New Brian Wilson song just premiered on radio

[Wirestone]

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

No, no, it's cool! It's just that I've always used that song as my prime example of AT overuse whenever it came up. It's a fun song, with a skilled singer -- and they still slather it on. It's probably helped make it a hit, but still.

[HeyJude]

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.

Another thing to think about is that Brian, and in particular lately in his “solo career” era (1998 or so onwards) seems to prefer very wet, dense, lush arrangements and performances (with some exceptions as always of course). I’ve long wished that Brian would do something much more dry and sparse. It doesn’t have to be solo voice with one acoustic guitar necessarily, but long story short, we’re probably never going to hear Brian do something that sounds like, say, Tom Petty’s “Highway Companion”, just with more voices. He doesn’t want dry vocals, he doesn’t want much of anything dry.

Someone who is more inclined to dense arrangements and recordings (and mixes) might be more inclined to like some use of autotune (or be less likely to dismiss it). To him, it may well seem like simply another tool, like the flanging effect on “Itchycoo Park” or something. (I’ve always hoped that that was what he was going for during part of “Spring Vacation” for instance; parts of that song are so autotuned that it does essentially go into “phasey/flange vocal effect” territory).

If he were doing bone-dry solo lead vocals (and bone-dry backing arrangements), any use of autotune would probably stick out even more.

I’m not sure precisely where Al’s voice has or hasn’t been pitch-corrected on BB/Brian stuff, but a very rough comparison can be drawn with his “Postcard from California” CD. While the vocals on that date from all over the place, I’m pretty sure there’s no autotune anywhere near Al’s voice. You can hear when his voice cracks, you can hear the little vocal hiccups. You can hear that he’s nearly singing out of his vocal range on one of the versions “Waves of Love.” But it all sounds very organic. Some if not most (or all?) of those tracks were at least tracked on analog tape, and I think Al still uses some vintage gear as well. It probably all got dumped into ProTools to mix. But listen to his voice on “California Feelin’.” That sounds like an organic recording and performance. It’s a guy nearing 70 years old who still has a great voice.

[SMiLE Brian]

Wirestone sounds pumped for the new album!

[kwebb]

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.

That's not necessarily true. I still hear Good Vibrations on the radio quite often

[HeyJude]

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.

That's not necessarily true. I still hear Good Vibrations on the radio quite often

I was speaking to the idea of *new* music getting played. I'm sure they still get some of the "classics" played on oldies radio.

[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.

Another thing to think about is that Brian, and in particular lately in his “solo career” era (1998 or so onwards) seems to prefer very wet, dense, lush arrangements and performances (with some exceptions as always of course). I’ve long wished that Brian would do something much more dry and sparse. It doesn’t have to be solo voice with one acoustic guitar necessarily, but long story short, we’re probably never going to hear Brian do something that sounds like, say, Tom Petty’s “Highway Companion”, just with more voices. He doesn’t want dry vocals, he doesn’t want much of anything dry.

Someone who is more inclined to dense arrangements and recordings (and mixes) might be more inclined to like some use of autotune (or be less likely to dismiss it). To him, it may well seem like simply another tool, like the flanging effect on “Itchycoo Park” or something. (I’ve always hoped that that was what he was going for during part of “Spring Vacation” for instance; parts of that song are so autotuned that it does essentially go into “phasey/flange vocal effect” territory).

If he were doing bone-dry solo lead vocals (and bone-dry backing arrangements), any use of autotune would probably stick out even more.

I’m not sure precisely where Al’s voice has or hasn’t been pitch-corrected on BB/Brian stuff, but a very rough comparison can be drawn with his “Postcard from California” CD. While the vocals on that date from all over the place, I’m pretty sure there’s no autotune anywhere near Al’s voice. You can hear when his voice cracks, you can hear the little vocal hiccups. You can hear that he’s nearly singing out of his vocal range on one of the versions “Waves of Love.” But it all sounds very organic. Some if not most (or all?) of those tracks were at least tracked on analog tape, and I think Al still uses some vintage gear as well. It probably all got dumped into ProTools to mix. But listen to his voice on “California Feelin’.” That sounds like an organic recording and performance. It’s a guy nearing 70 years old who still has a great voice.

Yeah.  But, y'know, with a "wet" arrangement there are just so many ways to deal with a pitchy vocal without it.  I'm a big fan of digital editing.  Basically the same result but you're not running the vocal through a smasher to get there - you still have the spontaneity of a real performance.  But you have to have the ears to be able to audition and assemble the various takes, and to be able to coach in the room, which a lot of guys can't or don't want to do these days.

Something else that's seldom discussed is how overuse of plug-ins, and autotune, compromises the fidelity and particularly the high frequency on the end product.  If you'll notice there's not a lot of high end on TWGMTR...if you add it manually, the digital fixes and such kind of fly out, unfortunately.  This is a lot of the reason people complain modern recordings sound "sterile" and "monotonous".  There's a sort of midrange gunk that piles on when you just run everything through the box.  This can happen with or without autotune but you really notice it with the autotune processing.

But again, there's an argument to be made that that's the sound of the radio, and that's how records are made nowadays, and so that's what people do.  And that's cool, because if everyone applied the old methods to the new technology, I might not have a recording business.  

[Gohi]

Interestingly, the song does not fade out...it has a clear ending. Unusual for BW songs.

Again, kind of ballsy.  Very few songs have a clear ending anymore, I like that we're getting something a little different...

I think the new song is good and all, but is a cold ending really "ballsy"? I'll go ahead and assume "very few" songs have a clean ending anymore for the sake of this discussion. But it isn't like Brian busted out a two minute trumpet solo in the middle of the song. In the realm of recorded music, there's pretty much only two ways to end a track (other than the end of "Strawberry Fields Forever" or the original "Help Me Ronda" or something), and this track uses one of those two ways. Not "ballsy" in the slightest in any way I can measure, nor does it need to be.

You're right, i'll go change my opinion.

You should listen to more music if you really think most songs don't have a clear ending anymore.

[ForHerCryingSoul]

NO PIER PRESSURE SIZZLE REEL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_vj5u-CXkE

[puni puni]

Something to consider about autotune is that in my view, it is to 2015 what gated snare drums were to 1985.

At this point, it's more like hearing gated snare drums in 1995. I'm reminded of Sean O'Hagan's quote about Joe Thomas toward Imagination: "...He wanted Brian to make a big Eighties ballad record, all cavernous snares. He kept referring to Brian's potential as an Adult Contemporary crossover artist..."

[HeyJude]

Something to consider about autotune is that in my view, it is to 2015 what gated snare drums were to 1985.

At this point, it's more like hearing gated snare drums in 1995. I'm reminded of Sean O'Hagan's quote about Joe Thomas toward Imagination: "...He wanted Brian to make a big Eighties ballad record, all cavernous snares. He kept referring to Brian's potential as an Adult Contemporary crossover artist..."

Thomas' "adult contemporary" leanings have always been evident in his work with Brian, and problematic for many fans. It has been somewhat (and in cases quite) tone-down on the recent projects compared to "Imagination", I would imagine in part because Thomas' place is a bit less prominent this time around. He no longer yields a co-production credit, he's nowhere to be seen on stage, and oddly few photos of him with Brian or the BB's exist in the 2011-present timeframe.

The stuff that Thomas still may be adding to the mix that I'm not a fan of are things like the plinky percussion-ish guitars (and actual plinky percussion), the overuse of woodwinds (oboes, etc.) that make the beginning of something like "Strange World" sound like a the background music to a TV documentary or something. But it all seems to be toned-down these days compared to the late 90s. How much of that is due to a less prominent role for Thomas and how much of that is due to Thomas himself changing his production style is of course up for debate.

We have heard reports that at least some sessions for the new album were done without Thomas in attendance at all.

[Shady]

I've had Al's voice stuck in my head all day, damn you Al.

[HeyJude]

Just purchased the download and listened to the track several times with headphones. Good, solid stuff. Upon repeated listening, it's pretty simple and I think the instrumental interludes kind of drag the song a bit.

The instrumental track on the choruses is indeed essentially "Lay Down Burden."

Setting aside any testimony we've heard, just using my own ears, I couldn't tell if autotune-type effects are in use here. If I can't tell, then it's certainly not heinous enough to complain about. I do think Al's voice (which is doubled) is way over-processed. His voice is recorded/mixed much better on his own solo album.

But I have to reiterate that I really dig that Brian have Al the *entire* lead. Al's voice continues to amaze. Someone needs to get him to buckle down and record more solo stuff, and/or get Brian to write him an album or something.

[bgas]

But I have to reiterate that I really dig that Brian have Al the *entire* lead. Al's voice continues to amaze. Someone needs to get him to buckle down and record more solo stuff, and/or get Brian to write him an album or something.

The Al Jardine Folk album, produced by Brian Wilson

[MarcellaHasDirtyFeet]

Cool song, but I liked it better when it was called Lay Down Burden. That middle 8 is a bit repetitious, too.

DONT WORRY, RON. IM ALLOWED TO DISAGREE WITH YOU AND VICE VERSA.

[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.

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.  

Do most people hear compressors in use on recordings? Limiters? Aural Exciters or Sonic Maximizers depending on the brand? How about EQ, can most people tell that a track was sent through an expensive Pultec versus a 80 dollar Behringer? How about Eventides, they were even more of a rage at some points in the 80's than the gated snare sounds, can anyone spot them on a record?

When you listen to broadcast radio, can you tell what kind of compressor is on the host's voice?

Perhaps only if and when those devices and "effects" are deliberately overused to the point where they are noticeable, because above all these effects were designed primarily to be transparent. Which is how Autotune was designed too, and how I join Century Deprived in preferring it be used transparently to the point of not noticing it at all when I did use it. It was when various artists and engineers/producers found out that by deliberately over-working or over-using these tools, sometimes unique new sounds could be found as a result. Thus, we got Cher's "Believe" becoming a massive dance hit with deliberate overuse of Autotune for a sonic hook, followed by legions of artists like Kanye and T-Pain who literally made a career out of it. And we also got untold thousands of classic "heavy" drum sounds that came as a result of someone simply pushing in all the buttons of an 1176 FET compressor at the same time...which it was not meant to do, but which it did as a result of someone asking "what would happen if I did this?", and it became a trademark sound. If you know enough about what it sounds like to pick it out.

I doubt you could ask 100 people on the street what an 1176 did and find more than one or two who could answer, if that. Yet they've likely heard that "all in" sound many times, without realizing it was really messing with the natural sound of drums, for example.

Sound familiar? For all those who know Autotune via T-Pain and Kanye, would they be able to spot it on a recording that applied it transparently, as it was designed to do? Doubtful. Those people might just enjoy the music, or at least base it on a more visceral level than assuming the worst through assuming it's been "autotuned".

Adamghost: Remember some time in the 90's when a criticism you'd hear was how a record had been "ProToolsed" to death? I remember hearing that about a Lenny Kravitz song. Are people still using that as a verb, "protoolsed" in 2015? Hmm.  

Again, I still can't see the place for an Autotune discussion on how it was used or wasn't used previously as being in any way relevant to a thread about a world premiere airing of a brand new single, that doesn't seem to have copious amounts of Autotune or anything remotely close to that.

So with that, I'll say enjoy the music, and check out the preview tracks to see what copious amounts of sonic goodness they contain as of 2015, and leave whatever was done or Autotuned or whatever else back in 2012, in the past.

It has no bearing on the new album or anyone's enjoyment of it. There, I said it.

[adamghost]

<<It has no bearing on the new album or anyone's enjoyment of it. There, I said it.>>

Well, that's nonsense.  Obviously if people are talking about it, it bugs them (though I have to repeat, it didn't bother me much on this track, I'm just speaking in general).  Anything that takes you out of the moment messes with your experience.  I think the CGI analogy is a good one -- some people can't get enough of fake dinosaurs and backdrops that look sorta real, but others are visually fatigued with the effect and it takes them out of the film.  It's great if some people don't mind these effects, but others do, and they DO hear it, OK?  Of course no one gives a rat's toss what an 1176 is, but non-musicians are the best critics of a mix as they express things in non-technical terms:  "it lacks life," "it sounds muddy," "it sounds distant," "it sounds too gritty," etc.  These might be shorthand for an overly processed mix, a mix with too much midrange, a mix with too much reverb, or an overly compressed mix.  The fact that a listener can't articulate in technical terms what's bugging them in no way means that the misuse of technology doesn't bug them.  That's a totally bogus argument that I really have to take issue with.

Not to put words in your mouth but I think the idea you are trying to get at is if people enjoy it, and don't notice the artifacts, then who cares.  That's totally valid.  But to imply that people are just on a pedantic tangent about this stuff and it has no real world applications for the average listener just because they can't delineate what preamp is being used, that's not valid.  I know this stuff bugs me not just as an engineer, but as a listener (but then, it has since about 1983 or so, so I don't expect BW or anyone else to make records to please me personally, either -- which is another valid point...who is the target demographic?  You can't please all.  It's BW's right to do whatever he pleases, just as we can talk about whatever we want to talk about, respectfully, if that's OK.).

Do people hear the difference between different limiters, compressors, etc.?  Of course they do.  The fact that they don't know what they're hearing, or what it's called, doesn't mean they can't tell the difference.  Everybody's experience of music is subjective.  To turn this around, as it should be:  just because this kind of thing does not bother a great deal of people, does not invalidate the listening experience of those it does bother.  It's not all in everybody's heads and it's not random audiophile snobbery.

For people who think this in no way matters to them, that's totally valid.  For people who hear this stuff and it bugs them, it's valid too - and yes, to paraphrase your point, maybe people say "autotune" when they mean "overly processed mix" but it doesn't mean they're not hearing something real.  Everybody has a right to hear music their own way.

[guitarfool2002]

<<It has no bearing on the new album or anyone's enjoyment of it. There, I said it.>>

Well, that's nonsense.  Obviously if people are talking about it, it bugs them (though I have to repeat, it didn't bother me much on this track, I'm just speaking in general).  Anything that takes you out of the moment messes with your experience.  I think the CGI analogy is a good one -- some people can't get enough of fake dinosaurs and backdrops that look sorta real, but others are visually fatigued with the effect and it takes them out of the film.  It's great if some people don't mind these effects, but others do, and they DO hear it, OK?  Of course no one gives a rat's toss what an 1176 is, but non-musicians are the best critics of a mix as they express things in non-technical terms:  "it lacks life," "it sounds muddy," "it sounds distant," "it sounds too gritty," etc.  These might be shorthand for an overly processed mix, a mix with too much midrange, a mix with too much reverb, or an overly compressed mix.  The fact that a listener can't articulate in technical terms what's bugging them in no way means that the misuse of technology doesn't bug them.  That's a totally bogus argument that I really have to take issue with.

Not to put words in your mouth but I think the idea you are trying to get at is if people enjoy it, and don't notice the artifacts, then who cares.  That's totally valid.  But to imply that people are just on a pedantic tangent about this stuff and it has no real world applications for the average listener just because they can't delineate what preamp is being used, that's not valid.  I know this stuff bugs me not just as an engineer, but as a listener (but then, it has since about 1983 or so, so I don't expect BW or anyone else to make records to please me personally, either -- which is another valid point...who is the target demographic?  You can't please all).

Do people hear the difference between different limiters, compressors, etc.?  Of course they do.  The fact that they don't know what they're hearing, or what it's called, doesn't mean they can't tell the difference.  Everybody's experience of music is subjective.  To turn this around, as it should be:  just because this kind of thing does not bother a great deal of people, does not invalidate the listening experience of those it does bother.  It's not all in everybody's heads and it's not random audiophile snobbery.

For people who think this in no way matters to them, that's totally valid.  For people who hear this stuff and it bugs them, it's valid too.  Everybody has a right to hear music their own way.

So it wouldn't bug you if a listener of your music were to form a negative opinion of one of your tracks based on their perception of hearing an effect - let's say Autotune - which you didn't even use on the track?

Forming an opinion is fine, but if the opinion is based squarely on something that isn't even a factor and beyond that, isn't even on the thing for which the opinion is being formed, isn't that just a little bit of bullshit being thrown around?

Let's be honest here, shall we?

[adamghost]

<<It has no bearing on the new album or anyone's enjoyment of it. There, I said it.>>

Well, that's nonsense.  Obviously if people are talking about it, it bugs them (though I have to repeat, it didn't bother me much on this track, I'm just speaking in general).  Anything that takes you out of the moment messes with your experience.  I think the CGI analogy is a good one -- some people can't get enough of fake dinosaurs and backdrops that look sorta real, but others are visually fatigued with the effect and it takes them out of the film.  It's great if some people don't mind these effects, but others do, and they DO hear it, OK?  Of course no one gives a rat's toss what an 1176 is, but non-musicians are the best critics of a mix as they express things in non-technical terms:  "it lacks life," "it sounds muddy," "it sounds distant," "it sounds too gritty," etc.  These might be shorthand for an overly processed mix, a mix with too much midrange, a mix with too much reverb, or an overly compressed mix.  The fact that a listener can't articulate in technical terms what's bugging them in no way means that the misuse of technology doesn't bug them.  That's a totally bogus argument that I really have to take issue with.

Not to put words in your mouth but I think the idea you are trying to get at is if people enjoy it, and don't notice the artifacts, then who cares.  That's totally valid.  But to imply that people are just on a pedantic tangent about this stuff and it has no real world applications for the average listener just because they can't delineate what preamp is being used, that's not valid.  I know this stuff bugs me not just as an engineer, but as a listener (but then, it has since about 1983 or so, so I don't expect BW or anyone else to make records to please me personally, either -- which is another valid point...who is the target demographic?  You can't please all).

Do people hear the difference between different limiters, compressors, etc.?  Of course they do.  The fact that they don't know what they're hearing, or what it's called, doesn't mean they can't tell the difference.  Everybody's experience of music is subjective.  To turn this around, as it should be:  just because this kind of thing does not bother a great deal of people, does not invalidate the listening experience of those it does bother.  It's not all in everybody's heads and it's not random audiophile snobbery.

For people who think this in no way matters to them, that's totally valid.  For people who hear this stuff and it bugs them, it's valid too.  Everybody has a right to hear music their own way.

So it wouldn't bug you if a listener of your music were to form a negative opinion of one of your tracks based on their perception of hearing an effect - let's say Autotune - which you didn't even use on the track?

Forming an opinion is fine, but if the opinion is based squarely on something that isn't even a factor and beyond that, isn't even on the thing for which the opinion is being formed, isn't that just a little bit of bullshit being thrown around?

Let's be honest here, shall we?

That's exactly my point, GF.  It wouldn't - or shouldn't matter if the perception is right or wrong because most of the time the listener is really hearing something.  The fact that they can't name what it is or might say it's X when it's Y doesn't mean something isn't really bugging them.  I don't particularly want to critique this mix, because I don't think it's that bad, but I do think I understand what people are hearing even if it isn't specifically pitch correction.  And that's part of a good producer/artist/manager's bailiwick is to be able to interpret that stuff and correct it moving forward.  Case in point:  JT probably internalized peoples' criticism of TWGMTR and now we have a superior product this time 'round, at least for this one song.  It's not disrespect and it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.  It can be extremely valuable to the artist if it's taken with the proper grain of salt and self-respect.

So yeah, if someone said I autotuned something and I didn't (and I don't use it), I'd have to ask myself what then what are these folks hearing?  If you start getting into the weeds and analyzing these reactions and figuring out what they mean, you benefit a lot from that.  "Misinformed" opinions are often the best ones of all, because they're coming from a non-technical perspective, and those are usually the people you are trying to reach (we musicians are impossible to please as you well know).  Ignore that at your peril.

[adamghost]

Anyhow, it's a nice track.  I didn't bring up the autotune thing per se, so if the idea is that it's verboten to discuss it tangentially in this new single thread, then I'm sorry I contributed to that.  Whatever BW wants to do is cool by me.

[guitarfool2002]

<<It has no bearing on the new album or anyone's enjoyment of it. There, I said it.>>

Well, that's nonsense.  Obviously if people are talking about it, it bugs them (though I have to repeat, it didn't bother me much on this track, I'm just speaking in general).  Anything that takes you out of the moment messes with your experience.  I think the CGI analogy is a good one -- some people can't get enough of fake dinosaurs and backdrops that look sorta real, but others are visually fatigued with the effect and it takes them out of the film.  It's great if some people don't mind these effects, but others do, and they DO hear it, OK?  Of course no one gives a rat's toss what an 1176 is, but non-musicians are the best critics of a mix as they express things in non-technical terms:  "it lacks life," "it sounds muddy," "it sounds distant," "it sounds too gritty," etc.  These might be shorthand for an overly processed mix, a mix with too much midrange, a mix with too much reverb, or an overly compressed mix.  The fact that a listener can't articulate in technical terms what's bugging them in no way means that the misuse of technology doesn't bug them.  That's a totally bogus argument that I really have to take issue with.

Not to put words in your mouth but I think the idea you are trying to get at is if people enjoy it, and don't notice the artifacts, then who cares.  That's totally valid.  But to imply that people are just on a pedantic tangent about this stuff and it has no real world applications for the average listener just because they can't delineate what preamp is being used, that's not valid.  I know this stuff bugs me not just as an engineer, but as a listener (but then, it has since about 1983 or so, so I don't expect BW or anyone else to make records to please me personally, either -- which is another valid point...who is the target demographic?  You can't please all).

Do people hear the difference between different limiters, compressors, etc.?  Of course they do.  The fact that they don't know what they're hearing, or what it's called, doesn't mean they can't tell the difference.  Everybody's experience of music is subjective.  To turn this around, as it should be:  just because this kind of thing does not bother a great deal of people, does not invalidate the listening experience of those it does bother.  It's not all in everybody's heads and it's not random audiophile snobbery.

For people who think this in no way matters to them, that's totally valid.  For people who hear this stuff and it bugs them, it's valid too.  Everybody has a right to hear music their own way.

So it wouldn't bug you if a listener of your music were to form a negative opinion of one of your tracks based on their perception of hearing an effect - let's say Autotune - which you didn't even use on the track?

Forming an opinion is fine, but if the opinion is based squarely on something that isn't even a factor and beyond that, isn't even on the thing for which the opinion is being formed, isn't that just a little bit of bullshit being thrown around?

Let's be honest here, shall we?

That's exactly my point, GF.  It wouldn't - or shouldn't matter if the perception is right or wrong because most of the time the listener is really hearing something.  The fact that they can't name what it is or might say it's X when it's Y doesn't mean something isn't really bugging them.  I don't particularly want to critique this mix, because I don't think it's that bad, but I do think I understand what people are hearing even if it isn't specifically pitch correction.  And that's part of a good producer/artist/manager's bailiwick is to be able to interpret that stuff and correct it moving forward.  Case in point:  JT probably internalized peoples' criticism of TWGMTR and now we have a superior product this time 'round, at least for this one song.

So yeah, if someone said I autotuned something and I didn't (and I don't use it), I'd have to ask myself what then what are these folks hearing?  If you start getting into the weeds and analyzing these reactions and figuring out what they mean, you benefit a lot from that.  "Misinformed" opinions are often the best ones of all, because they're coming from a non-technical perspective, and those are usually the people you are trying to reach (we musicians are impossible to please as you well know).  Ignore that at your peril.

Nothing to ignore. I'll restate what I said in a slightly different way, and remember too (a point which I think has been lost, sadly) that there have been specific mentions of Autotune in relation to both this one song and the new Brian Wilson album in general, since word of it started to break last summer.

First, no matter what was done or heard on albums cut in 2012, it has no bearing at all on what will be done on an upcoming album. If that's not common sense, slap-the-forehead common sense considering only 10 seconds of a cel phone clip were heard when some of the "Autotune" nonsense started to appear, I don't know what is.

Let's say you were to record and produce a song for me. Vocals, vocal harmony stacks, and a simple acoustic guitar. We - and whoever else happened to be in on the process - know precisely what was done on that track, and who did it. We can hear it having spent countless hours mixing and fixing it, and recall the vocal drop-in where I had a coughing fit just before singing the phrase. With me so far?

Now, we release it and start reading the feedback. Someone says they don't like the use of Autotune, they wish it had been a more natural sound on vocals. Another says they wish all the backing vocal harmonies were organic, the Eventide made it sound too digital and too processed.

What would or should our reactions be? At that point, sure they may be hearing something, but when they specifically name an effect like Autotune or Eventide, should we as the people who know what went into every second of that track just take it in stride, or as constructive criticism? The "opinion" is totally invalid if that listener insists they're hearing something that simply, basically, is not anywhere to be found.

I'd say "there is no Autotune on those vocals", the listener says "but I hear it on there!". How much do you or I as the ones who did the work and know 100% truthfully what was and wasn't done to the track need to accept when the whole premise of that perception is false from the start?

Do we say "well, what do you hear? Because it's not Autotune and it was not pitch corrected." And have that listener again swear that they can hear Autotune or other pitch correction that exists only in their mind?

Again, I have to assume an honest response would include some level of frustration if not anger if someone is telling you something that you know is false but insisting it's true.

Are you seriously suggesting that shouldn't be called out for the bullshit that it is? If people directly involved in making that track say exactly how it was done, how and why should we accept an opinion or even welcome it if someone's perception completely ignores the reality of what actually happened?

[adamghost]

It's not bullshit.  I read your whole premise.  Again, I restate:  if I recorded a song just as you say, and if more than one or two people complain about the autotune, then something is probably wrong.  It may not be autotune, but for me to say "but I didn't autotune it!" is actually a cop out.  I'm not really listening to what the listener is saying, which is "something here is bugging me."  Mind you, that's exactly what most musicians would do, but I've been at this for 20 years and quite a few albums, and I've had a lot of criticism I thought was unfair.  Later I realized it was very useful criticism, but the listener lacked the technical skills to articulate it.

I'm really fatigued to be getting into it on this thread because I like the tune, OK?  And I've gone out of my way to say nice things about it personally and I don't want someone to go "Adam doesn't like the new Brian single."  But as a practical matter, I actually take issue with your entire premise.  I understand why you think it makes sense.  It seems easy:  "well if there's no autotune on it" -- which we actually don't know -- "then these people are full of sh*t."  Well no they're not.  Those people are using the word "autotune" as an avatar for something else; possibly an overly sterile or processed sound.  By your own admission, nobody but musicians really can articulate the technical aspects of it.  Where your argument fails is your implication that because of that, their perception of the music is invalid.  It just simply isn't.  It's not "bullshit" because something is bugging them and they don't have the vocabulary to say what it is.  A smart producer or artist has an ear cocked to this very thing -- it doesn't mean they're going to slavishly follow what any one idiot has to say, but if a lot of people have some vague dissatisfaction with the product, it's worth it to know what it is, even if the customer can't articulate it properly.  Music isn't any different than any other business in that respect. 

So, you can keep up the incredulity for as many posts as you like, but I will keep saying yes, if multiple people registered an incorrect criticism of one of my tunes, it would still be valid.  They don't like it for some reason.  An artist does not need to, and should not, please everybody, but it's to my benefit to get at what's really bugging them.  Then I can say, "well who cares?" or "well, I like it, screw you" or "oh, now I see.  Yeah, I did squeeze the compressor too much, better fix that in the final mix."  Just going "it's not autotune, haha" misses the point.  The average listener, as you yourself pointed out, does not have the vocabulary to technically express what bothers them.  But if you think that that uninformed opinion is "bullshit" because of that, it's probably not going to bode well for fine tuning your recordings to reach a bigger audience.  Just sayin'.

But it's a cool tune and I myself don't mind the mix.  Think I'm gonna keep saying that.  Especially since I think you were saying earlier this discussion has no place on this thread.

[guitarfool2002]

If you expected me not to reply and discuss directly after it was aimed at me, especially where my intent and premise was described other than what it actually was, you were mistaken. I'll have a conversation, I'll get heated in the conversation and expect heat back, but I won't be patronized or talked down to by anyone. I've been "at this" for 20+ years too and now make a full time living with music which I'm thankful for and feel very blessed to do on a daily if not hourly basis, but I don't feel it necessary to throw that in someone's face to score points in a discussion.

If there's more to this personally that I should know, drop me a line off the board, the door is always open and the coffee is always brewin'.

This was about the new single, yeah it got sidetracked but I guess that's the way things go sometimes. I make no attempts to hide some frustrations any time "Autotune" is brought up as a negative in a discussion regarding a new Brian Wilson song, whether it is or is not relevant or even factual. It's been happening since the new album was announced. Call it my hangup and call it over and out.

[adamghost]

If you expected me not to reply and discuss directly after it was aimed at me, especially where my intent and premise was described other than what it actually was, you were mistaken. I'll have a conversation, I'll get heated in the conversation and expect heat back, but I won't be patronized or talked down to by anyone. I've been "at this" for 20+ years too and now make a full time living with music which I'm thankful for and feel very blessed to do on a daily if not hourly basis, but I don't feel it necessary to throw that in someone's face to score points in a discussion.

If there's more to this personally that I should know, drop me a line off the board, the door is always open and the coffee is always brewin'.

This was about the new single, yeah it got sidetracked but I guess that's the way things go sometimes. I make no attempts to hide some frustrations any time "Autotune" is brought up as a negative in a discussion regarding a new Brian Wilson song, whether it is or is not relevant or even factual. It's been happening since the new album was announced. Call it my hangup and call it over and out.

The "more to this personally" thing got that "squirrely baffled look" face from me.  Not sure what the avatar for that would be but, nothing of the kind.  I'm seriously saying that if this is your take on peoples' criticism, and this is your living, you really oughta rethink how you process criticism.  That is not patronization.  That is advice, and the fact that you've been doing it as long as you have means that this is something that (from my perspective) it would have benefited you to internalize by now.  I wasn't "scoring points" so much as I was pointing out that, you kept throwing a hypothetical at me as if it was going to prove something or it was a phenomenon I'd never encountered.  If I hadn't backed it up with saying, "yes, I have actually done this and experienced this and your hypothetical doesn't change anything" it wouldn't be worth much, would it?

Yes, I know a lot of musicians get bent out of shape about stuff like this, but you actually made the best argument yourself:  people aren't very well informed, and no one cares.  But that doesn't mean their criticism is invalid, because those are the customers. It means our picayune excuses that "we didn't use any autotune" are invalid (it also means most people don't care either way).  If multiple peoples' perception is that it's there, then we helped create that somehow.  They're not musicians.  They don't know what they're hearing, they just know they don't like it and something sounds weird to them.  It's up to us to figure out what's bugging them and whether it need concern us or not.  We don't have to, but it's no skin off the audiences' back if we don't.  Only ours.

I think I'm saying the same things over and over again but if your feelings were hurt, I'm sorry.  Regardless of your experience -- and I know that there are a lot of experienced musicians who think the same as you do, so it doesn't in anyway invalidate that -- I think your premise is flat wrong.  It does not mean I think you're a moron or in someway a lesser being.  But I think it's something you probably would benefit from hearing.  If you think that's patronization, well -- kinda gets back to the same point I've been making: you can stand on your laurels, or you can listen and consider that even if something isn't said the way you might want it to be said, there might be a grain of truth there to benefit from.

/peaceout

[adamghost]

p.s. And I like the new song.

[Mendota Heights]

In Sail Away we might hear more of rowboat-Al.