Great instrument playing moments in BBs recordings

[Mikie]

Was just going back over the liners and enjoying them again. Don Randi:
 
"When we were doing 'Good Vibrations,' there was a low note that sustains through everything. He knew he wanted everything to go off of that note. The session went really late, and it got to the point where I took a pillow and laid down. I was so tired. I laid down with the pillow on the bottom note on the foot pedals and took a nap; my note never stopped."

"Pet Sounds had such great songs.. 'God Only Knows' is beautiful. That one, they should give to every music class, and say 'Here, do this one. Do it a capella.' Give 'em a key note and see what happens. There'll be a lot of suicides".

 

[c-man]

Don Randi played on two "Good Vibrations" sessions:  piano on the first (Gold Star, 2/17-18, although the parts he played on were edited out of the master) and electric harpsichord on the 6/2 Western session (this session produced the first, second & third choruses used in the final master, as well as the "fuzz bass bridge" that almost made it to the master).  

Mike Melvoin played tack piano on the 4/9/66 Gold Star "Good Vibrations" session, upright piano (w/strings taped) on the 5/27 Western session (it produced the third bridge & chorus fade used in the final master, as well as an alternate piano/tympani/flute/piccolo bridge), and organ on the unused 6/16 Western session.

And, it's been awhile since I listened to the session for "Wouldn't It Be Nice", but I seem to recall Larry started out playing the organ but switched to one of the pianos (tack, I think?) at some point and stayed there for the master take.  Not positive, though.

[guitarfool2002]

Knectel plays the Hammond B3 through a Leslie speaker on Good Vibrations, right?  One handed. Ebm, Db, Abm, Bb.

Definitely Hammond through Leslie, but on the chords I hear and play a B major instead of Ab minor. If you listen to the bass line, it's outlining a B major chord with the notes F#-B-F#, B-C#-D# , which is a classic B major triad/arpeggio with the passing tone C# for melodic movement.

That's not saying it sounds wrong to play Ab minor, in fact after your post I grabbed my beater acoustic and ran Ab minor to test it, and it fit, but with the bassline being so strong on B major I still have to go with that. Of course that's just my ears and what I've taught my students who have learned that tune on bass and guitar, I have been wrong before! 

Another interpretation by a pretty good piano player and fan, Francis Greene - says the original key is D# :

Dm................................C.......................................Bb..................................................A7
I, I love the colorful clothes she wears, and the way the sunlight plays upon her hair
Dm...............................C..............................Bb............................................................A7.....C7

I always thought the verse had the chords Eb, Ab, Gb.

It's definitely not in Dm as that transcription says, it's 100% starting on the Eb minor chord. The chorus cycles through, changing keys a whole step up for each key change. He starts on Gb (I'm picking up good vibrations...), changes up to Ab for the next one, then finally gets to Bb for the last, and Bb acting as the dominant chord resolves exactly where it would be expected to go, back to Eb minor.

It's the same kind of compositional and harmonic thing Brian did on the chorus of California Girls, but on that one he changed keys down a whole step every time the chorus hook was sung, going from B maj, to A maj, to G maj, and ending back in B.

Pretty neat thing to have three key changes in a chorus, and since he went up instead of down on GV's chorus, it didn't sound like he was copying himself from an earlier hit's chorus.

[Mikie]

I'll believe you.

I just saw two other chord variations for Good Vibrations on the Internet, and I'm quite sure there are more. Here's the original Sea Of Tunes sheet music that I'm use to seeing, but as we know, the original sheet music is wrong half the time anyway or in a different key than the original. Of course it's transposable:

Dm, C, Bb, A, Dm, C, Bb, A, C7

[halblaineisgood]

.

[monicker]

That's called a guiro. Some great Latin percussion in that track, yes.

I think he might be talking about the bongos or bongo-like drums that are on one of the overdubs.  Which though careful listening, Donny discovered are actually run through a leslie speaker.

What thread was this because that was never mentioned in the thread where we were talking about this about a month ago.

[DonnyL]

That's called a guiro. Some great Latin percussion in that track, yes.

I think he might be talking about the bongos or bongo-like drums that are on one of the overdubs.  Which though careful listening, Donny discovered are actually run through a leslie speaker.

What thread was this because that was never mentioned in the thread where we were talking about this about a month ago.

I think we figured it out via email ... one of those 5.1-type mixes has some elements isolated to where you can hear this thing by itself ... you can hear the bongos (or congas or whatever they are) through the leslie. I kept thinking it sounded like drum sticks hitting an electric guitar in the mono mix, so it sort of explains that strange sound.

all the info in these threads ... scattered everywhere !

[Iron Horse-Apples]

That's called a guiro. Some great Latin percussion in that track, yes.

I think he might be talking about the bongos or bongo-like drums that are on one of the overdubs.  Which though careful listening, Donny discovered are actually run through a leslie speaker.

He said the bit where everything drops out. I took him literally. Though he probably means the bongos.

[guitarfool2002]

I doubted it too until I heard it with my own ears - percussive drums through a Leslie, in 1965/66...unbelievable. But it's definitely there on Pet Sounds.

This is one *major benefit* to remixing certain albums in stereo, offering new and different mixes and formats for classic albums, hell maybe even someday making the bare multitracks available to consumers: You hear things that for decades were buried in mono mixes. I've heard Pet Sounds, studied Pet Sounds, dissected Pet Sounds...just like many here have done...and I had never heard that Leslie effect on those drums until now.

Being a mono purist is fine for aesthetic and historical reasons, and of course personal taste, but look at the treasures buried under all the mono mixes on certain albums. I'm still recovering from hearing that amazing tack piano part on the PS box set that was buried on "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times", speaking of great instrumental parts on BB's records and all that.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

The original mono mix of IJWMFTT was a strange one. The backing track seems to almost disappear in the "each time things start" section, as if Brian pulled back on that fader and at the same time surged on the backing vox.

It works really well, but I've always wondered of he meant to pull back on that fader quite so much.

Of that song in particular, the mono and stereo mixes are quite different animals.

[guitarfool2002]

The original mono mix of IJWMFTT was a strange one. The backing track seems to almost disappear in the "each time things start" section, as if Brian pulled back on that fader and at the same time surged on the backing vox.

It works really well, but I've always wondered of he meant to pull back on that fader quite so much.

Of that song in particular, the mono and stereo mixes are quite different animals.

That's just the thing about the original mono mixes: Was it a case of lowering the levels manually, or was the overall mix a victim of various phase cancellation issues by the nature of the sounds and the sheer number of tracks? There was an interview about the box set, somewhere, where Mark Linett said something about the equipment limitations being a factor in the sound quality, and that what Brian wanted to do and how much he wanted to do may have been more than the equipment they were using in '66 was designed for.

The results speak for themselves, obviously it's one of the greatest of all time, but when you hear the stereo mixes all of those neat parts disappeared in the mono. And I think more than actively dialing back the faders, perhaps it was just as much a case of the frequencies from, say, the wall of vocal overdubs cancelling out certain other frequencies in the instrumental sections as a result.

That's just a look at it from an engineering/production standpoint, where it can be a lesson learned by experience where sometimes you'd think layering 6 rhythm guitar tracks on a tune would make it sound massive, when in fact the addition of something like an organ part over those 6 tracks would cause all kinds of frequency issues resulting in mush rather than a massive sound, and you'd lose some of your parts which may be crucial to your track without touching a fader. It's the old "less is more" ethic...

...and a credit to the way those classic mono recordings were both recorded and mixed so you hear as much of the band as you can hear without having it be all jumbled together. And again, hearing Pet Sounds in stereo remix form just revealed so much that was buried, yet the mono mix is a stone-cold classic recording of the 60's which sounded great.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

I think IJWMFTT was sort of a victim of its own heaviness.  On the one hand, yes, the mono mix is this impenetrable thing of glory, that has always sounded unlike anything else.  Like I say, it's heavy; there's an incredible weight to it, like the weight of living in a world for which you were not made.

On the other hand, it's such a neat arrangement and getting all of it requires at the very least the stereo track mix.  But I suspect if we heard the individual multitracks, even more would be revealed, like the little touches from the isolated 5.1 "stem" of Pet Sounds. 

I'm still trying to figure out what all is going in in the "each time things start" section.  It's almost Stravinsky or Ives there, with like this polytonal thing going on.  The first chord of that section has the C in the bass, but I think there's also a D, and Eb, F, G, and Bb.  It's like an Eb Maj 7 chord played simultaneously with a C sus 4...or something.  And Barney's 12-string guitar harps on that very dissonant F.

Well, it's a great moment.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

The mono IJWMFTT in all its over-heavy glory works in a way that I Wish I Never Saw the Sunshine does not, and I say that as a huge Spector fan. Same sort of soft / loud dynamic between the verses and choruses, same muddiness. That first chord in the chorus of IWINSTS just sounds wrong because of all that's going on.

Although Phil had the Pet Sounds sound in '64 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPlQ3YwCKeU

[schiaffino]

First time one of my threads breaks 8 pages...sweet 

[DonnyL]

There's a good bit of slow compression on the final mono mix of PS. In some places, the louder elements wash out the quieter elements. A lot of masking as well.

I think the arrangements are too dense and just sound distracting in the remixes. All those weird little parts (like the saloon piano in IJWMFTT) just don't fit when you can hear the part clearly in the stereo mix. There's a lot of conflicting elements ... I think BW knew EXACTLY what he was doing in the original mono mixes, and paid special attention to make everything work just so. In fact, I think it was the last full album that he really paid that kind of attention to. I think he got it perfect the first time around. I love hearing the discrete elements on their own, as individual works in progress though.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Whilst I'm not disagreeing Donny, why then did he leave the talking in?

It's a great mix, full of character, and the intricate parts add to the sound even if you can't quite hear them. It's also rather sloppy and slap-dash though, and the chatter bears this out.

[schiaffino]

Although an album not praised for its production, I believe there are some interesting instrument playing moments in 'Love You'.

The bass synths in 'Honkin...' are pretty cool with Al's singing, but the great moment comes during the rising 'Take it one little inch at a time now, 'Til we're feelin' fine now...' when we get that high pitched organ in the background. Its not a complicated thing to play but as an instrumental moment, it gives the song so much validity and depth.

It's a beautiful, shiny moment in an otherwise obscure album.

[DonnyL]

Whilst I'm not disagreeing Donny, why then did he leave the talking in?

It's a great mix, full of character, and the intricate parts add to the sound even if you can't quite hear them. It's also rather sloppy and slap-dash though, and the chatter bears this out.

I think they just forgot to mute the vocal tracks during the instrumental break. Keep in mind the backtracks were mixed independently from the vocals & backtrack mix, and appear as a complete, separate track on the final mulitrack masters. They got the mix just right and decided to let it go. I wouldn't call it 'sloppy' personally, I think it's just an artifact of the process and workflow of the era. This is before the era of automation, and during the era of the 3-hour session window. I don't believe you can have the thrill and charm of a 1966 mix without the artifacts that come with it, unless you got lucky.

Artistically, it is perfect. Technically, there are some 'errors' that came through (distortion & talking on 'Here Today', ghosting from previously recorded material on 'IWFTD', etc.). Part of what gives the original mix a roughness missing from modern mixes.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

That's just it, they spent ages tracking, and got the mono track mix downs perfect, then spent take after take on the vocals,.........and then forgot to mute the talking on the vocal tracks on the final mix. I find it hard to believe that after spending all that time on the album, he didn't have an extra few hours to do a few more passes on a couple of tracks. It's never made sense to me. That said, I don't mind the talking, and agree with you 100% about the thrill and charm of these recordings. Someone on here before has described it as "seat of your pants" recording.

There is the argument of course that he was mixing for the playback equipment of the day, and felt that the mistakes just wouldn't be heard.

I also think it's possible that these mistakes bugged him in hindsight, and added to the perfectionism problems he ran into on the follow up album.

[guitarfool2002]

Again I cannot remember where to find it, but there was an interview years ago - it could have been with Chuck Britz, I wish I could remember - where those mixing "mistakes" on Pet Sounds were attributed to Brian basically running out of steam at points and going with what he had and what felt good rather than spending more time on the smaller details to clean things up. Which would mean if he got the overall feel or something, yet there were still small issues audible on the tapes that could be fixed with more time and more meticulous work, he did not go for the minute details and stuck with the feel of the overall mix.

Someone please remember this: Was it Chuck Britz? Did someone else suggest Brian perhaps moved on too quickly in approving certain final mixes, leaving maybe too many mistakes in there?

So some would suggest he could have gone back, he could have corrected them, and other than being an aesthetic choice as producer to say we're going for a sloppy, audio verite vibe here, he went with the feel, what he felt was the right one. While some would listen, with that in mind, and say it left some strings hanging that could have been trimmed off had more time been invested in the little details.

I'm not making that up - If someone can fill in the gaps as to where or who that interview is from, please do.

And wasn't it Peter Reum who wrote an essay suggesting Lowell George was influenced by those things on Pet Sounds and adapted some of them for his own mixing and production methods with Little Feat? Again the words were written somewhere, I just can;t recall where.

At some point, too, keep in mind that once an artist's work reaches a certain level of status or renown, what the artist would consider a mistake becomes part of his/her artistic statement in the opinions of fans and critics analyzing the work. Sometimes an unintended slip of the paintbrush is simply a slip of the paintbrush rather than a bold artistic stroke, right?

Naturally it's just discussion because the album is a masterpiece and always will be considered so.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

The running out of steam argument makes the most sense to me. He's had enough and said "Right, that's it" He has a couple of months rest and comes back with Good Vibrations, which is as sonically close to perfect as you're ever likely to get. (Forgetting the mangled tape)

As an aside, I got to hear Vibes in context recently. A radio show was playing some 60's tracks, and unbeknownst to me it was the top 20 UK chart for mid October '66. Bear in  mind this is a chart which contains "I'll Be There". Good Vibrations came out of nowhere, sounding absolutely nothing like the 19 previous songs. That was amazing, getting to hear just how revolutionary this record was.

[DonnyL]

Again I cannot remember where to find it, but there was an interview years ago - it could have been with Chuck Britz, I wish I could remember - where those mixing "mistakes" on Pet Sounds were attributed to Brian basically running out of steam at points and going with what he had and what felt good rather than spending more time on the smaller details to clean things up. Which would mean if he got the overall feel or something, yet there were still small issues audible on the tapes that could be fixed with more time and more meticulous work, he did not go for the minute details and stuck with the feel of the overall mix.

Someone please remember this: Was it Chuck Britz? Did someone else suggest Brian perhaps moved on too quickly in approving certain final mixes, leaving maybe too many mistakes in there?

So some would suggest he could have gone back, he could have corrected them, and other than being an aesthetic choice as producer to say we're going for a sloppy, audio verite vibe here, he went with the feel, what he felt was the right one. While some would listen, with that in mind, and say it left some strings hanging that could have been trimmed off had more time been invested in the little details.

I'm not making that up - If someone can fill in the gaps as to where or who that interview is from, please do.

And wasn't it Peter Reum who wrote an essay suggesting Lowell George was influenced by those things on Pet Sounds and adapted some of them for his own mixing and production methods with Little Feat? Again the words were written somewhere, I just can;t recall where.

At some point, too, keep in mind that once an artist's work reaches a certain level of status or renown, what the artist would consider a mistake becomes part of his/her artistic statement in the opinions of fans and critics analyzing the work. Sometimes an unintended slip of the paintbrush is simply a slip of the paintbrush rather than a bold artistic stroke, right?

Naturally it's just discussion because the album is a masterpiece and always will be considered so.

RIGHT ON

Yes, this is what I'm talking about! The point of diminishing returns or something. The mix is a live performance. At some point, you need to decide where the sweet spot is between getting a good feel and overworking the thing and losing the feel. This is also partially why you'll hear splices here and there ... sometimes things will be mixed in sections.

I don't recall ever reading an interview like this w/ Britz ... I'd love to if anyone knows where to find it! There are lot of anecdotes out there from Jimmy Lockhart, which I think we can learn a lot from.

Though I must say, I'm not sure Britz was present for the final mix of most of Pet Sounds. This mystery has has bugged me for some time ...

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

Well it was Steve Douglas who said that the first mix of Pet Sounds was even sloppier?  It might have been him that some of those comments came from.

[DonnyL]

I started a new thread for discussing the PS mix if anyone has any info to add

[halblaineisgood]

.