New Brian album announced

[Jim McShane]

This ALWAYS comes up - I want to know how you KNOW FOR SURE that autotune was used? The source of your information please?

I guess you're not ill after all.

Jason,

Your two recent posts in this thread  - what was the purpose of them?

If you are trying to provoke a fight you won't succeed. But I do wish you'd quit trying, and also knock off all the garbage you post over at one of the other forums about me. It's unnecessary and uncalled for. You've made your dislike for me public enough times that I'm sure everyone who cares knows where you stand.

Thank you.

[Jason]

First you say that (paraphrasing) you're worried about how Brian's vocals will sound on the new album. Then you berate and demand information from another fan because he insinuates, with some factual evidence, that Brian uses autotune on his vocals when he's solo. It's all over the 1988 album, only Paley admitted to it being on only one track. Read AGD's book.

You're confusing me.

 

[Jim McShane]

First you say that (paraphrasing) you're worried about how Brian's vocals will sound on the new album. Then you berate and demand information from another fan because he insinuates, with some factual evidence, that Brian uses autotune on his vocals when he's solo. It's all over the 1988 album, only Paley admitted to it being on only one track. Read AGD's book.

You're confusing me.

 

I am worried about how the vocals will turn out, that's correct. I think the vocals on WIRWFC, especially the new songs, are remarkable; and I believe one of the reasons is that the band was allowed to provide the BG vocals. Like many, I don't really want to hear vocals like much of GIOMH. And I really was hoping to hear more of the band, I think they are incredible.

As far as my reply to Roger's post, I asked him on what basis he came to the conclusion that autotune was used on BWPS and WIRWFC (nothing was said about BW88) since he didn't mention at all how he reached that point. He said it was his opinion, we then exchanged a couple notes about the topic. In one I mentioned my question came off as harsh when I didn't want it to be, so I apologized to him. There was no berating involved, although the tone of my question was too harsh.

As far as autotune/pitch corection is concerned, I would like to hear from someone who knows first hand (if that's possible) if it was used on BWPS and/or WIRWFC. Wrong second hand information has been posted too many times for me to trust it. I can't recall if it was here or another board, but at one time it was posted by someone who knew for sure that 2 guys in Brian's band had been fired. Of course there was no truth to that. So on the autotune thing I hope at some point someone will say that either they were there and knew it was or was not used or someone can say they spoke to a key player directly involved in the recording and Mark/Darian/Scott/Jeff (etc.) told them that it was or was not used. Just because it was used in the past doesn't mean it was still in use for BWPS and WIRWFC.

If you are still confused I don't know what else to tell you, sorry.

[andy]

swish

[Ron]

I'm almost positive that I heard Brian say in an interview that he uses Autotune and that it's amazing it gets the vocals just right. 

Now with that said, I think he should use it to his hearts content... it's really a rediculous discussion.  Nothing done in the studio is honest.  It hardly ever has been since they started multitracking in the early 60's.  When Brian sings harmony with himself he's faking it with studio trickery.  You cannot sing in two voices at the same time, even if you are the god-like Brian Wilson.  When he adds reverb to his voice to make it have more resonance he's again cheating.  I love it.  Cheat on good Doctor. 

If you want to hear somebody do it in the studio the way they do it on stage, go get a Hank Williams CD.  If it's anything much newer than that, it was sweetened up in the studio and I say thank god!  Brian's whole genius is doing cool sh*t in the studio!  If you get some time, go get this song he did, "Good Vibrations" with the Beach Boys.  If you listen really carefully, you can tell that they're not even in the same room!  It's not even the same take!  He's singing in different voices! you get the picture, i'm just trying to make a point by stating the obvious. 

[Mark H.]

Just a notion...does it really matter if a little auto-pitch was used if it sounds good.  It's like putting make-up on an actor in a film role as far as I'm concerned.  If it's done correctly...you can't tell.  It's not like cheating on a test....it's making music.

[Mark H.]

I posted on top of Ron...sorry.

[Ron]

I'm glad someone agrees, though.  Even the actual recording being digital is fake.  It's just a bunch of 1's and 0's.  Think about it.  There's nothing to complain about, in the end, it sounds good (or doesn't!) and that's all that matters, not how they got there.  Even on stage these guys fake it.  Even using an amplifier on a guitar makes the sound much larger than it actually is... there's nothing honest about music, if your'e looking for that you will not find it.  If you're looking for something that sounds good, though, his name is Brian Wilson, and he's here for you. 

[Rocker]

If you want to hear somebody do it in the studio the way they do it on stage, go get a Hank Williams CD. If it's anything much newer than that, it was sweetened up in the studio and I say thank god!

Well, don't forget most of CCR's stuff. They could replicate their studio-efforts almost to a t on stage.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

Here's the thing though, and this is not a judgement, just my opinion.

In my mind, there is a difference between Autotune and the effects Ron describes.  In one case, say double-tracking, you have two Brians singing the same thing, which is impossible to do in real time, yes, but it's still Brian.  When you use something like Autotune, a computer program is analysing the pitch of somebodies voice, and when that person's voice does not fall within acceptable parameters, the computer comes up with it's own version of how the person would sound if they were singing within the parameter, and thus fundamentally altering the "human identity" of the voice.

And that can be cool, sometimes.  It can either do stuff like Cher, or it can be used as an effect to make things sound intentionally "too perfect", which is a very unusual sound.

But it makes me uncomfortable, because there's no reason a singer, unless they are completely tone-deaf, should not be able to hit pitches within their vocal range.  It just takes a little practice and concentration.  So when autotune is used not as an effect, but as a tool to make up for a lack of musicianship, I find myself somewhat philosophically opposed to it.

Of course, I've used pitch-correction software for pretty much the same thing...one of the songs I recorded had a little string quartet part, of which I played all the parts, and my intonation on violin left a little to be desired, so I tweaked the pitch in places to make the intervals a little less jarring.

That doesn't excuse my bad playing, and had I the resources, I would have hired professional string players.

[andy]

There's nothing to complain about, in the end, it sounds good (or doesn't!) and that's all that matters, not how they got there. 

 Yeah, if it sounds good it doesn't really matter, imo, but it can sound really bad. And in some cases, pitch-correction can suck the life right out of a sound, or even worse, not be exactly 'perfect'.

[andy]

Here's the thing though, and this is not a judgement, just my opinion.

In my mind, there is a difference between Autotune and the effects Ron describes.  In one case, say double-tracking, you have two Brians singing the same thing, which is impossible to do in real time, yes, but it's still Brian.  When you use something like Autotune, a computer program is analysing the pitch of somebodies voice, and when that person's voice does not fall within acceptable parameters, the computer comes up with it's own version of how the person would sound if they were singing within the parameter, and thus fundamentally altering the "human identity" of the voice.

And that can be cool, sometimes.  It can either do stuff like Cher, or it can be used as an effect to make things sound intentionally "too perfect", which is a very unusual sound.

But it makes me uncomfortable, because there's no reason a singer, unless they are completely tone-deaf, should not be able to hit pitches within their vocal range.  It just takes a little practice and concentration.  So when autotune is used not as an effect, but as a tool to make up for a lack of musicianship, I find myself somewhat philosophically opposed to it.

Of course, I've used pitch-correction software for pretty much the same thing...one of the songs I recorded had a little string quartet part, of which I played all the parts, and my intonation on violin left a little to be desired, so I tweaked the pitch in places to make the intervals a little less jarring.

That doesn't excuse my bad playing, and had I the resources, I would have hired professional string players.

That's exactly what I think.

[Jim McShane]

But it makes me uncomfortable, because there's no reason a singer, unless they are completely tone-deaf, should not be able to hit pitches within their vocal range.  It just takes a little practice and concentration.  So when autotune is used not as an effect, but as a tool to make up for a lack of musicianship, I find myself somewhat philosophically opposed to it.

My feelings too. I don't agree that digital recording is fake bacause it's zeroes and ones as someone posted. Analog recording is just varying magnetic fields, so it's just as "fake". But I do agree 100% with your statement above.

[Mark H.]

I would hope that on a new album, Brian is composing songs that he can easily sing.  Obviously BWPS was a challange given that he wrote the parts when he was mid-20s and had a cherub voice.

[Ron]

Here's the thing though, and this is not a judgement, just my opinion.

In my mind, there is a difference between Autotune and the effects Ron describes.  In one case, say double-tracking, you have two Brians singing the same thing, which is impossible to do in real time, yes, but it's still Brian.  When you use something like Autotune, a computer program is analysing the pitch of somebodies voice, and when that person's voice does not fall within acceptable parameters, the computer comes up with it's own version of how the person would sound if they were singing within the parameter, and thus fundamentally altering the "human identity" of the voice.

And that can be cool, sometimes.  It can either do stuff like Cher, or it can be used as an effect to make things sound intentionally "too perfect", which is a very unusual sound.

But it makes me uncomfortable, because there's no reason a singer, unless they are completely tone-deaf, should not be able to hit pitches within their vocal range.  It just takes a little practice and concentration.  So when autotune is used not as an effect, but as a tool to make up for a lack of musicianship, I find myself somewhat philosophically opposed to it.

Of course, I've used pitch-correction software for pretty much the same thing...one of the songs I recorded had a little string quartet part, of which I played all the parts, and my intonation on violin left a little to be desired, so I tweaked the pitch in places to make the intervals a little less jarring.

That doesn't excuse my bad playing, and had I the resources, I would have hired professional string players.

I respectfully disagree.... music is essentially about sound, not how you get there.  Even when the BB's were standing on stage singing 4 or 5 part harmony, the cumalitive effect of the 4 or 5 voices acting together produced overtones and natural harmonic effects that weren't present in their individual voices, that's why quartets and such sound so great, because the harmonic effect adds tons to the music... so even then, your enjoyment of what's going on isn't necessarily an appreciation of what their true voices are capable of, you're enjoying what you're hearing, not what it took to get there.

I also don't see a difference in reverb and autotune.  Autotune bends a human voice up into what a computer estimates it should sound like if it was in a certain tone, and reverb adds echoes and harmonic notes lower or higher than the note the voice is making essentially doing the same thing autotune is doing.  Brian sped up the tape on Caroline, No.  Certainly that would be a primitive version of autotuneing (although more uniform and across the whole song, not a single note).... and everybody heralds the genius of the song.

I know I won't change your mind, and you won't change mine... but in my opinion, the studio is all about creating something pleasing to the ear... now maybe Brian may or may not do that with a song (it might sound horrible)... but I see no fault in him using autotune to make his voice sound the way he wants it to sound.  In the end, too, this isn't a guy using it as a crutch, he's using it to make an already great voice sound even better (if he uses it at all). 

Another point I'd like to make in relation to your comment on being philosophically opposed to an artist using autotune as a tool instead of an effect is that we're talking about one of the greatest singers of all time.  If it were Britney Spears or whatever, and she'd never sang a note in tune in her life, and was totally propped up by Autotune in the studios... well then we'd have a right to question her artistic integrity (not that anybody's neccessarily questioning Brian's).  Brian Wilson has proven and shown for years and decades that he's a great singer (at times) and for a certain period in the 60's he had a voice that was pretty much inimitable, even by his brother (also possessing an incredible voice).  By all accounts, Brian Wilson at one time was an incredible if not amazing singer.  If he in his later years chooses to use autotune on his voice, I have to give him a certain bit of a 'players pass' since he's already proven his voice beyond what most other singers have, 40 years ago. 


Jim: the point about the 1's and 0's is that we're in a discussion about whether Brian's 'faking it' using autotune in the studio.  The point is that any musical recording can be considered fake and not an accurate sonic performance but rather a representation, by a computer, of what the computer thinks Brian sounds like.  Of course that's rediculous to slight anyone for making a digital recording, but I feel it's also rediculous to slight someone for using a tool (autotune) to make their voice sound how they want it to sound (in tune!).  It's a gamble Brian takes.... if you don't like the sound and think it sounds synthetic, well then he's lost some respect and appreciation just like he would if he sang the song off key.  However, if you're like me and think it sounds alright autotuned, then he won the gamble and the song is a success.  All of this is about him trying to present the most pallatable sound to the listening audience, and he uses the tools available to him. 

[brother john]

I'm almost positive that I heard Brian say in an interview that he uses Autotune and that it's amazing it gets the vocals just right. 

Now with that said, I think he should use it to his hearts content... it's really a rediculous discussion.  Nothing done in the studio is honest.  It hardly ever has been since they started multitracking in the early 60's.  When Brian sings harmony with himself he's faking it with studio trickery.  You cannot sing in two voices at the same time, even if you are the god-like Brian Wilson.  When he adds reverb to his voice to make it have more resonance he's again cheating.  I love it.  Cheat on good Doctor. 

If you want to hear somebody do it in the studio the way they do it on stage, go get a Hank Williams CD.  If it's anything much newer than that, it was sweetened up in the studio and I say thank god!  Brian's whole genius is doing cool merda in the studio!  If you get some time, go get this song he did, "Good Vibrations" with the Beach Boys.  If you listen really carefully, you can tell that they're not even in the same room!  It's not even the same take!  He's singing in different voices! you get the picture, i'm just trying to make a point by stating the obvious. 

I do remember there being a bit of embracement coming out of the Wilson camp (i.e. Melinda) at the time after Brian accidentally let-slip that his vox had been autotuned for Smile04. He thought it was great that you could do that!

The thing is, Brian just can't hit the notes like he used to. GIOMH had so many bum notes on it that it was embarrassing, but it was a case, I guess, of people saying 'well, lets just let him do his own thing, and maybe we'll get a Love You or something...' Autotune (and its not the only plug-in that can do pitch-correction, but has become the industry standard) can sound virtually transparent if used correctly. If someone is just a few cents off the correction is barely noticeable.

On Smile04 I’d say it was pretty obvious that Autotune was used just by listening to Brian's voice (you can hear various artefacts, and the life is squeezed out of it hear and there). There were loads of FX applied on mixing (compression, autotune etc.) to get his voice up to scratch, and that's OK, 'cos it wasn't going to cut it on its own.

WIRWFC had his vocals sounding great, but I’d bet my entire home studio on the likelihood of him being autotuned by whoever did the mix.

We shouldn't begrudge Brian the facilities available that allow him to deliver a more musical product. Integrity doesn't have much to do with it, as the end product really should sound the best it can, and Brian, bless him, doesn’t have the ability to knock out the performances of yesteryear.

[Andrew G. Doe]

My two cents worth - Brian's best vocal of recent vintage, by several miles, was his contribution to "Grief Never Grows Old". Not shouting, firmly within his range, warm, slightly plaintive and hugely affecting. And, above all, great.

As for the 'new' album (which I'm sure will be about 50% old, assuming it ever happens), I'm concerned that without Darian there to act as [koff] 'musical secretary', the results will be, um, mixed.

PS: nice to see someone pick up of my comment re: the synclavier in "One For The Boys" 

[absinthe_boy]

If this project is something Brian really wants to do...then it could be really good.


As for Autotune, I am sure we can all hear that its used on BWPS in a few places....I have no problems with it being used to correct the occasional fluff but I would hope that Brian's new songs are written to largely fall within his current range.

[c-man]

Another really good recent Brian vocal is "You've Touched Me"...provided you ignore the intro, of course.  In the body of the song, Brian sounds very relaxed and natural, a nice, warm vocal.  If only he'd been on pitch in the intro...

[Don't Back Down]

Another really good recent Brian vocal is "You've Touched Me"...provided you ignore the intro, of course.  In the body of the song, Brian sounds very relaxed and natural, a nice, warm vocal.  If only he'd been on pitch in the intro...

I really enjoyed that song from GIOMH. I could do without the intro like you said. The backing track is great too, imo.

[MBE]

You know I think the 1995 version of GIOMH is the best modern Brian vocal by a large measure. I have never heard him sound so close to his unsulled voice in any other track post 74. How I wish he could have or would have always sounded like this.

[Old Rake]

I think his best recent vocal is, as Andrew or somebody mentioned above, the backing vocals on "Delerious Love." The version he appears on whips the version he doesn't, hands down. His contributions MAKE the song, already great, way way better.

He sounds super engaged, and ON.

[brother john]

My two cents worth - Brian's best vocal of recent vintage, by several miles, was his contribution to "Grief Never Grows Old". Not shouting, firmly within his range, warm, slightly plaintive and hugely affecting. And, above all, great.

AGD (or anyone...) Where does "Grief Never Grows Old" appear? And "Delerious Love" the same - my memory fails me... Does anyone have info/link?

 

[Andrew G. Doe]

The BW version of "Delerious Love" is on the digipak version of 12 Songs - the one with 14 tracks. 

"GNGO", to my knowledge, was only ever released as a CD single.

[brother john]

The BW version of "Delerious Love" is on the digipak version of 12 Songs - the one with 14 tracks. 

"GNGO", to my knowledge, was only ever released as a CD single.

Thankyou Andrew, for your succinct reply.