Mike Love states touring band in best shape vocally since original group

[guitarfool2002]

Excellent point. The truly positive people I know don't make it a practice to point out the negative.

Agreed. I wonder if the irony is lost among too many on this board after reading all of the autotune bullshit.

[KDS]

Cyncie,

You bring up an interesting point with American Family.

I wonder if there will be a push to get that officially released onto DVD around the time Love and Mercy is due for release.  

I actually enjoyed the first half of American Family, not so much the second half where Brian turned into a cartoon character.  

They would have to pay both the publishers and the owners of the recordings pretty expensive "sync" fees to put a DVD out of that miniseries. Considering that, and the fact that it got pretty lukwarm reviews, was not well received by fans or some of the members of the band, and even Stamos himself seems to know the movie was/is a dud, I doubt we'll see a DVD release.

Good point Hey Jude.  As far as accuracy, I'd rate it up with Oliver Stone's The Doors.  Which the surviving members of the Doors washed their hands of.....after the checks cleared.  

[HeyJude]

It's not like people have to go out of their way to find something to complain about. The one fueling the Mike Love negativity here is Mike Love himself. If Mike or Scott or anyone on this board want the criticism of Mike to stop, they should consider convincing him to be a bit more diplomatic and gracious in his interviews. This thread didn't get started out of the blue just to bash Mike. It's a discussion of Mike's statements in an interview, and yes, he seems to take some backhanded swipes at Brian for no reason.  And, since he's been doing this in quite a few interviews lately, he's going to come under fire.

The backlash from the majority would be the same if Brian or Al went into interview after interview talking about what a law suit happy dirty old man Mike is. They, however, don't spend their interviews trying to build themselves up by tearing Mike down. Mike hasn't learned this lesson. He needs to.

You hit the nail right on the head. I guess for some people, negative attention is better than no attention at all. I'm not sure if that's what fuels Mike, but I agree, you would think he would learn the lesson this is presenting to him, especially since he seems to be a pretty smart guy. I guess we all have things we are blind to.

The thing is, Mike is perfectly fine at being the frontman, and of being the shiny, happy PR guy in interviews. He can masterfully take sometimes even pointed questions and turn it into an advertisement for whatever he has going on now. There was one interview a year or two ago where he was specifically asked about C50, and he immediately just started talking about his current, post-reunion lineup.

Avoiding those questions and/or just doing the happy PR "fun fun fun" thing is not exactly admirable either, but it at least avoids any inflammatory, dick-ish commentary.

So, when Mike *does* shift gears in an interview from PR mode to saying something negative about Brian Wilson, if anything, it carries more weight. If a guy gives interviews and always talks s**t about everybody and anybody, that's one thing. But if a guy who gives the same PR schpiel and reads the same lines off over and over in interviews (<we're gonna have some fun fun fun tonight in "your city name here">) then breaks off and mentions an estranged bandmate can't sing in a certain range anymore, it sticks out even more.

[HeyJude]

Excellent point. The truly positive people I know don't make it a practice to point out the negative.

Agreed. I wonder if the irony is lost among too many on this board after reading all of the autotune bullshit.

I don’t think the little swipe at Brian’s voice in that interview can be equated to fans suggesting Brian’s new album might have autotune on it.

One is indeed pretty much a statement of fact, and also *clearly* a negative swipe. The other is merely speculation, and ironically is not necessarily intended to be wholly negative.

The two scenarios are actually kind of opposite. I actually will buy that at least *some* of the people pointing out autotune on Brian’s music are really just pointing out something objectively as a “statement of fact” (or more a “statement of what they believe to be a fact or strong possibility”). Many who think autotune is on there still like the material. On the other hand, I don’t buy that Mike is just stating an objective fact for the record in that interview, given the context of the comment. It has a clear negative connotation.

As I’ve said before, I’m skeptical of any scenarios where someone is unceasingly positive about a huge, complicated topic. That’s true, for me, whether it’s Mike talking about himself or fans talking about Brian’s new album.

As someone else pointed out, there are tactful ways of not being 100% positive about everything all the time. There are even ways to politely say Brian’s voice isn’t what it used to be. Mike’s words were, I suppose, more blunt than they were hyperbolically scathing or anything. And, as I’ve touched on before, a lot of his comments about Brian (and C50) read more negative because of their context. The more negative something is, and the more *unprompted* those negative comment seem, the more they seem inflammatory. A good example of that would be the infamous David Beard “interview”, which appeared to take the most innocuous question imaginable, with an easy opportunity to make a very quick neutral or positive comment, and turn it into a an uber-defensive diatribe.

[CenturyDeprived]

"Unfortunately, Brian doesn't sing the range he once did"

I don't see what's problematic about this line.  It's a statement of fact.  Brian has a different place, vocally, within the band and in the harmony stack.  He's not criticising Brian's singing in his current range.

It has no place being said in an interview by Mike, in the context of when he said it. Should Brian say, "Unfortunately, Mike has much less hair on his head than I do"? No. It's stating the obvious. It's distasteful to bring it up. I don't think Mike would bring it up if Mike hadn't been denied the mythic "room" he wanted.

[CenturyDeprived]

"Unfortunately, Brian doesn't sing the range he once did"

I don't see what's problematic about this line.  It's a statement of fact.  Brian has a different place, vocally, within the band and in the harmony stack.  He's not criticising Brian's singing in his current range.

There are a lot of things these guys could say about each other in interviews that are statements of fact, but would clearly not be intended as an objective statement of fact with no negative connotation. That goes for anybody. At the family's thanksgiving dinner, you can point out that Aunt Suzy has way more wrinkles and flabby skin compared to 20 years ago. Just because it's a statement of fact doesn't mean it doesn't make you look like a douche for saying it. The context of the comment does matter, both in terms of the band as a whole as well as the context of the comment in the interview itself.

Here's the pertinent part:

"Being able to get into the studio again to record with those guys was really good. Being on tour was I think a neat thing to do, especially for the longtime fans," Love said. "Al Jardine sounds fantastic. Unfortunately, Brian doesn't sing the range he once did."

Mike ironically bounced the negative comment off of a positive one about Al of all people. Guy A sounds good, but Guy B doesn’t. The implication is a negative one. He's allowed to make it, and Brian clearly doesn't sing in the range he once did. Nobody in the band particularly does anymore, accept for perhaps Al in certain scenarios. Brian's voice is nothing like it was in the "olden days." But that has been the case since 1976, and a guy who took perfect care of his voice probably wouldn't be able to hit the "Papa Oom Mow Mow" falsetto part in his mid-70's. In any event, Mike can say all this stuff. But he's going to come out looking like a dick. As most anybody would be if they criticized a fellow bandmate for their shortcomings, especially when the person saying the stuff has plenty of shortcoming themselves, and ESPECIALLY when they're saying it about a bandmate from whom they are professionally estranged.

Mike has in previous interviews mentioned that Brian’s voice isn’t like it was in the olden days. I think he truly laments that. We all do, obviously. But it sometimes seems as if he blames Brian for this completely, as opposed to the ravages of time. As if, even after singing professionally for over half a century, after having worked with numerous vocalists and falsetto singers who have aged, he doesn’t get that a voice in the higher range that does falsettos will, more than his baritone or mid-range voice, give out more noticeably to time itself regardless. News flash, Mike doesn’t sound like he used to either. They have to lower the key on some songs for him too, like “It’s OK” for instance.

I'm pretty sure people might suggest that Brian or Al was being pretty catty if they pointed out, say, that Bruce Johnston has hardly participated in live Beach Boys concerts in decades. That's as much a fact as the current state of Brian's voice.

Or if, say Brian pointed out in the last few years that his touring band has had as many if not more “Beach Boys” than Mike’s own band called “The Beach Boys.” That would be a statement of fact too, but would clearly be loaded with a clear implication and connotation. Or if Brian mentioned that Mike has developed an on-and-off rasp in his voice. That would be a fact too. Never mind that it could be the ravages of time and/or incessant touring year after year without significant breaks.

Also, Mike isn't one of those world-weary, crusty old timer rockstars who give entertaining interviews where they kind of roast and criticize anybody and everybody. That's another reason when he *does* go negative in some way about Brian or someone else in his own band, it comes across more like a pretty specific negative commentary. When you feel you are "Mr. Positivity" and instances where the interviews reflect on yourself you spout the same PR stuff over and over (bringing the music to the fans, sending out fun fun fun and good vibrations, etc.), when you tout how your current band of backing guys is awesome, but then shift gears and point out that Brian Wilson doesn’t sing in the range he once did, then that negative “it’s just a statement of fact” bit is going to come across as exponentially more pointed and loaded.

This, this, this and... THIS.

[guitarfool2002]

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

[CenturyDeprived]

Excellent point. The truly positive people I know don't make it a practice to point out the negative.

Agreed. I wonder if the irony is lost among too many on this board after reading all of the autotune bullshit.

I don’t think the little swipe at Brian’s voice in that interview can be equated to fans suggesting Brian’s new album might have autotune on it.

One is indeed pretty much a statement of fact, and also *clearly* a negative swipe. The other is merely speculation, and ironically is not necessarily intended to be wholly negative.  

I think the autotune thing is a discussion of how something may have been mishandled a bit in the production process (and not being as transparent as it could have/should have been), not unlike discussions for other bands where people may be discussing "brickwalling" during mastering, etc, and not unlike people remarking that a CG shot in a film may have needed more passes of rendering in order for it to appear totally seamless. Transparent autotune usage requires skill and mastery, and I'm sure any vocal tuning was performed by a person at a computer who was not Brian Wilson, so IMO it's more bitching at the guy who did it, rather than berating Brian in any way.

[elnombre]

Imagine if your cousin had come through years of drug abuse to, against all odds, be alive and well and working in his 70's.

You don't celebrate or congratulate your cousin on the fact that he is working and successful, you make a public point of saying that you don't bother listening to his new music, while bringing up his decades-old drug abuse at seemingly every available opportunity as if it's something he should be inextricably linked with and deserves no credit for having moved past.

What do you call that? I call it being a sh*t.

[CenturyDeprived]

Imagine if your cousin had come through years of drug abuse to, against all odds, be alive and well and working in his 70's.

You don't celebrate or congratulate your cousin on the fact that he is working and successful, you make a public point of saying that you don't bother listening to his new music, while bringing up his decades-old drug abuse at seemingly every available opportunity as if it's something he should be inextricably linked with and deserves no credit for having moved past.

What do you call that? I call it being a sh*t.

Not to mention it's entirely possible that some of Brian's own previous years of self-destruction may have in part been fueled by the dysfunctional circumstances around him, and Mike himself is not completely removed from that scenario himself. A guy who is gonna run his mouth like this against Brian in inappropriate contexts is showing his true colors, which is that it appears he has a history of saying hurtful things devoid of tact. More so than most people in Brian’s past or present life, I’d imagine.

I personally know a very small amount of people who have a history of continually saying hurtful things, devoid of tact, and I choose to no longer associate with them. Some of them I am related to. If I was forced into associating with them on a regular basis, day in day out, it might lead me to want to indulge, speaking personally. So I'm just saying it's not to be dismissed outright, if someone chooses to say I am being totally out of line suggesting such. I'll admit it would still be my "fault" for indulging.

A decades-earlier mentally ill Brian, with less of an emotional support system, was further indulging in substances most likely in part to escape hurtful people and hurtful situations. I am not blaming Mike for Brian taking drugs, but I am saying that a sick person taking drugs to self-medicate and avoid dysfunctional people wasn’t going to have been helped by a personality like Mike’s. They could in fact make things worse. Even if Mike had then and has now only selfless, good intentions, which in the eye of the beholder. Of course, it’s ultimately Brian’s responsibility what he did to himself, and I’m sure that Brian knows that. But Mike seems just as oblivious as ever, after all these years, at how he comes off, and how he may have not helped the situation, both then and now. Not trying to be inflammatory, just stating my opinion on how words and continual lack of tact can have consequences.

[HeyJude]

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

It’s all about context. When you read that entire diatribe from Mike, it’s clear that the context of even mentioning autotune is to take a jab/swipe, whatever you want to call it. It read to me as well like somebody had fed that piece of information.

Conversely, while some fans have invoked the topic of autotune in a similar fashion, many other fans have simply pointed out that they think they hear it. Some might even lament its use. But it isn’t *always* intended as loaded term/topic full of a bunch of implications.  If someone writes a short, or even one-line, “review” of Brian’s album mentioning autotune, it’s probably meant as a loaded dig. If someone writes a long, thoughtful review of the album that includes the suggestion of autotune, I’m more inclined to believe they aren’t trying to use “autotune”  as some sort of “trigger” for defensive fans or something, or to just be negative about Brian for the sake of being negative.

[guitarfool2002]

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

It’s all about context. When you read that entire diatribe from Mike, it’s clear that the context of even mentioning autotune is to take a jab/swipe, whatever you want to call it. It read to me as well like somebody had fed that piece of information.

Conversely, while some fans have invoked the topic of autotune in a similar fashion, many other fans have simply pointed out that they think they hear it. Some might even lament its use. But it isn’t *always* intended as loaded term/topic full of a bunch of implications.  If someone writes a short, or even one-line, “review” of Brian’s album mentioning autotune, it’s probably meant as a loaded dig. If someone writes a long, thoughtful review of the album that includes the suggestion of autotune, I’m more inclined to believe they aren’t trying to use “autotune”  as some sort of “trigger” for defensive fans or something, or to just be negative about Brian for the sake of being negative.

Just curious to hear your reasons: For what purpose would someone have "fed" such a piece of information?

[HeyJude]

I have no problem actually believing that some of the stuff Mike does in interviews, such as bringing up decades-old drug abuse, is partly just a personality tick rather than an overt attempt to smear anybody. Some people are indeed just like that. They will continually bring up negative stuff from the past even if it has been resolved and everybody else has moved on. Mike does the same thing with the songwriting lawsuit topic. He STILL brings it up in interviews, even though he WON the case *twenty years* ago, and nobody including Brian ever disputed the legitimacy of his claims (outside of little things like Asher with WIBN). His name has been on the songs and he has been receiving royalties for twenty years (and was awarded damages when he won the case). It’s the textbook definition of a “wrong being righted”, yet he *still* seems disenfranchised about it. Track down that story Van Dyke Parks told about how, circa 1992, Mike was *still* asking Van Dyke about the “cornfield” lyrics.

That seems to be a common thread in some of Mike’s interviews. For a guy who is so successful, so freaking rich from this whole thing, has achieved success by any measure most could conjure (money, fame, houses, spiritual enlightenment by his own account, whole *gala events* in his honor), and who professes to be all about positivity, he also seems awfully disenfranchised about a list of specific things (songwriting, C50, Murry, Landy, “people around Brian”, Al in the 2000’s, “Smile”, etc.).

[CenturyDeprived]

I have no problem actually believing that some of the stuff Mike does in interviews, such as bringing up decades-old drug abuse, is partly just a personality tick rather than an overt attempt to smear anybody. Some people are indeed just like that. They will continually bring up negative stuff from the past even if it has been resolved and everybody else has moved on. Mike does the same thing with the songwriting lawsuit topic. He STILL brings it up in interviews, even though he WON the case *twenty years* ago, and nobody including Brian ever disputed the legitimacy of his claims (outside of little things like Asher with WIBN). His name has been on the songs and he has been receiving royalties for twenty years (and was awarded damages when he won the case). It’s the textbook definition of a “wrong being righted”, yet he *still* seems disenfranchised about it. Track down that story Van Dyke Parks told about how, circa 1992, Mike was *still* asking Van Dyke about the “cornfield” lyrics.

That seems to be a common thread in some of Mike’s interviews. For a guy who is so successful, so freaking rich from this whole thing, has achieved success by any measure most could conjure (money, fame, houses, spiritual enlightenment by his own account, whole *gala events* in his honor), and who professes to be all about positivity, he also seems awfully disenfranchised about a list of specific things (songwriting, C50, Murry, Landy, “people around Brian”, Al in the 2000’s, “Smile”, etc.).

I think Mike would not do these things, would not bring stuff up the way he does, if Mike had the recognition he feels he deserves  (perhaps a Grammy recipient for solo work, like Ringo), if Mike wasn't the laughing stock of his contemporaries, and if Mike got to write with Brian in a room and wrote latter-day hit songs with his cousins, which were specifically publicly recognized for having super lyrics. But this is not reality. It's a Catch 22.

He's not a well-liked figure, and does not have the recognition he deserves, precisely because of him doing/saying these types of things repeatedly, which rub most people the wrong way.  I wish this was not the case. I really, really, really wish it was not. I don't think he has a history of doing these things as a result of being secure. He's his own worst enemy, and even his most ardent defenders must know this. People thought things might be starting to change in 2012, but we were way too naive in thinking that.

[HeyJude]

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

It’s all about context. When you read that entire diatribe from Mike, it’s clear that the context of even mentioning autotune is to take a jab/swipe, whatever you want to call it. It read to me as well like somebody had fed that piece of information.

Conversely, while some fans have invoked the topic of autotune in a similar fashion, many other fans have simply pointed out that they think they hear it. Some might even lament its use. But it isn’t *always* intended as loaded term/topic full of a bunch of implications.  If someone writes a short, or even one-line, “review” of Brian’s album mentioning autotune, it’s probably meant as a loaded dig. If someone writes a long, thoughtful review of the album that includes the suggestion of autotune, I’m more inclined to believe they aren’t trying to use “autotune”  as some sort of “trigger” for defensive fans or something, or to just be negative about Brian for the sake of being negative.

Just curious to hear your reasons: For what purpose would someone have "fed" such a piece of information?

I don’t hear Mike often talk about the perils of autotune in interviews. I’m not sure if he had ever even used the term prior to that Beard interview. To me, the whole thing smelled like Mike was butt-hurt about a few journalists implying he (Mike) was the reason Brian’s album wasn’t a “Beach Boys” album. Then, surprise, Mike is tapped for an “interview”, and Mike mentions autotune in relation to a song *HE HASN’T HEARD*.

I’m not sure how or why this would have come up in a conversation Mike had with someone else. I just don’t think it’s far-fetched that *somebody* mentioned to Mike something like “Did you hear the track? It has autotune on it.” And/or, Mike read some commentary to that effect online.

I can only say it read as though Mike’s purpose for raising the topic was to make a passive dig. He doesn’t appear any longer to be a fan of Joe Thomas or of Brian’s working relationship with Thomas. It read to me like he was using a criticism often-discussed among fans as a way to make a little dig. He added the common twist of making it a passive theoretical criticism. Instead of saying “if it has autotune, I think it could suck”, it turns into “I am sure with Al's voice and hopefully no autotune, the song will be great."

As I mentioned back then, it would be like Brian commenting on a new Mike album, “I’m sure, assuming Mike doesn’t mention surfing or cars or the beach and assuming he doesn’t namecheck old Beach Boys songs in the lyrics, it will be great.” It’s an accusation without being an accusation. Without hearing a Mike album, you wouldn’t know whether any of that stuff is on it. But it’s an often-discussed criticism that *could* be there, and which may or may not negatively impact the work.

[CenturyDeprived]

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

It’s all about context. When you read that entire diatribe from Mike, it’s clear that the context of even mentioning autotune is to take a jab/swipe, whatever you want to call it. It read to me as well like somebody had fed that piece of information.

Conversely, while some fans have invoked the topic of autotune in a similar fashion, many other fans have simply pointed out that they think they hear it. Some might even lament its use. But it isn’t *always* intended as loaded term/topic full of a bunch of implications.  If someone writes a short, or even one-line, “review” of Brian’s album mentioning autotune, it’s probably meant as a loaded dig. If someone writes a long, thoughtful review of the album that includes the suggestion of autotune, I’m more inclined to believe they aren’t trying to use “autotune”  as some sort of “trigger” for defensive fans or something, or to just be negative about Brian for the sake of being negative.

Just curious to hear your reasons: For what purpose would someone have "fed" such a piece of information?

I don’t hear Mike often talk about the perils of autotune in interviews. I’m not sure if he had ever even used the term prior to that Beard interview. To me, the whole thing smelled like Mike was butt-hurt about a few journalists implying he (Mike) was the reason Brian’s album wasn’t a “Beach Boys” album. Then, surprise, Mike is tapped for an “interview”, and Mike mentions autotune in relation to a song *HE HASN’T HEARD*.

I’m not sure how or why this would have come up in a conversation Mike had with someone else. I just don’t think it’s far-fetched that *somebody* mentioned to Mike something like “Did you hear the track? It has autotune on it.” And/or, Mike read some commentary to that effect online.

I can only say it read as though Mike’s purpose for raising the topic was to make a passive dig. He doesn’t appear any longer to be a fan of Joe Thomas or of Brian’s working relationship with Thomas. It read to me like he was using a criticism often-discussed among fans as a way to make a little dig. He added the common twist of making it a passive theoretical criticism. Instead of saying “if it has autotune, I think it could suck”, it turns into “I am sure with Al's voice and hopefully no autotune, the song will be great."

As I mentioned back then, it would be like Brian commenting on a new Mike album, “I’m sure, assuming Mike doesn’t mention surfing or cars or the beach and assuming he doesn’t namecheck old Beach Boys songs in the lyrics, it will be great.” It’s an accusation without being an accusation. Without hearing a Mike album, you wouldn’t know whether any of that stuff is on it. But it’s an often-discussed criticism that *could* be there, and which may or may not negative impact the work.

I think if the Smiley Smile messageboard didn't exist, I have my doubts that Mike would have mentioned Autotune in that interview.

[guitarfool2002]

But it’s an often-discussed criticism that *could* be there, and which may or may not negative impact the work.

*THIS* is the crux of what I've been saying. I'll concede that perhaps in my usual wordiness it may not always seem to be at the surface and maybe it comes of as me directing things in a more broad sense than I intended, but I actually have to say I'm almost relieved to read this line in light of all that has gone down over this issue.

It has been and is often used as a criticism for the sake of criticizing (and beyond just this board, let it be noted). Beyond negatively impacting the work, if it gets used negatively to the point of creating false impressions by suggesting it, it could negatively impact the impression *of* the work in the minds of those who have not yet heard it. And that, to me, is the part I perhaps most strongly object to depending on the context. And within the context of 2014-15, I saw perhaps too much of that happening, yet being defended as someone hearing or not hearing it. If I was unclear, that's on me.

But that line quoted above crystallized it, nailed it, hit the nail on the head, got down to brass tacks, whatever the phrase that applies. I was relieved to see the entire post worded as you did, seriously.


EDIT: To clarify even more, it was seeing a recognition that the notion of "autotune" when used in certain ways was in fact a passive or even outright negative connotation being used that struck a chord. That was one of my pet peeves, and it felt at times like there was not an acknowledgement that it was in fact being used in exactly the passive-negative way that HeyJude laid out.

[Lee Marshall]

And...that it isn't used...primarily is JUST as important ultimately as Andrew's and Jon's [and others] quest to make sure that the right people are credited for their work playing the instruments on specific songs and albums...as opposed to the myths which all too often  seem to overtake the truth.

To keep this myth from being auto-turned into fact is just as important.  

[guitarfool2002]

And...that it isn't used...primarily is JUST as important ultimately as Andrew's and Jon's [and others] quest to make sure that the right people are credited for their work playing the instruments on specific songs and albums...as opposed to the myths which all too often  seem to overtake the truth.

To keep this myth from being auto-turned into fact is just as important.  

There are additional myths that come up with some regularity, and it's frustrating to either know what really happened or be able to offer proof to confirm or deny that myth or falsehood, yet there are those who will continue to push and push and push, perhaps hoping to repeat something enough times so it becomes "fact" over the actual facts. If only the same voracity applied in certain other myth-busting cases as applies to the session musician credits issue whenever it comes up, it might level out.

I won't go any further into details, I've already done enough of that. 

[HeyJude]

And...that it isn't used...primarily is JUST as important ultimately as Andrew's and Jon's [and others] quest to make sure that the right people are credited for their work playing the instruments on specific songs and albums...as opposed to the myths which all too often  seem to overtake the truth.

To keep this myth from being auto-turned into fact is just as important.  

Unfortunately, I doubt it will ever be as easy to “prove” the autotune issue one way or the other. It isn’t like looking up AFM contracts and listening to old session tapes.

I agree that an unsubstantiated allegation becoming the “truth” over time is troubling. But this could apply to either side of the autotune issue.

The evidence, all of it circumstantial, in my opinion largely points to it having been used to some degree in some spots. I would be troubled by any piece/work that painted the “autotune” issue dismissively, as if a few fringe weirdos made the accusation. If anything, and I’m facing this myself as I continue to think about my own full review of the album, the “autotune” issue in relation to reviewing the album has become an issue in and of itself. It pervades the discussion of the album so much that it would be hard to review the album at this stage without mentioning that the issue itself is being hotly debated among fans.

[guitarfool2002]

And...that it isn't used...primarily is JUST as important ultimately as Andrew's and Jon's [and others] quest to make sure that the right people are credited for their work playing the instruments on specific songs and albums...as opposed to the myths which all too often  seem to overtake the truth.

To keep this myth from being auto-turned into fact is just as important.  

Unfortunately, I doubt it will ever be as easy to “prove” the autotune issue one way or the other. It isn’t like looking up AFM contracts and listening to old session tapes.

I agree that an unsubstantiated allegation becoming the “truth” over time is troubling. But this could apply to either side of the autotune issue.

The evidence, all of it circumstantial, in my opinion largely points to it having been used to some degree in some spots. I would be troubled by any piece/work that painted the “autotune” issue dismissively, as if a few fringe weirdos made the accusation. If anything, and I’m facing this myself as I continue to think about my own full review of the album, the “autotune” issue in relation to reviewing the album has become an issue in and of itself. It pervades the discussion of the album so much that it would be hard to review the album at this stage without mentioning that the issue itself is being hotly debated among fans.

Yes, yes...THIS:
"It pervades the discussion of the album so much that it would be hard to review the album at this stage without mentioning that the issue itself is being hotly debated among fans."

This is exactly my pet peeve. A non-issue, more or less, has had the effect on at least one person (you, HeyJude) to where "autotune" gets implanted into the experience of hearing the album with open ears and an open mind.

That is the insidious part of it, the bullshit in other words. It's my big issue, this one. To have your experience as a fan affected in any way by such a "pervading" issue, I'd call it an intrusion, is perhaps *exactly* the way this was set up to do. Call it an agenda, call it trolling, call it Henry or Bill...

It's fucking insidious, pardon the language.

Heyjude, please ignore the pervading issues and go into it with a smile of expectation and excitement rather than letting this subliminal autotune whisper-campaign sort of bullshit interrupt your feelings as a fan and as a commentator. Because as much as you've made the case for fans reporting what they heard and perceived, there is the other less honest side of it at play too.

f*** autotune and those who may be pushing it in the negative/passive way to diminish or alter anyone's impression of it. Listen with your heart, not just your ears. That's how the album was designed to be experienced.

[Jim V.]

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

It’s all about context. When you read that entire diatribe from Mike, it’s clear that the context of even mentioning autotune is to take a jab/swipe, whatever you want to call it. It read to me as well like somebody had fed that piece of information.

Conversely, while some fans have invoked the topic of autotune in a similar fashion, many other fans have simply pointed out that they think they hear it. Some might even lament its use. But it isn’t *always* intended as loaded term/topic full of a bunch of implications.  If someone writes a short, or even one-line, “review” of Brian’s album mentioning autotune, it’s probably meant as a loaded dig. If someone writes a long, thoughtful review of the album that includes the suggestion of autotune, I’m more inclined to believe they aren’t trying to use “autotune”  as some sort of “trigger” for defensive fans or something, or to just be negative about Brian for the sake of being negative.

Just curious to hear your reasons: For what purpose would someone have "fed" such a piece of information?

I also agree that Mike was likely "fed" the "autotune" line as well. I mean, let's look at the facts. The man made some of the MIDI-est, most sterile, slickest work this side of the T-Pain. I mean, Summer In Paradise? The NASCAR album? Summertime Cruisin'? If this guy is serious about being worried about "autotune" I'd be very, very surprised.

Instead it seems like somebody on this board mentioned how that "autotune" thing was kinda coming up as a so-called "bad" thing when relating to BW lately. So I'm sure Mike then felt happy to have some more ammo in his arsenal.

[HeyJude]

And...that it isn't used...primarily is JUST as important ultimately as Andrew's and Jon's [and others] quest to make sure that the right people are credited for their work playing the instruments on specific songs and albums...as opposed to the myths which all too often  seem to overtake the truth.

To keep this myth from being auto-turned into fact is just as important.  

Unfortunately, I doubt it will ever be as easy to “prove” the autotune issue one way or the other. It isn’t like looking up AFM contracts and listening to old session tapes.

I agree that an unsubstantiated allegation becoming the “truth” over time is troubling. But this could apply to either side of the autotune issue.

The evidence, all of it circumstantial, in my opinion largely points to it having been used to some degree in some spots. I would be troubled by any piece/work that painted the “autotune” issue dismissively, as if a few fringe weirdos made the accusation. If anything, and I’m facing this myself as I continue to think about my own full review of the album, the “autotune” issue in relation to reviewing the album has become an issue in and of itself. It pervades the discussion of the album so much that it would be hard to review the album at this stage without mentioning that the issue itself is being hotly debated among fans.

Yes, yes...THIS:
"It pervades the discussion of the album so much that it would be hard to review the album at this stage without mentioning that the issue itself is being hotly debated among fans."

This is exactly my pet peeve. A non-issue, more or less, has had the effect on at least one person (you, HeyJude) to where "autotune" gets implanted into the experience of hearing the album with open ears and an open mind.

That is the insidious part of it, the bullshit in other words. It's my big issue, this one. To have your experience as a fan affected in any way by such a "pervading" issue, I'd call it an intrusion, is perhaps *exactly* the way this was set up to do. Call it an agenda, call it trolling, call it Henry or Bill...

It's fucking insidious, pardon the language.

Heyjude, please ignore the pervading issues and go into it with a smile of expectation and excitement rather than letting this subliminal autotune whisper-campaign sort of bullshit interrupt your feelings as a fan and as a commentator. Because as much as you've made the case for fans reporting what they heard and perceived, there is the other less honest side of it at play too.

f*** autotune and those who may be pushing it in the negative/passive way to diminish or alter anyone's impression of it. Listen with your heart, not just your ears. That's how the album was designed to be experienced.

I appreciate the advice, truly. I can certainly only speak for myself, but I’m quite able to handle the issue appropriately. I’ve been on the interwebs posting about the Beach Boys for, wow, 20 years now. I trust my ears and deductive reasoning, so none of the opinions (which are welcomed and interesting) are going to impact how I feel about the album. Nothing has been “implanted” into my listening experience or analysis. That the autotune issue pervades discussion won’t impact my opinion of the album. It may only impact whether I take a detour and discuss the debate itself. If I do or did discuss that debate, it would only be because I find it interesting or noteworthy enough (or amusing or tragically ironic, etc.)

[Nicko1234]

I`m sure many people think that Auto-tune has been discussed too much...

So who on earth thought it would be a good idea to bring it up in this thread as well??? 

[VanDykeParksAndRec]

I feel so bad for all of you who can't seem to figure out all of this for the past 20 years is nothing more than the extended version of  "Cassius" Love vs "Sonny" Wilson.

Jokes on you.