gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680601 Posts in 27601 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 29, 2024, 08:11:08 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Did speeding up Caroline, No contribute to the single's lack of chart success?  (Read 5405 times)
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« on: March 16, 2016, 05:24:50 PM »

While I, like most everyone else, fell in love with the song Caroline, No at its originally-released speed (sped up), I can't help but wonder if this studio trick actually hurt the song.

I recently played the original speed (slowed-down) version from the Pet Sounds Sessions box for a friend, and it was a complete revelation to him. As it was to me when I first heard the original speed version. In fact, I can't really listen to the sped-up originally-released version anymore. It feels like a bastardized version, even if Brian approved it under pressure from Murry. Sort of like watching a Pan & Scan, cropped 4x3 version of a 16x9 Cinemascope film.

I think the sped-up version *definitely* loses something in the process... I don't think Brian sounds younger (as was the apparent intention), just less like himself. And some emotion and longing is thus absolutely lost. Of all of Brian's songs, this song in particular is sooo driven by the heartbreaking, aching, expert delivery of the voice (not unlike Please Let Me Wonder), and it really needed to be heard properly and un-f*cked-with.

I actually would go so far as to say that speeding it up was one of the bigger goofs in Brian's career. Even if the sped-up version is still highly regarded, it was a dramatic change, and not for the better. This wasn't a goofy tune to play around with speed like Surfin' or She's Going Bald, after all! When Denny messed with tape speed to record certain parts of his songs, it was done creatively and largely invisibly - which is why it works, while Caroline, No feels like the cheap Murry gimmick that it is. Thankfully it was quite easy for this goof to be remedied with the Pet Sounds box set.

While I can't see the song being a huge hit as a single - regardless of which version would have been released as a single - I have to wonder if it had been released at its original speed - would it have connected better with listeners, DJs, etc, when it was released as a Brian solo single?

I also wonder if Brian ever regretted speeding it up after the single flopped... and how much Brian simply went along with a Murry idea vs. how legitimately enthusiastic Brian was about speeding it up in the first place. Was the whole obsession with trying to get Brian to sound "young" tied into the song's release as a Brian solo single?
« Last Edit: March 16, 2016, 05:38:10 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
You Kane, You Commanded, You Conquered
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 467


spoons rattling


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2016, 05:36:16 PM »

Not exactly answering your question, but I don't really like the original speed of Brian's vocals, it feels too low, I'd like a mix of the sped up vocals with the original speed backing track.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2016, 05:37:42 PM by BachelorsDegreeInBullets » Logged

"Oh! Don't beat on those sticks!"
bringahorseinhere?
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1220



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2016, 05:46:59 PM »

I just played it again and while I'm still leaning towards the previous poster, it does have a raw charm to it.
I initially didn't like it years ago, but after hearing it now, sounds more melancholy.
speeding it up would have more commercial appeal.  but I'm still in the boat of I've heard it the same way
for so many years, hearing the slow version sounds, well, slow  Undecided
its like hearing the single version of 'proud mary' by ccr.  it doesn't sound right.  It's, well, slow.
Logged
Ron
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5086


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: March 16, 2016, 10:30:15 PM »

Can someone with dog ears confirm if the sped up version is actually ON key?  I know it's 'in key' as far as relative pitch (all the notes are the correct distance from each other) but how in the hell can you just speed up a song and make it end up on another key?  It's got to be a little off, right?

Logged
Ebb and Flow
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 599



View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 17, 2016, 01:25:11 AM »

Not exactly answering your question, but I don't really like the original speed of Brian's vocals, it feels too low, I'd like a mix of the sped up vocals with the original speed backing track.
I think the track was sped up a half-step and then Brian recorded his vocals on top of that.  The "sped up" version sounds like his natural singing voice whereas the "original speed" version on the box set sounds slowed down.  I know that doesn't jibe with the official dogma, but that's what my ears hear.
Logged
JK
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6053


Maybe I put too much faith in atmosphere


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: March 17, 2016, 03:46:51 AM »

Not exactly answering your question, but I don't really like the original speed of Brian's vocals, it feels too low, I'd like a mix of the sped up vocals with the original speed backing track.

You mean, like "American Girls"? Grin

Love the sped-up version of "CN". As for chart performances, the sped-up "Runaway" didn't do Del Shannon any harm...
Logged

"Ik bun moar een eenvoudige boerenlul en doar schoam ik mien niet veur" (Normaal, 1978)
You're Grass and I'm a Power Mower: A Beach Boys Orchestration Web Series
the Carbon Freeze | Eclectic Essays & Art
mojoman3061
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 103


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 17, 2016, 09:16:47 AM »

Was this sped-up "Caroline, No" released only as a single?  I've only heard the version on Pet Sounds.

Speeding up a recording also raises the pitch, as we all know if we've played LPs at 45 rpm or singles at 78 rpm ;-).  If a song in the key of G is sped up a half-step, it sounds like it's in A-flat.

Edited to insert a space where I didn't have one before
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 12:47:05 PM by mojoman3061 » Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 17, 2016, 09:31:07 AM »

Was this sped-up "Caroline, No" released only as a single?  I've only heard the version onPet Sounds.

Speeding up a recording also raises the pitch, as we all know if we've played LPs at 45 rpm or singles at 78 rpm ;-).  If a song in the key of G is sped up a half-step, it sounds like it's in A-flat.

The sped-up version was the only released version of the song whatsoever (on both the Brian Wilson solo single from 1966, and on Pet Sounds - both versions have identical speed, I believe) until the Pet Sounds Sessions box set in 1997, where the original-speed, "slowed-down" version was first released. I hesitate to call that version the slowed-down version, because it's actually the correct, proper speed!

I wonder if any fan mixes or homemade fan attempts to make an original-speed version were done prior to 1997?

Here's the original-speed, "slowed-down" version, released on the Pet Sounds Sessions box set. It's much more emotionally impactful to my ears:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWPi8PLo33o

The sped-up version is, to my ears, as much of a bastardization of Brian's voice (and all the emotion it conveys) as the incorrectly slowed down Carl vocal was on the originally-released version of "It's Over Now" - that was fortunately later fixed on the Made in California box. It just sounds wrong for the simple reason that it is wrong, even if Brian "approved" it under influence from his dad's hokey advice. It's also more stoney at its original speed, as it should be, which makes sense since Brian admitted to smoking some good weed during the song's creation.

The fact that it has been mentioned that the speeding up was done to make Brian sound "younger" has always been an odd thing for me to wrap my head around. As a justification, it's just bizarre, because Brian sounds anything but "old" on the original-speed version. He sounds like the same guy singing Surf's Up and Please Let Me Wonder. The voice I hear on the sped-up Caroline, No is off-sounding, as it doesn't sound like Brian does on any other recording.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2016, 09:54:36 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 17, 2016, 09:49:39 AM »

I don't think "Caroline, No" released as a "Brian Wilson" single in 1966 was ever going to burn up the singles charts. I don't think the speed of the mix was or is of any consequence other than to the preference of fans.

The "original" version sounds slow to a lot of people simply because we're used to the "sped-up" version.

If you listen to the "sped-up" version, the timbre of Brian's voice is too high. It's not that he couldn't have sung it in that key; I'm sure he could. But it does exhibit the telltale signs of running too fast.

I'm kind of an "original aspect ratio" sort of person more times than not, so I usually just stick to the "album" version. That's what Brian put out.

The "It's Over Now" situation is a bit more muddy. Didn't they cut the backing track and then change the speed of the backing track when Carl cut his vocal? In that case, one of those two things is always going to be "off." Either Carl's voice is slowed down, or the backing track is sped-up. Or maybe it was debunked that Carl's vocal was cut with the backing tape running off-speed, because I had assumed when the "MIC" set was announced that they would use some digital pitch-altering effects to change either his voice or the backing track to keep it in the "correct" key. As it turned out, it sounds like they simply upped the pitch of the entire multi-track recording to get Carl's voice correct. Also not helping things of course is that Carl was in his slightly Elmer Fudd-ish voice during that era (reaching its breaking point in Australia in 1978 as we all know), so even at normal speed, his voice was occasionally kind of sounding lower in pitch.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: March 17, 2016, 10:22:30 AM »

I can't really make any assertion about sales, but I otherwise agree with CD, after listening to the natural voice enough times to not simply have a preference of familiarity for the sped up voice.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: March 17, 2016, 10:32:16 AM »

I don't think "Caroline, No" released as a "Brian Wilson" single in 1966 was ever going to burn up the singles charts. I don't think the speed of the mix was or is of any consequence other than to the preference of fans.

The "original" version sounds slow to a lot of people simply because we're used to the "sped-up" version.

If you listen to the "sped-up" version, the timbre of Brian's voice is too high. It's not that he couldn't have sung it in that key; I'm sure he could. But it does exhibit the telltale signs of running too fast.
 

While I agree that the song was never destined to be a huge seller on the charts... I don't think that alternating tape speed (as noticeably as was done with Caroline, No or It's Over Now) could have just simply be done to any and every BB hit song without there having been some consequences one way or another.

Speed up I Get Around by as much as was done with Caroline, No? When Mike's vocals get sped up, does that make the listener find them comparatively grating? Perhaps. I think he sounds a bit like a chipmunk on the sped-up Surfin', even if that was a hit in '61, when listeners may have been more forgiving and less discriminating. Slow down Rock and Roll Music by as much as It's Over Now? I don't know if it becomes as big a hit as it was.

I realize it's apples and oranges between songs, but I think that while some songs can obviously become hits despite (or perhaps because of) significantly altering the tape speed, I think that sometimes it can hurt the song's hit potential.

I think that in the case of Caroline, No, you're right in saying that it does exhibit the telltale signs of running too fast, and I would add that if Brian's voice didn't sound particularly recognizable/familiar to the listener due to this, it may have given a song (that already may have suffered in the charts due to the unusual marketing without the band name) less of a chance to connect to people. If the song, at its original speed, was more instantaneously recognizable as being the singer of Don't Worry Baby, for example, I could see it getting at least some more traction if only due to Brian's more familiar voice being present.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2016, 04:12:33 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
bringahorseinhere?
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1220



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 19, 2016, 04:10:01 PM »

off topic, but if you know your ccr, this is the original speed of 'proud mary'.
speeding it up definitely was a good thing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o26m3S_Dg18
Logged
marcusb
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 80



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2016, 07:01:14 AM »

Not exactly answering your question, but I don't really like the original speed of Brian's vocals, it feels too low, I'd like a mix of the sped up vocals with the original speed backing track.

You mean, like "American Girls"? Grin

Love the sped-up version of "CN". As for chart performances, the sped-up "Runaway" didn't do Del Shannon any harm...

Didn't hurt Bruce Springsteen either with "Hungry Heart"
Logged
RangeRoverA1
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4336


I drink expired tea. wanna sip or spit?


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: March 20, 2016, 02:03:23 PM »

Not exactly answering your question, but I don't really like the original speed of Brian's vocals, it feels too low, I'd like a mix of the sped up vocals with the original speed backing track.
I think the track was sped up a half-step and then Brian recorded his vocals on top of that.  The "sped up" version sounds like his natural singing voice whereas the "original speed" version on the box set sounds slowed down.  I know that doesn't jibe with the official dogma, but that's what my ears hear.
Agreed, orig. speed version sounds like sth. doesn't add up. It's very odd. Whereas PS CN is not unlike the rest of Brian leads across the album. Imo.
Logged

Short notice: the cat you see to the left is the best. Not counting your indoor cat who might have habit sitting at your left side when you post at SmileySmile.

Who is Lucille Ball & Vivian Vance Duet Fan Club CEO? Btw, such Club exists?

Zany zealous Zeddie eats broccoli at brunch break but doesn't do's & don't's due to duties.
Micha
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3133



View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2016, 07:55:20 AM »

Not exactly answering your question, but I don't really like the original speed of Brian's vocals, it feels too low, I'd like a mix of the sped up vocals with the original speed backing track.
I think the track was sped up a half-step and then Brian recorded his vocals on top of that.  The "sped up" version sounds like his natural singing voice whereas the "original speed" version on the box set sounds slowed down.  I know that doesn't jibe with the official dogma, but that's what my ears hear.

When I first heard the released version I thought, Brian sounds pretty strange there, as if he had gone crazy somehow. When I later heard the original speed version, it sounded like Brian again. So I disagree with your ears and go with the dogma in this case.

The same with the original mono version of "Please Let Me Wonder", though in this case for my ears (rather my brain interpreting my ears' signals) the speeding up really makes Brian sound younger.
Logged

Ceterum censeo SMiLEBrianum OSDumque esse excludendos banno.
37!ws
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1509


All baggudo at my man


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 22, 2016, 10:58:59 AM »

I'm still convinced that Brian's *vocal itself* wasn't necessarily sped up. If you listen to "Caroline, No" at its recorded speed, Brian actually sounds like a record being played slow...he sounds unnatural on it. I'm betting that the way he did it was he sped up the *backing track* a little, forcing him to sing a half-step higher.
Logged

Check out my podcasts: Tune X Podcast (tunex.fab4it.com) and Autobiography of a Schnook (SchnookPodcast.com); there are worse things you can do!
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: March 22, 2016, 11:25:50 AM »

It's funny, now they both sound strange to me. The 'sped up' version has a chipmunky sound on 'hair go', 'to know', 'but that's not' , 'once they have', etc,  but the 'slowed down' version has the soft consonants like 'w' dragged out weirdly.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: March 22, 2016, 01:23:05 PM »

It's funny, now they both sound strange to me. The 'sped up' version has a chipmunky sound on 'hair go', 'to know', 'but that's not' , 'once they have', etc,  but the 'slowed down' version has the soft consonants like 'w' dragged out weirdly.

I think that if the listener just tries to think of the song as a super duper stoney tune, drenched in sadness, it sounds totally normal for it to have this slightly slow/sluggish feel to it (which again, is probably amplified by the fact that we've all heard it so many times "sped up", and that's how we learned to love it and became familiar with it).

As Brian specifically said the song was composed under the influence of weed, I think that if one listens to the sped-up version... that weed sound, so to speak, gets largely lost.

Contextualizing the song being composed in that stoney framework, IMHO, makes the original speed "slow" version totally click and work 100%, and it sounds right. Brian's aching comes through so, so much more in the original speed "slow" version. Maybe smoke a joint (if you, or any listener cares to partake), and it might make a bit more sense Smiley
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 01:50:01 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
SufferingFools
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 131


Fun is the only thing we still make here.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 23, 2016, 05:40:32 AM »

It's usually more obvious, at least to me, when a vocal has been slowed down than when it's been sped up.  For example, "With a Little Help from My Friends" on Rarities sounds nothing like Bruce until it's raised a half-step to proper speed.  

Some Beatles tracks also give a good comparison:  

The stereo version of "She's Leaving Home" was cut at the wrong speed, too slow, and Paul's voice sounds off, as if he had a cold.  But if you hear the mono version, which has the instrumental track sped up a half-step as it was meant to be, Paul's voice sounds natural.  

On the same album, "When I'm Sixty-Four" is sped up including the vocal to make Paul sound younger, but he still sounds like Paul, though a bit brighter in tone.

I must admit, though, that Ringo's sped-up vocals on the mono "Don't Pass Me By" just sound ridiculous.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2016, 05:41:56 AM by SufferingFools » Logged

"We're getting too much good material.... It's too usable." - BDW, 10/18/66
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: March 23, 2016, 06:33:48 AM »

It's funny, now they both sound strange to me. The 'sped up' version has a chipmunky sound on 'hair go', 'to know', 'but that's not' , 'once they have', etc,  but the 'slowed down' version has the soft consonants like 'w' dragged out weirdly.

I think that if the listener just tries to think of the song as a super duper stoney tune, drenched in sadness, it sounds totally normal for it to have this slightly slow/sluggish feel to it (which again, is probably amplified by the fact that we've all heard it so many times "sped up", and that's how we learned to love it and became familiar with it).

As Brian specifically said the song was composed under the influence of weed, I think that if one listens to the sped-up version... that weed sound, so to speak, gets largely lost.

Contextualizing the song being composed in that stoney framework, IMHO, makes the original speed "slow" version totally click and work 100%, and it sounds right. Brian's aching comes through so, so much more in the original speed "slow" version. Maybe smoke a joint (if you, or any listener cares to partake), and it might make a bit more sense Smiley
That makes sense to me. I'd gotten quite used to the slower version until I listened to it fresh yesterday to hear what the posters above were referring to. I am inclined not to challenge the status quo that the slow is the 'actual' and the fast is the 'artificial.'
Logged
gfx
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.601 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!