Secrets of Producing Like Brian Wilson

[Mr. Cohen]

But to be fair, I'd say Brian in essence replaced the hi-hat with tambourines, shakers, and sleigh bells. And while the precise frequencies ranges are technically different, I'd say the final effect isn't all that far apart. So I believe there was more to Brian's avoidance of cymbals than that. In fact, IIRC, he's stated before that he finds the sound of cymbals too harsh and piercing, and that's why he steered away from those sounds (as opposed to worrying that he'd drown out the vocals).

Also, I'd say Brian viewed drums more like how a classical composer might. No classical composer would have a rock drummer pounding through the whole song, and once Brian was working in his preferred idiom as opposed to surf rock or whatever, he really got into viewing drums from a dynamics perspective as opposed to keeping beat.

[Micha]

In fact, IIRC, he's stated before that he finds the sound of cymbals too harsh and piercing, and that's why he steered away from those sounds

Ironically enough, the constant cymbal hitting on "Don't Talk" completely ruins the song for me. As much as I adore 1960's sonics, I do prefer the the BWPPS version on which it doesn't sound that harsh and piercing.

[guitarfool2002]

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?

You can disagree on opinion of course, but make sure to consider not only that Brian only had a few EQ bands on those 1960's boards and equipment like the old Pultec EQ's which could be changed at the board. So much more of what we heard on recordings on that time, mid-60's, came from the studio floor itself, how the microphones were placed on the instruments, and how everything interacted within the studio's room. That was at least one of those "magic" elements behind Gold Star and those Spector productions, as well as Gold Star's echo chambers, it was how they captured the sounds in the rooms.

That's one of the bigger skills that has been lost in modern digital/DAW mixing. In the mid-60's, they simply did not EQ anywhere near as much as even a home-studio musician would do today, and the skill of it was a combination of mic placement and knowing how to work with the limits they had, and one of those was not having an extensive range of EQ which they could work with.

As far as hi-hat and vocals and everything else in the mix, very few bands in 1964-66 were stacking the kind of vocals Brian was using on his BB's records, and if you don't have that "wall of vocals" in 1965 terms you'd have room for a more active hi-hat part tapping out a constant rhythm, like The Beatles often featured. But the Beatles weren't stacking and doubletracking vocals to where they'd have upwards of 10-12 voices in mono on a single track either.

So there was room for a busy hi-hat part.

Try it sometime on a mix and see how much a busy hi-hat or another high-frequency part affects the other elements in that mix, especially heavily stacked vocals playing the role of the lead instrument in that mix. 

[guitarfool2002]

But to be fair, I'd say Brian in essence replaced the hi-hat with tambourines, shakers, and sleigh bells. And while the precise frequencies ranges are technically different, I'd say the final effect isn't all that far apart. So I believe there was more to Brian's avoidance of cymbals than that. In fact, IIRC, he's stated before that he finds the sound of cymbals too harsh and piercing, and that's why he steered away from those sounds (as opposed to worrying that he'd drown out the vocals).

Also, I'd say Brian viewed drums more like how a classical composer might. No classical composer would have a rock drummer pounding through the whole song, and once Brian was working in his preferred idiom as opposed to surf rock or whatever, he really got into viewing drums from a dynamics perspective as opposed to keeping beat.

I agree with most of this but definitely not the first line. The final effect of a washy hi-hat or ride cymbal is nowhere near that of a tambourine, shaker, or sleighbells both in frequency and in the way the instrument itself is attacked (struck to produce the sound) and then how that sound decays, and how specifically that decaying sound would affect other instruments in the mix.

I'm speaking specifically of a hi-hat's full range of sound, both open and closed. If closed, the sound is of course less of an issue because there is no "wash", there is no decay, it's basically like tapping a piece of solid metal. But when it's open, it can wash all over other parts if not mixed in the right way for that song.

Brian viewed his guitar sections like a big band arranger would view a big band, which I think is one of the key differences in sound he brought into the pop mix. In some cases the guitars acted like a sax section, in others like a percussion section.

And most famously, on Wouldn't It Be Nice, instead of having Hal Blaine do a standard "shuffle" beat on his drum kit including hi-hat or ride, the pulse of that shuffle pattern came mostly from two accordions. Now *that* is genius. 

[guitarfool2002]

And to add this: Try to think in terms of the recording and mixing process in 1963-66 for a more fair analysis and discussion of those techniques and methods. What they had available, how they worked, the whole process itself.

Because if you look at it in terms of 2013, you could walk into a retailer, buy a basic Mac Book with the "Garage Band" program installed, and have more flexibility and options available on that store-bought Mac recording platform than Brian and Chuck and the rest could have dreamed of in 1965. Including automation, separation, EQ, effects, number of tracks, pitch adjustment, etc etc etc. on the most basic of basic levels.

Even the notion of mixing in mono today is something of a farce in many cases because the artists recording the parts are often not "thinking in mono" as they're building the track and the mix itself. The ones that do are the ones that stand out above the rest in terms of the records having that unique overall texture and feel.

[Sam_BFC]

The musicianship, instruments, room acoustics, mics and preamps that Brian and Chuck had at their disposal still trump flexibility and options available on the store-bought Mac with Garageband of course

[guitarfool2002]

The musicianship, instruments, room acoustics, mics and preamps that Brian and Chuck had at their disposal still trump flexibility and options available on the store-bought Mac with Garageband of course

   No doubt!  I tell students all the time as we listen to various tracks just how much effort, work, ingenuity, and in some cases a touch of mad science went into making certain classic sounds on those records which in 2013 they could access with *one* (count 'em) click of a mouse or touch of a screen.

I think that element of the process gets lost a bit in the discussions. You can analyze and debate the techniques themselves, but unless you can put yourself within the limitations of what those guys like Brian were working with in the mid 60's, the skill and the craftsmanship of how they made those recordings gets lost.

[Mr. Cohen]

The cymbal crashes don't seem to be a problem on "Catch A Wave"....

[guitarfool2002]

The cymbal crashes don't seem to be a problem on "Catch A Wave"....

If you're comparing the instrumentation and production on Catch A Wave to PS tracks like "Here Today" or anything else post-1964 I'd suggest the comparison itself is the problem. They're not in the same ballpark, as far as the orchestration and arrangement and the number of both instruments and voices on the recording itself.

It's not about the cymbals themselves, but of course they're not as constant of a presence or a sound on Brian's mid-60's records as they are with most other bands and recordings. That's the point.

Note how he arranged California Girls - the stick-on-ride flourish in the intro acts as an accent, a call-and-response, like a trumpet herald where the other sounds build around it so it stands out in the mix, you can all but hear the wood of the stick hitting the metal because it has its own sound space in that mix *and* arrangement. If it were being drummed/struck throughout the intro with no break, like a jazz drummer keeping time on the ride, the effect is totally altered if not lost.

[FatherOfTheMan Sr101]

The musicianship, instruments, room acoustics, mics and preamps that Brian and Chuck had at their disposal still trump flexibility and options available on the store-bought Mac with Garageband of course

Ugh...... Garageband....

[DonnyL]

The cymbal crashes don't seem to be a problem on "Catch A Wave"....

MALLETS !!!

(and I suspect these are an overdub, or played by someone other than the drummer)

[DonnyL]

I'm basically w/ Craig on this ... but wanted to add:

shakers/sleighbells/tambourines/etc. are not like hi-hats at all ... they can fill a similar role if the producer wishes, but then again, so can almost any instrument. One major difference is a percussionist or extra player would be playing the tambourine, etc. part ... which would indeed give a very different feel. A tambourine, in my opinion, is an element that can be treated as an equal to the drum kit itself, not simply an embelleshment to the kit. I suspect Brian felt similiarly, as evident on tracks like 'Good Vibrations'. That is, you can do things with a tambourine that you certainly cannot do with a hi-hat.

and let's face it: HI-HATS JUST DON'T SOUND THAT GOOD! You can drive the rhythm in lots of different ways. I mean, he did use them sometimes, and I think they have their place. But certainly not as a default.

I often play the Troggs track 'Give it to Me' to illustrate how much power and tension you can get if you eliminate cymbals in general, even in a sparse arrangement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2Mlc_yVZ9I

... particularly around 1:20, you'll hear where a big crash would normally come in.

I find some posters really coming from a modern perspective on these topics ... you really have to 'go back in time' mentally to wrap your head around what they were thinking !

I like comparsing Jan Berry's '60s productions to Brian's. That really gives you great insight into what made Brian different. Jan's stuff sounds technically 'better' in a lot of ways ... but the overall impact just doesn't have the same BW magic. Which goes to show how far those subtle things and extra finesse go toward the result.

[BergenWhitesMoustache]

I 'produce' and that's the main thing I've taken from Brian- no cymbals. So much easier to get a GREAT snare sound, using the room mics etc, if you don't have to worry about cymbals.

Funnily enough the aforementioned Troggs are another huge production influence. Love stuff like 'from home'- cave man drums, single note fuzztone guitar, bass. killer sound

[leggo of my ego]

Before you can start to produce like Brian you have to listen to "Be My Baby" x 1000. 

[guitarfool2002]

I find some posters really coming from a modern perspective on these topics ... you really have to 'go back in time' mentally to wrap your head around what they were thinking !

That's exactly what I was feeling too, and I had to try pointing it out by using the extreme example of what something like Garage Band is capable of as a basic recording tool versus what Brian and Chuck had in '65. It's fine to debate point by point, but at the same time if you're coming from a modern mentality the main points and reasons why are lost.

It's all about perspective - 60's recording of the kind Brian did in 64-66 was a different mindset for a producer approaching a song. I'll argue that point all day long, because even the fact that they were only using 4 tracks for most instrumental sessions until '66 affected most of the decisions made on the song before they even played a note.

And again, mic placement was *crucial* at that time where in the decades afterward it became less and less important to the point where we are now. Listen to a session like Sloop John B where Brian is telling the flute player exactly where to be in relation to the mic, then yells into the talkback "That's it, don't move!!!" or something like that when he gets the positioning just right for the tone he was looking for.

Or the way someone like Geoff Emerick would be darting in and out of the control room moving mics back and forth from the guitar or bass amps looking for that perfect spot to bring out the best tone possible.

Fact 1 - A lot of records literally mix themselves, if you get a chance to play around with some multitracks from the 60's. There's a reason why. They had for the most part already captured the sounds they wanted and needed on the studio floor as the musicians played to tape.

Fact 2 - There are reasons why certain things sounded not only the way they do, but sounded great if not fantastic. And if we apply a 2013 mindset, those reasons will lose out to techniques specific to mixing in 2013, like the overuse of processing, EQ, and the like.

Let's just say the process in the mid 60's was more organic and relied on a lot of creativity, imagination, and skill rather than knowing which plug-ins to add to enhance a track in the mix.

[ontor pertawst]

This stuff is like porn to me. Please don't stop. Moan.
 

[guitarfool2002]

Remember too every engineer or producer has their own philosophy on how to do these things, production-wise, from the type of microphones used to the way every other element is done. So there is no right or wrong way if that producer and engineer get the results the song requires to best deliver the impact it wants to put across.

One of the best pieces of advice I ever got, and it was regarding how to construct a song and mix based solely on keyboard-based sounds and a sequencer, was to consider the frequency range of each part you will be adding to the production. Try to find a "home" within that frequency spectrum for every part, and if it means raising or lowering the range of a part by an octave or two so it cuts through with more of an impact, try to find an unoccupied space for that part to sit in the mix.

If you're doing something bass-heavy, where a lot of the pulse and texture is coming from bass-heavy instruments, it might then be better to have something in a higher range and frequency delivering an important melodic fill or hook, right? You wouldn't have, say, a low baritone sax playing a crucial melodic part in that arrangement because it would share the same bassy character and also share the same frequencies as your other foundation parts in the song. So why not try the same line on an alto sax or even a flute if you want a woodwind to carry that melody line in the song?

The higher range and frequency characteristics of something like a flute in that context would make it jump right out of the mix, as needed. It's the same idea of putting a splash of white paint on a black canvas, the contrast makes it stand out by design.

Apply those kind of visual decisions, and the way you'd use bright versus dark colors in a visual art for specific impact and emphasis, to a mix.

If those kinds of thoughts are in place during the pre-production and creation stages of the song, you can first decide what instruments will be playing what roles in the song before having to mix. You'll know, unless it's a specific special effect you're reaching for, not to call in a group of low brass instruments where you'll need something higher to pop out of the arrangement.

You'll also know, in the case of Brian and productions like Pet Sounds, that if you have three basses covering all the frequency ranges of electric and acoustic bass, and three or four guitars covering all of those ranges for acoustic and electric guitars, and where you're planning to add layered, doubletracked vocals covering all male vocal ranges from bass to high alto going into falsetto, which instruments you could still add which would not get lost or buried in an already full spectrum of frequencies.

In the midst of all those sections playing and covering all their respective ranges and sonic spaces, perhaps something which is struck or produces a sharp "hit" as it's played, and having that play in a range not specific to what's already there, would jump right out and not interfere nor get buried with everything else going on.

So, add something like a celeste in a higher octave, add something like a vibraphone or chimes/bells or similar mallet instrument, add a Hammond organ playing once again in a range or using a "stop" on that organ not already being occupied by your other instrumental sections, and it will stand out as the already full-sounding ensemble plays on the studio floor.

It's already being mixed by the design of the arrangement, so to speak, and how each part occupies its own space both in musical range or register and within a frequency spectrum.

It comes down to finding those spaces and filling them with the right instrument or part, and the mixing becomes like icing on the cake rather than needing to cut away and remake entire parts of the cake in the later stages of the process.

And again, I'd suggest where Brian knew the group vocals were his hook, his fastball, the thing his listeners wanted to hear most on his records, some arranging and production decisions were made in order not to interfere with that key element of his productions as he got all these players and instruments scheduled for a session.

[zachrwolfe]

‍

[LetHimRun]

This stuff is like porn to me. Please don't stop. Moan.
 

Same.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

I'm not the first person to think of it, of course, but I wonder what Brian would do with a full classical orchestra at his disposal.  He has that innate sense of knowing how to arrange and orchestrate, and he's done sort of mini versions of it anyway.  It's just fascinating how one's life path takes one somewhere and not elsewhere.  What if, instead of rock 'n' roll and harmony vocal groups, Brian had got into Puccini? 

I love opera just as much if not more than I love the Beach Boys, but I think what draws me to both is the reverence for the power of the human voice lifted in song.  And so I wonder what Brian would come up with if he put his efforts into something more long-form than a pop song?  With his melodic inventiveness, ear for harmony, and knack for arranging, I can't imagine it wouldn't be good.

Brian isn't the only person to do it, but his arranging and production really do have more to do with classical music than rock.  Both forms can be equally powerful, but Brian's way must offer the listener more?  I mean, Weezer's Blue album is my second favorite record of all time, but there's not much to get on repeated listens in terms of new sonic discoveries, although there are little treats in there.

But Weezer operated on the assumption that every song was going to have drums, distorted guitars panned hard left and right, and bass in the middle largely doubling the root of the chord.  Now, it works cuz it sounds great and the melodies are wonderful.  But why use the same toolbox for every song?

Brian never assumed anything.  Maybe there's be a standard drum set, maybe it'd only be assorted percussion.  Maybe the bass will just hammer out the root, but maybe there will be three basses all playing different lines.  Maybe there's a guitar, maybe not.  He'd call in 4 saxophone players, but they'd end up playing flute, bass clarinet, and tambourine. 

But plenty of people do this, and still do, but what sets Brian and the greats apart from some people who use "Brian Wilson instrumentation" today is that he knew so well how to highlight what the instruments are supposed to do and how they sound best.  I've heard recordings of people who use, say, bass harmonica, ukulele, banjo, and whatever, and you can tell these instruments are on there because somebody decided they wanted that instrumentation and just went with it.  But you rarely ever hear that on a Beach Boys record.  If a uke is on there, it's because a uke was the right instrument for the production.  It's not there just to be there or to impress someone.

Anyway, blah blah blah.

[Micha]

I like comparsing Jan Berry's '60s productions to Brian's. That really gives you great insight into what made Brian different. Jan's stuff sounds technically 'better' in a lot of ways ... but the overall impact just doesn't have the same BW magic. Which goes to show how far those subtle things and extra finesse go toward the result.

Berry didn't have BBs harmonies, that's an important thing to the "BW magic"...

[ThyRavenAscend]

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.

Spot on--the BBs use of sleigh bells is unreal.  They're all over MIU because that was intended to be a Christmas record initially.

[Micha]

You can disagree on opinion of course, but make sure to consider not only that Brian only had a few EQ bands on those 1960's boards and equipment like the old Pultec EQ's which could be changed at the board. So much more of what we heard on recordings on that time, mid-60's, came from the studio floor itself, how the microphones were placed on the instruments, and how everything interacted within the studio's room. That was at least one of those "magic" elements behind Gold Star and those Spector productions, as well as Gold Star's echo chambers, it was how they captured the sounds in the rooms.

That's one of the bigger skills that has been lost in modern digital/DAW mixing. In the mid-60's, they simply did not EQ anywhere near as much as even a home-studio musician would do today, and the skill of it was a combination of mic placement and knowing how to work with the limits they had, and one of those was not having an extensive range of EQ which they could work with.

As far as hi-hat and vocals and everything else in the mix, very few bands in 1964-66 were stacking the kind of vocals Brian was using on his BB's records, and if you don't have that "wall of vocals" in 1965 terms you'd have room for a more active hi-hat part tapping out a constant rhythm, like The Beatles often featured. But the Beatles weren't stacking and doubletracking vocals to where they'd have upwards of 10-12 voices in mono on a single track either.

So there was room for a busy hi-hat part.

Try it sometime on a mix and see how much a busy hi-hat or another high-frequency part affects the other elements in that mix, especially heavily stacked vocals playing the role of the lead instrument in that mix. 

My own pity experience is that a hi-hat can easily be too loud, but what it drowns out is not the vocals but the snare. My uninformed opinion is that Brian chose sleighbells and stuff to replace the hi-hat because they're easier to control volumewise in a 1960's recording setting.

Surfer Girl has hi-hat/cymbals, and it doesn't affect the great vocals.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

I like comparsing Jan Berry's '60s productions to Brian's. That really gives you great insight into what made Brian different. Jan's stuff sounds technically 'better' in a lot of ways ... but the overall impact just doesn't have the same BW magic. Which goes to show how far those subtle things and extra finesse go toward the result.

Berry didn't have BBs harmonies, that's an important thing to the "BW magic"...

He did have Berry harmonies though, which could be quite full and interesting, but it's true that they don't have quite the same focus that BB vocals get.

[guitarfool2002]

You can disagree on opinion of course, but make sure to consider not only that Brian only had a few EQ bands on those 1960's boards and equipment like the old Pultec EQ's which could be changed at the board. So much more of what we heard on recordings on that time, mid-60's, came from the studio floor itself, how the microphones were placed on the instruments, and how everything interacted within the studio's room. That was at least one of those "magic" elements behind Gold Star and those Spector productions, as well as Gold Star's echo chambers, it was how they captured the sounds in the rooms.

That's one of the bigger skills that has been lost in modern digital/DAW mixing. In the mid-60's, they simply did not EQ anywhere near as much as even a home-studio musician would do today, and the skill of it was a combination of mic placement and knowing how to work with the limits they had, and one of those was not having an extensive range of EQ which they could work with.

As far as hi-hat and vocals and everything else in the mix, very few bands in 1964-66 were stacking the kind of vocals Brian was using on his BB's records, and if you don't have that "wall of vocals" in 1965 terms you'd have room for a more active hi-hat part tapping out a constant rhythm, like The Beatles often featured. But the Beatles weren't stacking and doubletracking vocals to where they'd have upwards of 10-12 voices in mono on a single track either.

So there was room for a busy hi-hat part.

Try it sometime on a mix and see how much a busy hi-hat or another high-frequency part affects the other elements in that mix, especially heavily stacked vocals playing the role of the lead instrument in that mix. 

My own pity experience is that a hi-hat can easily be too loud, but what it drowns out is not the vocals but the snare. My uninformed opinion is that Brian chose sleighbells and stuff to replace the hi-hat because they're easier to control volumewise in a 1960's recording setting.

Surfer Girl has hi-hat/cymbals, and it doesn't affect the great vocals.

Keep in mind:

- I specifically said mid-60's, when Brian's arrangements became more reliant on larger groups of musicians, and those often played live in the same studio at the same time. Surfer Girl has a basic rock group setup, 2 guitars-bass-drums, that's it. Not the same sonic issues as "Sloop John B".

- Consider your own experience is in modern times, not 1965. I doubt you're recording 12 musicians at the same time in the studio, recording to 4-track, bouncing tracks several times, adding and doubling stacked vocals, then going to a mono mix, and mixing for maximum impact on AM radio. 

- It's not just hi-hat. If you listen to a great 60's radio single like "She Loves You", the cymbals are washing out all over the place but it works for the energy of that song. That sound would not work as well for Pet Sounds' arrangements, would it? That's the point.