The Smiley Smile Message Board

I guess there are fans, aficionados and connoisseurs here, so I need to ask a stupid question... I think I fall into the aficionado category. On what criteria do you judge the production of an album?

People here often complain about the production of a song or album. It really got me thinking as to what I am overlooking. As a fairly old member I grew up with the Beach Boys and appreciate 99.9% of their music - both as a band and as solo artists. Even Mike's stuff. There are so many different sounds and song styles. That does not mean I like all of it, but I can almost universally find redeeming qualities in songs I do not like.

When it comes to production, why do some songs/albums get so much shade due to "bad" production? Two of my favorite Brian albums - Bran Wilson 88 and Imagination always seem to be a target. Different producers may get different sounds from the same material, but the words "better" or "worse" or "too bright" or "too muddy" or "too dated" are all personal preferences and somewhat subjective, aren't they? You say "too dated" and I call it "nostalgic".

What makes one producer better than the other? Is it the ability to put out sounds that are well-received by the masses, or the ability to recreate on media what the artist hears is his head? What else? And which is better?

In the early 80s graphic equalizers were the rage. I had a 1978 Z-28 with an Alpine cassette deck, an amplifier and a graphic equalizer.  You could really mold the sounds that came out of the speakers. My friends would bring their cassettes with them and remark how great the songs sounded in my car compared to theirs.

The thing is, if you took 20 people and gave them the same song and allowed them to fiddle with the 20 band equalizer to make it perfect, no two settings would be the same. So there is no real answer to what is better. Only what is better for me.

Personally, I think the song, at the end of the day, is still the key.  And I think good and great songs can overcame bad production.

Personally, I think some production methods can make for "bad productions".  Most notably autotune, which has no place in real music IMO. 

I agree that the quality of the music is all-important (although having SWD behind the console helps).

Plenty of interesting, broad topics to chew on here.

I think a lot of different concepts are being conflated here.

First there is an overarching issue of *criticism*, meaning not "being negative" about something, but rather analyzing it and having a critical eye about it rather than blindly liking everything. There are some fans that, either because they just love the band or artist so much, or because their personal ethos dictates it, feel they should be or want to be positive about everything. 27 thumbs up for everything. And if that's what float's someone's fan boat, then more power to them. But having a critical eye towards what the BBs have done, especially a (relatively) objective critical eye, is not a bad thing. If someone says *everything* the BBs did was awesome, then I think that's totally cool for them, but I *may* not invest much in having a cool, epic discussion about their music, because talking about what I like about their music means also understanding what we don't like, or what doesn't work, or understanding when the artists we love maybe *were* being lazy, or were being poorly guided by some other hand, and so on. So, while I don't think it amounts to "hate" (a word I loathe using when talking about how we feel about music), criticism that includes being honest and calling something out when it sucks, is very important to digesting and learning about their music. If someone is *always* negative about *everything*, then I'll also of course not weigh that opinion heavily. But I don't really see that much in BB fandom. If one extreme is more prevalent, I see some fans who are sunny-side-up about everything to do with the band.

I also see some more specific music-based stuff getting conflated here as well. For instance, how something is arranged and recorded for an album is very different from, say, the *mastering* of the material. So when one is running stuff through a graphic equalizer at home, they're not impacting (directly) the arrangement or choice of how something is recorded (e.g. 80s synths).

I think I get part of what maybe the original poster is trying to get at, and I think it boils down to the difference between one's own opinions and preferences versus an objective analysis/criticism. So, I can say something recorded in the 80s sounds unfortunately dated, and/or that mucking up a song with DX7s and fake-sounding drum machines is not to my liking, but I can also still enjoy what *is* there. I can't go back in time and change it, so what is there is there and as a BB fan I usually can take something redeeming out of it. So I can say I think, say, Brian's "City Blues" from 2004 is an intriguing composition, but I can also say, especially being able to listen to the circa 1981 home demo, that they kind ruined the song with the arrangement and production choices of the 2004 version.

Or, to get more into *mixing* sort of areas, I can point out how I love "You're So Good To Me", but then point out how it's ruined in a latter-day stereo remix by applying way too much reverb/echo.

To get back to some of the specific examples from the first post, BW'88 and "Imagination", I think asking why the production (or the music itself) is criticized is a valid question. With BW '88, obviously the synths *date* the album, and I think some 80s stuff has invariably ended up sounding *more* dated than even older material based on the synthetic sound. Imagine those songs recorded with all acoustic/analog instruments. Now, maybe some of those songs only work, or work best, with that 80s arrangement. To go back farther, "Love You" wouldn't be the same album had it been recorded with Hal Blaine on drums and one acoustic piano, etc.

With "Imagination", I think the criticisms are not just the sonic qualities of the production itself (meaning the mixing, etc., though that has been criticized as well), but the arrangement/instrument choices. Material recorded with Joe Thomas is often full of nylon string guitars, plinky percussion, claves, oboes, and so on. So, for instance, (and this criticism may go as much for Brian as Joe based on who had which idea), I think maybe "Summer's Gone" might sound better without claves and other percussion. "She Says That She Needs Me" might be better with just basic band instruments (guitar, bass, drums, piano) rather than oboes, etc.

Sometimes all of these things are just disagreeable or not our preference, and sometimes these things can seemingly nearly or fully "ruin" a song or album. I think, as BB fans, we mostly tend to be able to pull out what we *do* like of something even if we have major problems with it.

There's also just a terminology thing that can just get into semantics, and sometimes we don't all mean the same thing when we apply terms to our criticism. I would never look at something recorded in the 80s that seemingly sounds "dated" and call that "nostalgic", because we're talking about when it was recorded. Something recorded *today* that is full of 80s synths can maybe be called "nostalgic" (indeed, "synth wave" and other related genres are quite popular now, stuff that sounds very 80s, think stuff like the "Stranger Things" soundtrack). But it wasn't nostalgic back when it was recorded. That was (at least trying to be) modern or cutting edge back then.

Some stuff has its seemingly "dated" sound baked into the project to the point where you could never remove it, because it would fundamentally change it (so stuff like McCartney's "McCartney II" and "Press to Play" are what they are in large part because of the respective low-fi and electronic nature of the arrangements and recordings). Other times, the production maybe seems to hinder good songs more then enhance them. This is even more so the case with mixing and mastering. I'd say "Imagination" falls into this category to some degree, whereas BW '88 is a mixed bag where some of the stuff works best in those synth arrangements, while others would work better without it, while let others transcend it and work in multiple arrangements (e.g. "Love and Mercy").

Long story short, most everything we think about this stuff is subjective. The question is whether a "fan" is interested in *also* looking at something with a relatively objective critical eye as well. (e.g. "This album is cheesy, but *I" still love it", or "This album is objectively poorly mixed or mastered, but it doesn't keep from loving the songs).

have you listened to Keepin

I think the low quality of the songs hurts that album more. 

The production on the 1985 self titled album is right in line with the synth-heavy pop of the era. Now, I love '80s new wave and synth pop, but that style doesn't really fit The Beach Boys, and to be sure, there are some awkward, plastic songs on that album but half the problem is that they're not really very good to begin with. Nevertheless, I really really like 'It's Gettin' Late', 'Maybe I Don't Know', 'I'm So Lonely', 'Where I Belong' and 'It's Just a Matter of Time' despite the synthetic nature of their sound. Good songs triumph bad production. Bad songs seem even worse if they don't sound good.

I am a huge fan of Joe Thomas productions (ducks!).  Imagination is one of my all-time favorite albums - period.  TWGMTR is another.  For Cripes sakes, in the early days Brian didn't have auto-tune but he triple-tracked every voice.  Nothing wrong with making things sound lush and perfect.  I think JT's productions are wonderful.  I think Richard Carpenter is in the same vein and he seems to get more credit these days than does JT.
Bob

I really like Joe Thomas's studio work on Imagination, TWGMTR, and NPP.   

But, if there's a live release from the Pet Sounds Tour, he should be kept as far away from it as possible, after his work on the C50 live CD set.

I'm with you on that.

One of the hallmarks of the greatness of the Beach Boys' recordings lies in the production. Pet Sounds is widely considered to be one of (if not the) quintessential production of all time.

Brian Wilson is the greatest record producer of all time (in my opinion - certainly many other agree). Any non-BW Beach Boys productions will always be in his shadow. And fairly or unfairly, any Brian Wilson production will also be compared to it.

Of course, Brian as a producer is not just Pet Sounds. Some of us find an unmistakable BW flair on recordings like Love You, Friends, 15 Big Ones, etc.

... BUT ... I think the biggest issue with stuff like the albums that you mentioned is the songs can be nice (or even great), but they are "ruined" by what sounds like an appeal to commercial trends of the time. Which have often not aged well (unlike the sounds of the 1960s-'70s era). And they also often lack the integrity/creative vision of earlier recordings.

Contrast that with the Paley session recordings, for example ... they sound authentic, urgent, and unique ... compared to any other BB/solo release since 1980.

Regarding The BBs/Brian's music (and most pop music in general), I generally dig 1980s production, even if it goes overboard sometimes. A good example of overproduction is probably Rock & Roll to the Rescue, which really throws every and the kitchen sink (in a VERY '80s way) at the song... but I still dig the song, and some of the overproduction is just a minor nuisance to me.

But the production in and of itself on BB 1980s songs basically *never*, to my ears, ever strikes me as stomach-turning and gross. At worst it's just clunky and cheesy (Crack at Your Love), but even then there are generally its better parts within the same songs.

Yet... and I hate to say it... some of Joe Thomas' production techniques with Autotune REALLY bug me in a very profound, deep way. A huge turnoff. This is not a slog against Brian - I believe this to be entirely JT's idea/JT's doing. And ditto for the producer on Mike's Alone on Christmas Day. I think, for me, it's a matter of a certain level of blatant fakery attempted to be passed off as legit. That really seems to insult the audience's intelligence and good taste. This is a feeling that is completely different from how I feel about natural double/triple tracking, punch-ins, etc. Those are instances of simply a human touch being stacked on top of each other... whereas a ridonkulous amount of Autotune feels like a human is being turned into a robot.

It's the EXACT same reason why I DESPISE the fake CGI Princess Leah and Tarkin in the latest Star Wars movie.   It's a natural human reaction to have feelings of revulsion by encountering something that's kinda sorta close to human, but definitely robotic at the same time. So incredibly stupid, so incredibly unnecessary. Here's an article that touches on that idea (with regards to how it applies to CGI in films, though I feel *exactly* the same way about egregious Autotune in music):

http://www.livescience.com/16600-cgi-humans-creepy-scientists.html

For those who defend the egregious use of Autotune on BB recordings (small, transparent usage here and there doesn't bug me AT ALL), I'm curious to know how those people would feel if a computer program took the late Carl Wilson's voice, sampled him singing all sorts of words, then created a new song out of synthesizing his voice in a computer program? Where the entirety of a song, the phrasing, etc. was just a fake recreation. I think that would off-putting to say the least, and to me, major overuse of Autotune is only a few steps removed from that.

When Roger Ebert sadly lost the ability to speak, he had a computer program custom made that sampled many of the words he'd previously spoken over the decades, and he was able to type in words and thus he'd audibly "speak". This may have been good for his morale, and probably helped him feel more like his old self. And perhaps a similar good feeling is being had by members of The BBs when they hear themselves Autotuned. I don't know. I'm sure it's emotionally tough as an artist to hear your own vocal abilities diminish with age. But in both cases, I can't deny the creep factor as a listener (and I say that respectfully of the late, brave Ebert - but a robotic voice is just never not going to be creepy to me).

I can still, nevertheless, listen to TWGMTR and try to enjoy it for what it is. There are still some very good songs on it, and I try to let the fact that I have an emotional investment in the band and a love for the voices overrule my more natural instincts at revulsion at the production style. But it's not easy. And recently playing that album for a friend on a car trip (a friend who is a BIG fan of The BBs, but hadn't listened to TWGMTR before), she had an immediate allergic reaction to the production.

Why oh why oh why couldn't all modern BB/BW product sound like the production on TLOS? They finally SO nailed it on that album. Not just the songs, but the production.

Your post comes at an interesting time for me, as (being a rather late-to-the-party Brian and BBs fan) I picked up the Brian Wilson '88 album for the first time just two weeks ago. From the bits and pieces I've read about the album over the years -- mostly on these boards, most likely -- I expected the production to be a real horror show and very painfully dated. Going into it with those expectations, I'm actually surprised how very enjoyable it is.

I do tend to prefer simpler, warmer production for the most part though. I can see how 80s production can sound dated in general, and is not always a perfect fit for the BBs.

I concur with this statement with regards to how I felt about the Summer in Paradise album when I first heard it. I'd read a TON of hatred towards both the album and its production online prior to hearing any of it. When I finally heard the album, I could certainly admit that it had some majorly bad production in places, but I came in expecting WAY worse. I certainly didn't expect that there'd be about an EP's worth of a pretty ok album buried in there.

I guess hearing something is really, REALLY bad can lower one's expectations to a point where they can be pleasantly surprised.

And I agree that BW88 is not nearly as bad production-wise and it's reputation would make one expect.

Yes, I have been watching and waiting... :-D



Which is kind of where I was headed. Is it REALLY bad? What would make it better? Once it is "better" would everyone agree that it is better?

I agree with no obvious autotune though. Not on a Beach Boys album. To continue CGI Princess Leia and Tarkin reference - if it had been dead-on perfect, that would be cool, but the most successful special effects are the ones you did not notice. The Star Wars films (excluding the shitty ones) are not movies where you can get away with shoddy effects. Just like the Beach Boys are known for their perfect harmonies and they are not taken seriously if they sound fake.

One caveat: If you can use the creepiness of the noticeable special effect to your advantage to where it actually enhances the medium, then it can work really well. Like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XLu_NTu4aY
The only part of this film I enjoyed.

Good point - if there's artistic intent to make the content creepy-looking/sounding, then that's a cool exception to the rule. But I don't see that ever being the case with music though - and certainly not with this band. I can gladly handle every single other bad production choice the band ever did far more than I can handle the JT robot voices.

My problem with Joe Thomas is that he seems sometimes not to so much be producing Brian Wilson arrangements as producing Joe Thomas arrangements.  I really don't care much for Joe's arrangements, they are gooey, sickly sweet empty calories.  Feel like I hear the Joe taking over the song in a lot of instances, which I don't particularly care for.  I dunno, mebbe he had to.  Mebbe the star was not in shape to do his job.

If you're talking about NPP you are way off base. Thomas had less involvement as the sessions went on.

That doesn't surprise me as the arrangements on that album seem far more realized than the Imagination album (an album I still like though).

I think that both cgi and auto tune can be done tastefully. I'm not sure I can explain it. But Brian singing Sail On Sailor and Marcella live in 2012 was good auto tune in my opinion. As for Brian's solo material, I have not cared as much for the Joe Thomas productions/collaborations. No Pier Pressure is was better than his others, but Imaginations, That's Why God Made the Radio and No Pier Pressure doesn't sound as good as BW 88, Lucky Old Sun or Gershwin in my opinion. The only productions worse in his solo era would be the Sweet Insanity stuff. This being followed by some of the best post Landy/ Payley sessions.

This is true. Basically, if it can be done invisibly/transparently, or with very, VERY minimal artifacting, then it's more toward the tasteful side. This goes for CGI and Autotune.

The moment it's blatant, and especially when it's actually for some inexplicably reason done on purpose (where it's MEANT to sound Autotuned, or when CGI goes out of its way to do some really goofy extravagant camera maneuver to be extra showy, with the "let's do it just because we can" type of mindset behind it), it's distracting and worthy of a poo emoji. There's nothing in modern media production, whether music or movies, that bugs me more.

I know nothing about autotune, beyond what it sounds like. Is the severity of the autotune enhanced by the amount of correction needed to apply to the notes? In other words, if the notes are only slightly off, will the autotune be less obvious?

That's correct. I have used Autotune myself, and I speak from experience by saying that if a note is sung further off from the intended note, the pitch correction artifacts will be far more obvious and icky/robotic sounding. If something is sung just a little bit off, usually it won't really be noticeable. There are other factors as well, such as how prominent in the mix the vocal is, etc.

There are numerous ways to cleverly disguise Autotune being used, and to make its usage super transparent. It takes skill, time, and patience. I don't begrudge its usage in and of itself - just when it's done sloppily or obviously.

But I think some producers either get overconfident in their work, or they actually like the way the artificiality sounds as an artistic choice (because they are used to hearing that type of robotic sound on hit songs on commercial radio). I can't quite figure out JT's intent, but IMHO I think it's a combination of both of those. I imagine that the thought in making certain things sound intentionally robotic might have been "that's what listeners want nowadays" or something like that. Not this listener.

Compare to the minimal Autotune heard on the Gershwin album. I didn't even know it was there in a few spots until someone pointed it out to me, and even then, you have to listen realllly carefully to hear it. They went to great lengths not only to get a great vocal performance, but to make sure that any Autotuning was done tastefully and as transparently as possible. Absolutely different approach to JT.

Why a decision was made to not continue doing records the Gershwin way is beyond me. I'm guessing maybe it's because that record didn't sell, and somebody's bright idea was to "fix" the "problem" with a Young Hip Modern Sound.

Trey Parker (one of the South Park creators) claims that when he had to use Autotune (to do the Kanye West "gay fish" episode) he had to sing way off tune in order to make it sound like it was in tune....lol....so he was basically hinting (in his own way) that Kanye can't sing...which cracked me up...lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4EGYmyC4m4

Autotune can be a genuine artistic choice. I've heard artists use it to good effect when they want to emphasize an inhuman sentiment or detachment from a situation. It can be used simply to provide textural diversity, which is how Cher used it in "Believe" and is one of my favorite uses of it. It can be part of a genre - T-Pain popularized the association of songs with many autotune artifacts with hip-hop and RnB, to the point where more people associate it with T-Pain than they do with Cher, who pioneered it and had a hit song with it! I don't have a knee-jerk reaction against autotune. I also don't think it means you're a bad singer. I've tried to recreate the autotune effect and in my experience, it has much more to do with the particular autotune algorithm you're using (a bad one algorithm leaves much more noticeable artifacts) and the speed of correction (single most important variable in my opinion) than how bad you're singing. If you sing badly, unless you literally go back note by note and force the singing into a certain melody, it's just going to sound like a distorted version of whatever you sang. There's only so far you can go with autotune and if you change it too radically, you get ridiculous shifts (and that's not what you hear on Kanye West records). Like anything, it can easily become a gimmick in the hands of an unimaginative producer, but that doesn't mean it's inherently worse than, e.g., the gated-reverb drums of the 80s.

With that being said, autotune as used by "legacy" or "classic rock" artists leaves a sour taste in my mouth. If it's being used as a stylistic effect, it reeks of "hey, I'm down with the kids too!" and sounds really painful. Not to mention autotune is already sounding dated - I don't think you can go an entire song with autotune artifacts anymore. If it's being used to "fix" a poor vocal performance but it's not well done and leaves artifacts, then (a) it highlights that you're fixing something, which is bad and (b) that you couldn't even fix it well. Billy Joel's autotuned performance of the National Anthem is my go-to example of really poorly done autotune. I have not heard later BW albums, but I pray the autotune isn't that bad...

Last week I had to do a session that required a Farfisa organ sound.

I own a Farfisa.  But it's a pain in the neck to set up and get rolling for an incidental track.  I have an old Vintage Pro module that I often use for vintage sounds, but that also requires an extra layer of cabling.  So I set up the easiest thing available, a Korg X-50, to see if I could get by with the organ sound on there.  And as much as I wanted to save time, I had to put it away and get out the Vintage Pro.  Because I just didn't buy it.  It didn't sound or vibe like a Farfisa, it sounded like a crap synth imitation of one.  It wasn't about whether it was a sample or not, because I didn't wind up using the real Farfisa.  It was about whether it was convincing or not - whether the production choice enhanced and fit the song or if it took me out of it.  When I used the X-50 patch, I noticed the organ sound...in a bad way.  It was distracting, because it didn't fit.  It detracted.  The Vintage Pro, though it wasn't the real deal either, sounded "right."

If that's too obscure you could look at it like food or drink - like if you order a margarita and it tastes like gatorade.  You know, after a good workout, a gatorade can taste great.  But when you order a margarita, that's just not an appropriate taste to find in your glass.

When people hear things like digital artifacts from tuning, or in earlier days a cheesy electronic drum sample, maybe some people aren't that picky about their margaritas and that's cool.  But for a lot of people, that just takes them out of the moment.  Those aren't choices that make sense within the context of the Beach Boys' legacy, and it short-changes that legacy in service of ephemeral commercial considerations.  Commercial considerations in and of themselves aren't bad - but if you don't retain some of what you made you who you are it winds up being a bad strategy:  if it works, you maybe end up doing power ballads for years and never get to play anything you really enjoy (see Chicago for example), and if it doesn't, you just alienated your core fan base, lost your credibility and gained nothing.

Selling out can be great - look at what the B'52's did with "Love Shack" - but to be successful you have to do it within confines that make sense within the tradition of the band.  Or occasionally you get a transformative reinvention like Lindsey Buckingham for Fleetwood Mac or Trevor Rabin for Yes, where you are adding more than just commercialism - you're bringing in a whole new dimension to the sound.  Be that as it may, those choices are a lot of what production is about, because you need someone that can hold all those ideas, view the big picture, and then take it down to the granular level and make the call as to what works and what doesn't.

This is interesting. I know what you are saying, but this brings up a few points too. The obvious one is that if you ordered a margarita and they gave you Gatorade - but the Gatorade tasted exactly like a margarita - would you be happy? (I will revisit this at the end of the post.)

Consider:

a) If Brian had mega-multi-track recording available to him back in the very early days, and some sort of pitch correction tool like Autotune, he probably would have taken advantage of them, at least at times. It would be an easier (and cheaper) way to achieve his vision without having to have 20 takes of the same thing. But there is an issue that I will discuss in a moment.

b) George Lucas remade the original Star Wars films by adding scenes that he always felt were needed, but he did not have the capability to realize at the time. Once the capability became possible he 'fixed' what was not broken.

The above examples (Autotune and CGI) reflect an artists desire to release something to the public that is less than perfect, but artificially making it closer to perfection using technology.

So my take-aways from this are:

1. In both cases, the end results are acceptable to the majority, but the purists and die hard fans are unhappy with the sterile look and feel and prefer realism and some slight flaws at times.
2. In Brian's case, after I listened to the multiple takes in the Unsurpassed Masters sets, I noticed that even if the notes are perfect, some takes just 'feel' better than others. Often, 2 takes are nearly indistinguishable, yet one is chosen over the other because it feels right. Brian is known for his hard work in the studio and for demanding perfect harmonies and 'feels'. The Autotune is cheating and sounds fake.
3. In George Lucas' case, is the 'special edition" vision only tainted because we saw the original first? If the 'SE' version was THE original version, would we have embraced it in the same way as we did the original, or would we have walked off feeling that it could have been done better? Lucasfilm is known for producing the best, most realistic special effects in the business. The CGI is cheating and looks fake.

So the reality is that if you ordered a margarita and they gave you Gatorade - but the Gatorade tasted exactly like a margarita - you would still not be happy because it is still not a margarita. You would soon notice something is not right. The fake would be exposed because you do not get the same feeling from it. I guess that is what makes the Farfisa the better choice too.

I really like that post Rick5150, especially your "they gave you Gatorade - but the Gatorade tasted exactly like a margarita" comment.

When it comes to pitch effects, I'll always go back to Brian speeding up 'Caroline, No', per his father's suggestion, to make his voice sound younger. That is cheating too, and yet it sounds flippin wonderful.

There are good types of cheating and bad types of cheating. With great power comes great responsibility. Digital technology gives people so much power but that power can be excruciatingly obvious when done the wrong way. Some autotune is done tastefully and you don't even notice it. Other autotune turns vocals into what indeed sound like robots from a George Lucas prequel film and make you want to demand your $20 back from Joe Thomas....that C50 Live album is a worse listen than Summer in Paradise...at least the latter has comedic value, the former is just sad.

Brian had a lot of tricks he used back in his heyday, hell even Spector basically accused Brian of cheating when it came to 'Good Vibrations' (exasperated Phil: "It's an edit record..."). In Phil's eyes he sees any tampering with the recording tape as cheating, and GV probably sounds to him like what any given lead on Joe's C50 Beach Boys record sounds like to us. Cheating is in the eye of the beholder.

Another thing to consider is that this forum isn't (or didn't used to be) a place to find consistent criticism of production value. The same people who berated Brian over his apparently auto-tuned sounding NPP tracks seemed to achieve climax when they heard Mike's Christmas single (where it sounded like the kid from the Problem Child music video stormed the booth and maxed out the autotune dial on the lead vocals).

Anyways, this post is all over the place, and not necessarily a coherent response to you, Rick, or anyone here. More just a rambling string of thoughts. I will like to see Guitarfool's thoughts on this subject, unless he has commented already.

All production tools can be used well and misused by less talented producers.

T-Pain definitely used it for an effect, that performance without autotune from a few years was great and showed he is talented no matter how he performs.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIjXUg1s5gc

There is no cheating in production unless you're explicitly misrepresenting yourself. Otherwise any means to your desired end is entirely permissible.

I made the one comment above, but I wanted to weigh in more substantively on this topic, too.
 
There isn’t, to me, any such thing as right or wrong in production choices, which are really aesthetic—and therefore inherently subjective—choices. However, there are failures to achieve your intended result. You can be going for a Pet Sounds sound but through any number of failures along the way end up somewhere else entirely. That’s a failure, not because sounding like Pet Sounds is correct production, but what your intended production that you missed on.
 
Over the years, clearly Brian’s production has changed, as has the production of pop musics in general. I like some sounds more than others, and I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with me saying that the production on X ruins it for me. That doesn’t make that particular recording bad, or me somehow superior. It just isn’t a good match of my ear to its sound. Such is life.
 
What I find very interesting, though, is how often fans seem to believe their particular favorites are the real Brian Wilson production signature, while anything they don’t like must have been the influence of Mike, Bruce, Landy, Thomas, Sebu, or some other villain du jour.
 
I can’t imagine my Brian embracing tuning effects … and therefore he didn’t.

I couldn't think of a better, more concise way to explain it! I can't separate the fact that autotune was the sound of one young generation any more than I can separate the fact that cheesy drum reverb was the sound of a different young generation. Going back and using cheesy drum reverbs uncritically makes you sound dated, and you don't even have the benefit of having been the one to use it in context at the time. Using them carefully can add a 'retro' element to a work. It's the difference between wearing 60s-style make-up to work and wearing an entire 60s-inspired outfit complete with miniskirt, flat knee boots, and big hair. The former adds flair; the latter looks like a costume. The same thing applies to music; too often with 'legacy' acts in the 80s and 90s, they sound like they're wearing a sonic costume... and not because they think these new trends can be used interestingly and creatively, but because it's what's selling now.

I mean, is there an alternate universe where 808s and autotuning and samples made sense on a Beach Boys record? If you look at Sweet Insanity, you get rapping and sampling - either a visionary example of meta-reference or a shameless rehash of old sounds and cashing in on modern trends. I was listening to Smile and there was one part - I'd have to check the tracks because I don't have the names memorized yet - where the voices sort of start echoing, but the delay between each echo decreases until the whole thing sort of mushes together and sounds like an explosion. I was thinking this was a surprisingly modern-sounding technique; I could imagine something similar being used in a modern day album by some alternative pop singer. There are modern vocal manipulation techniques, for example (chopping and screwing), that I think could be used. They'd be a link between that sort of early vocal manipulation by tape-cutting and delay, and more modern, sophisticated electronic control of formants and the like. A way to stay modern without sacrificing what makes you you.

Perhaps the worst thing about Lucas adding the CGI into the original Star Wars movies is that it completely betrays the aesthetic look of those films. It's got nothing to do with that I'm accustomed to (and have zero problem with) how they originally looked... and it's got everything to do with the fact that you can't shoehorn a late 1990s CGI aesthetic into a 1977 film and not have it look like poopoo. And certainly not for some major, entire character who didn't exist in the scene before. A film from 1977 is supposed to look like a film from 1977. Kinda like you can't do a bunch of modern day instrumental overdubs onto original Pet Sounds tracks. Blech.

I have little doubt that Brian would use pitch correction here and there if he had it at his disposal in the 1960s, but I really don't think he'd want it to sound so unnatural as to take the listener out of the experience. Yes, he messed with pitch on songs like She's Going Bald, but that was as a joke to make things sound super weird on purpose. NOT at all what Brian was going for on TWGMTR. Yet there are plenty of moments on TWGMTR where the band vocally sounds super weird, and you can bet that it ain't on purpose to sound weird.




Regarding Caroline, No having been pitch-shifted per Murry's suggestion, I'll just say that while I originally fell in love with the released, sped-up version... once I heard the original speed version, there was NO going back. I don't even like to hear the sped-up one anymore. At all. Brian's voice is far more aching and REAL on the original speed (untampered with) version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWPi8PLo33o

You don't mess with perfection, Murry. You. Just. Don't.

Compare to the sped-up version. Yes, I know this is technically "THE" version of the song. But it's just a little bit off. Brian doesn't quite sound like himself (for good reason - it's not his natural voice!):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w7ZeSIC6K0

And let's not forget, the true reason this song was sped up was for some sort of notion of Murry's that it would be good for commercial purposes. Brian was basically shamed into it. Maybe Brian got talked into making the change and actually believed it was the right thing to do (with no regrets, even today), but Brian has been talked into a lot of things. Ultimately, the decision to do this was NOT motivated on Murry's part by any sort of notion that retaining the most natural, aching, longing emotions was of paramount importance. That was all secondary to trying to make Brian sound "young". It's misguided, and it shows when one really thinks about it. There is truly no comparison between versions, IMHO.

The "we need to sound younger than we really are" thing is as harebrained an idea as it was for Mike to ruin his style of singing in the late '70s, and try to ham it up to mimic his early '60s voice, thus betraying the great softer style he was developing on Meant For You and Big Sur. Bad, bad idea, whether by a singer trying to phrase their own vocals in a "younger" way, or by significantly speeding up a PERFECT vocal for the entirety of a song motivated by trying and create a silly youth illusion. Bad usage of Autotune equals the worst part of all of these aforementioned things, but much, much worse.

This topic made me listen to some albums I've basically skimmed over since becoming more of a hardcore fan over a decade ago. Specifically, MIU, LA and Beach Boys 85. What I found is that I did enjoy several songs despite the production. I found several tracks on LA and 85 that were extremely good- Where I Belong specifically sounds very 80s to me, but man, it's a great song and performance by Carl. MIU on the other hands, I found I didn't like most of the songs.. because they're just bad songs. But Won'tcha Come Out Tonight still is able to break through just fine. Even She's Got Rhythm has enough to enjoy. So I am convinced now- if the song is a good song, for the most part, the production doesn't matter.

This kind of statement comes up often in audio-geek talks ... and I never buy it.

Bruce once said something about the type of Producer that Brian was in the '60s was essentially an artifact of the '60s.

I'm a little baffled by this post, Rick, because it seems you totally misunderstood what I was saying.  Perhaps I was not clear.

I did not use the Farfisa.
I used the Vintage Pro Farfisa sample instead of the X-50.  Because it tasted "exactly like a margarita" (well, close enough).  The X-50 sample didn't.
So when you say "I would still not be happy because it is still not a margarita" - that's simply wrong - you're trying to attribute to me a purism-related point I simply didn't make.  The example I used was almost identical to your own hypothetical!  I settled for the almost-margarita.  The point isn't that it has to be a margarita.  The point is that if it isn't even close, then that may be a problem....and if it's OK because not enough people notice it (or acquire the listening skills to notice it) - then does it even matter if anyone knows how to make a margarita anymore?  Some people are fine with gatorade margaritas.  But if you settle for that and say because enough people don't taste it it doesn't matter, there's no motivation or discernment when the margarita is good.

The X-50 simulation of a Farfisa marred the recording - just like the gatorade margarita, or egregious use of autotune, or some other poor production choice.  It was never about whether I hauled out the Farfisa or not.  If I was a purist, I would have hauled it out.  I'm not, and I didn't.  It was about being able to discern what was appropriate to the recording.

To repeat my point: it's not about purism.  It's about whether the production choice takes you out of the recording or not - just as for many of us (I would argue not just purists) the CGI revisions to Star Wars do.  It's not simply because they were "revised."  It's because they are jarring, inappropriate and seem out of place.

I do appreciate your taking the time to post but it's a bit frustrating when someone posts to that length without seeming to understand what they are responding to.  But I admit in the technical speak I was perhaps not clear and that is probably my own fault.

To give another example:  I produced David Marks' last album...but between the band and David's superb preparation and care with the gear, and the good sound of the room, my biggest production decision was to let it be, in effect, a mostly live recording and not mess with it too much.

One thing I did have to do, in order to make everything fit, was to add reverb on the drums, because otherwise they would have sounded too "modern" against the authentic sound of the rest of the band.  And to do this, I had to use digital, in-box reverb.  And this was the biggest thing I agonized over because it had to be authentic-enough sounding that it didn't take the listener out of the experience.

And it didn't.  Nobody ever noticed it was digital reverb on the drums.  Had I not been as careful, would the majority of people have cared?  Perhaps not the majority, but some would have, and it would have substantially marred the recording for them.  No one complained, everyone seemed to like the production from what I can tell, so I did my job which is to not screw it up.

That's what "producing" is supposed to be about....knowing the world the record is supposed to live in and honoring that world - which sometimes means restraining or disciplining yourself.  Purism is not the same thing.

I was never as bothered by the 80's production touches on BB85 or BW88 as some; I was growing up when everything on the radio had that overproduced, synthy sound, so I was used to it. And like it or not, if you wanted airplay back then, you had to present your music in a way that was acceptable to programmers and the mass audience. It's true that at the same time that sound was dominant, there was a movement among some of the new wave rockers back to the basics. Stray Cats, Marshall Crenshaw, the Blasters, Los Lobos - and if you were a veteran rocker like Rick Nelson or the Everly Brothers, that might inspire you to get back to basics in your own music. But I never thought of the Beach Boys as that type of band. Their greatest creations were dense, heavily layered studio productions. In 1966, that meant having a studio full of great musicians playing together live. In 1986, that meant tracking parts separately, on synths and drum machines. Although, in the 90's, when Unplugged caught on big, I could have imagined the BB's doing a semi-live disc of stripped down performances - that's kind of what Brian did on IJWMFTT.

Sorry, adamghost - I misunderstood the statement above as you saying that if you order a margarita, Gatorade is not a appropriate substitution. I guess I did not interpret it the way you intended, and instead took that to mean that if you purchase a Beach Boys album expecting one thing and get another, it would not be appropriate.

I did not read the Farfisa statement correctly either. I misread the part where it said "wind up using the real Farfisa". 100% my fault, but in my defense I have no idea what a Farfisa is, so please excuse some of my ignorance. It does not mean I should not have read the post more thoroughly, though.

I was not intentionally trying to misinterpret your words. I just misread your intended meaning and fit the analogy to the perceived outcome. No offense intended, believe me.

I wasn't offended.  It happens all the time, so I have to take at least partial responsibility for not being clear.

The gatorade example, btw, is from real life.  In Texas, no less.

Adam...Rather than go hunting...Any new recordings from you lately?  I've got the 2006-Dennis and Carl c d sitting right here in front of me.  Lee

Wow, at nearly 55 years old, you might think I was more worldly when it came to drinks, but other than many (many, many) craft beers over the last 35 years, I tend to drink whisky, whiskey or bourbon only, preferring Maker's Mark and Woodford Reserve as well as some scotches like a simple Glenlivet or Glenmorangie Quinta Ruban. Never cared for sugary drinks, rum, gin, tequila or vodka.

In your post, I thought you meant that you got Gatorade instead of a margarita, never realizing that a Gatorade margarita was 'a thing'. After you said it was a real life example, I Googled it.  :-[ That makes all the difference in the world, as your version has alcohol and would still give you the 'feel' I was referring to. With the inclusion of the alcohol, there would probably be no discernible difference in the concoctions to the average person, and your point is very valid. Oops.

I guess I will have to drink more, so I can understand the references.

In 2017 Brian has nothing to lose if he did a mono "wall of sound" type analogue cd/album (like he did with "Today", "Summer Days" and "Andy paley sessions") if he used real instruments and no synths and used old machines from back in the day, old mics etc..IF he did this for his next album I'm sure it would win a grammy!!! It would blow peoples minds..First off (believe it or not) Mono is retro right now (and so is vinyl) but also it would sound so different from what other people are doing now that THAT alone would win him a grammy!!! I think Brian should go into a room with the old equipment with the (surviving members) of the wrecking crew for 3 or 4 months and just do whatever he feels like doing without any other person helping him co-produce..and just see what he comes up with..THAT'S what he should do after he's done touring, just record, record, record....

What stands out to me - great post - was the mention of Spector. The very tools and techniques that gave Spector his signature sounds and made him a millionaire had been derided and criticized a decade earlier when a record called "Peg O' My Heart" by The Harmonicats *dared* to use what some considered too much electronic trickery in the form of what some called "electronic reverb" or other variations. As much as listeners loved it, there was some backlash on how the sound was being tampered with electronically. Same with Sinatra when he moved from Capitol to his own Reprise and set up shop at United. Some purists thought there were too many of Bill Putnam's electronic gizmos being used on Frank's records and it was distracting.

How about Les Paul? Lover, 1947- sounds like the soundtrack to a supersonic jet taking off toward Mars. All of Les' varispeeding and phasing and trickery, in 1947...I can't recall how many dozen or even hundred blank acetate discs Les said he burned through in the making of that record. In that era, if you made a mistake you had to scrap the whole disc and start over.

Just take roughly the years 1945 up to 1964, and note how studio tools and techniques which became standard if not required as part of the ground-level recording process had been derided or dismissed years earlier as gimmicks or trickery that affected too much of the pure sound. This was the era when recording meant doing everything live in the same room at the same time, if someone messed up they'd start over.

The tools not only made the process more streamlined, but the true innovators found ways to use those tools in ways no one had done before, and that includes tape editing and use of processing and effects. Like I said, Spector became Spector thanks in large part to Larry Levine, Gold Star, a glorious sounding echo chamber, and creative use of tape delay. While the songs were damn good songs, would they have become massive hit records if they were recorded completely dry with no effects or processing at all? I say no.

And in that regard, any producer has the initiative to do what he or she is feeling like at that moment, on that particular song, etc. Yes, there can be pressure from labels, etc to add certain things to make it sound current (see Bruce's Here Comes The Night disco version for a prime example of how to sound dated before the release of the record itself).

My own opinion, and driven by comments Brian has made on the subjects: As much as it would be cool to go completely retro-vintage-oldschool on a studio session would the 23 year old Brian have chosen to record Pet Sounds or Good Vibrations on the same 2 or 3 track tape machines he used in 62-63? Hell no. If there was something new or something that could be used to create totally new sounds and listening experiences, Brian of all people was one who would push those envelopes and try it. And he did. And I'd say that legacy continued when Stephen Desper began recording the band, and applied technology to the recording process that even today is advanced and groundbreaking in terms of what you can do to create the illusion of depth in a field of sound coming through two speakers.

Find any processing or effect or technique which is considered standard and I guarantee you'll be able to find detractors and critics using similar arguments against it as those who were upset with Peg O' My Heart and that electronic reverb.

And that spirit of innovators and innovation continues as long as they are active. If a producer like Brian can use something in his process to streamline, enhance, improve, change, etc some element of it, he'll try it or do it. Or he'll choose not to. That's what a producer does, not just producers in the upper echelons of pop music history.

The whole retro thing - as much as I love all of the retro stuff - can get ridiculous sometimes. When you have people recording new music in carnival disc-recording booths from 70 years ago, is it more about the novelty or about best serving the song? If the producer wants that sound, then they make the ultimate call. But I can't see bands paying so much extra to go completely retro to the point of obsessiveness if 1. the songs don't measure up as songs and 2. if it's being done more for the retro fetish than serving the music and presenting their vision.

Here is a parallel, and the answer has to be honest. Would anyone use an old mechanical ribbon typewriter in 2017 to type up an important report or paper? It's either yes or no, and I have to think someone who would say yes is either a Luddite or has taken the retro throwback ethic from a cool pastime and hobby into something that is bizarre.

Then apply the manual ribbon typewriter example to a question about whether using or not using newer tools and technologies in the recording process is valid.

GF, I agree entirely with that post.

And Rick5150:
That's my strategy.

Same here GF, Cap what's on tap?

I don't want to say something off topic and risk crucifixion. (Though tis the season for resurrection, so maybe I shouldn't worry: I'd be back in three days.) So my response is instead to deflect and instead to repeat an earlier sentiment: good production is that which results in the finished recording sounding the way the artist wants it to sound. Listeners' problems are listeners' problems.

Any person who can use any era's production techniques to perfection are great in my book. (To stay on topic during Easter)

Phew...well, so as not to derail a thread (but there is relevant Beach Boys content) I'll just post a list and a link, and you and others can make your own judgments as to what's worth your time.

As artist, since 2006:
Daylight Kissing Night (2008) - 20-track compilation.
Go West (2009) - 23-track double album, made #22 on amazon for three seconds.
Hello Cleveland (2010)
The Owl and the Full Moon (2013)

Albums I've produced and also performed on in the last two years include:
Summer Children - On The Go (2015) - mostly retro country album with several ace Beach Boys pastiches including the title track
Mod Hippie - Tomorrow Then (2015) - Psychedelic wall-of-sound garage rock
David Marks & The A-Phonics - Back In The Garage (2016) [I did not play on this one, producer only]
Pacific Soul Ltd. - The Dance Divine (2016) - retro soul album (think '70s Bee Gees/'80s Prince) - includes an Al Green-styled version of "God Only Knows" that people either love or hate
Rob Martinez - New Love Environment (2016) - straight down the middle power pop album, really catchy songs; I played all the instruments on this one.
Mod Hippie - Big Wow (2017) - Angular garage rock/post new wave pop album.  David Marks is all over it on lead guitar; D.J. Bonebrake of X drums.

And countless sessions I won't bore you with.  Currently working on Rob Martinez' second album and an album of my own partly recorded in Bali.  Most of these records are available at www.karmafrog.com/store.html

Oh, and I filled in on bass with the Rembrandts last night.  Badly, I might add.  And that's what's going on with me!

Got this one. Highly recommended!

Thanks... ... ...and thanks.  Been awhile since Susan's old  site shut 'down'.