Brian and a move towards an authentic pop musical vocabulary

[guitarfool2002]

My opinion (which might be over simplistic and/or controversial) on what separated Brian Wilson from the sort of “stock” arrangements or production values of the time are:

1. Spirituality. This might not be something easy to study in an academic sense, but it is hard to deny this was a major driving force in his work 1965-67. Loosely related would be the sort of mysticism that would mark a lot of the work of the era immediately following.

2. Full integration of strings from a production standpoint. Even more that Spector, Brian did not add “string arrangements” on top of whatever the underlying bed was. The strings were fully and completely integrated into the song, arrangement, and most of all the production. There are almost no other examples of this from the period. It’s Brian’s version of the wall of sound, but even Spector used strings as icing floating over the track, and Brian never did. They were the meat and potatoes. Contemporary reviews of Pet Sounds would say things like “out of tune prettiness” or sickly etc.

3. Artistry. Brian Wilson was an absolute artist. His art was completed sound. His peers were Jan Berry and Phil Spector, neither of whom were artists in this way IMO.

Curt Boettcher is a good call out. I think he’s probably the closest to Brian, but I think that’s probably more of a Brian influence kind of situation.

I think the style  you’re referring to continued on in TV show soundtracks and certain kinds of movies until around 1971. One element that will probably go unnoticed is: that style could not continue beyond the 8-track era, from a technical standpoint IMO.

It is tricky to try to attribute spirituality to music without resort to lyrical stuff, but I agree that it does make a difference.  Very hard to measure that, and very hard to analyze.  I've tried to do it with church music, as have others; it takes real skill to put together a cogent argument.

I think you're mostly correct about the string business.  I would expand this to other instrument families, too.  Basically all the non-rock instruments were fully integrated in the arrangements.  Never afterthoughts.  You can hear the difference when they hired outside people to do arrange the strings later, your Vans McCoy and even your Daryls Dragon.  There are small marks where you can see the stitching.  But at the height of Brian's arranging skills, everything was fully part of it.

I just have to say, Donny, that post is a home run. Great thoughts worth considering.

On one specific, yes indeed for many producers and arrangers adding strings was (and still is) referred to as "sweetening" a track after the nuts and bolts have been recorded. Even the term sweetening suggests the "icing" on the cake notion you described. It defined the disco era - I got gigs back in the 90's doing string "sweetening" parts on disco-styled tracks when there was something of a 70's revival happening. Everything is already there, and the arranger just adds that icing on top of the cake. Often it would be just one note sustained to glue everything together. Or you'd have one "live" string player recorded atop a bed of synth strings to get the bow and string noises deliberately on the track for added authenticity. But it was icing on the cake.

And Brian in the 60's did not do it that way. That is one element which definitely sets him apart from the pack.

I'd add too, something which I've discussed with some of you before, the way Brian arranged guitar ensembles, specifically on Pet Sounds. He was writing for guitar sections as a big band arranger would write a sax section. Intertwining lines, playing in harmony, or even traces of counterpoint...sounding when removed from the track like a sax section would write. And that includes different timbres of the guitar, like having Glenn Miller's clarinet lead playing atop a traditional sax section. It made it unique.

So were the guitar ensembles truly unique to Brian? I'd say in some ways no, but in many ways yes, especially how he worked these sectionals into the larger arrangement and ensemble. It's pretty damned innovative either way, especially listening to that guitar arrangement on I Just Wasn't Made For These Times. It sounds like something Ellington could have scored for his woodwinds in the 30's.

The idea of spirituality is a good one to consider too. I've always thought there was what I call an "X Factor" present in Brian's best work. Meaning, you could break down each and every part on a track, factor in the particular studio used on that session, and the players playing the parts...but there is still something present that cannot be written out or even defined. Some would call it magic, I call it the "X Factor". But that, too, whatever it was, is also what set Brian's productions apart from his peers. That intro to California Girls, the middle instrumental break on "Here Today", the entirety of "God Only Knows", the intro to "Wouldn't It Be Nice", the organ break and vocal explosion on "Good Vibrations", the final high note he hits on "Caroline No", the instrumental bridge of "Please Let Me Wonder", and I could add many more. But there is something *there* beyond the notes written and the performance of those notes that still draws in listeners and hits them in the heart and the gut.

You can't define it.

Is it spirituality? I'd say it could very well be, as the term itself as a notion or a concept is difficult to define. You surely cannot write "play spiritually" on a score for musicians to play, right?

But the term also is one that sometimes strikes some kind of fear or even hostility in people because they may tie it to formal religion or religious practices. Something or somebody does not have to be religious in a formal sense to be spiritual,  right? I think that intro of California Girls, where Brian somehow captured the sound of the sun rising over the ocean early in the morning, or that intro to Wouldn't It Be Nice that sounds like it came from the heavens, whichever heavens one may believe in...that's deeply spiritual music, right there. It either has that feel or it doesn't. Some artists could do it, others simply did not. But you know it, and more importantly, you *feel* it, when it's there.

I think apart from any religious overtones, Brian was able to capture in his arrangements and productions the feelings he had for sending love and parts of himself to his listeners through his music. For as rough as he had it both emotionally and later physically, he channeled his positivity through the music he was recording and sending it to his listeners.

Check the quote I have at the bottom of every post I make, from the HOF induction speech. I think that lines up very well with the notion of spirituality in the man's music. 

[guitarfool2002]

Is anyone having "dress like the 2000's day"? Hell no, because it looks the same more or less now as it did then.

You can watch any of the endless "Law And Order" repeats from American TV from 15 years ago and it looks pretty much like it does now in 2021, minus the changes in computers and cel phones. The fashion is the same, the language is the same, the music hasn't changed much. Even the hair styles haven't changed!

Yet, if in 2000 you were to watch a TV program from 1985, the differences in all those areas would be immediate from the first 30 seconds of the show.

That tells me there is little to no true innovation in those areas and the notion of creative arts as a cross-cultural influence is and has been lessened to the point of being insignificant.

What would a stereotypical snapshot of 2007 look like? A younger person playing a video game or tapping on a smartphone? Wearing what clothes? With what kind of hair style? Listening to what? Doing what else besides clutching a smartphone constantly?

I don't know. But it doesn't seem that much different of a generalization 15 years ago from today as it looks in the present moment. And that is sad. I think too much has stagnated, despite being given more technology to connect with others and innovate as anyone ever had previous to the current day.

I'm sorry to keep picking on you, but *man*, you could *not* be more wrong. Fashion is drastically different now than it was in 2005. Even just in business wear, the lapels, ties, jacket and skirt cuts, and waist positions are all hugely different. Have you looked at some photos of what girls and women were wearing in 2004? It's practically a different planet compared to today, at least where I live. High waists, "athleisure", different cuts of dresses, rompers...it's literally as different as the '60s were from the '80s. My students in 2021 dress drastically different from the students I had in 2015, let alone 2005 (when I was a student myself)!

And the absolute same thing is true of pop music. Hip-hop in 2005 didn't sound anything like hip-hop in 2017. The entire rhythmic and sonic signature changed.

And yes, there absolutely are teenage girls doing 2000s nostalgia stuff today (low waists, fake lower back tats, navel chains, big earrings, chunky highlights) for fun.

You're doing that thing again, just like you were doing upthread about the current state of jazz, where you're generalizing based on what I would charitably call limited knowledge of the present. I don't particularly like the dominant popular culture of 2021 but its insane to claim it's remotely similar to 2005.

I wasn't going to reply, but here it is. It's fine to have differing opinions, it's great to discuss them and debate them, and this has been a very good read of a thread since the initial post with excellent, intelligent posts. But I think it is out of line to make the kinds of comments you're making toward my posts - again, for whatever reasons there may be - saying I have limited knowledge of the topic, suggesting I'm "doing that thing again", etc., just as it was not cool to misquote and rewrite things I had said previously when what I actually said was available for all to read. Same with comments like "you couldn't be more *wrong*".

If you disagree with me or what anyone else is saying in this thread, based on your own opinions and experiences - not "facts" unless your experiences are shared across the board by a majority in the US or UK - Please have the courtesy to at least respect the fact that not everyone sees what you see, or shares your take on these things from their own daily experiences. You've mentioned hip-hop several times: With teachers and students alone, depending on the area or the region - especially in the US - there are schools where country music dominates the listening habits of the student body, and fashion at the prom involves cowboy boots and Stetsons as much as tuxes and gowns. I've been involved at seminars at schools where the majority of students listened almost exclusively to EDM, and would rattle off artists the general public wouldn't know. And yet other groups of students might be more into metal or classic rock. So if people in those areas offer their own experiences to form opinions, and they don't line up with your own, is it fair to say they have a limited knowledge of the subject or to come out and say "you couldn't be more wrong"? Of course not.

To avoid being accused of "pulling rank" by listing what my experiences are or were, and how my opinions written above were formed, I won't go into it. But if someone writes as you wrote above, I'll definitely reply to it and suggest otherwise, and also suggest you rethink the way you're replying to others' opinions and have a more level-headed, less personality-based discussion.

I enjoy discussions like this because people here who I respect are contributing some fantastic thoughts and opinions, whether it's Joshilyn coming from both a classical background and being a highly skilled musical analyst and transcriptionist (and multi-instrumentalist musician!) and just being a great person overall, Donny L coming on board with his experience recording and producing music and having a vast knowledge of vintage gear and music, Don Malcolm who knows this music and writes terrific posts that make you think deeper beyond the surface of the topic at hand, Mitchell who has been involved on these forums for years and who posts fantastic thoughts regularly and knows the music and topics he's commenting on...the list goes on. I've disagreed with them in previous discussions, I have probably disagreed too strongly in the heat of the moment on some occasions and for that I apologize, but above all I respect who they are, what they do and what they've accomplished, and what they have to say. It wouldn't be fair to reply to them essentially "you don't know what you're talking about" or "you couldn't be more wrong".

I stand by what I wrote which you disagree with so strongly. Just this afternoon I watched a Netflix film where they flashed back to scenes from "15 years ago" in the plot, and the clothing and overall visual design on the set could have been 2021. There were no key trends or characteristic visuals from 2006 that stood out enough to be noticeable. I don't know what key visuals or fashions or even music would suggest "2006" to any noticeable degree for a general audience anyway, and I think that's the point I was making earlier.

Contrast that with a set designer or a fashion supervisor for a movie set back in 1984 flashing back even 10 years to 1974. The differences would be beyond obvious. Go beyond that: 1969 versus 1963. 1999 versus 1993. 1964 versus 1958. The list could go on, but the point is how drastically popular culture - driven by media such as music, visual arts, film - could change in relatively short periods of time. And it's all generalization, isn't it? For the millions who would immediately see someone dressed like a hippy if they thought of 1969, consider how many more millions of regular people were wearing suits and ties or work clothes every day in 1969 and had nothing to do with hippy fashion or culture. Same with the 1980's...when I grew up...not everyone looked like the stereotypical 80's you'd see during a "Dress Like The 80's Day". I wore open flannel shirts and ragged jeans in 1993, but I wasn't into grunge music and didn't care if it was in style or not, and many others in my circle of friends wore what they wore. Yet, there is no doubt the grunge "scene", and the fashion look, and the media attention sprang from the music and the visuals on MTV, to where a film set in 1993 or '94 with young adult characters would almost have to include a character looking prototypical "grunge". That's a generalization but not too far off from reality.

My point, and opinion, was that from roughly 2000 to the present, as Mitchell noted, there hasn't been as much of a cultural shift to pinpoint, those which influenced popular culture across the board as had happened in previous eras, and there are really no cultural hallmarks to single out like "The Beatles" or "Elvis" or "Warhol" or "Twiggy/Mary Quant"  or "Saturday Night Fever" or "Grunge" or "Eminem" or whatever other 80's and 90's influences carried over from music, art, fashion, movies/TV to cross-pollinate the other areas. After the Beatles were on Sullivan with long hair, within that next year how many more young men started growing longer hair over their ears in all areas of the culture, if not the outright Beatle haircut? That's just one example out of many, and it just doesn't happen the same way in recent decades. And the last two decades have become even more homogenized to where a ten year span doesn't yield nearly the same differences across popular culture areas as it did prior to 2000, which is where I think Mitchell originally commented from. If someone says "1969" or "1957", it creates an imagery and even a "feel" of that year in people's minds whereas saying "2009" or "2015" doesn't have nearly the same effect, if any effect at all.

In Donny's post, he pinpointed a sound and style in music from 1965-67 which ended around 1971. It's a very specific sound and style with recognizable elements in the music, and you can hear the wider influence across other media. Can anything similar be pinpointed that specifically in music from the past 20 years which has had such an influence, or which was considered innovative enough to inspire other areas of pop culture? And will anyone be writing about it and analyzing it 50 years from now? Things come and go so fast, with instant on-demand access to almost anything, that culture and trends become disposable within weeks, and art in general doesn't have the same impact as it did in previous decades. If something has an impact in June, by December it's gone. And music does not have the same impact as it did in previous eras, across other forms of media and popular culture, which is sad but also a sign of the instant-access and endless-choice culture we've created through technology.

[DonnyL]

I think this has come up before, and I have to agree with Craig/Guitarfool on this one. Not that I don’t see Maggie’s point … and to her point, I think it’s fair that some of us may be looking through a certain lense, whereas a 15 year old kid might think trends from 5 year ago were worlds away.

But I think if we’re talking pop culture- things like mainstream movies, music, etc … while things have indeed changed- they have changed at a significantly slower pace than previously in the past.

The best example I can think of- and I think about it a lot- is the movie American Graffiti. The movie was set 11 years prior, yet was worlds away from the era it depicted at the time of its release. This move set off a series of nostalgic trends that captured the zeitgeist of the ‘70s in many ways. I think it’s fair to say a trend of nostalgia for the year 2010 capturing the spirit of the mainstream today would be unfathomable. Even if some teenage girls might post about things from 2014 or whatever on TikTok. I have nostalgia for the year 2012-2013 in my personal life- nostalgia is always there for many people. But in terms of culture trends and markers of the era, we have been at a point of very slow change and what I would call stagnation for 20-30 years in many ways IMO.

Getting back to The Beach Boys- the distance between Smiley Smile and Summer in Paradise is the same distance as Stars and Stripes and today. Yet the production values of Stars & Stripes are not much different than a record made today.

[guitarfool2002]

I think this has come up before, and I have to agree with Craig/Guitarfool on this one. Not that I don’t see Maggie’s point … and to her point, I think it’s fair that some of us may be looking through a certain lense, whereas a 15 year old kid might think trends from 5 year ago were worlds away.

But I think if we’re talking pop culture- things like mainstream movies, music, etc … while things have indeed changed- they have changed at a significantly slower pace than previously in the past.

The best example I can think of- and I think about it a lot- is the movie American Graffiti. The movie was set 11 years prior, yet was worlds away from the era it depicted at the time of its release. This move set off a series of nostalgic trends that captured the zeitgeist of the ‘70s in many ways. I think it’s fair to say a trend of nostalgia for the year 2010 capturing the spirit of the mainstream today would be unfathomable. Even if some teenage girls might post about things from 2014 or whatever on TikTok. I have nostalgia for the year 2012-2013 in my personal life- nostalgia is always there for many people. But in terms of culture trends and markers of the era, we have been at a point of very slow change and what I would call stagnation for 20-30 years in many ways IMO.

Getting back to The Beach Boys- the distance between Smiley Smile and Summer in Paradise is the same distance as Stars and Stripes and today. Yet the production values of Stars & Stripes are not much different than a record made today.

American Graffiti is a prime example, definitely. Add to it the spin-off on TV, Happy Days, and this nostalgia kick was for a time which was only 10-15 years prior. And, perhaps even more important to note, the music and the fashion was absolutely crucial to the whole scene. Hearing those 50's hits and seeing the 50's fashion was what sold it as much as the plot and characters. And they had such definite music and fashion to feature. I see nothing about 2011 or 2006 that was so strong of a statement in music or fashion which would carry a nostalgia movie or TV show like Happy Days if it were made today. In the first seasons of Happy Days, the first thing viewers saw was a jukebox starting up, the needle hitting a record, and "Rock Around The Clock" came blasting out. What would an equivalent image and sound be for a show today focused on 2006-2011? I cannot imagine one which would trigger the same effect. A thumb hitting the disc controller on an iPad and hearing Sean Paul or Daniel Powter come filtering out through ear buds??? 

The point about The Beach Boys' music: I know it's been mentioned before too, but what is simply amazing to me is to consider how there was only a 4 year gap between "Surfin Safari" and "Pet Sounds"/"Good Vibrations". And for The Beatles, 3 years between "Please Please Me" in the UK and "Revolver". The musical growth shown in those 3-4 years is astounding. I cannot think of a single artist of the past 20 years who has anything even close to that kind of growth in their music in such a short time. And consider these groups were actively touring each year, AND cranking out at least two full albums each year as well.

And they were truly innovative. Each album was different, and each step was forward in its own way. Quality and quantity. And the majority of it was done on 4 track machines. Look at what DAW technology has made available and affordable to anyone in the past two decades, and has anyone matched those amazing runs these groups had from 62-66? Hell no. It's unbelievable when we put it into that context.

[guitarfool2002]

Another film example to consider, and one of my favorite movies of all time; One which also featured both the music on the soundtrack and the fashions as integral and essential parts of the plot, maybe as equal for the music as some of the characters, with a strong nostalgia vibe even for those who weren't alive at the time the film was set:

Dazed And Confused. And that, too, was a film made in 1993 which was set in 1976, less than 20 years prior. It could be considered an updated version of American Graffiti for the 70's era, the influence is definitely there especially in the way Linklater used the period music throughout.