W i l d H o n e y

[Stephen W. Desper]

Also, I do agree that you can hear everything in "Break Away". I wasn't being literal in my a capella comment. I'd say, though, that it lacks the clarity of a track like "Help Me Rhonda". The sounds don't necessarily jump out. That said, it is A LOT better than "Do It Again".

Listen to the chorus of "Break Away" starting at about 1:00. On my Spirit of America copy, you hear a BUNCH of vocals, the percussion, and some horn stabs. The rest of the track is still there, I think, but it's essentially acting as a very atmospheric echo. Is there a bass? A guitar? A piano? Hell if I know. Maybe. There's something muddy going on that I can't grasp. For me, it's a step down from "Help Me Rhonda" and "Sloop John B".  Like when the guitar comes in at the end of the chorus - again - it just don't pop.

And yes, Mr. Desper, Friends sounds amazing. I love that album, and I don't know about everything you helped the BBs with, but I think  20/20 and the early 70s material sounds good, too. Again, I don't know exactly who or what is responsible for the muddiness on Wild Honey or "Do It Again", but it's there.

COMMENT:  Please define "muddiness." Usually this means an overabundance of bass or a rolloff of the top end. In broadcasting it means a low level, i.e., the VU meter is “down in the mud” or only moving in the lower left of the scale, which is all black (or mud).   

Somewhere I posted about the differences between recording in stereo and mixing in stereo. In short, re-mixing a production designed for mono release is not at all the same as mixing one recorded with a stereo mix in mind. When you mix a mono recording into stereo it's like taking a B&W photo and colorizing it. Oh, it's in color all right, just as some of the mono tracks are panned left, center, and right, but L/C/R a stereo recording does not make. That is only an amplitude stereo mix because you assign in your mix some tracks to each location, however as you have noted, the leakage does not follow.

Consider the effect that microphone leakage has on the finished product. In mono the leakage is point source and has no dimension. It fuses with the original sound of the instrument or voice to become one point in space like everything else on the track. Mono is a one point source. Mono recordings are intended to be point sources of sound IN THEIR TOTALITY. The producer takes into account the effect of microphone leakage in their judgment calls about the entire mix.

Now consider what happens when you mix a mono production into stereo. You pull apart what the producer intended to be a point source, to act as one sound. In stereo you separate (by way of phase discrimination) the original instrument's sound from its microphone leakage. The instrument stays a point source while the microphone leakage is heard as phase-derived stereo. Is that what the producer intended? Who knows since the original instrument was never intended to be separated from the bloom of overall leakage. Now the instrument becomes something with a different sound (original instrument less leakage) and the leakage take on its own identity – which must be taken into consideration.

If you define mud as a diffusion of clarity; look to leakage as a culprit. Wherein the mono production, leakage was a consideration of the whole mix, now in stereo it take on its own character. What was once, say, six instruments, each and every one living in the same acoustic reproduction space, now, in stereo, is six instruments living in an expanded space but with each instrument adding leakage in phase-stereo. In effect you hear more leakage than in mono, more room sound, more distance, and that you may call mud or a blurring of the sound.
 
If the production was to be stereo from the get-go, microphone leakage is given a different consideration – in fact, the leakage is more of a problem and is reduced in proportion to the original instrument AT THE TIME OF RECORDING.

We engineers can do many things to the sound, but taking a mono multi-track and remaking it into stereo is just a few steps away from Duophonic . . . so don’t expect miracles.        ~swd
 

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Probably my 3rd fave BB's album, just behind Holland and All Summer Long.

Brother reissue two-fer with 20/20 sounds fab to me.

[Tomorrowville]

I adore Wild Honey, and in fact I even like the lo-fi sound.  It fits the vibe of the album.

[Mr. Cohen]

Thanks Mr. Desper (or do you prefer Stephen?). That was quite an informative response. Certainly, Brian was experimenting leakage/echo (not sure if I'm using the term right, but here we go) in some interesting ways around '67/'68. On Wild Honey there are quite a few instances where he artfully mixes vocal harmonies with the echoes of different instruments. An obvious later example on "Do It Again" is the way the harmonies during the end of first verse blend in with that droning bass sound (which may be a mix of organ and horns, I'm not sure).  On "Break Away", he throws in that the sine wave-ish organ at a few key moments to accentuate the echo of the rest of the track. It sounds very out place without vocals, but works great on the finished track.

But I guess my point was, what is something on either of those two singles that pops out as loud and clear as the bass on "Help Me Rhonda"? In my opinion, for example, the bass lines on songs like "Do It Again" and "Break Away" take on an almost amorphous quality, very similar to a Phil Spector recording. They're there, but you really gotta listen. And that's what I'm really referring to. Brian is going for a different approach than in the '65/'66 era, but it doesn't seem like the technology available to him could fully capture what he was going for.

[Mr. Cohen]

Also, I'll mention again that all of the actual albums from Friends onwards (until 15 Big Ones) have that "pop" in the instruments. I believe that whatever it is I'm hearing is intrinsically tied to Brian's approach to recording around the Wild Honey period.

[Stephen W. Desper]

Thanks Mr. Desper (or do you prefer Stephen?). That was quite an informative response. Certainly, Brian was experimenting leakage/echo (not sure if I'm using the term right, but here we go) in some interesting ways around '67/'68. On Wild Honey there are quite a few instances where he artfully mixes vocal harmonies with the echoes of different instruments. An obvious later example on "Do It Again" is the way the harmonies during the end of first verse blend in with that droning bass sound (which may be a mix of organ and horns, I'm not sure).  On "Break Away", he throws in that the sine wave-ish organ at a few key moments to accentuate the echo of the rest of the track. It sounds very out place without vocals, but works great on the finished track.

But I guess my point was, what is something on either of those two singles that pops out as loud and clear as the bass on "Help Me Rhonda"? In my opinion, for example, the bass lines on songs like "Do It Again" and "Break Away" take on an almost amorphous quality, very similar to a Phil Spector recording. They're there, but you really gotta listen. And that's what I'm really referring to. Brian is going for a different approach than in the '65/'66 era, but it doesn't seem like the technology available to him could fully capture what he was going for.

COMMENT in iteration TO Mr. Cohen:

Thanks Mr. Desper (or do you prefer Stephen?). Either. That was quite an informative response. Certainly, Brian was experimenting leakage/echo (not sure if I'm using the term right, but here we go) in some interesting ways around '67/'68. On Wild Honey there are quite a few instances where he (Don’t always assume Brian is doing all this creativity.) artfully mixes vocal harmonies with the echoes of different instruments. An obvious later example on "Do It Again" is the way the harmonies during the end of first verse blend in with that droning bass sound (which may be a mix of organ and horns, I'm not sure). Carl’s idea, not Brian. On "Break Away", he throws in that the sine wave-ish organ at a few key moments to accentuate the echo of the rest of the track. It sounds very out place without vocals, but works great on the finished track.

But I guess my point was, what is something on either of those two singles that pops out as loud and clear as the bass on "Help Me Rhonda"? In my opinion, for example, the bass lines on songs like "Do It Again" and "Break Away" take on an almost amorphous quality, very similar to a Phil Spector recording. Again, what you hear is the effect of microphone leakage. The larger the date, the more leakage. The more overdubs, especially vocal overdubs, the more bass leakage buildup (from the control room monitors) as the tracks are stacked. This gives the bass that amorphous quality (which I really like, and by the way point out on study-video. Did you review the Break Away study-video? If not, go there and place your speakers and yourself as show and then listen – turn it up! ) They're there, but you really gotta listen. Phil used big sessions for tracking, hence the washing of the bass – and he used leakage to create that “wall-of-sound”. That’s all it was. And that's what I'm really referring to. Brian is going for a different approach than in the '65/'66 era, but it doesn't seem like the technology available to him could fully capture what he was going for. Actually it’s the technology, or better said, it’s the lack of technology that lends its sonic signature to the overall sound. What you hear is a mistake. It would never happen in a studio of today. Back then many popular independent studios were cheaply made. Bass isolation between the studio and the control room was poor. As multi-track recording added more and more tracks to the overall stacks bass- leakage-buildup could be heard. Loud monitoring levels were washing out the bass with vocal overdubs from one studio or another. It was not until more isolated studios were built that the problem was overcome. As more tracks became available to Brian, he took into account how bass washout would affect his final mix, for sure.     

Also, I'll mention again that all of the actual albums from Friends onwards (until 15 Big Ones) have that "pop" in the instruments. I believe that whatever it is I'm hearing is intrinsically tied to Brian's approach to recording around the Wild Honey period. You are indeed, an acute listener. My theory is this. Around that time Jimmy Lockart, the BB engineer of that period; setup a makeshift studio in Brian’s home. It was the forerunner of the home studio I designed. I believe what you are hearing is the sound or sonic signature of the broadcast console that was the heart of the studio’s sound. This Collins console was designed for running a radio station. Hence the sound of the console is rather commercial or “pop” as you put it. It was a high-fidelity console with excellent specifications, but it was designed for use in AM and FM broadcasting. It was a broadcasting console modified for use as a studio console. It used tubes, not transistors, as active elements. If you look at the console with today’s instrumentation, you will find the ‘scope showing a gentle even-order distortion as the sound, especially the bass, is pushed toward the upper limit of the dynamic range of the console. Today’s transistor consoles, when pushed to the end of their dynamic range produce odd-order distortions – not musically related at all. With the tube, the distortion is even-order, just like harmony. I believe that may be what you are hearing.   

You are a Good Listener,  ~Stephen W. Desper

[Mikie]

Steve, thanks very much for the informative read.

[bringahorseinhere?]

Thankyou Steve....  Your knowledge is priceless..... 

Your contributions are highly valued......

RickB

[Rocker]

Great reading! Thanks guys!

I've mentioned it several times, "Wild honey" is one of my favorite Beach Boys albums, maybe my favorite. If I should describe it I'd call it "Beach Boys on Sun Records" as it has that very basic, lively and "minimalistic" (for lack of a better word in my vocabulary) approach and sound to it that's very reminding of what Sam Phillips did at Memphis Recording Service. Oh boy, how cool would've it had been if the Boys and Sam would have worked together.
Does it get any better than the title track, "Here comes the night" or Carl's take on "I was made to love her"?

I hope the album gets a re-release not as a two-fer but as a disc on it's own. Of course there had to be bonus tracks as the album itself is so short. I guess you could use some outtakes like the vocal sessions for "I was made to love her" and some backing tracks as well. Maybe some live performances of the album's songs and the stereo mixes that are already available.
"Little red book" was recorded during these sessions as well, wasn't it? And "Lonely days"? Anyway, I guess there could be an interesting release.

[Mr. Cohen]

Yes, thanks. Interesting to see what was going on behind the scenes.

[Rocker]

I just stumbled across this interview with Bruce from 2013. Here's some "Wild honey" talk:

"Wild Honey is as close to our rhythm and blues album as we could ever have done. There’s nothing to it which makes it everything. We’re doing the title track now live. The reason we couldn’t do it live back then is Carl was singing at the top of his range when he recorded it and if he sang that song live, he’d only last two or three nights and then he’d be tearing his voice apart. On that track, Brian said, “Play bass!’ I had played bass on the Party album so I played the bass line on that plus that cheesy 96 Tears sounding organ solo. For that album we all played pretty much on the tracks."


The whole interview is here: http://www.rockcellarmagazine.com/2013/09/04/bruce-johnston-interview-beach-boys/#sthash.rYFvknOR.dpbs

Bruce talks about many of the more unknown stuff.

[Mikie]

"I did not like the Friends album because I thought it was wimpy. We had to do some of the Friends stuff on the road and it just used to make me wince because it was wimpy".

- Bruce Johnston

So Bruce. Nearest Faraway Place, Dierdre, Tears In The Morning, Disney Girls, Endless Harmony, I Write The Songs, and She Believes In Love Again aren't wimpy?

And Bruce, about that red sweater you're wearing on the Sunflower cover....

[SMiLE Brian]

Mikie, spoken like a true fan!

[Cabinessenceking]

Also, I do agree that you can hear everything in "Break Away". I wasn't being literal in my a capella comment. I'd say, though, that it lacks the clarity of a track like "Help Me Rhonda". The sounds don't necessarily jump out. That said, it is A LOT better than "Do It Again".

Listen to the chorus of "Break Away" starting at about 1:00. On my Spirit of America copy, you hear a BUNCH of vocals, the percussion, and some horn stabs. The rest of the track is still there, I think, but it's essentially acting as a very atmospheric echo. Is there a bass? A guitar? A piano? Hell if I know. Maybe. There's something muddy going on that I can't grasp. For me, it's a step down from "Help Me Rhonda" and "Sloop John B".  Like when the guitar comes in at the end of the chorus - again - it just don't pop.

And yes, Mr. Desper, Friends sounds amazing. I love that album, and I don't know about everything you helped the BBs with, but I think  20/20 and the early 70s material sounds good, too. Again, I don't know exactly who or what is responsible for the muddiness on Wild Honey or "Do It Again", but it's there.

COMMENT:  Please define "muddiness." Usually this means an overabundance of bass or a rolloff of the top end. In broadcasting it means a low level, i.e., the VU meter is “down in the mud” or only moving in the lower left of the scale, which is all black (or mud).   

Somewhere I posted about the differences between recording in stereo and mixing in stereo. In short, re-mixing a production designed for mono release is not at all the same as mixing one recorded with a stereo mix in mind. When you mix a mono recording into stereo it's like taking a B&W photo and colorizing it. Oh, it's in color all right, just as some of the mono tracks are panned left, center, and right, but L/C/R a stereo recording does not make. That is only an amplitude stereo mix because you assign in your mix some tracks to each location, however as you have noted, the leakage does not follow.

Consider the effect that microphone leakage has on the finished product. In mono the leakage is point source and has no dimension. It fuses with the original sound of the instrument or voice to become one point in space like everything else on the track. Mono is a one point source. Mono recordings are intended to be point sources of sound IN THEIR TOTALITY. The producer takes into account the effect of microphone leakage in their judgment calls about the entire mix.

Now consider what happens when you mix a mono production into stereo. You pull apart what the producer intended to be a point source, to act as one sound. In stereo you separate (by way of phase discrimination) the original instrument's sound from its microphone leakage. The instrument stays a point source while the microphone leakage is heard as phase-derived stereo. Is that what the producer intended? Who knows since the original instrument was never intended to be separated from the bloom of overall leakage. Now the instrument becomes something with a different sound (original instrument less leakage) and the leakage take on its own identity – which must be taken into consideration.

If you define mud as a diffusion of clarity; look to leakage as a culprit. Wherein the mono production, leakage was a consideration of the whole mix, now in stereo it take on its own character. What was once, say, six instruments, each and every one living in the same acoustic reproduction space, now, in stereo, is six instruments living in an expanded space but with each instrument adding leakage in phase-stereo. In effect you hear more leakage than in mono, more room sound, more distance, and that you may call mud or a blurring of the sound.
 
If the production was to be stereo from the get-go, microphone leakage is given a different consideration – in fact, the leakage is more of a problem and is reduced in proportion to the original instrument AT THE TIME OF RECORDING.

We engineers can do many things to the sound, but taking a mono multi-track and remaking it into stereo is just a few steps away from Duophonic . . . so don’t expect miracles.        ~swd
 

cool info! thanks a million for making such insightful posts  it's great for us hobby music makers (who also try to replicate some Beach Boys recordings, but always fall short somehow...)

[Micha]

"I did not like the Friends album because I thought it was wimpy. We had to do some of the Friends stuff on the road and it just used to make me wince because it was wimpy".

- Bruce Johnston

So Bruce. Nearest Faraway Place, Dierdre, Tears In The Morning, Disney Girls, Endless Harmony, I Write The Songs, and She Believes In Love Again aren't wimpy?

And Bruce, about that red sweater you're wearing on the Sunflower cover....

All the time he was trying to outwimp the Friends album to make it seem less wimpy by comparison, out of sheer empathy!

[Disney Boy (1985)]

I just stumbled across this interview with Bruce from 2013. Here's some "Wild honey" talk:

"Wild Honey is as close to our rhythm and blues album as we could ever have done. There’s nothing to it which makes it everything. We’re doing the title track now live. The reason we couldn’t do it live back then is Carl was singing at the top of his range when he recorded it and if he sang that song live, he’d only last two or three nights and then he’d be tearing his voice apart. On that track, Brian said, “Play bass!’ I had played bass on the Party album so I played the bass line on that plus that cheesy 96 Tears sounding organ solo. For that album we all played pretty much on the tracks."


The whole interview is here: http://www.rockcellarmagazine.com/2013/09/04/bruce-johnston-interview-beach-boys/#sthash.rYFvknOR.dpbs

Bruce talks about many of the more unknown stuff.

Isn't the Friends album cover absolutely glorious??? Bruce just seems to have zero taste and/or judgement. Mind you, that Goin' Pubic album cover - masterpiece!! The way it just lazily lifts an old Sunflower-era photo and slaps it onto a plain mauve background - sheer class! Curious to know as to where this ranks in Bruce's bad album cover list...  

[Micha]

Though most of Bruce's music is not my beef I agree with him so that the Friends cover is my least favorite 60s BB album cover. The back cover is great, though!

[sockittome]

I've said it before here....Friends is my favorite BBs cover, by far.  It reflects the times so well and shows a certain level of hipness.  Smiley, Wild Honey, and Friends have some really cool artsy covers.....

and then there's 20/20, which has the look of a $2.99 Pickwick reissue found gathering dust in a bargain bin!  But that's a whole other story!

My apologies, and now back to that great BBs blues statement that is named Wild Honey! 

[RangeRoverA1]

Isn't the Friends album cover absolutely glorious??? Bruce just seems to have zero taste and/or judgement. Mind you, that Goin' Pubic album cover - masterpiece!! The way it just lazily lifts an old Sunflower-era photo and slaps it onto a plain mauve background - sheer class! Curious to know as to where this ranks in Bruce's bad album cover list...  

Zero taste? A bit strong, more like "differing". But yes, Goin' Public cover is a joke. Dunno how Bruce ranks it, just that he told some fan who came with the album to sign it for him to toss/never show it again.

[Niko]

"If you’re a real fan of music, if you listen to Pet Sounds, Sloop John B does not belong on that album."

DAMMIT BRUCE.

[tansen]

Isn't the Friends album cover absolutely glorious??? Bruce just seems to have zero taste and/or judgement. Mind you, that Goin' Pubic album cover - masterpiece!! The way it just lazily lifts an old Sunflower-era photo and slaps it onto a plain mauve background - sheer class! Curious to know as to where this ranks in Bruce's bad album cover list...  

Zero taste? A bit strong, more like "differing". But yes, Goin' Public cover is a joke. Dunno how Bruce ranks it, just that he told some fan who came with the album to sign it for him to toss/never show it again.

He signed my Goin' Public CD-cover willingly.  And I think he's right; Sloop John B does not really fit on Pet Sounds. As for the Friends cover, he couldn't be more wrong!

[Bleachboy]

Also, I do agree that you can hear everything in "Break Away". I wasn't being literal in my a capella comment. I'd say, though, that it lacks the clarity of a track like "Help Me Rhonda". The sounds don't necessarily jump out. That said, it is A LOT better than "Do It Again".

Listen to the chorus of "Break Away" starting at about 1:00. On my Spirit of America copy, you hear a BUNCH of vocals, the percussion, and some horn stabs. The rest of the track is still there, I think, but it's essentially acting as a very atmospheric echo. Is there a bass? A guitar? A piano? Hell if I know. Maybe. There's something muddy going on that I can't grasp. For me, it's a step down from "Help Me Rhonda" and "Sloop John B".  Like when the guitar comes in at the end of the chorus - again - it just don't pop.

And yes, Mr. Desper, Friends sounds amazing. I love that album, and I don't know about everything you helped the BBs with, but I think  20/20 and the early 70s material sounds good, too. Again, I don't know exactly who or what is responsible for the muddiness on Wild Honey or "Do It Again", but it's there.

COMMENT:  Please define "muddiness." Usually this means an overabundance of bass or a rolloff of the top end. In broadcasting it means a low level, i.e., the VU meter is “down in the mud” or only moving in the lower left of the scale, which is all black (or mud).   

Somewhere I posted about the differences between recording in stereo and mixing in stereo. In short, re-mixing a production designed for mono release is not at all the same as mixing one recorded with a stereo mix in mind. When you mix a mono recording into stereo it's like taking a B&W photo and colorizing it. Oh, it's in color all right, just as some of the mono tracks are panned left, center, and right, but L/C/R a stereo recording does not make. That is only an amplitude stereo mix because you assign in your mix some tracks to each location, however as you have noted, the leakage does not follow.

Consider the effect that microphone leakage has on the finished product. In mono the leakage is point source and has no dimension. It fuses with the original sound of the instrument or voice to become one point in space like everything else on the track. Mono is a one point source. Mono recordings are intended to be point sources of sound IN THEIR TOTALITY. The producer takes into account the effect of microphone leakage in their judgment calls about the entire mix.

Now consider what happens when you mix a mono production into stereo. You pull apart what the producer intended to be a point source, to act as one sound. In stereo you separate (by way of phase discrimination) the original instrument's sound from its microphone leakage. The instrument stays a point source while the microphone leakage is heard as phase-derived stereo. Is that what the producer intended? Who knows since the original instrument was never intended to be separated from the bloom of overall leakage. Now the instrument becomes something with a different sound (original instrument less leakage) and the leakage take on its own identity – which must be taken into consideration.

If you define mud as a diffusion of clarity; look to leakage as a culprit. Wherein the mono production, leakage was a consideration of the whole mix, now in stereo it take on its own character. What was once, say, six instruments, each and every one living in the same acoustic reproduction space, now, in stereo, is six instruments living in an expanded space but with each instrument adding leakage in phase-stereo. In effect you hear more leakage than in mono, more room sound, more distance, and that you may call mud or a blurring of the sound.
 
If the production was to be stereo from the get-go, microphone leakage is given a different consideration – in fact, the leakage is more of a problem and is reduced in proportion to the original instrument AT THE TIME OF RECORDING.

We engineers can do many things to the sound, but taking a mono multi-track and remaking it into stereo is just a few steps away from Duophonic . . . so don’t expect miracles.        ~swdWell, the stereo mix of Let The Wind Blow was a miracle!!
Thanks for your input Mr Desper