Many Negative Reviews of No Pier Pressure...

[HeyJude]

Those that are trying to stave off the small handful of truly troll-ish anti-Brian folks here (I still maintain the actual pro-Mike or pro-Brian folks who are actually trolling are very few in number) are doing the “cause” no favors by continuing to contort the clearly sketchy available information to try to contend NO auto-tune was even possibly used on NPP. A tiny bit of budging would go a long way towards credibility and away from the appearance of being overly defensive of Brian and his work.

There is largely subjective information, mostly aural in nature, to support the possibility of autotune. In addition, we apparently have one Brian quote where he says autotune *can* be used. While this doesn’t prove it *was* used, to suggest that Brian mentioning this little factoid in relation to how he works does not strongly suggest he probably used it at some point is pretty silly, especially when the resulting aural evidence also, in some cases, suggests its use.

“Brian corrects you and has you do numerous takes if you sing flat” is not evidence that, any number of days or weeks or months later, someone (whether Brian or another engineer) didn’t use a software plug-in that corrects/levels out pitch.

I doubt Al came in and took five minutes to record his lead vocal on “From There to Back Again” and then took off to ride horses in Big Sur. He probably took time to get it as good as he could. With Brian producing, it probably sounded excellent. But then at some point after that somebody made the decision to slather on beaucoup de some-sort-of-autotune type effect.

None of the “on site” reports about Brian recording disallow for the potential use of autotune. That Musgraves or Deschanel or Brian himself did a million takes of a vocal has nothing to do with whether autotune might have been used. Autotune doesn’t fix a vocal if you forget the words, or start a beat too late, or if you burp in the middle of the take. I have no problem believing Brian uses a very perfectionist ethos in the studio while producing vocals, and then *also* in some cases runs select material through various auto-tune type software plug-ins. Again, autotune is much more a stylistic choice these days than strictly (or at all) a tool to “fix” mediocre singers. It can also be subtle or in-your-face. Most of my frustration with any use of autotune comes from people using it when they don’t need it.

But, again with a few exceptions (the trolls), the suggestion of Brian using autotune on select tracks isn’t some sort of loaded accusation that Brian can’t sing, or can’t produce, or is selling out, or is being lazy, or whatever else I suspect some defensive folks are feeling. I can’t say what’s in every fan’s mind of course. But I can tell you that I’m probably not the only certified BB nerd/fan/nut who digs NPP and Brian’s work, but has no problem calling something when it seems possible. I’m fine admitting I don’t know for sure autotune was used. I’m more skeptical of elaborate parsing of terminology to somehow nearly “prove” it wasn’t used. It’s not terribly dissimilar, ironically enough, from the elaborate parsing done to try to take one of the a**hat Mike Love interviews where he makes some d**k comments about C50 or the Wilson brothers and try to stretch his words into something completely innocuous.

Brian probably has used autotune. Not always, maybe not even that often, and he’s talented and amazingly prolific either way.

Mike is a d**k in interviews sometimes. More often than not it seems, especially lately. He’s also talented and deserves a lot of credit, and I have no doubt he’s capable of not being a d**k in interviews.

This isn’t fence walking. This is, in my opinion, a realistic view of these guys. It doesn’t preclude enjoying their work and admiring their talent. It isn’t an exercise in “say one good thing and one negative thing about each member.” It’s just how I see it anyway. I tend to be skeptical of those who are unflinchingly negative or positive about these guys.

[Nicko1234]

A couple of further points:

Typing in `Brian Wilson No Pier Pressure autotune` on google brings up dozens of hits where it is mentioned in reviews. None of the hits that come up in the first 2 pages are from this board.

Also, I missed this but in one hit it shows that in Andrew Hickey`s review he also comments, ` the autotune is a bit ham-handedly applied here` when discussing The Right Tiime and gives a specific example (`never`).

Now if this board has got to the stage where posters are not allowed to make the same comments that professional reviewers and even people who have written several books about Brian do then there is something badly wrong.

Plus, in a thread where a person is claiming to feel insulted due to their nationality, new members are being forced into apologies simply due to giving an opinion and blatant lies are being posted in antagonistically personal posts then the moderators should have much more pressing concerns than over whether one simple word is being wrongly used.

[ForHerCryingSoul]

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...?

I'll say my legitimate criticism again: I heard a weird vocal artifact I found distracting on This Beautiful Day at about 1:00 into it.  Does anyone agree that something sounds off with the "oh's"?

[Micha]

Plus, in a thread where a person is claiming to feel insulted due to their nationality

Actually I wasn't insulted as I'm not British, but the poster was using some people's nationality to insult them. IMHO.

But in the aspect of treating each other in a civil way, this board is going down fast. It's no fun anymore. This "you don't share my opinion, you have an agenda" and "you're being paid by evil Mike Love" stuff makes me want to quit the board for good. Which would be sad because you got the best information here. What are the mods going to do about it? If I observed it right, a poster was banned for posting an insulting cheerleader picture in a personal attack - rightfully banned IMHO, that should be applied more often in order to cool the board down a bit, there's more cases like that right in this thread.

[matt-zeus]

I only post on this board once in a blue moon, but it's worth posting on here to say that this thread is fucking nuts!

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I'm closing this for the time being. There are many inappropriate things posted here and need time to address each one individually. Will reopen at a later time, or make a catchall review thread.

[guitarfool2002]

Officially: I'm issuing another time out ban as was done a few pages ago for what happened as the discussion heated up on page 14. There may be more coming, as Billy said it needs to be sorted out and discussed. For now, it went too far and this is the response and reaction.

As far as comments directed toward the moderators and what we should or should not be doing...in a few cases which I'll respectfully not call out by name, if you live in a glass house, don't throw stones.

Thread open again. I cannot believe some of this stuff.

Where a discussion involves me as someone discussing the topic, I'll post as myself and respond/reply.

[Andrew G. Doe]

You might want to reconsider re-opening this thread: I'm betting (and that is my trade, after all) that you'll be re-closing it again in short order.

Isn't "re-" a useful prefix ? 

[Autotune]

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.

Who's biased? Brian Wilson himself claims to have used pitch correction, and -without knowing- you say it was not used for voices. Perhaps you should ask those who were present. Out of the last 30 years or so of Brian's career as a live singer it's possible to pick only a handful of professional sounding leads, if at all. I'm the first guy to submit that he's a far superior studio singer than he is on the stage, but c'mon. I'm also willing to accept no problem that he worked phrase by phrase, endless takes of them.

I'm quitting this discussion anyway. I like the darn NPP and it's just become about proving others wrong. For the record, there's some shitty editing on older songs that he recorded phrase by phrase. Perhaps we should blame Britz for splicing the tape before the group actually breathes on And Your Dream
Comes True.

[guitarfool2002]

Where does he say he used pitch correction, and where did he specify what he used it on if he did use it? Just show us the quote your referencing regarding NPP. If it's the one posted earlier, that's already been addressed.

Don't quite understand how tape splicing and Chuck Britz come into this, unless there were groups of people in 1965 claiming an audible tape splice on a particular phrase ruined the whole album for them, or defined what they didn't like about said album (or song) based on a sloppy tape edit. Maybe fans saw the bigger picture "back then" and chose to enjoy the experience rather than nit-picking or trying to find some malady in a split second clip of a note or breath to judge an album.

Maybe it's part of living in 2015 that things have gotten so ridiculous to the point "autotune" has been used as a specific loaded word and critique against artists like Brian Wilson, and so-called fans of Brian Wilson search for traces of autotune or pitch correction with the equivalent of a sonic electron microscope searching every vocal note or phrase in order to find something to critique instead of enjoying the listening experience itself. And if it's just not your cup of tea, that's fine, good on 'ya. Trying to find autotune traces instead of getting into the big picture is, to me, pathetic, but perhaps indicative of music and fan behavior in 2015 as much as anything.

[Cam Mott]

I'm getting the impression that both sides of this issue see pitch correction as a bad thing which brings the artist who uses it down a peg or two. Is it just me?

[guitarfool2002]

I'm getting the impression that both sides of this issue see pitch correction as a bad thing which brings the artist who uses it down a peg or two. Is it just me?

To HeyJude  Cam Mott:

"I haven't heard the song yet, I am sure with Al's voice and hopefully no autotune, the song will be great."

[onkster]

Y'know, we should all probably think way, way back to when this board was still a monthly, mimeographed fanzine sent by mail back in 1968--remember when we kept having those discussion then about overdubbing/flanging/punching-in, and how that wasn't "honest" and "why couldn't they just SING it in the studio"?

I'm digging through my box of BB stuff in the attic. Can't find the ol' SS issues yet. But I will keep digging. And eventually, scanning, and posting.

You'll see.








 

[Cam Mott]

I'm getting the impression that both sides of this issue see pitch correction as a bad thing which brings the artist who uses it down a peg or two. Is it just me?

To HeyJude  Cam Mott:

"I haven't heard the song yet, I am sure with Al's voice and hopefully no autotune, the song will be great."

I don't understand.

[Dave Modny]

Here's my own take on things. Not necessarily any sort of absolute truth but just one more perspective.

Do I think that there's some digital pitch correction on the new album? Yes. While my personal experience with the Antares plug-in was only fleeting, I think I have a pretty good grasp of what the "artificial steps quality" of that tuning process sounds like, even in light stages. Perhaps ironically, I hear it most on the Musgraves (great track IMHO, btw!) and some of the other guest vocals with their respective tracks. I also hear it in occasional spots on both Al and Brian's vocals. I wouldn't be surprised if the individual elements of the backing vocals were treated to it as well in places. Beyond that, there's probably a slew of other effects and plug-ins being used as well. Along with comp'd vocals, punch-ins, layered-lines, multiple takes and all the other stuff that makes record production so fascinating.

That said, I'm not really sure why this should be a shock to anyone...or even a dealbreaker. TunaAuto is pretty much the way-of-life in terms of the tools that contribute to the sheen of modern pop and country records  -- albeit perhaps an un-organic one to some. We also know that Joe Thomas has never shied away from it in the past, and even though Bob Clearmountain gets the chief mixing credit here, there's a whole bunch of other people credited as well (including JT). In this digital, unlimited virtual track recording age, it, along with other effects, could've been applied at any stage......and probably undone just as easily if need be. And while there's things about the overall production of the album that I'm not always overly fond of, I can't really just single that part out.

Also, count me in as someone who probably actually prefers to hear Brian's somewhat pitch-challenged, "modern" voice treated to a *bit* of this (though, in the case of the C50 live album, I think it was not implemented very well there). This isn't simply some new trend, and while the actual tools and technology were different, they've been doing it to his voice for decades. As an example, they dumped his voice into a sampler (Synclavier, Fairlight, etc.) during Orange Crate Art and pitch-corrected it using the pitch wheel.

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/252354-post2.html

IIRC, Mark Linett also mentioned "tuning the odd vocal note here and there" in a Mix interview regarding the Gershwin album (and it's definitely audible on "The Like In I Love You' on some notes/phrases).

So, I'm not sure it should be considered "disparaging" to point this out. It's a tool like anything else, and while I get that some people don't like it, it's nothing really unique these days. Good singers, bad singers....and everything/everyone in between.....even individual instruments occasionally....seem to be fair game.

[Nicko1234]

Here's my own take on things. Not necessarily any sort of absolute truth but just one more perspective.

Do I think that there's some digital pitch correction on the new album? Yes. While my personal experience with the Antares plug-in was only fleeting, I think I have a pretty good grasp of what the "artificial steps quality" of that tuning process sounds like, even in light stages. Perhaps ironically, I hear it most on the Musgraves (great track IMHO, btw!) and some of the other guest vocals with their respective tracks. I also hear it in occasional spots on both Al and Brian's vocals. I wouldn't be surprised if the individual elements of the backing vocals were treated to it as well in places. Beyond that, there's probably a slew of other effects and plug-ins being used as well. Along with comp'd vocals, punch-ins, layered-lines, multiple takes and all the other stuff that makes record production so fascinating.

That said, I'm not really sure why this should be a shock to anyone...or even a dealbreaker. TunaAuto is pretty much the way-of-life in terms of the tools that contribute to the sheen of modern pop and country records  -- albeit perhaps an un-organic one to some. We also know that Joe Thomas has never shied away from it in the past, and even though Bob Clearmountain gets the chief mixing credit here, there's a whole bunch of other people credited as well (including JT). In this digital, unlimited virtual track recording age, it, along with other effects, could've been applied at any stage......and probably undone just as easily if need be. And while there's things about the overall production of the album that I'm not always overly fond of, I can't really just single that part out.

Also, count me in as someone who probably actually prefers to hear Brian's somewhat pitch-challenged, "modern" voice treated to a *bit* of this (though, in the case of the C50 live album, I think it was not implemented very well there). This isn't simply some new trend, and while the actual tools and technology were different, they've been doing it to his voice for decades. As an example, they dumped his voice into a sampler (Synclavier, Fairlight, etc.) during Orange Crate Art and pitch-corrected it using the pitch wheel.

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/252354-post2.html

IIRC, Mark Linett also mentioned "tuning the odd vocal note here and there" in a Mix interview regarding the Gershwin album (and it's definitely audible on "The Like In I Love You' on some notes/phrases).

So, I'm not sure it should be considered "disparaging" to point this out. It's a tool like anything else, and while I get that some people don't like it, it's nothing really unique these days. Good singers, bad singers....and everything/everyone in between.....even individual instruments occasionally....seem to be fair game.

A great post.

[adamghost]

This thread, which started out discussing media reviews on the album, has become sweet insanity...

A couple of points regarding Auto-tune...

People, including moderators, have been discussing its use on Brian`s and The Beach Boys` albums for years. It`s hardly a new thing.

And I posted a link to a review by Andrew Hickey yesterday in which he comments, `Joe Thomas is an “adult contemporary” producer and writer, and so when Brian Wilson collaborates with him, you get something “adult contemporary” — glossy, shiny, with too much processing on the vocals.` If he`d posted that on this board then presumably he would have been dismissed as having an agenda.

Also, any new poster coming to this board should be welcomed and shouldn`t be made to apologize for posting an opinion. If the moderators are going to clamp down on anything then that`s where they should be starting imo.

I think processing is the perfect word. Vocal processing is audible on pretty much every vocal track. The a-word has just been used as a catch-all term to describe this processing.

Indeed.

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.

Not going to open up this can of worms again, but I addressed this question a long time ago -- that people were using the word autotune to identify a more general type of vocal processing they didn't like -- and it seemed to rankle.  But the fact is, if something's bugging people, and they don't get the semantics right the first time, it does not invalidate their opinion.  It just means they didn't express it right - which most non-musicians (e.g. the audience, the people buying the records) are incapable of precisely doing.

So it seems a little disingenuous now that people have been better educated and are more properly labeling the things that they believe are hearing, to call them out for THAT too.  "See?  They don't know what they're talking about!"  Well, by that rubrick, nobody can have an opinion that isn't precisely and clinically stated from the outset.

I know from the past go 'round this isn't going to go over particularly well, and again I haven't heard the album in toto so I'm not making a statement about it per se, but my own, non personal attack-y opinion is that the above post is one of those things that's worded to sound like it's making a sound argument, but doesn't.

No opinion as to Brian's album, other than that I like what I've heard of it, but I personally think people have a right to dig or not dig a piece of work offered to the public, however clearly or not clearly they express those opinions.

[guitarfool2002]

the above post is one of those things that's worded to sound like it's making a sound argument, but doesn't.

Perhaps I should try wording things to sound like they're not making a sound argument?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Not speaking for anyone but myself...

Not going to open up this can of worms again, but I addressed this question a long time ago -- that people were using the word autotune to identify a more general type of vocal processing they didn't like -- and it seemed to rankle.  But the fact is, if something's bugging people, and they don't get the semantics right the first time, it does not invalidate their opinion.  It just means they didn't express it right - which most non-musicians (e.g. the audience, the people buying the records) are incapable of precisely doing.

So it seems a little disingenuous now that people have been better educated and are more properly labeling the things that they believe are hearing, to call them out for THAT too.  "See?  They don't know what they're talking about!"  Well, by that rubrick, nobody can have an opinion that isn't precisely and clinically stated from the outset.

That's why I was so insistent previously about it...it wasnt to be a prick and be like 'oh ho ho I know something you don't' like someone accused me of..I was actually trying to educate, because quite frankly I'm a music geek, and love sharing knowledge! It's one of the reasons why I posted those five clips of me singing, and put autotune on one of them, and challenged people to guess which one was autotuned. I expected more people to guess correctly than did (IIRC, only one person in fact guessed right ), but it did prove a point. That's also why I was frustrated  that a few people were still insistent that it was autotune they were hearing on NPP even after it was pointed out what it actually was (and for a good example of autotune used very poorly, the C50 live album is a sadly perfect example...and another one is Mike's vocals on the Live at Knebworth CD/DVD!)   

What's frustrating to me (and this is on a different trip) is how piss poor autotune actually is used in the industry today, even when it's not being used for effect. I know this is a fad that will pass, but it needs to hurry up and be done with.

[The Shift]

An I reading this right? That "autotune" is being used generically when it's actually a trademarked product, one of several that perform similar functions?

Like "Hoover" has come to be generic for "vacuum cleaner" and "goretex" is used for "waterproof breathable hiking jacket"?

That's the main contention?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Not that, but that it functions different than other pitch correction program. Also, there are other ways to adjust pitch than just those types of programs as well.

[Nicko1234]

Not that, but that it functions different than other pitch correction program. Also, there are other ways to adjust pitch than just those types of programs as well.

Maybe I misread the post but I thought John Manning was referring to the word `autotune` now being used as a generalization (no doubt often wrongly). I`ve no doubt this does happen a lot in reviews.

[Cam Mott]

A guy might not enjoy beefburger even if he calls it a hamburger.

[Autotune]

Where does he say he used pitch correction, and where did he specify what he used it on if he did use it? Just show us the quote your referencing regarding NPP. If it's the one posted earlier, that's already been addressed.

Don't quite understand how tape splicing and Chuck Britz come into this, unless there were groups of people in 1965 claiming an audible tape splice on a particular phrase ruined the whole album for them, or defined what they didn't like about said album (or song) based on a sloppy tape edit. Maybe fans saw the bigger picture "back then" and chose to enjoy the experience rather than nit-picking or trying to find some malady in a split second clip of a note or breath to judge an album.

Maybe it's part of living in 2015 that things have gotten so ridiculous to the point "autotune" has been used as a specific loaded word and critique against artists like Brian Wilson, and so-called fans of Brian Wilson search for traces of autotune or pitch correction with the equivalent of a sonic electron microscope searching every vocal note or phrase in order to find something to critique instead of enjoying the listening experience itself. And if it's just not your cup of tea, that's fine, good on 'ya. Trying to find autotune traces instead of getting into the big picture is, to me, pathetic, but perhaps indicative of music and fan behavior in 2015 as much as anything.

Brian's quote about pitch correction is enough for me. No matter if it's been addressed before. Or does the fact that it's been already addressed necessarily implies that he did not pitch-correct his vocals?

My mention of crappy tape-splicing during a golden era means exactly what you infer. That such shitty editing does not seem to hinder anybody's enjoyment of that music. Why would a modern-day effect or effects or tools the pressence of which isn't even entirely noticeable. You're too busy fighting your battles and playing defense and have lost nuance in the meantime. Step back a little. That was my advice like 7 pages ago, which you promptly dismissed.

Pitch-correcting on BW records has been an issue at least since "The Like in I Love You". At least ever since then, there's been discussions as this every time a new release appears. It also happened during the C50 tour, when robot-like amateur recordings flooded, during TWGMTR album discussions and also when the live 50th album came out. The issue has been bugging some people and it's ok if they voice it.

[The Shift]

So we need to distinguish between the generic "autotune" - used by most to refer to any method of pitch correction - and the specific "Auto-Tune" produced by Antares Audio Technologies.

Can I suggest we do that by using either the generic word "autotune" - no capitals, one word - or the  specific "Auto-Tune" when referring to the actual processor that's marketed under that name? Hopefully that might help avoid confusion.