard Auratones in future decades in order to compare the mix on the preferred listening systems of your intended audience. Or in the case of Gold Star, actually have a mini-transmitter on location so they could physically hear what their music would sound like on a car radio...this was pure genius.

And it proves that Spector and those engineering his records knew intuitively who would be listening and how they would be listening...they weren't going for the audiophile crowd, they weren't looking to sound great on a Garrard turntable or whatever...they were making records that sounded good in the car and on cheap speakers. So they mixed to exploit that.

It was the perfect time for that sound - unfortunately if you're a fan of it in 2012 Spector only had a window of opportunity lasting a few years before the availability of more tracks, the full-on acceptance of stereo, and a radical change in the entire music industry and the way records were made and marketed happened around 1967, and Spector's working methods and sounds became cemented in time.

Again, for the time, they worked and worked beautifully - they remain some of the most exciting single records in pop music. But they are ultimately a product of their time. It doesn't ring true to my ears or my musical mentality to try to replicate it. It becomes a carbon-copy, and just for the record I feel exactly the same about those Neo-Soul bands who sound like an Otis Redding outtake from '67 instead of themselves, to the point of parody, and the real parody is when so called "authentic" blues artists try to sound like a Howlin' Wolf record or even worse a Delta blues 78 instead of playing their own music. The legacy overrides the art.

If you take what was old and use that to express your own voice, I'm a fan. Just like those art students on the folding seats copying the masterworks at any given museum - they're learning by copying the techniques, but ultimately they're going to hopefully apply those techniques to express their own artistic vision and not copy masterpieces for the rest of their lives.

I think part of the "x factor" is that when those "Wall Of Sound" records were being made, it was current, it was fresh, it was the music of the times. If someone 45 years later tries to do it, it's retro by design.

The wall of sound may be a product of its time. However, it remains a valid approach to this day for anyone who cares to take up the challenge. Revive
the lost art of delegation. Find a fantastic singer. Write a simple song sincerely. Find a dozen or so talented and intelligent people to serve the song. The more human warmth the better. As a producer, serve the song and keep it as simple as possible. I don't think there's anything "retro" about that.

I don't have anything to contribute, but this is one of the most interesting and educating threads I've read in a long time. Thanks, guys, and keep on talking!

I'm constantly trying to write 500 perfect words on the wall of sound, and refrain from mentioning Spector as an auteur, echo chambers, Wagner, or the phrase "power packed plastic". ;)

I've junked many a first draft, muttering those words to myself.

Personally I've always felt that, while the obvious extensive use of delay and huge echo were significant components, it was the fact that all that stuff then got mixed down to mono on analogue tape (probably at a slow speed). There's a very specific warmth that arises from the use of old tape recorders, which feels a lot more organic than any of the standard digital compression done today. The tape adds a ton of the flavour to that stuff and is a major ingredient, in my view.

The fact that, in Spector's case, it's all mono, just makes it all the more dense and ethereal. Everything is layered together in such a way that nothing can be placed easily. Brian, of course, favoured mono, but there are a huge number of stereo mixes of his stuff available, which I guess subliminally makes his work easier to pick apart. However, I do sort of get the impression that while he was trying to emulate Spactor's big sound, he very deliberately underplayed it in an effort to give his blended instruments more room to breathe.

I am not very knowledgeable about this, but sometimes I reflect on why modern studio recordings do not have the same presence that 50s and 60s recordings do. Could one of the reasons be that most studios now have carpeting? From (many) pictures I've seen, everything appears to be solid walls, floors etc, which I'm thinking could be a lot of the "room sound" and spaciousness that can be found on 60s records - a lot of The BBs stuff, Lesley Gore, Orbison, tons others. Any thoughts/opinions?

I don't know. By all accounts, particularly at Gold Star, the room was quite small and stuffed full of musicians. When a room is full like that, there's a lot of absorption of sound. I think the main thing that was captured in the room with the performance was the mic bleed crossing between players, rather than any significant room sound. The bulk of 'room sound' on the final record can probably be attributed to the echo chamber. But that's just my guess.

COMMENT:

It's been interesting reading -- all your comments about the wall-of-sound.

Suggest your read >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_of_Sound

I think you will find it may answer some of your speculations.

~swd

SWD, did you ever meet or interact with Phil Spector? 

 :) There can be no perfect words, I suppose. It is what you hear in it, how it makes you feel when you hear it, and how you feel it holds a place in music history. Even the technical aspects - if you change one musician on one given session date, perhaps that one seemingly small change would have altered the session and a little "ba-domp" kick on the bass drum wouldn't have sparked another small idea that led to a hook crucial to the record. Who knows.

I reread what I added here July 16, and I've come to that conclusion and am satisfied with it, for now. Above everything else, above the "magic" and above the nuts-and-bolts of studio technology, none of it could have happened if it had not been at that exact time in history, with what and who was available to cut those records at that time. It was out of Spector's hands entirely that the kind of record he wanted to make just happened to be the perfect use of the technology available in that short time frame of about 63-66.

Note that after 66, Spector and his original "Wall" concept were both bypassed and made passe mostly by advances in studio technology and developments in using stereo as more than a novelty effect, but rather an integral part of certain styles of music and how they were delivered. AM to FM, mono to stereo, etc. It just moved ahead and the "Wall" became nostalgia, which is how I see it today when artists try to pay tribute to it. You can to a degree, but ultimately it is what it was, and nothing more can be done to improve or reinvent it. Blame Pet Sounds to some degree for that too, I suppose.  :)

I believe more and more that our own time in history, or timing in general, is the great mysterious "x factor" in why some things become legendary and others are forgotten. The "Wall Of Sound" hit at just the right moment to become legendary, but a few years early or late, it may have been overlooked.

COMMENT:  Yes, but just in passing. 

Spector entered my life with this incedent . . .  quote from my book, Recording The Beach Boys

One day Brian brought a tape of Phil Spector’s Be My Baby to the control room and asked that it be sent to and played in the echo chamber. I made a an 8-track (remember those?) loop of the song so it played over and over. I went off and did some mix checks with the big JBL’s in Brian’s living room. When I again thought of Brian and found him still in the chamber, more than four hours of listening to Be My Baby over and over had passed. He was incessantly fascinated with the “wall of sound” concept and studied it for hours at a time.

~swd

I'd like to hear those tracks Spector cut at OceanWay for Celine Dion. There's some info on the sessions in Mick Brown's book. Brian was there briefly, Ike Turner showed up... Jim Keltner and Hal Blaine David Kemper played double drums (shoulda gotten Earl Palmer!) . I know one track that they did was nearly finished, a cover of "Is This What I Get For Loving You". It would be interesting to hear the sound of the guitar blend. The configuration of players at the session seemed very wall of sound classic The kind of approach that was not taken on The Ramones record, that was maybe last explored (in 77?) on the Dion record, one of a sh*tload of acoustic guitars as foundation instrument. I'd like to hear how or if that sound had evolved. Even if it evolved purely because of the new technology it was captured on, it'd be entertaining to hear, no?


I'm pretty sure Larry Levine served as engineer on those sessions, too.

Interesting to hear, definitely, but it was a victim of its own design. You cannot recapture a moment in time, especially with 70+ more tracks available to fill with sound then he had on the original "Wall", plus Eventides and digital delays and fake digital reverbs and all that stuff, and then Spector himself apparently managed to out-diva the uber-diva Celine Dion...a feat which was seemingly impossible!  :)

Even Spector's sessions with Lennon-Harrison, the orchestral Beatles stuff, the Ramones...a lot of it was decent to excellent, he had some hits, but you could take every damn record the man produced after 1966 and that entire discography would not add up to the sheer power and sonic jolt of those tiny magical parts of his records like the Be My Baby intro and fade, or the amazing crescendo near the end of "You've Lost That Lovin Feeling" or even the way Leon Russell brings tears to your eyes with his piano runs at the end of Christmas Baby (Please Come Home)...and others...just brilliant, perfect, powerful pieces of music that still sound breathtaking.

Celine Dion? You can fit a square peg into a round hole. I'd still like to hear it, who wouldn't?  :)

There's a fun anecdote about those sessions here, complete with Brian cameo:
http://www.sofein.com/mess/1998/06-98.html

God, I hate Celine Dion, tho.

ain't that the truth.

What's your take on compression and it's role in erecting the wall of sound (aside from natural tape compression)? By nowadays (and even earlier) standards the wall still manages sound breathing, airy and dynamic. Actually, I wouldn't call it a wall. More like a crashing wave.