New Brian Wilson song just premiered on radio

[the professor]

I am no longer getting the link (rather, have the link but the song no longer appears as available); did not think to save the song. Any insights?

[bgas]

buy it on itunes

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

It appears that it is no longer available. The only way is to get a truncated version of the song is the video on the BW site.  

[rab2591]

Album: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/no-pier-pressure-deluxe/id965343675
Single: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/right-time-feat.-al-jardine/id965343675?i=965343683

[the professor]

Of course, thanks: got it on amazon music for 1.29.

Can this, will this be "a hit"? Way better than Grammy winning songs....

in hope.

also: would it have killed M and B to have sung on this and released it as a BB new hit single?

buy it on itunes

[kwebb]

If anyone wants to listen to it without buying it on iTunes, it is up on Spotify now.

[kwebb]

Imagination meets That's Why God Made the Radio.

Definitely agree with that. It does sound like Lay Down Burder part 2, but it also could have fit very well on TWGMR, particularly between Strange World and From There to Back Again

[the professor]

yes, and, among other links, Dave's guitar is similar. This is that mode you discuss married to commercial pop. I have to song on autoplay--20 times now--just love it.

Imagination meets That's Why God Made the Radio.

Definitely agree with that. It does sound like Lay Down Burder part 2, but it also could have fit very well on TWGMR, particularly between Strange World and From There to Back Again

[Wylson]

I really wish I could like this

I like the verses, "what ever happened to me and you" etc. I like the way Al sings it, it has a bit of a Carl style phrasing to it. But that's the only but I like really. It feels a bit under developed to me. And the vocals sound over processed.

But I still have high hopes for NPP.

[Tomorrowville]

I really wish I could like this

I like the verses, "what ever happened to me and you" etc. I like the way Al sings it, it has a bit of a Carl style phrasing to it. But that's the only but I like really. It feels a bit under developed to me. And the vocals sound over processed.

But I still have high hopes for NPP.

Having now listened to the entire song in good quality, I have to agree - I wish I could like this.  The song itself is pleasant, I love the presence of Al's voice, Brian sounds great, but I am just so not feeling that Joe Thomas-y bland instrumental production, those (IMHO) generic '70s soft rock guitar riffs, etc.

I still look forward to hearing the whole album.

[onkster]

Sorry if someone has already talked about this, but this almost sounds like it could be one of the songs from the "suite" on TWGMTR--the lyrics, and Al's vocal, have that "how can we keep ourselves vital as old age closes in" vibe to them. Would go great back to back with that other Al song from the suite...

Just sayin'.

[The Cincinnati Kid]

I wish that a third verse would have been included instead of repeating right time, could it be the right time far too many times IMO.

[HeyJude]

There is a very wide margin between “singing into a microphone, running it through a mixing board, and then onto a recording device” and heavy use of a software plug-in (whether it’s “autotune” or some other software).

It is indeed always worth keeping in mind that other forms of studio tricks and processing have been at play for eons. But with some weird exceptions like running a voice through a Leslie speaker on “Be Here in the Morning”, nothing fundamentally alters the sound, tone, timbre, and actual notes of a singing performance the way autotune-type plug-ins do.

I totally buy the idea that an autotune-type effect is not at play on “The Right Time”, and a discussion of the recording and mixing (and mastering) techniques at play that are giving the recording that smooth type of effect would be a great discussion. I’m not sure how equipped most (including in some cases myself) are here to have such a conversation, as it requires a good ear and a familiarity with some recording techniques.

I wouldn't normally excerpt a post like this, but I wanted to address these three points in particular, in bold.

First point: You'd be surprised. Many variables are in play. There is no such thing as a pure signal chain as it seems you're suggesting and trying to compare to the plug-in signal chain. I could mention one of at least a dozen variables that could alter the sound of that natural voice going into a recording device.

Let me focus on one: The microphone. Are you using a large diaphragm or small diaphragm condenser? Are you using a condenser mic or a ribbon mic? Are you using a dynamic mic like a 57 or an old-school dynamic mic like a 666? Maybe a broadcast-style mic like the RE20, or an SM7? How about condensers, are you going for a vintage style tube mic like a C12 or a U47? Ribbon mics...RCA 44, 77, or a newer model like a Royer? Large diaphragm condensers, perhaps an AKG 414, maybe a Blue Bottle? Want a distorted sound, maybe a Green Bullet for that effect, or simply overdrive a preamp with any mic? Why use a 57 in a studio but not a 58? Omnidirectional, unidirectional, figure 8? Go for vintage Neumann or a modern Mojave?...yada yada yada.  

The point is that the choice of microphone is only one factor in the voice-microphone-recording device chain that can have a radical effect on how that voice sounds when recorded. Only one - and even the variables and choices I listed scratch the surface as far as what can alter the sound. How about the non-electronic or non-mechanical variables, such as mic placement, mic technique from the vocalist, placement within a room or a booth if you want an open sound versus a controlled sound...all that jazz. Then preamps, EQ's, the "voice" of one board versus another, type of cable, type of converter if it's digital or type of tape machine if it's analog...some very minor but among the pros, each can have enough of an effect on the sound to make a difference, and to influence certain choices as they're made in the process.

Two quotes from engineer Wesley Seidman's article in Mix magazine describing the recording process from Brian's No Pier Pressure sessions:

1. Seidman captured the performances to Pro Tools in all three of the studios at Ocean Way (A, B and D), but the engineer says Wilson prefers to do live band tracking and orchestral sections in Studio B, a room that has also hosted sessions for award-winning albums by Green Day, Radiohead, and Eric Clapton with B.B. King: “It’s just the sound and feel of the room itself, and the [custom 56-Input 8068/8088] Neve doesn’t hurt,” Seidman says. “He did almost all of the work on his solo records in there. But he also likes Studio A, where we cut a few tracks and is my favorite room for strings. We also cut a lot of the background vocals and guest vocals for the new album in D.”

2. Wilson’s vocals were recorded in all three rooms with a Neumann U 47. In Studio A, his voice went through the modified Focusrite console to a Teletronix LA-2A. “In D, we would go through the remote Neve pre’s into an [Universal Audio] 1176, and then toward the last third of the record, I purchased a modified API mic pre, which has amazing bandwidth, and sent the 47 through that, into an 1176. And this is all flat—Brian EQs himself by moving around the mic, which he does naturally. We also used a plethora of [UAD] reverb and delay plug-ins. This enabled us to automate the delay and reverb times for each section of the songs where desired. Brian and I both like the FX to be just right.


Note the choice between different rooms in the same studio complex to capture specific characteristics and for specific purposes. Note also the mentions of an LA-2A and 1176...why use an optical compressor versus a FET compressor, and what's the difference? It all seems minor, but again all of these factors can dramatically and noticeably change that so-called "pure sound" depending on how they are used.


Second:

But with some weird exceptions like running a voice through a Leslie speaker on “Be Here in the Morning”, nothing fundamentally alters the sound, tone, timbre, and actual notes of a singing performance the way autotune-type plug-ins do.

This is simply not true. The misconception or misunderstanding may be between the Cher, T-Pain, or Kanye deliberate over-use of the effect versus setting up the parameters as to be mostly unnoticeable. It could be shown by taking an unprocessed isolated vocal track and A-B'ing it with an Autotuned track done to smooth out rather than to deliberately create an effect. If anyone has problems with and can even hear the latter use on any number of vocal tracks across the musical spectrum, I'd suggest there is a very lucrative career in the audio mastering field waiting for such highly trained ears.  

Last, I’m not sure how equipped most (including in some cases myself) are here to have such a conversation, as it requires a good ear and a familiarity with some recording techniques.

Sounds about right.    Which is why I don't understand making all of these things an ongoing issue, again and again and again.

I actually enjoy the technobabble in Mix Magazine and the like. I find dissertations on recording techniques quite compelling.

But I'm also interested in talking about what the end product sounds like. That’s the end of the chain that starts with microphone choices and placement, EQ, analog and digital outboard gear, and the million other things that the sound gets subjected to.

But I simply fundamentally disagree that copious use of pitch correction plug-ins can be equated to mic placement and the like. It’s kind of like saying, “I repainted your car a different color, then added a new clear coat, then I tinted your windows darker, did a wheel alignment, and oh yeah, I also crushed the car into a one foot square cube. Those are all changes I made to your car, and as you stand here looking at your car/cube, all of those changes equally affected how the car came out in the end.”

Now, much like artists in the 80s started recording real drums to make them *sound* like drum machines, perhaps some producers and engineers are trying to give stuff a slick, “autotuned” type of sound without actually using it. It’s quite true, with a bag of techniques, double tracking, EQ, echo, and so on, weird and wondrous things can be achieved.

I’m always willing and enthusiastic to read hard evidence that some perception we have is actually incorrect. Surely some fans/listeners are overanalyzing, and immediately jumping to the “autotune” conclusion, sometimes without knowing or thinking about the countless other factors that go into a recording. But I don’t agree with the “Hey, recording vocals in a swimming pool, switching the microphone polarity, switching studios, turning autotune to 11, they’re all just “techniques”, and we weren’t there in the studio watching the recording and mixing, so we shouldn’t make these things an ongoing issue.”  

I remember a discussion of “From There to Back Again” some time back, and someone offered a good deal of argument for why they felt it did *not* have any autotune applied. I thought the argument was interesting and compelling, and made me think about how seemingly common techniques from the past could perhaps produce such an effect. I ultimately felt that it was likely autotune was in fact applied to that recording (especially given later aural evidence, such as some of the tracks on the C50 live album, that spoke to the potential present-day work patterns of Joe Thomas), but it was all compelling information to digest.

The aural evidence of potential recent use of autotune-type effects on recent BB-related projects, along with other evidence we have at hand (who is working on these projects, what types of effects are in more common usage as time goes on, comparison to past and contemporaneous BB and BB-related projects, etc.) strongly suggest to me, that, simply put, it is most likely Joe Thomas who has introduced BB and BB-related projects to a more assertive use of pitch correction plug-ins/effects. No More, no less. It’s not Earth-shattering. I’m not throwing any of my CDs away. It doesn’t mean the end product isn’t still good or great in many cases; it doesn’t mean Thomas and Brian are using the pitch correction on every track; it doesn’t mean they aren’t also using a myriad of other common and ingenious recording and mixing methods, it doesn’t mean Joe Thomas shouldn’t be involved (I suspect C50 wouldn’t have happened without Thomas). But as much as it devolves into a simple semantic point, I’m not willing to completely dismiss the point that autotune is most likely being used simply because it theoretically has another explanation.

At this point, overuse of pitch correction isn’t some big ethical, moral question. It’s more simply a case of finding it artistically kind of monotonous, like if Frampton put his talkbox on half the songs on every album he did, or if Al Jardine added a spoken-word interlude to every other song he wrote, etc.

[ppk700]

Of course, thanks: got it on amazon music for 1.29.

Can this, will this be "a hit"? Way better than Grammy winning songs....

in hope.

also: would it have killed M and B to have sung on this and released it as a BB new hit single?

Hey professor - I think this song actually does have the potential to receive radio airplay, on the right radio stations. If you ask me, the song has somewhat of a folksy feel to it. I know some will disagree with me (wouldn't be the Smiley Smile board if someone didn't), but I could see the song getting airplay on country music stations, or adult contemporary stations. Classic rock stations, possibly, but probably not. I think this song has more hit potential than anything on "TWGMTR."

I love Mike and Bruce, they really are my heroes (along with the rest of the guys, of course!), but they really missed the boat on this one. If I were them, I'd be kicking myself after hearing this song, feeling very regretful for not participating. Perhaps they WILL feel that way, and this wonderful music will spur them to finish things off the right way, and end the Beach Boys' legacy on a high note. Get the gang back together for 2017 (or in 2018, who cares!), do one last album and tour, and ride off into the sunset, together... but, sigh. That probably won't happen. That would be the best... but sadly it is so unlikely.

[guitarfool2002]

But I simply fundamentally disagree that copious use of pitch correction plug-ins can be equated to mic placement and the like.

I'm not saying this to be disrespectful to anyone, but that kind of thinking is what separates professional audio engineers from everyone else, including audiophiles. There are certain things that are learned, practiced, and perfected in the studio that go into creating the sounds of the end result, down to the basics of putting a mic in front of an acoustic guitar and choosing which mic to use, and those that are not or have not been in the business of recording and mixing professionally or even semi-professionally cannot fully appreciate the process until they actually do it hands-on and hear how much these seemingly tiny variables like mic placement and mic selection can alter and change the sound.

If you were to change the angle of a microphone on, say, an acoustic guitar even a slight bit off the soundhole and point it more toward the fretboard, it could have as much of an audible and consequential effect on the sound of that guitar in a mix as adding Autotune to pitch up some trailing notes on a sustained vocal note.

"Copious use" suggests the deliberate overuse of the effect, or of any effect, to the point where it is obviously audible in the mix. For this specific topic, and this specific track, do you specifically hear such a copious use of AutoTune on Al Jardine's lead vocal track? If not, I'm wondering why a detailed discussion of AutoTune is relevant to discussing this particular song in this thread.

[HeyJude]

But I simply fundamentally disagree that copious use of pitch correction plug-ins can be equated to mic placement and the like.

I'm not saying this to be disrespectful to anyone, but that kind of thinking is what separates professional audio engineers from everyone else, including audiophiles. There are certain things that are learned, practiced, and perfected in the studio that go into creating the sounds of the end result, down to the basics of putting a mic in front of an acoustic guitar and choosing which mic to use, and those that are not or have not been in the business of recording and mixing professionally or even semi-professionally cannot fully appreciate the process until they actually do it hands-on and hear how much these seemingly tiny variables like mic placement and mic selection can alter and change the sound.

If you were to change the angle of a microphone on, say, an acoustic guitar even a slight bit off the soundhole and point it more toward the fretboard, it could have as much of an audible and consequential effect on the sound of that guitar in a mix as adding Autotune to pitch up some trailing notes on a sustained vocal note.

"Copious use" suggests the deliberate overuse of the effect, or of any effect, to the point where it is obviously audible in the mix. For this specific topic, and this specific track, do you specifically hear such a copious use of AutoTune on Al Jardine's lead vocal track? If not, I'm wondering why a detailed discussion of AutoTune is relevant to discussing this particular song in this thread.

Let me be clear. As I previously mentioned, I buy that autotune is not present on “The Right Time.” The discussion has indeed moved from a specific citation of autotune on that track to a more general discussion of autotune, and of how listeners who might hear it or discuss it are being portrayed. In addition, we’ve been touching on whether autotune is present on some or any recent BB/Brian recordings.

I’ve been discussing a more sort of semantic point about autotune in general; specifically that I disagree with the dismissal of a listener “hearing” autotune as an opinion of either ignorance or an opinion of no consequence (e.g. “mic placement can or does impact a final, finished, mastered recording as much as autotune, therefore why discuss it?). Both my own knowledge on these topics, in addition to my own ability to analyze various forms of rhetoric, suggest to me that, to generalize, “you don’t work in a studio, so you don’t know” is not *always* an answer I trust.

“Copious” use does not imply a deliberate overuse. Rather, it simply means something in abundance or quantity. There is a copious amount of autotune or other pitch-correction on items including the C50 live album and some of the TWGMTR album. I’m happy to absorb any studio professional’s knowledge on this and any related topics, and I’m happy to entertain analyses of specific recordings and why other studio techniques were at play instead of autotune. But I haven’t yet found someone who can produce compelling evidence that pitch correction hasn’t been used on some recent BB releases. If one acknowledges that it *has* been used, then it’s much more difficult to dismiss subsequent theories that it has been used on later recordings. It doesn’t mean that every theory or accusation is correct. But again, I simply don’t agree with the “microphones, mic placement, mixing, autotune, who knows?” angle, especially when it seems to imply, I guess, that anything or everything we’ve been hearing as potentially “autotune” on recent BB-related recordings isn’t autotune.

Implicit in any dissection of recordings is the fact that, with few exceptions, we weren’t there. We never know anything for sure. But I know I’m going to listen to an industry professional who says Recording A doesn’t have autotune if they also acknowledge that it has been used in other cases. If the discussion starts with an assertion or implication that we don’t know if it has *ever* been used (or an assertion that we’re not professionals, so we shouldn’t even wonder), I have trouble heavily weighing that opinion.  

[HeyJude]

Of course, thanks: got it on amazon music for 1.29.

Can this, will this be "a hit"? Way better than Grammy winning songs....

in hope.

also: would it have killed M and B to have sung on this and released it as a BB new hit single?

Hey professor - I think this song actually does have the potential to receive radio airplay, on the right radio stations. If you ask me, the song has somewhat of a folksy feel to it. I know some will disagree with me (wouldn't be the Smiley Smile board if someone didn't), but I could see the song getting airplay on country music stations, or adult contemporary stations. Classic rock stations, possibly, but probably not. I think this song has more hit potential than anything on "TWGMTR."

I love Mike and Bruce, they really are my heroes (along with the rest of the guys, of course!), but they really missed the boat on this one. If I were them, I'd be kicking myself after hearing this song, feeling very regretful for not participating. Perhaps they WILL feel that way, and this wonderful music will spur them to finish things off the right way, and end the Beach Boys' legacy on a high note. Get the gang back together for 2017 (or in 2018, who cares!), do one last album and tour, and ride off into the sunset, together... but, sigh. That probably won't happen. That would be the best... but sadly it is so unlikely.

I think, with the exception of a really weird fluke, the days of any BB-related material getting much airplay (on any format, even getting new songs played on classic rock radio) are pretty long gone. Howie Edelson has posted on this topic a few times in the past. Simply put, radio is there more to talk up a new Brian or BB album than it is to actually play anything.

I’m a HUGE fan of the fact that Brian let Al take the *entire* lead vocal on this track (for the most part anyway), and I’m surprised they’re pushing essentially a Brian-penned Al Jardine track as the first “single” from Brian’s album.

I think it’s plausible that the album could see some sort of grammy in one of the categories like “Best Rock Album” (very loose definition of “rock” of course, essentially one of the sub-“album of the year” album categories). Brian has name recognition and respect that can garner him a grammy nod potentially.

I like the new track. I don’t think critics will be blown away by a track like this. It’s a pleasant song with a great Al lead. I could easily see a critic not being a fan of the 70’s yacht vibe (or whatever one wants to call it) and production.

As for Mike and Bruce, I certainly *wish* they’d see this as a missed opportunity. But given Mike’s own words from the last few years, his idea of the BB’s constitutes, primarily, he and Brian writing. “The Right Time” written by Brian and Joe (and/or whomever else; not Mike) and sung by Al is cut from the same cloth as TWGMTR. I like that, but Mike has made it clear he’s not a fan of that format.

[Generation42]

What a lovely tune.  Listening to "The Right Time" served to ratchet-up my interest in a project which I was already really excited about.

Very cool.   

[job]

Of course, thanks: got it on amazon music for 1.29.

Can this, will this be "a hit"? Way better than Grammy winning songs....

in hope.

also: would it have killed M and B to have sung on this and released it as a BB new hit single?

Hey professor - I think this song actually does have the potential to receive radio airplay, on the right radio stations.

In 1985 yes...not a chance now.  That said...I. LOVE. IT.

[Wylson]

There is a very wide margin between “singing into a microphone, running it through a mixing board, and then onto a recording device” and heavy use of a software plug-in (whether it’s “autotune” or some other software).

It is indeed always worth keeping in mind that other forms of studio tricks and processing have been at play for eons. But with some weird exceptions like running a voice through a Leslie speaker on “Be Here in the Morning”, nothing fundamentally alters the sound, tone, timbre, and actual notes of a singing performance the way autotune-type plug-ins do.

I totally buy the idea that an autotune-type effect is not at play on “The Right Time”, and a discussion of the recording and mixing (and mastering) techniques at play that are giving the recording that smooth type of effect would be a great discussion. I’m not sure how equipped most (including in some cases myself) are here to have such a conversation, as it requires a good ear and a familiarity with some recording techniques.

I wouldn't normally excerpt a post like this, but I wanted to address these three points in particular, in bold.

First point: You'd be surprised. Many variables are in play. There is no such thing as a pure signal chain as it seems you're suggesting and trying to compare to the plug-in signal chain. I could mention one of at least a dozen variables that could alter the sound of that natural voice going into a recording device.

Let me focus on one: The microphone. Are you using a large diaphragm or small diaphragm condenser? Are you using a condenser mic or a ribbon mic? Are you using a dynamic mic like a 57 or an old-school dynamic mic like a 666? Maybe a broadcast-style mic like the RE20, or an SM7? How about condensers, are you going for a vintage style tube mic like a C12 or a U47? Ribbon mics...RCA 44, 77, or a newer model like a Royer? Large diaphragm condensers, perhaps an AKG 414, maybe a Blue Bottle? Want a distorted sound, maybe a Green Bullet for that effect, or simply overdrive a preamp with any mic? Why use a 57 in a studio but not a 58? Omnidirectional, unidirectional, figure 8? Go for vintage Neumann or a modern Mojave?...yada yada yada.  

The point is that the choice of microphone is only one factor in the voice-microphone-recording device chain that can have a radical effect on how that voice sounds when recorded. Only one - and even the variables and choices I listed scratch the surface as far as what can alter the sound. How about the non-electronic or non-mechanical variables, such as mic placement, mic technique from the vocalist, placement within a room or a booth if you want an open sound versus a controlled sound...all that jazz. Then preamps, EQ's, the "voice" of one board versus another, type of cable, type of converter if it's digital or type of tape machine if it's analog...some very minor but among the pros, each can have enough of an effect on the sound to make a difference, and to influence certain choices as they're made in the process.

Two quotes from engineer Wesley Seidman's article in Mix magazine describing the recording process from Brian's No Pier Pressure sessions:

1. Seidman captured the performances to Pro Tools in all three of the studios at Ocean Way (A, B and D), but the engineer says Wilson prefers to do live band tracking and orchestral sections in Studio B, a room that has also hosted sessions for award-winning albums by Green Day, Radiohead, and Eric Clapton with B.B. King: “It’s just the sound and feel of the room itself, and the [custom 56-Input 8068/8088] Neve doesn’t hurt,” Seidman says. “He did almost all of the work on his solo records in there. But he also likes Studio A, where we cut a few tracks and is my favorite room for strings. We also cut a lot of the background vocals and guest vocals for the new album in D.”

2. Wilson’s vocals were recorded in all three rooms with a Neumann U 47. In Studio A, his voice went through the modified Focusrite console to a Teletronix LA-2A. “In D, we would go through the remote Neve pre’s into an [Universal Audio] 1176, and then toward the last third of the record, I purchased a modified API mic pre, which has amazing bandwidth, and sent the 47 through that, into an 1176. And this is all flat—Brian EQs himself by moving around the mic, which he does naturally. We also used a plethora of [UAD] reverb and delay plug-ins. This enabled us to automate the delay and reverb times for each section of the songs where desired. Brian and I both like the FX to be just right.


Note the choice between different rooms in the same studio complex to capture specific characteristics and for specific purposes. Note also the mentions of an LA-2A and 1176...why use an optical compressor versus a FET compressor, and what's the difference? It all seems minor, but again all of these factors can dramatically and noticeably change that so-called "pure sound" depending on how they are used.


Second:

But with some weird exceptions like running a voice through a Leslie speaker on “Be Here in the Morning”, nothing fundamentally alters the sound, tone, timbre, and actual notes of a singing performance the way autotune-type plug-ins do.

This is simply not true. The misconception or misunderstanding may be between the Cher, T-Pain, or Kanye deliberate over-use of the effect versus setting up the parameters as to be mostly unnoticeable. It could be shown by taking an unprocessed isolated vocal track and A-B'ing it with an Autotuned track done to smooth out rather than to deliberately create an effect. If anyone has problems with and can even hear the latter use on any number of vocal tracks across the musical spectrum, I'd suggest there is a very lucrative career in the audio mastering field waiting for such highly trained ears.  

Last, I’m not sure how equipped most (including in some cases myself) are here to have such a conversation, as it requires a good ear and a familiarity with some recording techniques.

Sounds about right.    Which is why I don't understand making all of these things an ongoing issue, again and again and again.

I actually enjoy the technobabble in Mix Magazine and the like. I find dissertations on recording techniques quite compelling.

But I'm also interested in talking about what the end product sounds like. That’s the end of the chain that starts with microphone choices and placement, EQ, analog and digital outboard gear, and the million other things that the sound gets subjected to.

But I simply fundamentally disagree that copious use of pitch correction plug-ins can be equated to mic placement and the like. It’s kind of like saying, “I repainted your car a different color, then added a new clear coat, then I tinted your windows darker, did a wheel alignment, and oh yeah, I also crushed the car into a one foot square cube. Those are all changes I made to your car, and as you stand here looking at your car/cube, all of those changes equally affected how the car came out in the end.”

Now, much like artists in the 80s started recording real drums to make them *sound* like drum machines, perhaps some producers and engineers are trying to give stuff a slick, “autotuned” type of sound without actually using it. It’s quite true, with a bag of techniques, double tracking, EQ, echo, and so on, weird and wondrous things can be achieved.

I’m always willing and enthusiastic to read hard evidence that some perception we have is actually incorrect. Surely some fans/listeners are overanalyzing, and immediately jumping to the “autotune” conclusion, sometimes without knowing or thinking about the countless other factors that go into a recording. But I don’t agree with the “Hey, recording vocals in a swimming pool, switching the microphone polarity, switching studios, turning autotune to 11, they’re all just “techniques”, and we weren’t there in the studio watching the recording and mixing, so we shouldn’t make these things an ongoing issue.”  

I remember a discussion of “From There to Back Again” some time back, and someone offered a good deal of argument for why they felt it did *not* have any autotune applied. I thought the argument was interesting and compelling, and made me think about how seemingly common techniques from the past could perhaps produce such an effect. I ultimately felt that it was likely autotune was in fact applied to that recording (especially given later aural evidence, such as some of the tracks on the C50 live album, that spoke to the potential present-day work patterns of Joe Thomas), but it was all compelling information to digest.

The aural evidence of potential recent use of autotune-type effects on recent BB-related projects, along with other evidence we have at hand (who is working on these projects, what types of effects are in more common usage as time goes on, comparison to past and contemporaneous BB and BB-related projects, etc.) strongly suggest to me, that, simply put, it is most likely Joe Thomas who has introduced BB and BB-related projects to a more assertive use of pitch correction plug-ins/effects. No More, no less. It’s not Earth-shattering. I’m not throwing any of my CDs away. It doesn’t mean the end product isn’t still good or great in many cases; it doesn’t mean Thomas and Brian are using the pitch correction on every track; it doesn’t mean they aren’t also using a myriad of other common and ingenious recording and mixing methods, it doesn’t mean Joe Thomas shouldn’t be involved (I suspect C50 wouldn’t have happened without Thomas). But as much as it devolves into a simple semantic point, I’m not willing to completely dismiss the point that autotune is most likely being used simply because it theoretically has another explanation.

At this point, overuse of pitch correction isn’t some big ethical, moral question. It’s more simply a case of finding it artistically kind of monotonous, like if Frampton put his talkbox on half the songs on every album he did, or if Al Jardine added a spoken-word interlude to every other song he wrote, etc.

Agree with this post 100%

[Rocket]

This track has really grown on me, man.

At first I thought the chorus was bland, but it's been stuck in my head all day.

This album is looking to be amazing!

[CenturyDeprived]

The entire point of using autotune is to massage something that's a bit off (not off in a good way), and to have its presence be *invisible and undetectable*. Or virtually so. I've used pitch correction before, and I will only use it if its presence is invisible to my ears in the mix.

That is, unless an artist is manipulating the vocals with autotune intentionally to make weird, noticeable odd sounds (as is the case with some pop artists - see Cher's "Believe" as a primary example) - I find that type of use of autotune to be atrocious.

Or then there's the middle ground of using autotune, where the producer tries to make something have a slightly too-perfect "modern" sheen, which I think may be the case here.

While I admit that it's possible I'm mishearing things that aren't there, I feel pretty certain there are some odd warbly autotune artifacts that I am hearing, which I wish I wasn't hearing. Like near the beginning on the word "never" when Al sings "but ne--ver in a very straight line". Maybe a cigar is just a cigar, and maybe it's just the way he sung it and I'm tripping to think it's autotune. But to my ears, it sounds like an autotune artifact that could have been made much less noticeable.

That said, it's a cool tune that will probably grow more on me in subsequent listens. I like the songwriting a lot, and I love hearing Brian and Al together. I was really, really put off by the autotune on the TWGMTR album upon my initial listens of it, but over time I've come to just accept it as a tolerable nuisance, and I try to appreciate the cool ear candy underneath it.

[adamghost]

Interesting discussion, even if I'm having to bite my tongue for a lot of it!  But I agree that whatever tuning may be used is not egregious on this track.

Something to consider about autotune is that in my view, it is to 2015 what gated snare drums were to 1985.  Yes, they sounded great on "in The Air Tonight," but once that effect took hold, it just became silly, artificial and as others have noted, monotonous.  And now when we hear that effect, the song is no longer timeless.  It screams "1985!!!"  That's the degree to which the tuned "sound" is the sound of pop music in our era.  It may be that a lot of people don't perceive it...yet.  But it's rather like CGI, at first you're like "holy cow!  That movie looks amazing!"  But as everyone starts to use it, and uses it willy-nilly, you become fatigued of it and it takes you out of the moment.  I have my own issues with autotune as a producer in terms of how it affects both the performance and the final mix -- I never, ever use it personally, and I don't buy the argument that it's a necessary evil -- but I'm not making that argument.  Others use it tastefully and that's fine.  The question is...does it take you out of the moment or not?  Is it like a subtle part of the background of a movie, or a bad special effect like a toy boat substituting for a real one?  There's a wonderful pop tune that came out a year or two ago called "It Just Hasn't Happened Yet".  It's a total slice of 1974 except the lead singer's vocal is egregiously, mechanically processed.  It actively prevents me from enjoying the song, because it is distracting, counter to the vibe of the recording, and unnecessary.  I assume they did that to fit in with the prevailing tenor of the times and to get it on the radio, which is a valid business decision.  But it takes us back to the gated snare drum, and whether a recording effect actually serves the song, or is catering to a short-term trend that may not last.

I remember around 1985 or 1986 when low cost samplers first came out (I was young, but I was around), I had another keyboard player enthusiastically telling me that you didn't need horn players or string players anymore, that samples sounded exactly the same.  They're a lot closer now but I couldn't believe what I was hearing - either from the samples, or out of this guy's mouth.  But that was the prevailing attitude at the time.  It's always that way when a new thing rolls around.

I personally believe in 10-15 years we're going to hear the "autotune sound" and go, "oh yeah, that's what they were doing back in the 2010s."

But I'm with others who say that, for this particular tune, if it's there (and I suspect there's a bit at the margins, but I haven't listened with headphones, which may account for the difference in perceptions), it doesn't bug me.  I like Al's vocals a lot.

[Wirestone]

Adam, are you referring to "Haven't Met You Yet" by Michael Buble? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AJmKkU5POA) It's bizarre, because he can really, seriously sing in the crooner/belter sense of the word. And yes, the tuning on his vocal is crazy on the track.

[adamghost]

Yep that's it, sorry on the title mix-up.