Many Negative Reviews of No Pier Pressure...

[LostArt]

I agree, let's not move the goalposts. Brian said “We can cut and paste things and go in and pitch correct something with the computer if the note is flat. I wish we had that in the 60s! It was awesome.” 

To be fair, Brian did not say that he used it on the album, only that he can.  Perhaps he was talking about the early demos, where he and others don't have the time to sing a part over and over to get it just right.  Do a take for demo purposes, tune it up to see how it sounds, and then when recording the vocals for the album, get to work on getting it just right without using the pitch correction.  Kacey Musgraves said that Brian would have her do take after take to get it just right.  Why pay for all that studio time to get it just right, when they can simply fix it in the mix?

[Andrew G. Doe]

Look who drives these threads, it's British M&B fanboys like AGD and Nicko1234. They have an agenda and will drag anybody here under the bus who calls them out on it.

"Driving these threads" ?  Not a clue what this means but I'm pretty sure I'm not doing it.

Now, disregarding your infantile notion that anyone who doesn't agree with you must have the legendary AGENDA, my agenda, if such it be, is to correct to the best of my ability errors and misinformation (also flat out lies), not boring the tits off anyone in the process by having more than the one cracked cylinder to play. I happen to actually like this band - all of them - and most of the music they've made since 1961. So do most others posters here.

[LostArt]

Look who drives these threads, it's British M&B fanboys like AGD and Nicko1234. They have an agenda and will drag anybody here under the bus who calls them out on it.

"Driving these threads" ?  Not a clue what this means but I'm pretty sure I'm not doing it.

Now, disregarding your infantile notion that anyone who doesn't agree with you must have the legendary AGENDA, my agenda, if such it be, is to correct to the best of my ability errors and misinformation (also flat out lies), not boring the tits off anyone in the process by having more than the one cracked cylinder to play. I happen to actually like this band - all of them - and most of the music they've made since 1961. So do most others posters here.

Agreed. 

[guitarfool2002]

4. I'll repeat what I've already said. His live vocals have been extremely uneven, rarely flawless, many times sub-standard for decades now. As much as his performance may improve off stage and in the studio, it's highly unlikely that vocals of the high quality we hear in NPP are brought to us without some heavy editing/processing and, yes, pitch correcting. Does this notion hinder my listening experience? No. He's just using the means at his disposal to develop his music in the best possible way.

So you're willing to totally dismiss, discount, if not throw away entirely the word of people who were actually there and directly involved in the recording process who said Brian was very meticulous in how the recording of his vocals were done, with him doing take after take - live - on the vocals, sometimes line by line or phrase by phrase, to ensure they were exactly right? That would include pitch, phrasing, and feel? That's what he had the Beach Boys do in the 60's, and which they described in numerous interviews especially around Pet Sounds where he'd have them track line by line until it was "just right".

You must not see your own bias coming into this or something, where the assumption you're putting forth is that it's highly unlikely Brian could "cut it" vocally to create the kind of sounds we hear on the album because his live vocals have sounded a certain way or have been inconsistent. That's suggesting he wouldn't be able to cut a vocal in the studio to a high standard, therefore "help" would be needed. I say, hogwash.

Live, you get one take and one take only, continuous and uninterrupted start to finish. Studio, you can break it down phrase by phrase and re-do and re-take as often or as many times as you want in order to get it just right. Apples and oranges.

For the record, some live singers don't do well at all in the more controlled studio recording process, and vice versa. It's always been that way. Others come in and get on the mic and nail it first take, like they were in front of a large audience. There is no template, no standard way of how singers work in either setting. That's music 101.

Specific to NPP, ask some of those who were there about how the vocals were tracked and mixed. That's all it comes down to.

[guitarfool2002]

I agree, let's not move the goalposts. Brian said “We can cut and paste things and go in and pitch correct something with the computer if the note is flat. I wish we had that in the 60s! It was awesome.” 

To be fair, Brian did not say that he used it on the album, only that he can.  Perhaps he was talking about the early demos, where he and others don't have the time to sing a part over and over to get it just right.  Do a take for demo purposes, tune it up to see how it sounds, and then when recording the vocals for the album, get to work on getting it just right without using the pitch correction.  Kacey Musgraves said that Brian would have her do take after take to get it just right.  Why pay for all that studio time to get it just right, when they can simply fix it in the mix?

Right, exactly right. And why do take after take to zero in on getting the right pitch and phrasing to the degree that they did if it were going to be autotuned or pitch corrected to the degree some are suggesting? You wouldn't be that critical about getting accurate pitch and phrasing on individual live takes if it all could be fixed in the mix with autotune or pitch correction to the degree that it would be as audible or as much of a distraction as some suggest.

I guess we're the only ones to see the common sense and logic of the process, or something.

In this case, if you're grilling food and it's done cooking to your satisfaction, you don't take a piping hot steak off the grill and put it in the microwave to cook even more before serving it, it would be redundant. or something. 

[SMiLE Brian]

AGD, your agenda is to bully anybody who disagrees with you on any issue and bash  Brian and Melinda Wilson for your buddy Mike Love. Stop playing the neutral historian card, because it's not true at all. You trying to rewrite the end of the C50 and the Wally heider incident for Mike Love proves it.

[Tomorrowville]

This is all so sad. You can't even enjoy the album by the guy

Is it really so "sad" and weird that not every album by any particular artist is universally enjoyed by all of that artist's fans?  The list of musicians that have put out music that doesn't at least have *some* disagreement as to its quality relative to their other albums is pretty short, if not nonexistent.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Once the alleged Heider incident was examined, turned out there was one source for it, i. e. Negron's autobiography. No one else made any such specific claim in over thirty-odd years. TDN experts have said the session dates don't fit. Thus, questionable.

As for trying to rewrite the end of C-50, that's your baby. I'm just reporting what was said in the media at the time.

Bashing Melinda & Brian ? I don't call them talentless jerks, vile scum or similar charming phrases that others have applied to Mike here and elsewhere. I happen to think she's not been the best manager over the years, but I'm not alone in this. Didn't originate the phrase "wifeandmanager". Nor do I attempt to derail any given thread with a juvenile tirade, regardless of the subject. Might be many unsavoury things, but I'm not a troll like you.

[SMiLE Brian]

The heider incident is not questionable for those who truly know in the BBs circle. Plus the whole C50 set end date stuff you you always parrot has an agenda indeed. You said you have spoken with Mike Love in person many times in person since 2011 in another thread. Which means you are the most unsavory thing indeed, an employee for Mike Love

[Cam Mott]

I agree, let's not move the goalposts. Brian said “We can cut and paste things and go in and pitch correct something with the computer if the note is flat. I wish we had that in the 60s! It was awesome.” 

To be fair, Brian did not say that he used it on the album, only that he can.  Perhaps he was talking about the early demos, where he and others don't have the time to sing a part over and over to get it just right.  Do a take for demo purposes, tune it up to see how it sounds, and then when recording the vocals for the album, get to work on getting it just right without using the pitch correction.  Kacey Musgraves said that Brian would have her do take after take to get it just right.  Why pay for all that studio time to get it just right, when they can simply fix it in the mix?

OK, well back to square one then.

We need a clarification or an out right declaration from Brian and or Joe instead of an argument between competing ears. Maybe Ray could ask Brian or the Mods could arrange a Q & A with Joe or maybe Brian will return for another Q & A and we can ask. They will probably wonder why anyone cares but ........

[Micha]

Look who drives these threads, it's British M&B fanboys like AGD and Nicko1234. They have an agenda and will drag anybody here under the bus who calls them out on it.

Your hatred has made you blind for reality - AGD hasn't said a bad thing about NPP yet other than he dislikes one or two female guest artist's vocals. Apart of that, he praises the new album. So accusing him of "driving these threads" is a plain lie.

Pointing out that someone has a specific nationality in a dissing phrase is an insulting generalization too. So you're also a nationalist? Suits the way you act in general.

[Andrew G. Doe]

The heider incident is not questionable for those who truly know in the BBs circle. Plus the whole C50 set end date stuff you you always parrot has an agenda indeed. You said you have spoken with Mike Love in person many times in person since 2011 in another thread. Which means you are the most unsavory thing indeed, an employee for Mike Love

I've also spoken many times in person to Bruce, David and even Brian since 1985. Guess I'm on their payroll too.  

Seriously, you should get some proper help for your rampant delusions. Equally seriously, stop telling lies about me. Mike and/or his management have never paid me for anything whatsoever, any more than Brian has, and I've been arguing his side since 1975. That you have to stoop to such tactics speaks volumes, as does your hiding behind a pseudonym while spewing your bile. Got something to say ? Take the mask off, stand up and say it in clear view. Until then, keep on trolling.

[guitarfool2002]

I agree, let's not move the goalposts. Brian said “We can cut and paste things and go in and pitch correct something with the computer if the note is flat. I wish we had that in the 60s! It was awesome.” 

To be fair, Brian did not say that he used it on the album, only that he can.  Perhaps he was talking about the early demos, where he and others don't have the time to sing a part over and over to get it just right.  Do a take for demo purposes, tune it up to see how it sounds, and then when recording the vocals for the album, get to work on getting it just right without using the pitch correction.  Kacey Musgraves said that Brian would have her do take after take to get it just right.  Why pay for all that studio time to get it just right, when they can simply fix it in the mix?

OK, well back to square one then.

We need a clarification or an out right declaration from Brian and or Joe instead of an argument between competing ears. Maybe Ray could ask Brian or the Mods could arrange a Q & A with Joe or maybe Brian will return for another Q & A and we can ask. They will probably wonder why anyone cares but ........

Cam, in case you missed this on the previous page, I'll repost it:

I agree, let's not move the goalposts. Brian said “We can cut and paste things and go in and pitch correct something with the computer if the note is flat. I wish we had that in the 60s! It was awesome.” 

I'll reply as a tip of the cap to your regular debate/discussion style, Cam.   

Did he say "we can", or "we did" go in and pitch correct something if the note is flat?

Did he say "pitch correct something", or "pitch correct vocals", or "pitch correct instrumental tracks"?


"we can" is not "we did", nor is it specific if it does actually mean 'we did' pitch correct something to what was pitch corrected.

Why assume it was vocals and not a bass note or a guitar line that suffered from spotty intonation higher up on the neck? Hell, I've pitch corrected those things before myself. Guitar, bass, pedal steel, etc.

But we'd rather assume it's vocals being described, because that fits, is that it?

Assuming too, of course,  that being able to do something (i.e. 'we can') is now the same thing as actually doing something (i.e. 'we did')

[The Shift]

The heider incident is not questionable for those who truly know in the BBs circle. Plus the whole C50 set end date stuff you you always parrot has an agenda indeed. You said you have spoken with Mike Love in person many times in person since 2011 in another thread. Which means you are the most unsavory thing indeed, an employee for Mike Love

It's this kinda warped crap that keeps me coming back to this train wreck of a thread for another dose of rubbernecking.

[SMiLE Brian]

The heider incident is not questionable for those who truly know in the BBs circle. Plus the whole C50 set end date stuff you you always parrot has an agenda indeed. You said you have spoken with Mike Love in person many times in person since 2011 in another thread. Which means you are the most unsavory thing indeed, an employee for Mike Love

I've also spoken many times in person to Bruce, David and even Brian since 1985. Guess I'm on their payroll too.  

Seriously, you should get some proper help for your rampant delusions.

So what if you met Bruce and Dave while talking to Landized BW once in 1985, your main employer is Mike Love and source of your "facts" from club Kokomo.

[guitarfool2002]

Once the alleged Heider incident was examined, turned out there was one source for it, i. e. Negron's autobiography. No one else made any such specific claim in over thirty-odd years. TDN experts have said the session dates don't fit. Thus, questionable.

Since it came up, recall there was a specific discussion about this Heider/Redwood incident where it was in fact examined and any claims of the stories being questionable or apocryphal were aired out. I'll find the link to that discussion if necessary. It happened at Heider's, and more than just Negron can and have said who was there and involved. I don't mind hashing out the details, but this has been gone over already with the word of more than one of the direct participants adding to it.

[guitarfool2002]

Once the alleged Heider incident was examined, turned out there was one source for it, i. e. Negron's autobiography. No one else made any such specific claim in over thirty-odd years. TDN experts have said the session dates don't fit. Thus, questionable.

Since it came up, recall there was a specific discussion about this Heider/Redwood incident where it was in fact examined and any claims of the stories being questionable or apocryphal were aired out. I'll find the link to that discussion if necessary. It happened at Heider's, and more than just Negron can and have said who was there and involved. I don't mind hashing out the details, but this has been gone over already with the word of more than one of the direct participants adding to it.

Anyone interested in reading as much about the Redwood incident as you'll likely find anywhere else, citing at least two others besides Negron who were there at Heiders that day, click here on this link, then if interested work a few pages back and a few pages forward of that thread. The exploration of the Redwood/Heider "incident" in full-blown detail:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,18454.msg482585.html#msg482585

[LostArt]

The heider incident is not questionable for those who truly know in the BBs circle. Plus the whole C50 set end date stuff you you always parrot has an agenda indeed. You said you have spoken with Mike Love in person many times in person since 2011 in another thread. Which means you are the most unsavory thing indeed, an employee for Mike Love

I've also spoken many times in person to Bruce, David and even Brian since 1985. Guess I'm on their payroll too.  

Seriously, you should get some proper help for your rampant delusions.

So what if you met Bruce and Dave while talking to Landized BW once in 1985, your main employer is Mike Love and source of your "facts" from club Kokomo.

This is from a disinterested observer, sir, or ma'am, or sonny.  You are not doing your credibility any favors.  You sound as if you are 12 years old.  Please stop this juvenile nonsense. 

[Gerry]

Well said Add Some.

[The Cincinnati Kid]

Here is a garbage review, if there ever was one.  I encourage you to comment on how terrible it was.   

http://www.saukvalley.com/2015/04/13/review-beach-boy-brian-wilson-falls-short-of-low-bar-on-no-pier-pressure-grade-d-plus/a3a8xlc/

[Andrew G. Doe]

... your main employer is Mike Love and source of your "facts" from club Kokomo.

For your information, you sadly deluded fool, my main and only employer is William Hill Ltd., as is common knowledge here for some years. You actually wrote that because I've talked with Mike several times since 2011, that means he's my employer. According to this perverse logic, then I'm also in the employ of Bruce, David, Brian, Thabo MBeki, Bill Bryson, The Honeys and Adam Marsland. But you keep right on digging that hole. It's what you're good at. Really, really good at. It's like watching a toddler pitching a temper fit, screaming and stamping their feet.  Hugely amusing...  

BTW, I've talked with Brian more than once in 1985. You're implying I'm lying when I said many times ?j

Being serious, you're saying that Mike's management is telling me what to say here and paying me to post it. A simple yes or no will suffice.

[joshferrell]

Here is a garbage review, if there ever was one.  I encourage you to comment on how terrible it was.   

http://www.saukvalley.com/2015/04/13/review-beach-boy-brian-wilson-falls-short-of-low-bar-on-no-pier-pressure-grade-d-plus/a3a8xlc/

wow that was a horrible review...he didn't actually talk about the songs he just made a short review that has NO detail...

[Nicko1234]

Oh no, it doesn't work that way. We don't move the goalposts and change the parameters in the middle of the game.

Let's talk specific to this album, for one. The past is the past.

Many have insisted and argued that there is specifically "autotune" or pitch correction heard very audibly all over this album.

Now it's being nuanced into saying it's instead "vocal processing"? Bullshit.

There is a fundamental and sonic difference between the two that has been pointed out and described ad nauseum on this board by people who know the difference having actually used these things firsthand in recording and mixing.

Vocal processing has been on each and every Beach Boys related album since the first one. It's on everything from a radio broadcast to the most slick produced album. That has been made absolutely clear. Nothing recorded and replayed is put out "dry" with no effects, nothing. period.

The word "autotune" has been specifically used and used often in these discussions, along with pitch correction, often as a critique or as a loaded word, and often when it is simply not audible on what it's being used to describe.

Now it's been changed to vocal processing? All those crying "autotune!" that then began saying "pitch correction!" are now being explained away or attempted to be validated by suggesting they didn't know, but really meant to say "vocal processing"?

Horsefeathers. That isn't going to fly.

Let's say someone takes a bite of a hamburger, makes a disgusted face and says "damn, they used way too much mustard on that burger, I told them not to put mustard on it, I can't eat this." You see the burger yourself, notice there is not a drop of mustard but only some ketchup, and say to them "but there is no mustard on that burger at all, it's ketchup." The person looks at the burger, indeed you are right, there is no mustard on that burger.

Would that person then be able to justify it by saying "well, I didn't mean mustard specifically, I meant to say they used too many condiments on this burger" ?

No, friend, you specifically said they used too much mustard. If you don't know the difference between ketchup and mustard, and aside from any medical malady where one cannot taste food at all, you're just wrong.

The specific claims and charges and accusations were that autotune and pitch correction was or would be all over this album, some even said that before even hearing the whole thing.

There are enough explanations and even audio examples on this board alone to define what autotune and pitch correction does, how it works, and what it can sound like in various forms and uses.

If someone specifically says "autotune/pitch correction" (mustard), it doesn't get nuanced and parsed into "vocal processing" (ketchup) to help hammer that square peg of a claim into a round hole so it seems to fit.

Another example. Nice try.

Wow. This Auto-tune nonsense has gone waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too far...

It is mentioned in dozens of reviews of the album in the media and so clearly will have been used as a `catch-all` term by plenty of people. Basically to mean that whatever has been done to the vocals has made them sound worse to the listener (in their opinion).

To compare it to the hamburger analogy. If a person said, `the mustard on this burger makes it taste worse` and it was then shown to have no mustard in it then the obvious response would be, `well whatever relish is on it is making it worse`.

Are many people wrong when they use the word `Auto-tune`? Doubtless they are.

But if all of these critics instead were saying that, `the effect that has been added to the vocals is making them sound worse and spoiling the album` then that doesn`t improve the review of the album one bit and many people would still be complaining just as much.

[MarcellaHasDirtyFeet]

By the way, a few posters did give details about parts where they thought they heard "some kind of vocal processing that some would believe to be auto tuna," and said examples were completely ignored by the No Pier Pressure Police. Sooooooo...?

[Cam Mott]

I agree, let's not move the goalposts. Brian said “We can cut and paste things and go in and pitch correct something with the computer if the note is flat. I wish we had that in the 60s! It was awesome.” 

To be fair, Brian did not say that he used it on the album, only that he can.  Perhaps he was talking about the early demos, where he and others don't have the time to sing a part over and over to get it just right.  Do a take for demo purposes, tune it up to see how it sounds, and then when recording the vocals for the album, get to work on getting it just right without using the pitch correction.  Kacey Musgraves said that Brian would have her do take after take to get it just right.  Why pay for all that studio time to get it just right, when they can simply fix it in the mix?

OK, well back to square one then.

We need a clarification or an out right declaration from Brian and or Joe instead of an argument between competing ears. Maybe Ray could ask Brian or the Mods could arrange a Q & A with Joe or maybe Brian will return for another Q & A and we can ask. They will probably wonder why anyone cares but ........

Cam, in case you missed this on the previous page, I'll repost it:

I agree, let's not move the goalposts. Brian said “We can cut and paste things and go in and pitch correct something with the computer if the note is flat. I wish we had that in the 60s! It was awesome.” 

I'll reply as a tip of the cap to your regular debate/discussion style, Cam.   

Did he say "we can", or "we did" go in and pitch correct something if the note is flat?

Did he say "pitch correct something", or "pitch correct vocals", or "pitch correct instrumental tracks"?


"we can" is not "we did", nor is it specific if it does actually mean 'we did' pitch correct something to what was pitch corrected.

Why assume it was vocals and not a bass note or a guitar line that suffered from spotty intonation higher up on the neck? Hell, I've pitch corrected those things before myself. Guitar, bass, pedal steel, etc.

But we'd rather assume it's vocals being described, because that fits, is that it?

Assuming too, of course,  that being able to do something (i.e. 'we can') is now the same thing as actually doing something (i.e. 'we did')

I didn't see your response but I thought I was agreeing in the other post that it is vague and not definitive and I suggested we need something definitive if people want to know. I'm not assuming anything, as I also said earlier there is a definitive answer one way or another if we can get at it.