The Wall Of Sound Thread

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

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

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

"How did Spector get that amazing sound?"

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

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

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

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

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

[DonnyL]

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

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

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

[original quote:

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

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

[DonnyL]

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

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

"How did Spector get that amazing sound?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dunderhead]

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

[guitarfool2002]

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

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

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

And he wasn't alone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SIP.FLAC]

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

[Dunderhead]

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

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

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

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

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

If that makes sense.

[guitarfool2002]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[halblaineisgood]

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

[Jukka]

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

[halblaineisgood]

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

[halblaineisgood]

It's hard to accept that the man just knew how to work a studio. 

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

[SgtTimBob]

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

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

[EgoHanger1966]

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

[SgtTimBob]

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

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

[Stephen W. Desper]

COMMENT:

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

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

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

~swd

[SMiLE Brian]

COMMENT:

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

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

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

~swd

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

[guitarfool2002]

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

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

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

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

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

[Stephen W. Desper]

COMMENT:

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

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

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

~swd

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

COMMENT:  Yes, but just in passing. 

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

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

~swd

[halblaineisgood]

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


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

[guitarfool2002]

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


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

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

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

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

[ontor pertawst]

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

God, I hate Celine Dion, tho.

[halblaineisgood]

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


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

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

ain't that the truth.

[Jukka]

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