Secrets of Producing Like Brian Wilson

[Mr. Cohen]

I thought it might be cool to have a topic where we can discuss all the unique production techniques Brian used. Y'know, what made Brian sound like Brian.

For example, I find the way he tended to approach to saxophones in the early-mid '60s very interesting. As early as his cover of "Misirlou", he had this tendency to put them incredibly low in the mix, to the point where you can barely hear 'em. Hell, he even does this on "That's Why God Made The Radio". The idea, seemingly, to have the saxes mix in with the guitars, and yet he has the saxes often play a completely different part. It's kinda crazy, but I can't ever think of a time when it hurt his songs, although I'm not always sure how much it helped, either. But what do I know?

Could it have been a lack of confidence on Brian's part? According to Brian, he originally intended the horn parts on the second half of "California Girls" to be much louder, but it "scared the boys", so he mixed it way down. But perhaps that's just a coincidence. "Salt Lake City", on the same album as "California Girls", has an extremely low sax part during the second verse, but then he has the saxes star for a moment at the beginning of the bridge, before burying 'em again.

Clearly, Brian was heavily influenced by Phil Spector when it came to saxes (compare "Da Doo Ron Ron" to "Salt Lake City"), but it's strange that he'd mimic Phil so closely there, only to mix most other parts with greater clarity.

And hey, I haven't got into Brian's hatred of cymbal crashes or his later tendency to mix in vocal bits with other instruments after Pet Sounds!

[FatherOfTheMan Sr101]

Brian used the sound of the instrument, not the "technical" use.

Saxes are breathy, and rough. Adding that to a strumming guitar is a great idea.

Brian's idea that "mono is king" proves this, in order to do this, everything needs to be mixed to the same level, making stereo mixes very hard.

About vocals, he basically does them independently of the track, then mixes them into the music, or in some cases, completely above.

Love his mixing ideas, I use them all the time!

[rab2591]

His use of double-tracking vocals sends his music into another dimension. It's a real gift to hear those double-tracked harmonies in stereo today...but even back then, those mono recordings wouldn't be the same without that technique.

[Mr. Cohen]

I'm going to say something terrible here and admit that I prefer the stereo mix of "You Still Believe In Me" over the mono precisely because it removes the double tracking. I think the rawer sounder vocal on the stereo mix makes the song just that much better. 

I also believe the stereo mixes of Pet Sounds and Smile are superior to the mono mixes because the wall of sound approach on the mono recordings sometimes failed to capture the full breadth of what Brian was doing instrumentally.

[rab2591]

I'm going to say something terrible here and admit that I prefer the stereo mix of "You Still Believe In Me" over the mono precisely because it removes the double tracking. I think the rawer sounder vocal on the stereo mix makes the song just that much better. 

I also believe the stereo mixes of Pet Sounds and Smile are superior to the mono mixes because the wall of sound approach on the mono recordings sometimes failed to capture the full breadth of what Brian was doing instrumentally.

I like both versions of YSBIM - For a year or two I had only heard Pet Sounds in stereo - then when I heard the mono I was blown away by that song in particular because of the double-tracked vocals (I wasn't aware he even recorded double-track for that song). The stereo is more raw/intimate - but the mono packs quite a vocal punch. I definitely see the appeal of the single-tracked version.

There are some mono mixes on Pet Sounds that I prefer over the stereo - Sloop John B, I Know There's An Answer in particular, but that's mostly because I like the vocals better in mono. His music, especially the backing tracks, definitely benefits when heard in stereo.

[Pablo.]

And hey, I haven't got into Brian's hatred of cymbal crashes

Or hi-hats. He used the acoustic guitar to cover the frequency range of them. Of course, TWGMTR (like Imagination) has cymbals all over the place

[Micha]

And hey, I haven't got into Brian's hatred of cymbal crashes

Or hi-hats. He used the acoustic guitar to cover the frequency range of them. Of course, TWGMTR (like Imagination) has cymbals all over the place

If there's something about Brian's music that I'm not that into it's the lack of cymbals and hi-hats. Hi-hats often are too loud, but if they aren't there at all, it usually makes me feel there's a hole in the arrangement. Of course there's special arrangements where I don't miss them, like in When I Grow Up, but especially on the LDC album the absence bugs me. And Dennis IMO played much more drivingly when he was allowed to use the hi-hat.

His music, especially the backing tracks, definitely benefits when heard in stereo.

I definitely disagree.

[puni puni]

There have been cymbals elsewhere. I always think of how cliche it sounds when Song For Children segues into Child on BWPS. I think the saxes are low simply to provide a feel. The only real secret to his producing is his restraint. It's not what he does -- it's what he doesn't do. The other obvious ones are
1. Inconspicuous embellishing
2. Melody and bass lines doubled up and down octaves
3. Make sure the microphone with slap-back delay are bleed-through.
4. Conventional uses of a drum kit are forbidden. Whatever a hi-hat can do, a cup or glass can do better. No manic fills, just 'ba-dum-ba-doom'.
5. Draw from the official "Brian Wilson Oblique Strategies" helpful card set. There is only one card however, and it's "playback Be My Baby".

[alf wiedersehen]

woodblocks

[phirnis]

...
4. Conventional uses of a drum kit are forbidden. Whatever a hi-hat can do, a cup or glass can do better. No manic fills, just 'ba-dum-ba-doom'.
...

I actually think it's one of his greatest accomplishments, production-wise. It's so distinctively "un-classic rock" and I love that!

[Matt Bielewicz]

I also believe the stereo mixes of Pet Sounds and Smile are superior to the mono mixes because the wall of sound approach on the mono recordings sometimes failed to capture the full breadth of what Brian was doing instrumentally.

I agree with the second half of that, but I don't think the first half can be said as an absolute that would hold good for everybody, only for your personal taste — superior according to your preferences, but not necessarily for everybody's. If you're the kind of person that likes to analyse music arrangements and/or mixing, I think you can certainly make a case that the stereo mixes are more revealing (though not necessarily better), because instrumental parts are unquestionably buried in some of Brian's mono mixes. But the argument about whether that's good or bad is a whole different thing. Spector seems to have WANTED parts to be low in the mix or buried, so that they added a sonic colour but not with such clarity that they could be distinguished as clearly audible parts discernible in their own right — and it seems that Brian wanted to attain the same deliberately unclear results in emulation of Spector.

The issue seems to get mixed up with an old-school fidelity argument, where if the mix is muddy or confused-sounding and the separate instruments can't be discerned, that's a bad thing, ergo the stereo mixes are clearer, more hi-fi, and therefore 'better' or 'superior'. But what if, as seems to be the case, the creative originator of the tracks WANTED jumble, AIMED FOR lack of clarity, and DESIRED a totality of sound rather than individual, clearly audible parts? A 'clearer', sonically less jumbled mix cannot then be said to be superior to the original mono (except as a matter of personal taste), or at the very least, cannot be said to be a direct product of the creator's intentions.

By the way, just to confuse matters, lest it be thought that I'm some kind of mono-only fanatic, I actually prefer stereo mixes and being able to hear stuff more clearly too. I wasn't alive during the golden age of mono radio, so I have no particular attachment to the idea. But that's a personal preference, and I can appreciate that clear stereo mixes with beautiful separation are not, in the main, what Brian was going for back in the day. I still like to hear the original monos though. Why shut out another fascinating way of listening to these great recordings, one which is arguably what the creator intended?

None of the intellectual debates or arguments will stop me enjoying Pet Sounds in stereo, or in mono. As I hear it, they're both great, in different ways. And that holds good for me through the whole BB catalogue.

[MBE]

I find stereo interesting, but outside of RCA's early sixties recordings in studio b, I think mono was done a lot better overall in the sixties. In the case of the Beach Boys I find mono to be all the more vital. Curio time when it comes to Beach Boys pre Friends for me.

[Matt Bielewicz]

To get back on track with a specific Brian-esque production trick: didn't BW use a Leslie cabinet to process guitars before anyone else? He *certainly* did it before the Beatles, surely? It's all over Pet Sounds, and I don't remember a Leslie'd guitar in the Beatles oeuvre before Revolver...?

[hypehat]

And hey, I haven't got into Brian's hatred of cymbal crashes

Or hi-hats. He used the acoustic guitar to cover the frequency range of them. Of course, TWGMTR (like Imagination) has cymbals all over the place

Lou Reed was similar - 'cymbals eat up guitars', I think is the quote.

[Matt Bielewicz]

And here's another: recording in sections, and editing together to make a finished record.

And, later on, as an outgrowth of the same idea: recording sections with different overdubs, to make different verses or choruses, say, from the same basic bit of multitrack tape, mixing all the required pieces, and then assembling it as a song later. Maybe others did that before Brian, but if so, I've never heard of it.

[Niko]

And hey, I haven't got into Brian's hatred of cymbal crashes

Or hi-hats. He used the acoustic guitar to cover the frequency range of them. Of course, TWGMTR (like Imagination) has cymbals all over the place

Lou Reed was similar - 'cymbals eat up guitars', I think is the quote.

Moe's garbage can drums, however, support his beautifully infantile guitar playing perfectly 

[Magic Transistor Radio]

I know that the sleigh bell was common on Christmas songs before. I think that Little Saint Nick was the first time Brian used it, but it became common place in Beach Boys songs. Whenever anyone else does it, I think of the Beach Boys. It was their cow bell.

Also, beginning around SD/SN, Brian's bass and percussion arrangements became the most interesting part to me. That just might be the connection between Pet Sounds, Love You and BW88. I think the Joe Thomas albums lack that. I think the Pet Sounds and Smile tours helped influence the productions of TLOS and RIG and those interesting bass and percussion arrangements are there again.

[Wrightfan]

One trademark I always loved is the use of non-musical instruments as sound (the bicycle horn on YSBIM, the clock in I Just Got my Pay, among others.)

[rab2591]

His use of the Wrecking Crew: Giving them freedom to fiddle around with the song instead of going strictly by the notes on the page.

Very smart to allow seasoned musicians add in their own flair to a song.

[rab2591]

His music, especially the backing tracks, definitely benefits when heard in stereo.

I definitely disagree.

I should clarify: I prefer every album from Surfin' Sarfari to Today! in mono - but, to me, Brian's major compositions on Summer Days/Nights and Pet Sounds are far more dynamic when heard in stereo.

But that's just me

[Matt Bielewicz]

This is, by coincidence, a timely thread - Where Is She, a (1969?) solo (?) demo made by Brian and debuted earlier today on BBC Radio, employs many of the production tricks mentioned above, as chance would have it!

Innovative percussion, Leslie-toned guitar a total lack of traditional 'rock kit' drums, no hi-hats or cymbals, just the odd drum fill and bass-snare hits. It could have been written based on the aspects discussed here!

Oh, and great harmonies too, of course...!

[Summer_Days]

His music, especially the backing tracks, definitely benefits when heard in stereo.

I definitely disagree.

I should clarify: I prefer every album from Surfin' Sarfari to Today! in mono - but, to me, Brian's major compositions on Summer Days/Nights and Pet Sounds are far more dynamic when heard in stereo.

But that's just me

I also completely disagree. But that's just me.

Brian really built his arrangements to sound punchy and big in mono, especially on a car radio. His idol, Phil Spector, did the same thing. And those records by The Beach Boys, The Ronettes, The Crystals, The Righteous Brothers and others sound fantastic....in mono.

[guitarfool2002]

Brian's non-use of hi-hats and various cymbals is a great example of how he could hear the "bigger picture" when he was recording these backing tracks, specifically in the mid-60's when his productions and orchestrations relied on larger studio bands.

I think it's all about frequencies, EQ, and how elements of the track "sit" in the mix. If your sonic trademark is group vocals, and vocals which as a main component feature both thick doubletracking and a high falsetto riding on top of the harmonies if not carrying the lead, why would you jeopardize the sonic character of *that* element by masking it with a washy hi-hat tapping out 8th or 16th notes?

The "washiness" and swirling quality of a steady hi-hat or much cymbal work in general, especially in a dense mono mix where everything is already crowded into a somewhat narrow sonic area, might directly conflict with the more important elements of things like vocals or specific keyboard parts, high range, since the cymbal tracks might hog those high frequencies and cancel out the other parts sharing that same range.

Mono is about giving each part its "space" within the sonic field. If you have too much in the same range, something gets lost.

The brilliance of his arrangements is that Brian was arranging for *the studio*, not for live performance, and it's something Spector did too but with less clarity in his mixes. Rather than, say, a hi-hat keeping a steady 8th note rhythmic pulse on a track, Brian would have a guitar or two - guitars being more mid-range in nature - filling that role. And rather than have cymbals washing throughout the track, he'd have well-placed "hits" in the arrangement for key parts of the song, or transitions, so that quick burst of a high-end crash would be a sonic jolt to signal something in the song rather than a constant washing-out.

I'd say he sacrificed the cymbals in favor of his double-tracked vocal stacks and in the mid-60's, his more complex group arrangements. This was studio arranging and production with an eye on the final result as he was designing these tracks...and he did it as well as anyone in the 60's.

[Micha]

His music, especially the backing tracks, definitely benefits when heard in stereo.

I definitely disagree.

I should clarify: I prefer every album from Surfin' Sarfari to Today! in mono - but, to me, Brian's major compositions on Summer Days/Nights and Pet Sounds are far more dynamic when heard in stereo.

But that's just me

Your own opinion is definitely OK with me!

I think it's all about frequencies, EQ, and how elements of the track "sit" in the mix. If your sonic trademark is group vocals, and vocals which as a main component feature both thick doubletracking and a high falsetto riding on top of the harmonies if not carrying the lead, why would you jeopardize the sonic character of *that* element by masking it with a washy hi-hat tapping out 8th or 16th notes?

The "washiness" and swirling quality of a steady hi-hat or much cymbal work in general, especially in a dense mono mix where everything is already crowded into a somewhat narrow sonic area, might directly conflict with the more important elements of things like vocals or specific keyboard parts, high range, since the cymbal tracks might hog those high frequencies and cancel out the other parts sharing that same range.

Is it OK with you that I disagree that the hi-hat and the vocals makes a certain frequency area crowded in mono?

[Iron Horse-Apples]

It's the little details I love.

Those intricate little melodies buried under the vocals which are there.........but not. Just beyond your grasp.

The way the tracks are so full of counterpoint, which at no time detract from the vocals but which compliment them and hold them up.

And how when you hear the track without the vocals, its almost like a different song, and can stand alone  in its own right.



I've heard a lot of backing tracks by a lot of bands, but nothing compares to a BW production. Dog ears indeed