The Smiley Smile Message Board

I thought it might be cool to have a topic where we can discuss all the unique production techniques Brian used. Y'know, what made Brian sound like Brian.

For example, I find the way he tended to approach to saxophones in the early-mid '60s very interesting. As early as his cover of "Misirlou", he had this tendency to put them incredibly low in the mix, to the point where you can barely hear 'em. Hell, he even does this on "That's Why God Made The Radio". The idea, seemingly, to have the saxes mix in with the guitars, and yet he has the saxes often play a completely different part. It's kinda crazy, but I can't ever think of a time when it hurt his songs, although I'm not always sure how much it helped, either. But what do I know?

Could it have been a lack of confidence on Brian's part? According to Brian, he originally intended the horn parts on the second half of "California Girls" to be much louder, but it "scared the boys", so he mixed it way down. But perhaps that's just a coincidence. "Salt Lake City", on the same album as "California Girls", has an extremely low sax part during the second verse, but then he has the saxes star for a moment at the beginning of the bridge, before burying 'em again.

Clearly, Brian was heavily influenced by Phil Spector when it came to saxes (compare "Da Doo Ron Ron" to "Salt Lake City"), but it's strange that he'd mimic Phil so closely there, only to mix most other parts with greater clarity.

And hey, I haven't got into Brian's hatred of cymbal crashes or his later tendency to mix in vocal bits with other instruments after Pet Sounds!

Brian used the sound of the instrument, not the "technical" use.

Saxes are breathy, and rough. Adding that to a strumming guitar is a great idea.

Brian's idea that "mono is king" proves this, in order to do this, everything needs to be mixed to the same level, making stereo mixes very hard.

About vocals, he basically does them independently of the track, then mixes them into the music, or in some cases, completely above.

Love his mixing ideas, I use them all the time!

His use of double-tracking vocals sends his music into another dimension. It's a real gift to hear those double-tracked harmonies in stereo today...but even back then, those mono recordings wouldn't be the same without that technique.

I'm going to say something terrible here and admit that I prefer the stereo mix of "You Still Believe In Me" over the mono precisely because it removes the double tracking. I think the rawer sounder vocal on the stereo mix makes the song just that much better. 

I also believe the stereo mixes of Pet Sounds and Smile are superior to the mono mixes because the wall of sound approach on the mono recordings sometimes failed to capture the full breadth of what Brian was doing instrumentally.

I like both versions of YSBIM - For a year or two I had only heard Pet Sounds in stereo - then when I heard the mono I was blown away by that song in particular because of the double-tracked vocals (I wasn't aware he even recorded double-track for that song). The stereo is more raw/intimate - but the mono packs quite a vocal punch. I definitely see the appeal of the single-tracked version.

There are some mono mixes on Pet Sounds that I prefer over the stereo - Sloop John B, I Know There's An Answer in particular, but that's mostly because I like the vocals better in mono. His music, especially the backing tracks, definitely benefits when heard in stereo.

Or hi-hats. He used the acoustic guitar to cover the frequency range of them. Of course, TWGMTR (like Imagination) has cymbals all over the place

If there's something about Brian's music that I'm not that into it's the lack of cymbals and hi-hats. Hi-hats often are too loud, but if they aren't there at all, it usually makes me feel there's a hole in the arrangement. Of course there's special arrangements where I don't miss them, like in When I Grow Up, but especially on the LDC album the absence bugs me. And Dennis IMO played much more drivingly when he was allowed to use the hi-hat.



I definitely disagree. :)

There have been cymbals elsewhere. I always think of how cliche it sounds when Song For Children segues into Child on BWPS. I think the saxes are low simply to provide a feel. The only real secret to his producing is his restraint. It's not what he does -- it's what he doesn't do. The other obvious ones are
1. Inconspicuous embellishing
2. Melody and bass lines doubled up and down octaves
3. Make sure the microphone with slap-back delay are bleed-through.
4. Conventional uses of a drum kit are forbidden. Whatever a hi-hat can do, a cup or glass can do better. No manic fills, just 'ba-dum-ba-doom'.
5. Draw from the official "Brian Wilson Oblique Strategies" helpful card set. There is only one card however, and it's "playback Be My Baby".

woodblocks

I actually think it's one of his greatest accomplishments, production-wise. It's so distinctively "un-classic rock" and I love that!

I agree with the second half of that, but I don't think the first half can be said as an absolute that would hold good for everybody, only for your personal taste — superior according to your preferences, but not necessarily for everybody's. If you're the kind of person that likes to analyse music arrangements and/or mixing, I think you can certainly make a case that the stereo mixes are more revealing (though not necessarily better), because instrumental parts are unquestionably buried in some of Brian's mono mixes. But the argument about whether that's good or bad is a whole different thing. Spector seems to have WANTED parts to be low in the mix or buried, so that they added a sonic colour but not with such clarity that they could be distinguished as clearly audible parts discernible in their own right — and it seems that Brian wanted to attain the same deliberately unclear results in emulation of Spector.

The issue seems to get mixed up with an old-school fidelity argument, where if the mix is muddy or confused-sounding and the separate instruments can't be discerned, that's a bad thing, ergo the stereo mixes are clearer, more hi-fi, and therefore 'better' or 'superior'. But what if, as seems to be the case, the creative originator of the tracks WANTED jumble, AIMED FOR lack of clarity, and DESIRED a totality of sound rather than individual, clearly audible parts? A 'clearer', sonically less jumbled mix cannot then be said to be superior to the original mono (except as a matter of personal taste), or at the very least, cannot be said to be a direct product of the creator's intentions.

By the way, just to confuse matters, lest it be thought that I'm some kind of mono-only fanatic, I actually prefer stereo mixes and being able to hear stuff more clearly too. I wasn't alive during the golden age of mono radio, so I have no particular attachment to the idea. But that's a personal preference, and I can appreciate that clear stereo mixes with beautiful separation are not, in the main, what Brian was going for back in the day. I still like to hear the original monos though. Why shut out another fascinating way of listening to these great recordings, one which is arguably what the creator intended?

None of the intellectual debates or arguments will stop me enjoying Pet Sounds in stereo, or in mono. As I hear it, they're both great, in different ways. And that holds good for me through the whole BB catalogue.

I find stereo interesting, but outside of RCA's early sixties recordings in studio b, I think mono was done a lot better overall in the sixties. In the case of the Beach Boys I find mono to be all the more vital. Curio time when it comes to Beach Boys pre Friends for me.

To get back on track with a specific Brian-esque production trick: didn't BW use a Leslie cabinet to process guitars before anyone else? He *certainly* did it before the Beatles, surely? It's all over Pet Sounds, and I don't remember a Leslie'd guitar in the Beatles oeuvre before Revolver...?

Lou Reed was similar - 'cymbals eat up guitars', I think is the quote.

And here's another: recording in sections, and editing together to make a finished record.

And, later on, as an outgrowth of the same idea: recording sections with different overdubs, to make different verses or choruses, say, from the same basic bit of multitrack tape, mixing all the required pieces, and then assembling it as a song later. Maybe others did that before Brian, but if so, I've never heard of it.

Moe's garbage can drums, however, support his beautifully infantile guitar playing perfectly  ;D

I know that the sleigh bell was common on Christmas songs before. I think that Little Saint Nick was the first time Brian used it, but it became common place in Beach Boys songs. Whenever anyone else does it, I think of the Beach Boys. It was their cow bell.

Also, beginning around SD/SN, Brian's bass and percussion arrangements became the most interesting part to me. That just might be the connection between Pet Sounds, Love You and BW88. I think the Joe Thomas albums lack that. I think the Pet Sounds and Smile tours helped influence the productions of TLOS and RIG and those interesting bass and percussion arrangements are there again.

One trademark I always loved is the use of non-musical instruments as sound (the bicycle horn on YSBIM, the clock in I Just Got my Pay, among others.)

His use of the Wrecking Crew: Giving them freedom to fiddle around with the song instead of going strictly by the notes on the page.

Very smart to allow seasoned musicians add in their own flair to a song.

I should clarify: I prefer every album from Surfin' Sarfari to Today! in mono - but, to me, Brian's major compositions on Summer Days/Nights and Pet Sounds are far more dynamic when heard in stereo.

But that's just me ;D

This is, by coincidence, a timely thread - Where Is She, a (1969?) solo (?) demo made by Brian and debuted earlier today on BBC Radio, employs many of the production tricks mentioned above, as chance would have it!

Innovative percussion, Leslie-toned guitar a total lack of traditional 'rock kit' drums, no hi-hats or cymbals, just the odd drum fill and bass-snare hits. It could have been written based on the aspects discussed here!

Oh, and great harmonies too, of course...!

I also completely disagree. ;D But that's just me.

Brian really built his arrangements to sound punchy and big in mono, especially on a car radio. His idol, Phil Spector, did the same thing. And those records by The Beach Boys, The Ronettes, The Crystals, The Righteous Brothers and others sound fantastic....in mono.

Brian's non-use of hi-hats and various cymbals is a great example of how he could hear the "bigger picture" when he was recording these backing tracks, specifically in the mid-60's when his productions and orchestrations relied on larger studio bands.

I think it's all about frequencies, EQ, and how elements of the track "sit" in the mix. If your sonic trademark is group vocals, and vocals which as a main component feature both thick doubletracking and a high falsetto riding on top of the harmonies if not carrying the lead, why would you jeopardize the sonic character of *that* element by masking it with a washy hi-hat tapping out 8th or 16th notes?

The "washiness" and swirling quality of a steady hi-hat or much cymbal work in general, especially in a dense mono mix where everything is already crowded into a somewhat narrow sonic area, might directly conflict with the more important elements of things like vocals or specific keyboard parts, high range, since the cymbal tracks might hog those high frequencies and cancel out the other parts sharing that same range.

Mono is about giving each part its "space" within the sonic field. If you have too much in the same range, something gets lost.

The brilliance of his arrangements is that Brian was arranging for *the studio*, not for live performance, and it's something Spector did too but with less clarity in his mixes. Rather than, say, a hi-hat keeping a steady 8th note rhythmic pulse on a track, Brian would have a guitar or two - guitars being more mid-range in nature - filling that role. And rather than have cymbals washing throughout the track, he'd have well-placed "hits" in the arrangement for key parts of the song, or transitions, so that quick burst of a high-end crash would be a sonic jolt to signal something in the song rather than a constant washing-out.

I'd say he sacrificed the cymbals in favor of his double-tracked vocal stacks and in the mid-60's, his more complex group arrangements. This was studio arranging and production with an eye on the final result as he was designing these tracks...and he did it as well as anyone in the 60's.

Your own opinion is definitely OK with me! :-D



Is it OK with you that I disagree that the hi-hat and the vocals makes a certain frequency area crowded in mono? ;D

It's the little details I love.

Those intricate little melodies buried under the vocals which are there.........but not. Just beyond your grasp.

The way the tracks are so full of counterpoint, which at no time detract from the vocals but which compliment them and hold them up.

And how when you hear the track without the vocals, its almost like a different song, and can stand alone  in its own right.



I've heard a lot of backing tracks by a lot of bands, but nothing compares to a BW production. Dog ears indeed

But to be fair, I'd say Brian in essence replaced the hi-hat with tambourines, shakers, and sleigh bells. And while the precise frequencies ranges are technically different, I'd say the final effect isn't all that far apart. So I believe there was more to Brian's avoidance of cymbals than that. In fact, IIRC, he's stated before that he finds the sound of cymbals too harsh and piercing, and that's why he steered away from those sounds (as opposed to worrying that he'd drown out the vocals).

Also, I'd say Brian viewed drums more like how a classical composer might. No classical composer would have a rock drummer pounding through the whole song, and once Brian was working in his preferred idiom as opposed to surf rock or whatever, he really got into viewing drums from a dynamics perspective as opposed to keeping beat.

Ironically enough, the constant cymbal hitting on "Don't Talk" completely ruins the song for me. As much as I adore 1960's sonics, I do prefer the the BWPPS version on which it doesn't sound that harsh and piercing.

You can disagree on opinion of course, but make sure to consider not only that Brian only had a few EQ bands on those 1960's boards and equipment like the old Pultec EQ's which could be changed at the board. So much more of what we heard on recordings on that time, mid-60's, came from the studio floor itself, how the microphones were placed on the instruments, and how everything interacted within the studio's room. That was at least one of those "magic" elements behind Gold Star and those Spector productions, as well as Gold Star's echo chambers, it was how they captured the sounds in the rooms.

That's one of the bigger skills that has been lost in modern digital/DAW mixing. In the mid-60's, they simply did not EQ anywhere near as much as even a home-studio musician would do today, and the skill of it was a combination of mic placement and knowing how to work with the limits they had, and one of those was not having an extensive range of EQ which they could work with.

As far as hi-hat and vocals and everything else in the mix, very few bands in 1964-66 were stacking the kind of vocals Brian was using on his BB's records, and if you don't have that "wall of vocals" in 1965 terms you'd have room for a more active hi-hat part tapping out a constant rhythm, like The Beatles often featured. But the Beatles weren't stacking and doubletracking vocals to where they'd have upwards of 10-12 voices in mono on a single track either.

So there was room for a busy hi-hat part.

Try it sometime on a mix and see how much a busy hi-hat or another high-frequency part affects the other elements in that mix, especially heavily stacked vocals playing the role of the lead instrument in that mix.  :)

I agree with most of this but definitely not the first line. The final effect of a washy hi-hat or ride cymbal is nowhere near that of a tambourine, shaker, or sleighbells both in frequency and in the way the instrument itself is attacked (struck to produce the sound) and then how that sound decays, and how specifically that decaying sound would affect other instruments in the mix.

I'm speaking specifically of a hi-hat's full range of sound, both open and closed. If closed, the sound is of course less of an issue because there is no "wash", there is no decay, it's basically like tapping a piece of solid metal. But when it's open, it can wash all over other parts if not mixed in the right way for that song.

Brian viewed his guitar sections like a big band arranger would view a big band, which I think is one of the key differences in sound he brought into the pop mix. In some cases the guitars acted like a sax section, in others like a percussion section.

And most famously, on Wouldn't It Be Nice, instead of having Hal Blaine do a standard "shuffle" beat on his drum kit including hi-hat or ride, the pulse of that shuffle pattern came mostly from two accordions. Now *that* is genius.  :)

And to add this: Try to think in terms of the recording and mixing process in 1963-66 for a more fair analysis and discussion of those techniques and methods. What they had available, how they worked, the whole process itself.

Because if you look at it in terms of 2013, you could walk into a retailer, buy a basic Mac Book with the "Garage Band" program installed, and have more flexibility and options available on that store-bought Mac recording platform than Brian and Chuck and the rest could have dreamed of in 1965. Including automation, separation, EQ, effects, number of tracks, pitch adjustment, etc etc etc. on the most basic of basic levels.

Even the notion of mixing in mono today is something of a farce in many cases because the artists recording the parts are often not "thinking in mono" as they're building the track and the mix itself. The ones that do are the ones that stand out above the rest in terms of the records having that unique overall texture and feel.

The musicianship, instruments, room acoustics, mics and preamps that Brian and Chuck had at their disposal still trump flexibility and options available on the store-bought Mac with Garageband of course :)

 :-D  No doubt!  I tell students all the time as we listen to various tracks just how much effort, work, ingenuity, and in some cases a touch of mad science went into making certain classic sounds on those records which in 2013 they could access with *one* (count 'em) click of a mouse or touch of a screen.

I think that element of the process gets lost a bit in the discussions. You can analyze and debate the techniques themselves, but unless you can put yourself within the limitations of what those guys like Brian were working with in the mid 60's, the skill and the craftsmanship of how they made those recordings gets lost.

The cymbal crashes don't seem to be a problem on "Catch A Wave"....

If you're comparing the instrumentation and production on Catch A Wave to PS tracks like "Here Today" or anything else post-1964 I'd suggest the comparison itself is the problem. They're not in the same ballpark, as far as the orchestration and arrangement and the number of both instruments and voices on the recording itself.

It's not about the cymbals themselves, but of course they're not as constant of a presence or a sound on Brian's mid-60's records as they are with most other bands and recordings. That's the point.

Note how he arranged California Girls - the stick-on-ride flourish in the intro acts as an accent, a call-and-response, like a trumpet herald where the other sounds build around it so it stands out in the mix, you can all but hear the wood of the stick hitting the metal because it has its own sound space in that mix *and* arrangement. If it were being drummed/struck throughout the intro with no break, like a jazz drummer keeping time on the ride, the effect is totally altered if not lost.

Ugh...... Garageband.... >:(

MALLETS !!!

(and I suspect these are an overdub, or played by someone other than the drummer)

I'm basically w/ Craig on this ... but wanted to add:

shakers/sleighbells/tambourines/etc. are not like hi-hats at all ... they can fill a similar role if the producer wishes, but then again, so can almost any instrument. One major difference is a percussionist or extra player would be playing the tambourine, etc. part ... which would indeed give a very different feel. A tambourine, in my opinion, is an element that can be treated as an equal to the drum kit itself, not simply an embelleshment to the kit. I suspect Brian felt similiarly, as evident on tracks like 'Good Vibrations'. That is, you can do things with a tambourine that you certainly cannot do with a hi-hat.

and let's face it: HI-HATS JUST DON'T SOUND THAT GOOD! You can drive the rhythm in lots of different ways. I mean, he did use them sometimes, and I think they have their place. But certainly not as a default.

I often play the Troggs track 'Give it to Me' to illustrate how much power and tension you can get if you eliminate cymbals in general, even in a sparse arrangement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2Mlc_yVZ9I

... particularly around 1:20, you'll hear where a big crash would normally come in.

I find some posters really coming from a modern perspective on these topics ... you really have to 'go back in time' mentally to wrap your head around what they were thinking !

I like comparsing Jan Berry's '60s productions to Brian's. That really gives you great insight into what made Brian different. Jan's stuff sounds technically 'better' in a lot of ways ... but the overall impact just doesn't have the same BW magic. Which goes to show how far those subtle things and extra finesse go toward the result.

I 'produce' and that's the main thing I've taken from Brian- no cymbals. So much easier to get a GREAT snare sound, using the room mics etc, if you don't have to worry about cymbals.

Funnily enough the aforementioned Troggs are another huge production influence. Love stuff like 'from home'- cave man drums, single note fuzztone guitar, bass. killer sound

Before you can start to produce like Brian you have to listen to "Be My Baby" x 1000.  ;)

That's exactly what I was feeling too, and I had to try pointing it out by using the extreme example of what something like Garage Band is capable of as a basic recording tool versus what Brian and Chuck had in '65. It's fine to debate point by point, but at the same time if you're coming from a modern mentality the main points and reasons why are lost.

It's all about perspective - 60's recording of the kind Brian did in 64-66 was a different mindset for a producer approaching a song. I'll argue that point all day long, because even the fact that they were only using 4 tracks for most instrumental sessions until '66 affected most of the decisions made on the song before they even played a note.

And again, mic placement was *crucial* at that time where in the decades afterward it became less and less important to the point where we are now. Listen to a session like Sloop John B where Brian is telling the flute player exactly where to be in relation to the mic, then yells into the talkback "That's it, don't move!!!" or something like that when he gets the positioning just right for the tone he was looking for.

Or the way someone like Geoff Emerick would be darting in and out of the control room moving mics back and forth from the guitar or bass amps looking for that perfect spot to bring out the best tone possible.

Fact 1 - A lot of records literally mix themselves, if you get a chance to play around with some multitracks from the 60's. There's a reason why. They had for the most part already captured the sounds they wanted and needed on the studio floor as the musicians played to tape.

Fact 2 - There are reasons why certain things sounded not only the way they do, but sounded great if not fantastic. And if we apply a 2013 mindset, those reasons will lose out to techniques specific to mixing in 2013, like the overuse of processing, EQ, and the like.

Let's just say the process in the mid 60's was more organic and relied on a lot of creativity, imagination, and skill rather than knowing which plug-ins to add to enhance a track in the mix.

This stuff is like porn to me. Please don't stop. Moan.
 

Remember too every engineer or producer has their own philosophy on how to do these things, production-wise, from the type of microphones used to the way every other element is done. So there is no right or wrong way if that producer and engineer get the results the song requires to best deliver the impact it wants to put across.

One of the best pieces of advice I ever got, and it was regarding how to construct a song and mix based solely on keyboard-based sounds and a sequencer, was to consider the frequency range of each part you will be adding to the production. Try to find a "home" within that frequency spectrum for every part, and if it means raising or lowering the range of a part by an octave or two so it cuts through with more of an impact, try to find an unoccupied space for that part to sit in the mix.

If you're doing something bass-heavy, where a lot of the pulse and texture is coming from bass-heavy instruments, it might then be better to have something in a higher range and frequency delivering an important melodic fill or hook, right? You wouldn't have, say, a low baritone sax playing a crucial melodic part in that arrangement because it would share the same bassy character and also share the same frequencies as your other foundation parts in the song. So why not try the same line on an alto sax or even a flute if you want a woodwind to carry that melody line in the song?

The higher range and frequency characteristics of something like a flute in that context would make it jump right out of the mix, as needed. It's the same idea of putting a splash of white paint on a black canvas, the contrast makes it stand out by design.

Apply those kind of visual decisions, and the way you'd use bright versus dark colors in a visual art for specific impact and emphasis, to a mix.

If those kinds of thoughts are in place during the pre-production and creation stages of the song, you can first decide what instruments will be playing what roles in the song before having to mix. You'll know, unless it's a specific special effect you're reaching for, not to call in a group of low brass instruments where you'll need something higher to pop out of the arrangement.

You'll also know, in the case of Brian and productions like Pet Sounds, that if you have three basses covering all the frequency ranges of electric and acoustic bass, and three or four guitars covering all of those ranges for acoustic and electric guitars, and where you're planning to add layered, doubletracked vocals covering all male vocal ranges from bass to high alto going into falsetto, which instruments you could still add which would not get lost or buried in an already full spectrum of frequencies.

In the midst of all those sections playing and covering all their respective ranges and sonic spaces, perhaps something which is struck or produces a sharp "hit" as it's played, and having that play in a range not specific to what's already there, would jump right out and not interfere nor get buried with everything else going on.

So, add something like a celeste in a higher octave, add something like a vibraphone or chimes/bells or similar mallet instrument, add a Hammond organ playing once again in a range or using a "stop" on that organ not already being occupied by your other instrumental sections, and it will stand out as the already full-sounding ensemble plays on the studio floor.

It's already being mixed by the design of the arrangement, so to speak, and how each part occupies its own space both in musical range or register and within a frequency spectrum.

It comes down to finding those spaces and filling them with the right instrument or part, and the mixing becomes like icing on the cake rather than needing to cut away and remake entire parts of the cake in the later stages of the process.

And again, I'd suggest where Brian knew the group vocals were his hook, his fastball, the thing his listeners wanted to hear most on his records, some arranging and production decisions were made in order not to interfere with that key element of his productions as he got all these players and instruments scheduled for a session.

‍

Same.

I'm not the first person to think of it, of course, but I wonder what Brian would do with a full classical orchestra at his disposal.  He has that innate sense of knowing how to arrange and orchestrate, and he's done sort of mini versions of it anyway.  It's just fascinating how one's life path takes one somewhere and not elsewhere.  What if, instead of rock 'n' roll and harmony vocal groups, Brian had got into Puccini? 

I love opera just as much if not more than I love the Beach Boys, but I think what draws me to both is the reverence for the power of the human voice lifted in song.  And so I wonder what Brian would come up with if he put his efforts into something more long-form than a pop song?  With his melodic inventiveness, ear for harmony, and knack for arranging, I can't imagine it wouldn't be good.

Brian isn't the only person to do it, but his arranging and production really do have more to do with classical music than rock.  Both forms can be equally powerful, but Brian's way must offer the listener more?  I mean, Weezer's Blue album is my second favorite record of all time, but there's not much to get on repeated listens in terms of new sonic discoveries, although there are little treats in there.

But Weezer operated on the assumption that every song was going to have drums, distorted guitars panned hard left and right, and bass in the middle largely doubling the root of the chord.  Now, it works cuz it sounds great and the melodies are wonderful.  But why use the same toolbox for every song?

Brian never assumed anything.  Maybe there's be a standard drum set, maybe it'd only be assorted percussion.  Maybe the bass will just hammer out the root, but maybe there will be three basses all playing different lines.  Maybe there's a guitar, maybe not.  He'd call in 4 saxophone players, but they'd end up playing flute, bass clarinet, and tambourine. 

But plenty of people do this, and still do, but what sets Brian and the greats apart from some people who use "Brian Wilson instrumentation" today is that he knew so well how to highlight what the instruments are supposed to do and how they sound best.  I've heard recordings of people who use, say, bass harmonica, ukulele, banjo, and whatever, and you can tell these instruments are on there because somebody decided they wanted that instrumentation and just went with it.  But you rarely ever hear that on a Beach Boys record.  If a uke is on there, it's because a uke was the right instrument for the production.  It's not there just to be there or to impress someone.

Anyway, blah blah blah.

Berry didn't have BBs harmonies, that's an important thing to the "BW magic"...

Spot on--the BBs use of sleigh bells is unreal.  They're all over MIU because that was intended to be a Christmas record initially.

My own pity experience is that a hi-hat can easily be too loud, but what it drowns out is not the vocals but the snare. My uninformed opinion is that Brian chose sleighbells and stuff to replace the hi-hat because they're easier to control volumewise in a 1960's recording setting.

Surfer Girl has hi-hat/cymbals, and it doesn't affect the great vocals.

He did have Berry harmonies though, which could be quite full and interesting, but it's true that they don't have quite the same focus that BB vocals get.

Keep in mind:

- I specifically said mid-60's, when Brian's arrangements became more reliant on larger groups of musicians, and those often played live in the same studio at the same time. Surfer Girl has a basic rock group setup, 2 guitars-bass-drums, that's it. Not the same sonic issues as "Sloop John B".

- Consider your own experience is in modern times, not 1965. I doubt you're recording 12 musicians at the same time in the studio, recording to 4-track, bouncing tracks several times, adding and doubling stacked vocals, then going to a mono mix, and mixing for maximum impact on AM radio.  :)

- It's not just hi-hat. If you listen to a great 60's radio single like "She Loves You", the cymbals are washing out all over the place but it works for the energy of that song. That sound would not work as well for Pet Sounds' arrangements, would it? That's the point.

Also keep in mind how much anyone recording today on any given DAW relies on EQ, effects plug-ins, and basically an overuse of the concept "fix it in the mix". That concept surely existed around the time of Pet Sounds, but again if you want to get into Brian's production mindset you cannot enter a session where you have a dozen or so musicians on the studio floor with a "fix it in the mix" mentality!

Same deal with trying to isolate various instruments versus allowing an "ensemble" sound with all kinds of bleed-through between the mics capturing everything.

Everyone wanted the control that opening more tracks would soon offer, so you could isolate more of the individual parts. At the same time, the bleed-through and the way you captured all the sounds bouncing around a single room like Gold Star or Western #3 was a pain-in-the-ass for the engineers at times, but that was "the sound" we're all trying to decipher in how Brian cut those records.

Again, before we get into yet another debate about my thoughts on hi-hats or cymbals and vocals versus someone else's, keep in mind it was a different plan of action and method of recording that required a slightly different mindset than exists now. And there was no "track it now, fix it in the mix" mentality when you had a Spector or a Brian cutting Be My Baby or Pet Sounds.

if anyone wants to check out the importance of mixing and recording live simultaneously...... check out the doco on Les Paul called 'chasing that sound'..

Magic Stuff....... he basically invented the overdubbing technique Brian used, but did it in the 40's.

RickB

Not sure if you guys saw this or not, but I found it to be very insightful and moving:

http://vimeo.com/66822387

Most of what has been discussed in this thread is more arranging than production. But i think that’s one of the things that made Brian so special, the fact that the same guy who was arranging was also producing (and performing and writing, of course), so he had the whole picture in mind from the start. Compare that process to that of Spector's, who had Jack Nitzsche arranging most of his productions and writers like Goffin/King, Mann/Weil, Barry/Greenwich, etc. behind the songs.

I love Brian’s approach to drums, how he eschewed cymbals and a steady “beat” (the drummer just keeping time), and in place of a conventional rock drum approach, he filled out the arrangements with different percussion parts that, when combined, formed something greater than its parts, that interplay between, say, a tambourine, a pair of temple blocks, and sleighbells all making an interesting rhythmic figure. One of my favorite small details of his trademark sound. It's in line with how 20th century composers used percussion.

Like the man himself once said, i hate rock & roll  ;D

Very good.

So it was Van Dyke who came up with the Good Vibrations cello part?
And Van Dyke never took LSD?

Sorry to derail, should add that discussion of The Beach Boys forms a very small part of what is a great, extended insight into Van Dyke the artist.

That's true to a degree, but with Brian's '60s productions, it's surely a fine line!

And, in general ... since Brian didn't actually compose traditional 'arrangements' per se, I would personally call the whole thing 'production'.

A producer can simply show up and let everyone do their thing, or he can control every minute detail intimately ...

He mentions the bat cave! Static in the bat cave!  :3d

Obviously I wasn't paying attention enough, as now I think we were talking past each other. I didn't refer to Pet Sounds kind of arrangements. The lack of hi-hat bugs me on basic rock group setups as on the Surfer Girl or LDC album. Songs as No-Go Showboat or Custom Machine would IMHO benefit from a decent hi-hat because it would, as you worded it, "work for the energy of that song". ("She Loves You" was my most favorite song at the age of about 6, still love it today.) The best example is the song "Hawaii", which is to me the most failed early BW production. The drums just drag along, and Hal Blaine's timbales add no drive at all. IMHO Dennis wasn't good at playing without the hi-hat (yet). How great in comparison are the 1964 live versions, Dennis banging away on drums, hi-hat and cymbals driving the song to an energy the studio version does not have one tenth of. What do you think?

I agree with this, I actually had the thought of Dennis' live performances in my mind as I was writing much of the previous stuff in this thread. I feel that when there is a basic rock band setup as on the earlier albums and songs you mentioned, and the song being recorded has that rock and roll groove and feel to it, the hi-hat adds a lot of flavor and drive to the production. It's basically like having the rock band playing live in the studio, as they would on stage, trying to capture that energy. Those earlier Beatles singles like She Loves You and I Want To Hold Your Hand are prime examples, and can you imagine *not* having Ringo playing cymbals and hi-hat as he did on those tracks? They'd sound empty in some ways.

Great point about the BB's live, with Dennis. For the issues he may have had with time and tempo, chalk that up to adrenaline and pure energy, because the guy was a terrific live rock drummer, just pure rock energy on stage behind his kit. But as often happens, what is a terrific element on stage can be too uncontrolled for the studio, and vice versa. Which is why sometimes I think his studio parts were kept more simple and more subdued than obviously he'd play the same songs on stage. But in both cases, they worked for the context they were in.

And keep in mind, too, that I think the basic BB's live setup on stage in the early and mid 60's was that pure, basic rock band with no additional musicians. So you would then need other elements within that core group of instruments to "fill in" live, where in the studio there would be more instruments and different concerns for how to deliver the full sound the songs might need.

I hope what I had added to this thread wasn't too wordy or detailed to obscure the main points, but what I've been suggesting is that the "control room" jobs in the process, from "producer" to "engineer" to "arranger", feature elements of each defined role.

Or more simply put, the strict definitions began to blur quite a bit and are in many cases since the 1960's at least, antiquated definitions. The role of producer isn't what it was, yet in some genres and settings it may be. Same with arranger, engineer, etc.

What I wrote touched on elements of mixing, arranging, producing, performing, the whole spectrum. And those elements and who is responsible for them changes from project to project.

I haven't had any public success, far from it, but I have in the past 20 years been credited as "arranger", "producer", etc on some projects, both live and studio. As arranger, in one case someone with a live band wanted to use an arrangement I had written for a Brand New Heavies song featuring horns. So we struck a deal, I gave him the score and the parts, and I never heard his band play the arrangement. Another case, someone who had a family wedding coming up was a singer-songwriter who had written an original tune on guitar and wanted to have a string quartet play it at the wedding. So we struck a deal, I got a tape of his demo, and I scored it for string quartet and gave him the parts for the quartet to play. I never heard the performance.

That's the old-school definition of arranging, where you'd hire someone to add, sweeten, or develop an already existing song, but it was like putting icing on a cake which had already been baked but needed something more, or had to be developed for a different purpose. Most cases the arranger, unless he/she was conducting the band in the studio, would not even be present after the charts were delivered and the money paid.

With production, most times it was a case of someone coming in with either a guitar-vocal demo or playing a song idea live in front of us, and that was the basic idea which they wanted to develop. So as "producer", I'd listen, chart out the form and chord changes, and start from there. Sometimes it was adding, editing, or changing a section in the song form, sometimes it was changing key for better impact in the vocal, sometimes the "demo" was spot-on and only needed to be built up with instrumentation appropriate for what that performer was looking for.

So after the brick-and-mortar work was done, the production began through the recording. And that involved who would play, how they'd play, and what they'd play with an eye toward the finished product. Then after that, the basic tracks were done, the overdubbing and additions would begin. Were there harmony parts needed, did it need an organ part, how about a group wordless vocal versus a harmony vocal following the lead? All of that stuff.

Then the mix, etc.

So as "producer", I (or we) did not call in or hire an outside arranger at any time, it was all done as part of the production process with the ultimate goal of a finished song production to hand to the client. From arranging the vocals, to deciding who and what would play in the bridge versus the 2nd chorus, it was part of the big picture.

Where in previous decades, there may not have been such a melding of these different jobs into one main role in the process.

I wanted to give those examples as support for the idea that arranging, production, and engineering are often bringing in elements from each job definition rather than having specific roles being given to specific people in the process.

And where Brian Wilson was concerned, he did cover all those bases in his early 20's. Yet, he also had guys like Chuck Britz there, and even his role as engineer brought in a certain level of production and arranging as he worked with Brian developing the tracks in the studio. Same with Spector, Nitzschke, and Larry Levine as they recorded the Wall Of Sound. It was part of the old-school big band scene to credit Jack as "arranger", but I'd say each of them brought pieces of each other's job into the process as the song was developed, and as the roles were not as strictly defined and were beginning to change in the 60's.

You know where the hi-hat really bugs me? Good Timin'. That would be much better if instead of the hi-hat some not so harsh and piercing percussion would have been used. I loved the unplugged version they played during the 2004 SMiLE tour.