Nice to see the Milwaukee Symphony is top-ten this week, they're known as quite a chart-busting powerhouse.

The Rachmaninoff 2nd Symphony is a great work, but the Milwaukee Symphony is not really a top tier orchestra. The recording on the site is pretty poor too. There are FAR better recordings of this.

That is an interesting site though - some stuff on there I was quite surprised to see!

I think a lot of the difference in the lower range is mix differences. I can tell you that as I lost some of my high frequency hearing as I got older (I'm 59 now) I found I either reduced the bass a bit or added more highs to compensate. I suspect that's a good part of the "lighter" tone of Brian's band, changes in the mix that occur as the people working on it age. 

Favorite singer - damn, that's hard... probably Darian, he has such an expressive voice and can do an awful lot with it. Second would be Jeffrey.

[mad]

Luther,

amazing review. I agree with every word you wrote...and I can't add anything to that. I agree about the Stack O' Brian being a bit much. Also, I agree with the other folks- the vocal blend is so tame nowadays, it sounds like one voice. Also, he def. is working within the established boundaries.


BUT- I do like it. And I agree with all that you have written!

It's only easy listening if you want it to be. I had the pleasure to listen to the CD two weeks ago in the company of some of New York's finest jazz musicians (including Grammy winning bassist Phil Palombi from his trio Tri-Fi (www.tri-fi.com )and The Village Vanguard Orchestra. They found it to be fascinating music. For one thing they were really interested in the way Brian approached "I Loves You Porgy" - the upbeat, almost happy tone in his delivery, Brian's vocal inflection on "mad" ("don't let them handle me and drive me mad"). They liked the answer back vocals on TCTTAFM and they liked the new songs a lot. What I found interesting are all the little things they picked up on that I never heard until they pointed it out. As one of the guys said - "Brian Wilson is definitely a force to be reckoned with". These guys were listening very intently, it wasn't easy listening to them.

They also found the vocals to be very smooth and refined - they liked the BVs a lot too.

Anyway, these guys know 1000 times more about music than I do - and they didn't consider it background/easy listening music. I don't either!

I have a rant coming up later  based upon my own studio experience, but I do have a question for those complaining about how today's music sounds...

do you listen to music via headphones predominately or through speakers?

Probably 90+ % of the time is through speakers in my case.

Yes Wirestone, but.....Yoko may not have actually sung the song from top to finish....but each and every phrase you hear *was* sung by Yoko. Brian might not have managed a completely perfect performance of Pet Sounds at the RFH in 2002, so they spliced together the best from each night. But you still get a performance. Yes, I fully accept that if a musician played a bum note or wasn't 100% happy with a couple of notes in a track then they'd overdub...but you still had that musician playing to his/her satisfaction.

Today you don't get that.

Today you get imperfect performances manipulated later by engineers, who use samples which might well not even be played by the musician in question. The musicians are not encouraged to lay down a perfect or even a good performance....it will must be fixed later.

Artists like Brian used the studio as an instrument. Brian knew what he wanted to hear and he would work for days to get the right performance from a musician....and yes, then he'd manipulate it in the studio. But crucially he did NOT do that because the musician hadn't played the notes in the desired way....he did it because the musician had played *exactly* what Brian wanted, but Brian had in mind the studio trickery from the start.

To me, there is a crucial difference.

Spot on! Exactly right...

There indeed ARE villains - there are people involved in bringing a recording to market  that are not musicians, nor do they share the musician's agenda. They have a different set of priorities and the wherewithal to impose those priorities on others. "Studio trickery" by the artist is one thing - studio trickery by anyone else IMPOSED on the artist is another matter entirely.

If Brian wanted the recording of TLOS to be brickwalled that would entirely different than having it done to his recording either without his consent or with his consent achieved by applying pressure, i.e., "the CD won't get released unless you let us master it THIS way" and so on.

I love TLOS - but I never listen to the CD or the LP - I listen to the NPR live performance. The LP is bearable, the CD is simply unbearable. Neither approach what I heard Brian & his band do live though.

 

Can somebody explain to me just exactly what "brickwalling/brickwalled" means?

The images posted earlier in this thread are as good a description as you'll get. Basically, pumping volume on quieter parts as high as you can (so that they're as loud as loud parts) and often boosting certain frequencies, too. The idea is, you've boosted your tune to cut through the radio clutter. The reality is, everyone is turning it up, and up, and up.

Thanks for the info. So, it basically means pushing up the high end to the point of distorting, or "warping" the sound?

Even if the level wasn't bumping up against the level where SERIOUS distortion sets in, the lack of much (if any) difference between the passages that were intended to be the loudest and the passages that were intended to be softer deprives the music of much of its impact and essentially all of its subtlety. It makes it much less interesting when you deprive the listeners of the sound level cues.

Brickwalling simply stated means ALL the recorded sound is processed so it's all as loud as it can be without becoming SO distorted that it is near totally unlistenable.  But compression - the process that makes brickwalling possible by making all the sounds essentially the same volume/level - is a bad deal no matter what.

I like the album generally, Brians singing is enjoyable. I'm not that keen on 'It ain't necessarily so' or 'Our love is here to stay' (reminds me of those terrible Rod Stewart standards albums). The Brian 'trademarks' get a little overdone - clarinets etc (which i'm sure weren't used that much in the 'classic' days), but overall it's okay, thankfully light on the hideous twangy 'surf' guitars which are all over some of his other recent solo work.

If you are familiar with the opening few bars of "Rhapsody In Blue" you know the clarinet is the featured instrument - and the clarinet is used a lot in Rhapsody...

In fact, the clarinet solo opening is one of the most famous musical passages around.

If you haven't caught it there's a new video and some other interesting stuff posted on the Blueboard now. I love watching the BW band put things together, so the making of "On Christmas Day"  video is really fun for me.

[smokin']

Wow, thanks Clay, marvellous Darian vocal!

It was a great performance, Darian did indeed nail it. I see Scott Bennett doubling a few parts too.

I hope this trend continues - letting other band members take leads when it's appropriate. That is one smokin' band!

Yes, he did say that it was the first time they'd performed "Hearts," but I believe he was putting on the audience on because he preceded that comment by stating that it had taken the band 6 months to rehearse the song, every single day. "And now they're performing it here tonight for the first time." Some of the audience seemed to believe this, because they clapped in appreciation.

He probably meant this TOUR was the first time they've performed it live. My guess anyway.

[YOU]

Well, does everything have to be so corny in Brian's world? So he finished Smile "and the angels came back to his side". Barf. Oh my. It just isn't enough that Brian's band is great, as musicians and pros that help Brian with his projects? is it necessary to think of them as folks who are sacrificing themselves, losing money and career opportunities, to help the big guy in his solo journey? Ok then. You met those guys, I didn't. 

Just because YOU can't understand why people do it doesn't mean it isn't done. I know a number of people who've chosen to work for causes or in positions where the primary motivation was something other than money. I know some people personally who work for non-profit groups that could earn WAY more elsewhere. They work where they do because they believe in the cause and they love the people they work with/for.

About the band... There must be some middle ground between them being there just for the money or out of love and respect. Don't you think Darian would rather have had the Wondermints as a viable and lucrative project? I'm sure the gig hasn't bought them many houses, but did they ever refuse anything that would make them that kind of money? They're great pro musicians but that's it. I'm not even sure if they dig being thought of like that, a bunch of selfless individuals doing it for Brian's sake. Many of them are approaching middle age.

Yes, I agree they need to make a living. And yes, it certainly is good for the resume to be able to say you were selected to play in Brian Wilson's band. It does open some doors I'm sure. And I can't begin to imagine what an incredible learning experience it must be working with Brian. But...

For some, money is not the only motivator.  Brian's guys and girl clearly are motivated by something other than money. They are indeed great pro musicians - who do what they do because they love it, and they love the music and the guy responsible for creating it. It seems to me they've given up some income over the years to do what they love. And to do it WITH someone they care about, with someone who is FAR beyond a meal ticket to them. And finally, I know they enjoy the admiration and recognition they get for being (IMHO and that of many others) the best band in the world!

I've spoken to a few band members over time, far less than some others here. But I come away with the exact same feeling. They are honest and genuine and selfless people doing something they dearly love to do.

Ha, I love the total ambush of negative comments she has received  

Will make her think twice next time

I went to read them and I can't figure out any way to access them. Maybe they took them down??

I am 36 years of age. I had my hearing tested three months ago, and all that could be determined is that I can hear "beyond 25Khz"

As a child I had a more sophisticated test which determined 36KHz was my limit at the age of 7.

Maybe I am just weird.

Guard your hearing carefully! You are very fortunate!!

I'd like to add in a couple of points as well...vinyl most certainly is compressed for reasons mentioned above, i.e needles jumping out of groove.  Also don't forget that the stereo separation on vinyl is about 12 db if I recall correctly, which is why the Beatles Hard left/Hard right mixes were not initially a problem.

Actually even a relatively inexpensive cartridge and a decent LP can get better than 25 db separation, with really good discs and cartridges achieving over 30 db. When you consider that a reduction of 6 db represents 1/2 of the voltage, even just 24 db is a "half of a half of a half of a half", or 1/16th of the information from on channel bleeding into the other. And at 30 db it's 1/32, or .031 %.  That's certainly adequate to present a good stereo image.

And while theoretically vinyl can achieve higher, a good LP will have a dynamic range of 40 db or so. 40 db range means the softest sound is 100 times lower than the loudest. CD can achieve in excess of 90 db. Realistically, LPs have a dynamic range in the 40-50 db range (theoretically they can do better, but in the "real world" they don't). So with program material with dynamic ranges above that range (i.e., the Telarc recordings of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture with real cannon shots!) some compression is needed. Sadly, today's CDs are so highly compressed and the "loudness race" so pervasive that even CDs like "That Lucky Old Sun" were very compressed (in mastering I'd imagine) and the large dynamic range advantage of CDs is not being used. Highly compressed rock/pop recordings use as little as 5-10 db dynamic range. A wax cylinder can do that!

Lastly, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that none of us can hear 30k or for that matter, 22k anymore.  We probably never heard 30k.

Yes, once over 40 or so even 15K can be a stretch - especially if you've been exposed to repeated or sustained loud sounds.

I've owned a lot of vinyl in my youth and they were always problematic.  I'll take a well-mastered CD anyday.

Well mastered is the key. For instance a lot of people prefer LPs now because they are generally produced for the audiophile market - and excessive compression/limiting and such aren't acceptable to audiophiles. But sadly, TLOS was so heavily compressed that it is actually a CD I use as an example of how compression is overused. Me - I'll take SACD or DVD-A as my first choices; but I simply won't buy poorly mastered highly compressed CDs - I'll live with a well made vinyl LP any day!

Andrew,

Having just lost my Dad in July, I know what you are experiencing. My thoughts and condolences to you for your loss.

Indeed he did. I think that was when Brian's people first realized Mertens could do that.

Paul did much of the orchestration for the Pet Sounds performances as well.

I would imagine that Paul Mertens did pretty much all the orchestration for TLOS, whereas for BWPS they were based on Brian's original arrangements(?)

The BW and band member interview on NPR would seem to confirm that, and it at least implies that Paul wrote some of it.

Scott commented on how they sent song snippets or such to Paul, and he sent back his interpretation of what Brian wanted. Paul said Brian gave him direction as to the feel/feelings/mood he wanted and Paul apparently took it from there.

I would like to hear (as Scott suggested) just the instrumental tracks to TLOS. There is some remarkable stuff in there that's hard to make out.

Fair enough, but I'll be dammed if I can listen to Brian with his current band and single out a single member's individual voice, whereas, even while locked in the most intricate of harmonies, Dennis/Carl/Mike/Al/Bruce/Brian all sounded very unique and strong as individual voices which made their blend special, and what made them THE BEACH BOYS! Yell all you want that it was ALL Brian..... It was not.

Maybe Brian's current band are technically better singers than the BBs, but does it really matter? Pavarotti blows away everyone in the world singing-wise if we want to go down that rabbit-hole!

I can easily pick out Darian's voice, it's very distinctive. I'm CERTAIN you can often pick out Taylor and Jeff without any difficulty. I can usually pick out Nick and Scott easily. And Brian of course... But there are times when the BW band's blend is so precise I can't tell who it is for sure.

The BW band can't ever have the same place in history as the BBs, since they weren't around. They can't replace your memories, nor should they. But for me, who's seen both bands live a number of times - the BW band can do things even the "augmented" BBs couldn't approach. That includes performing TLOS live, which was responding to the original subject of the post.

This is one of the main reasons why I'm so-so on a BB reunion; WITHOUT pro-tools, autotone, delay, echo, reverb windex and a very creative producer Mike, Bruce, Brian and Al probably wouldn't have the spine-tingling texture that Darian, Scott, Nicky, Probyn, Taylor, Foskett, Nelson, Mikey, Paul and Brian have on stage (even if Brian's flat sometimes.

That's 10 against 4; that's my point. You can hide a lot of clunkers and bring out a lot of interesting notes with 10 singers.

Except the BB live shows had a lot more than 4 people.  And in the studio they used lots of echo, reverb, and multiple overdubs, etc.

.... Brian's band is NOT the Beach Boys....

Didn't say they were. Don't want them to be. They have earned the right to be who they are.

I love the idea (or the idea OF the idea) and think it's perfectly valid.

The Beach Boys were ALL great singers with unique, individual uneffected voices that really sounded like no one else. And when locked in harmony they were simply mindblowing.... As great as Brian's band is, they just don't have that same magic as vocalists. They tend to sound bland, charachter-less, and wimpy to me. This is probably not a reflection on their own talents but rather the massive shoes that they are (like it or not/admit it or not) filling.

Brian sound great, but not like he did back in the day, so having Mike, Al and Bruce (who still sound pretty much the same as they ever did, especially Al) singing would be amazing, and would have certainly given TLOS a special magic.

MAYBE in the studio, but I doubt they could have pulled it off live. I disagree with your characterization of the BW band vocals, they just have a slightly "lighter" blend than the BBs.  But regardless, to do what they do live I think was beyond the old BBs. Not that they didn't do some great shows, but the BW band is the best live band I (and many others far more musically skilled than I) have ever heard.

OK, I'll slightly revise my statement - it was made totally impossible for them to continue as functioning band members. My source for this statement is both impeccable and close to the action. Very close.

And my understanding is that the reasoning behind this was nothing to do with either personality or musical ability, but rather economic considerations.

I can understand that Bob/Jim being based in Chicago would create some economic hardships with recording going on in LA, etc.  But Mike D'Amico lives in Florida, how's that any better? Taylor and Todd live in Texas, Paul von Mertens lives in Chicago too - but I would say in Paul's case that he's a person that would be VERY difficult to replace. And did Brett move or is he still living in Chicago?

Musically, Mike D'Amico is an astoundingly good drummer and he is more versatile than Jim Hines in that he can also play guitar and bass - he's a very good vocalist as well. But I prefer Bob Lizik to Brett Simons. Not that Brett isn't very good, but I liked some of the more subtle things Bob could do.

It's nice to have Mike back, but I miss Jim and Bob. Both were also really great to the fans.

I guess I just don't get the "economics" of the move. Care to share a bit more with us Andrew?

I agree with both of you, TLOS live was just that much more moving... that's just me personally... and don't get me wrong, I still love the album but it was just so much better live. As for MAD, I think it's his best solo song and certainly it ranks (for me) up there with his best compositions.

I agree almost 100%. The live performance elevated the entire piece quite a bit for me. MAD is a great song, close to Til I Die in the way it impacts me.

I strongly recommend you listen to the NPR stream of the live show from Washington DC. The recording is superb, far superior to the CD.  What surprised me was how complex and how intricate the arrangements and orchestration are, even live (in person) it was hard to pick up on all the subtleties and flourishes.

TLOS is full of wonderful songs - MAD, Live Let Live, Southern California,  and of course the stunning Can't Wait Too Long snippet. As good as MAD is, I find myself more and more involved with Southern California and FSBMSG.

I agree with AGD - I think over time TLOS will be looked on with more and more respect and admiration.

The performance is spectacular! If you didn't get to hear TLOS on tour, you need to hear this. And the interview with Brian and bandmates is interesting for sure.