|
|
Post by karmafrog on Jul 30, 2021 21:13:05 GMT -5
We tackle this mystery - and provide evidence for a new theory - on the latest episode of PET SQUARES, the wonkiest Beach Boys show on youTube! Check out "Little Deuce Coupe Vol. 2, A Detective Story":
|
|
|
|
Post by AGD on Jul 31, 2021 0:23:09 GMT -5
Here's my best guess: it's radical, but I feel has merit.
It wasn't.
Seriously, watch these shows. They're informing, amusing, thought provoking and, er, something else good I've forgotten. You'll learn things you never knew you never knew.
|
|
|
|
Post by karmafrog on Jul 31, 2021 1:37:59 GMT -5
Thanks Andrew!
"It wasn't" is a very good theory, and I attempt to show how I think Brian pulled it off. The Bellagio website was invaluable on this episode I might add...
|
|
|
|
Post by Autotune on Jul 31, 2021 11:25:59 GMT -5
Fascinating episode.
|
|
|
|
Post by smash em now on Jul 31, 2021 22:32:00 GMT -5
Great stuff, as always.
Also, I know the track is sloppier, but I've always preferred Pamela Jean to Car Crazy Cutie. Lyrics fit better on Pamela Jean.
|
|
|
|
Post by AGD on Aug 1, 2021 11:21:36 GMT -5
Excellent and thought provoking. Re: Rich Alarian, I will say this - in the summer 1983 edition of Add Some Music, where the Survivors interview is, he comes across very much as the brash "I did this, I did that, I did it all" kid, most notably with regard to the lead vocal of "Pamela Jean", which is patently Brian. According to Alarian, that was him with Brian "singing in my ear". However... in December 1963 Brian retrieved the tape of "PJ" from the Capitol vault, returning it a few days later with the notation "revised". Did he overdub his vocal over Alarian's ?
|
|
|
|
Post by karmafrog on Aug 1, 2021 21:38:23 GMT -5
Yeah, that tracks. I mean, it doesn't seem to be possible that the Survivors *sang* on that many completed tracks, which is what he's saying. On LDC, there are only two that aren't blatantly obviously the BBs vocally (I'm not saying the backgrounds are not the BBs, I'm just saying that if we posit the Survivors sang on any part of the album, there are only two possible candidates, not four or five per Rich A. There's also not seemingly enough time in the schedule for them to have done more than that).
Craig Slowinksi apparently found an old tape box with a crossed out running order for LDC that has the songs in reverse chronological order from what's proposed on the show, which is a little more corroboration. He also said the album was turned in on the 3rd, so if Brian overdubbed a few things after the band went home as I posit in the show, it was *right* after they went home.
Interesting question about that revision. I'm curious about that too.
|
|
|
|
Post by AGD on Aug 2, 2021 0:58:07 GMT -5
Yeah, that tracks. I mean, it doesn't seem to be possible that the Survivors *sang* on that many completed tracks, which is what he's saying. On LDC, there are only two that aren't blatantly obviously the BBs vocally (I'm not saying the backgrounds are not the BBs, I'm just saying that if we posit the Survivors sang on any part of the album, there are only two possible candidates, not four or five per Rich A. There's also not seemingly enough time in the schedule for them to have done more than that). Craig Slowinksi apparently found an old tape box with a crossed out running order for LDC that has the songs in reverse chronological order from what's proposed on the show, which is a little more corroboration. He also said the album was turned in on the 3rd, so if Brian overdubbed a few things after the band went home as I posit in the show, it was *right* after they went home. Interesting question about that revision. I'm curious about that too. So... the mythical 9/2 seven song session was actually a mastering session for those songs new to the album (and an assembly of said album) ? Seven "new" songs plus the five tracks previously recorded equals the twelve album tracks. It's all too neat to be The Beach Boys. |
|
|
|
Post by karmafrog on Aug 2, 2021 6:11:00 GMT -5
No, I don't think that's what Craig meant. I assume after the 3rd it went to mastering. But I don't know the source of the tape box.
Craig's team of ears are pretty certain it's the Beach Boys vocally on all songs. Myself, I wouldn't swear to it on "No Go Showboat" (excepting the leads of course), and "Be True To Your School" is thick enough sounding that it could hide some non-BBs vocals in there, but I haven't listened that closely, and I'm not going down that rabbit hole. If the Survivors sing on the album "No Go" is the obvious contender. Rich A. supposedly cowrote it, as you pointed out, and it's sonically rather different from the rest of the tunes.
The short version of it all is that Brian (almost certainly) partially tracked "No Go Showboat," "Spirit of America," "Be True To Your School" and (probably) "Cherry Cherry Coupe" in advance of the band coming in. It's almost certainly (to my ears) the band on "Car Crazy Cutie," "BOOB (heh)" and "Custom Machine." Dennis and Carl (and possibly Dave on the former) seem to have overdubbed guitar/drums on "Be True" and "Cherry Cherry Coupe." There's further overdubs of a snare on "No Go Showboat" and piano on "Custom Machine" which I suspect were both done by Brian at the end of the session, though the former could be Dennis. It seems likely they ran out of time (they clap along in lieu of a Carl solo on "Showboat") and indeed that tracks to what I think is the limit of what could realistically be accomplished in two days, or 2 1/2 if you assume Brian did extra work on the 3rd and then ran the tape over to Capitol.
|
|
|
|
Post by WillJC on Aug 2, 2021 6:43:05 GMT -5
Adam, this is an intriguing theory well worth considering (and a good watch, very much enjoyed the episode, it got me thinking!), but after some careful and thorough investigation with the Brain Trust I'm coming down on the conclusion that the scenario is unlikely.
To get it out of the way, the dates: September 2 is the date associated with all of the LDC album tracks in Capitol's files. That's probably reflective of when the masters were purchased rather than recorded, meaning they all existed on tape in some fashion by then, although a recording session almost certainly would've taken place earlier on the same day given the timeframe. September 3 is the date both the mono and stereo albums were assembled. On the other end, we're fretting about the extremity of the album having to be recorded in two days here, but the group were already back in LA on August 31 for a show (starting 8pm). It's well within reason that a session could've taken place that day too. No real reason to think it couldn't. With three days to play with, the conditions no longer sound so implausible.
The following January, it took them one day to knock out Don't Worry Baby, This Car of Mine, In the Parkin' Lot, and two versions of Denny's Drums at Western, and for Brian to then move over to Gold Star to track Why Do Fools Fall in Love the same evening. That was without the same impending deadline and without Murry all over their backs. To learn, rehearse, and record two to three songs a day for three days running would be tight but not unmanageable for them.
Coming back to Showboat, it is a double-tracked band. Like, conclusively. That's case closed. There are several points throughout the song where you can do a left/right comparison and find something different in the performance: emphasis, balance of the instruments, and them not entirely being in sync. The band on the left also just isn't close at all to what monitor bleed sounds like in that situation. There's more definition to some instruments on that side over the overdub on the right - particularly the bari sax, which gets way closer up to the mic. The faint drum bleed on the right... well, that is what monitor bleed sounds like. And these stereo mixes aren't perfect complete separation, either. Phase cancel any 1963 vocals-left/track-middle/vocals-right stereo mix to mono and you'll always end up with a sizeable amount of the instrumental track left over, no matter where you adjust the centre to, because the reverb bleeds (this is not the same thing that happens to a dry Unsurpassed Masters mix). That, plus the monitor sound while a band is drumlessly double-tracking can easily explain away the ever-so-faint trace of the drum on the right.
As for why Dennis is just hitting a snare drum - why is he doing the same thing on Car Crazy Cutie? It isn't an unusual way for Brian to treat the drums. Less for him to learn if they had to work very quickly, no?
The Pamela Jean analogy doesn't work with the track alignments. That was piano and saxes on one, guitars and drums on the other. Sure, if this were hypothetically the same (or another) session at Radio Recorders this could've easily been shifted to leave the drums on their own, but then you get into the tangled web of an idea that Brian would've for some reason done a dubdown while overdubbing his bass but deliberately dropping those Hal Blaine drums to replace with Dennis later, which... makes it all far more complicated and impractical than not doing that. And as established, that isn't a drum overdub on Showboat or by extension the other songs.
Pamela Jean isn't sonically all that similar, besides the superficial aspect of it being a Brian Wilson track with the same instrumentation recorded less a week earlier, so it's inevitably going to have consistency in some regards. The guitars sound totally different, and so does the drum miking (if that hypothetically would still be Hal in spots). Peterson only made the claim about singing, so we're not dealing with the memory of any Survivors standing in for the Beach Boys as instrumentalists anyhow. You'd think one of them would've mentioned it if they had done something as significant as that. The tracks are all quite heavy on the Wilsonian quirks.
That early album tracklist you bring up is an interesting one. It makes next to no sense as an album. It's as if someone just laid them out in what looks like could be some sort of reverse chronological recording order off the master reel, old tracks included:
Side One:
1 - Car Crazy Cutie
2 - Cherry Coupe
3 - Rebel Without A Cause
4 - Custom Machine
5 - Betsy
6 - Spirit of America
Side Two:
1 - Be True To Your School
2 - No-Go Showboat
3 - Little Deuce Coupe
4 - Our Car Club
5 - Shut Down
6 - 409
Think about it... Two possible singles and another new song with some semi-ambitious production ideas. Then two other new songs minus the horns. Then Hearts with new words, then Land Ahoy with new words, then a rewrite of the song Brian had only just recorded with the Survivors. You can trace how it would've happened, if that is how it happened.
RE Rich: I think we can say with next to certainty that he didn't ever sing lead on Pamela Jean and was making it up. Radio Recorders preserved every take of every overdub on tape, Brian was singing the lead live with the other group members, and the vocals are on a reel dated the same as the tracking session.
|
|
|
|
Post by karmafrog on Aug 2, 2021 9:23:45 GMT -5
Thanks for watching! Responses below: "we're fretting about the extremity of the album having to be recorded in two days here, but the group were already back in LA on August 31 for a show (starting 8pm). It's well within reason that a session could've taken place that day too. No real reason to think it couldn't. With three days to play with, the conditions no longer sound so implausible."They played a show on August 30 in New York City. So you're proposing they hopped a plane after the NY show, got back to L.A. in the middle of the night (losing three hours in the process), woke up, then squeezed in a session before the night's show? After six weeks on the road? I mean no disrespect by saying this, but any musician that's ever actually done that kind of a hop (I have) and knows the logistics involved would say that's wildly implausible. People need to sleep. People need to wake up. People need to be ferried to and from the airport. There's a wait when you depart. There's a wait when you land. You need to get to the studio from the airport. You need to get from the studio to the gig (8 p.m. is actually pretty early...with L.A. traffic as a factor, means they'd probably need to leave the session by 6). There's certainly going to be a lot of waiting around at the show, maybe some PR, etc. Then, assuming the band managed this somehow, they're going to be groggy exhausted wrecks for the next two days of recording, assuming they aren't already. "To learn, rehearse, and record two to three songs a day for three days running would be tight but not unmanageable for them."Again, I hate to keep saying this, and please take this from a place of respect, but from the standpoint of someone who actually has done this under similar circumstances, knows exactly what's involved, and knows how long each step (rehearsing 7 songs that you've mostly never heard before/level check/recording/session changeover/double tracking four part harmonies that you've never sung before) takes, yes, it is. It's completely unrealistic. "Coming back to Showboat, it is a double-tracked band. Like, conclusively. That's case closed. There are several points throughout the song where you can do a left/right comparison and find something different in the performance: emphasis, balance of the instruments, and them not entirely being in sync."Great, let's hear them. Because I listened down at least four times with cans on three separate occasions and couldn't hear any. "Emphasis and balance of the instruments" is something that shifts with EQ, which is what happens when you bounce. It's not a difference in performance. Something being "slightly out of sync" can be an effect that's to be expected if it's being played back through a monitor, because of the slight lag time involved. This is something I also noted. Again, I hate to keep harping on this point because it's like a pissing match and I hate that kind of thing, but from a studio musician's perspective, it's pretty close to impossible to sync up THAT close so that we're even arguing about it if it's multiple people playing to live monitors. Headphones, yes, maybe. ABBA did it, much later, with studio cats and individual monitor mixes, but that's an apples to lasagna comparison. And even then I would say the double wasn't this close. Oh, and let's remember, according to your formulation, they just learned the song and they have to have the whole album done in two days. They have never done this kind of overdub before. Since attempting this is likely to grind the whole session to a halt why in the world would Brian try such an experiment NOW? "The band on the left also just isn't close at all to what monitor bleed sounds like in that situation."Fair point; it does sound more distinct than I would expect, and I did allow for the possibility that it was bounced by some other means. It could be a combination of a bounce and the mic on the drums, or it could just be a plain ol' bounce with the original track left up for some reason. "There's more definition to some instruments on that side over the overdub on the right - particularly the bari sax, which gets way closer up to the mic."I know what you refer to and that's an EQ artifact. The lower midrange frequencies are accentuated on the "snare" channel - as expected on a bounce or second generation recording - which accounts for that effect. It's an audio illusion. If you've done enough mixes you know that certain frequencies will make certain things stick out differently. It's not the same as a different performance. "The faint drum bleed on the right... well, that is what monitor bleed sounds like."Odd then that we don't hear a second band, too. "As for why Dennis is just hitting a snare drum - why is he doing the same thing on Car Crazy Cutie? It isn't an unusual way for Brian to treat the drums. Less for him to learn if they had to work very quickly, no?"His playing on Car Crazy Cutie is more in line with a guy playing a full kit - and I believe he was - but yes, I would imagine Dennis played simply as a general rule. I'm not sure why this is relevant here. Both BTTYS and NGS *sound* like a drummer playing a snare only and NGS moreover sounds quite hesitant to the track (which would not be surprising if it's an overdub to a monitor). It's a difference in feel. Again - hate to keep going here, but I have to - it's a distinction that's not immediately obvious if you haven't played the drums yourself and also recorded a lot of drummers. <<That was piano and saxes on one, guitars and drums on the other. Sure, if this were hypothetically the same (or another) session at Radio Recorders this could've easily been shifted to leave the drums on their own, but then you get into the tangled web of an idea that Brian would've for some reason done a dubdown while overdubbing his bass but deliberately dropping those Hal Blaine drums to replace with Dennis later, which... makes it all far more complicated and impractical than not doing that. >>I should say (and you can check PS#4 if you don't believe me) that I posited NGS had this kind of separation before I'd ever heard the basic for "Pamela Jean." So that's a hell of a coincidence. As for why wipe Hal under these circumstances, it's a fair question (the drums were so bad on PJ that I was convinced it was amateur drummer, which would explain the wipe, but everyone says it's Hal, so...) but it doesn't mean it didn't happen. One explanation that occurs to me is that leaving Hal's drums on all would leave the band playing on a minority of the songs and may have created a political issue. Yes, in the future we *would* have the band playing on less than half the album, but it had not happened yet. I don't say that *is* the reason - I can't know - but it's a reason that makes sense to me, since by my theory, leaving him off those two songs and overdubbing Dennis and Carl would give the band a bare majority of the tracks. <<Coming back to Showboat, it is a double-tracked band. Like, conclusively. That's case closed.>>
<<And as established, that isn't a drum overdub on Showboat>>My friend, I have no issue with being challenged whatsoever and I'm perfectly willing to defend my position and/or admit I'm wrong (as I did in the accordion situation), but it troubles me that you express certainty about things that neither you nor I have proven nor can be 100% sure about as we were not there. I acknowledge you are an established authority on these things but to be fair you must be open to challenge just as I am. You, and I, are both trying to establish what historically happened and we should not go into a discussion saying we've proved things based on a subjective assertion. Certainly, if you can *show me* a place on NGS that proves there are two bands, then I'm prepared to admit I'm wrong. But your saying so, no matter how strongly, isn't proof, particularly as I've listened carefully and I believe you are incorrect. However *I could be wrong* and I would like to see you make that same allowance in your thinking. As you are a researcher of authority, and I say this with great respect and care, I think you should be very careful about asserting opinions, no matter how well researched or valid, as proven fact. It can lead us astray if we happen to be wrong, and nobody is always right, particularly with things as subjective as listening. I'm open to challenge and to defend my position fairly. I would hope that you are, also. In my view, our goal should be to (a) figure out what happened or failing that (b) enjoy the debate respectfully. <<The guitars sound totally different>>I never said the guitars, except for what we barely hear on Showboat, from the Radio Recorders session are audible on LDC. However I did check in this one case and the guitar tone on Showboat IS consistent with the Pamela Jean session again, when accounting for the difference in EQ from a basic to what's on the final, further back in the mix and a generation or two down. <<and so does the drum miking (if that hypothetically would still be Hal in spots)>>Again, as shown in the video, the drum miking on SOA is consistent with Pamela Jean and not consistent with any other song on LDC. I also explained the difference in the snare sound in the video. Other than the faint drum on NGS and (I think, it's open to question) the intro tom-tom on Be True, I don't contend that any other part of LDC was Hal. <<Peterson only made the claim about singing, so we're not dealing with the memory of any Survivors standing in for the Beach Boys as instrumentalists anyhow.>> That is correct, and a fair point. <<<<You'd think one of them would've mentioned it if they had done something as significant as that.>> You'd think, but then Dave Nowlan just told Craig that he played on "Surfer Girl" and you'd think that would have been mentioned before now. There are lots of things in the history of the Beach Boys "you'd think" would be mentioned (e.g. Dennis cowriting YASB) and weren't. It doesn't mean they didn't happen. For that matter, under my theory, we don't know that Dave/Bob played on anything audible on LDC other than the buried guitar on NGS, so it doesn't really seem like something that would be forever fixed in their minds. Bob had played on other BBs records before so I don't think it was a big whomp to him. <<The tracks are all quite heavy on the Wilsonian quirks.>>Which makes sense since he produced them. <<That early album tracklist you bring up is an interesting one. It makes next to no sense as an album. It's as if someone just laid them out in what looks like could be some sort of reverse chronological recording order off the master reel, old tracks included>>
Yes, which would be absolutely consistent with NGS, BTTYS and SOA being tracked beforehand at Radio. In fairness it would be a point against my theory that Cherry Cherry Coupe was also prepared in advance (though not at that session). Again, really appreciate the challenges and the feedback, and I hope you understand that I have thought through all these issues and was prepared to defend them, and have. Best to you, and take care. |
|
|
|
Post by Joshilyn Hoisington on Aug 2, 2021 9:41:55 GMT -5
I have done this and I say it is plausible.
I once taught 4 a cappella BB charts (Auld Lang Syne, Hearts, Dreams, and Lord's Prayer) to a quartet of college students in a half hour for performance that evening. They did great and they also hadn't grown up learning to do this from Brian Wilson, and weren't a well-oiled machine.
Listening to the track is proof. It's impossible to "prove" something patent. Why would it not be two bands when that is the simplest scenario, and a not unheard of MO of Brian's? It's not even a tight double, you can hear off-timed separate pick attacks on the guitars on either side, the sax breathing and phrasing diverges, the bass picking and palm muting is pretty distinct on each side, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by WillJC on Aug 2, 2021 10:05:31 GMT -5
Left: drive.google.com/file/d/1iZJgvaB-_hND6_g31YU0UVzEnEpMUxO5/view?usp=sharingRight: drive.google.com/file/d/1pvYeFr-tSemNd8QVZI59b5Yt-rUOUIRC/view?usp=sharingDifferent piano, different saxophones. That's one example pulled at random. If there isn't ground to be certain about something, I'd say that. It's not something I do lightly without thinking about or discussing with others (in this case, John, Joshilyn, and Craig, who you know don't do that lightly either. Craig's still playing some devil's advocate.). With this, I can't point to more than the actual audio of the thing we're talking about. You're placing a lot of stock here in an "I'm a musician so I just know how it works" logic. "They couldn't do that because they'd be tired" ... okay, evidence? "Brian wouldn't double-track instruments because they'd never tried it before and didn't have much time" ... well, South Bay Surfer. And why not? Has he told you? "It's impossible for them to play that tightly" ... they did. Look at Shut Down Part II. That's incredibly tight. Like ADT, almost. They were professionals and good at what they did. Adam, you're wording it nicely, but you're being more than a bit condescending here. I'm not walking around with a bag on my head making weighty pronouncements about things I can't possibly understand for lack of weathered producer experience out of hubris. And we're talking about the Beach Boys! It's not a battle! Edit: To the listening and trying to challenge own viewpoint aside - I did that. I think the Survivors preparing some tracks for the Beach Boys is an incredibly interesting concept and I sorta hoped it was true. The pieces simply didn't line up. |
|
|
|
Post by karmafrog on Aug 2, 2021 10:09:19 GMT -5
<<I have done this and I say it is plausible.>>
OK. I have no idea what to say to that, because I do not believe (factoring in the three hour time difference in the flight home) there is enough time for this to happen. I once taught 4 a cappella BB charts (Auld Lang Syne, Hearts, Dreams, and Lord's Prayer) to a quartet of college students in a half hour for performance that evening. They did great and they also hadn't grown up learning to do this from Brian Wilson, and weren't a well-oiled machine.No, but your team could read vocal charts, which as you know, Brian did not use with the Beach Boys and they could not read them. Apples to lasagna, again. As you well know, Brian taught the band the parts verbally, in sections. A much more laborious process. This is the whole reason we have charts, to be able to do things like you did that quickly. That was not a tool in their box. Likewise they didn't read music charts. At best, they had chord sheets. Listening to the track is proof. It's impossible to "prove" something patent. Why would it not be two bands when that is the simplest scenario, and a not unheard of MO of Brian's?
First of all, no. Listening is a subjective matter and therefore not proof. I myself listened carefully trying to prove myself wrong - an exercise I recommend - and reached a different conclusion and in my video, I showed a specific place where an anomaly was exactly duplicated on both tracks...e.g., I went beyond subjective listening to make my case. All one needs to do to prove me wrong is to produce places in the track where the performance (not the sonics) varies from one channel to the other. That's not subjective. As for "why would it not be two bands" - well because it's not the simplest scenario at all. Again, I kind of don't know what to say to that, it's so not the simplest scenario from a production standpoint. It's quite a weird thing to attempt in a session with such timing where everything had to go exactly right, for reasons I already mentioned above. It was an unheard of MO of Brian's THEN. He started doing it later, with studio musicians and likely headphones, and even then, the tracks were not so tight that they were indistinguishable from one another. Again - respectfully - I have thought all these issues through quite carefully, was ready to be challenged, and am answering those challenges. I do this in the spirit of being ready to be proven wrong and to revisit my thinking. I would hope anybody that challenges me would have the same openness of spirit to revisit their own thinking. best, adam m. |
|
|
|
Post by Joshilyn Hoisington on Aug 2, 2021 10:16:06 GMT -5
Sure, check out 0:00 thru about 1:45.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joshilyn Hoisington on Aug 2, 2021 10:17:04 GMT -5
That's an incorrect assumption. I had to teach two of them by rote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joshilyn Hoisington on Aug 2, 2021 10:42:14 GMT -5
Since they are totally different performances, it's hard to pick out spots, but here are a few:
00:03:073 - Left piano obviously plays slightly different rhythm than the right one
00:03:390 - right bass lets up on palm muting more than left bass
00:13:04 - basses again don't sync up very well and timbre changes for a moment with muting
around 00:23:00 - obvious rhythmic variation between L and R pianos
00:25:00 et seq. - big difference in bass timbre as doing that slide thing with palm muting creates more opportunities for timbral variations - rhythm is slightly off, too.
around 00:35:203 - very noticable different in attacks and entry on sax
around 00:43:036 - saxes are way off in rhythm and articulation
around 00:46 et seq - L band and R band get a bit off
01:08:432 - obvious departure between L and R basses in timbre and rhythm
01:20-01:25 - R bass digs in and really hits the palm muting and pick attack hard, obvious difference from Left
01:26:00 - fairly prominent rhythmic diff between L and R pianos.
01:31:654 - rhythmic attack difference between L and R saxes
These are the most pronounced differences I can find, but there are many more subtle ones too.
|
|
|
|
Post by karmafrog on Aug 2, 2021 10:55:42 GMT -5
<<Left: drive.google.com/file/d/1iZJgvaB-_hND6_g31YU0UVzEnEpMUxO5/view?usp=sharing
Right: drive.google.com/file/d/1pvYeFr-tSemNd8QVZI59b5Yt-rUOUIRC/view?usp=sharing
Different piano, different saxophones. That's one example pulled at random.>>There's no difference in the performance of those tracks. Those are differences in how the channels sound, and the fundamentals emphasized, because of the differences of generations and how that affects the EQ. The piano and saxes don't *do* anything different, play any different notes. Just differences in sonics, in which parts of the frequency range you are hearing. That's what I've been trying to say. It's not two separate bands. It's the same performance with different EQ and probably a different generation. I mean, of course, if I'm not allowed to use my experience as a producer and a musician, then I can't point that out, but that's what allows me to point it out, because I'm familiar with this phenomenon. <<You're placing a lot of stock here in an "I'm a musician so I just know how it works" logic. "They couldn't do that because they'd be tired" ... okay, evidence? "Brian wouldn't double-track instruments because they'd never tried it before and didn't have much time" ... well, South Bay Surfer. And why not? Has he told you? "It's impossible for them to play that tightly" ... they did. Look at Shut Down Part II. That's incredibly tight. Like ADT, almost. They were professionals and good at what they did.>>
Adam, you're wording it nicely, but you're being more than a bit condescending here. I'm not walking around with a bag on my head making weighty pronouncements about things I can't possibly understand for lack of weathered producer experience out of hubris. And we're talking about the Beach Boys! It's not a battle!>>No, it's not, and I'm saying things nicely because I am trying not to make it into one.  When you come at me and say "it's this way, case closed" and you're not really taking in my argument, that could be taken as condescending as well. I am trying very hard not to take it that way, and I think so should you. If you make a bunch of arguments against my theory that I have thought through and can defend, of course I am going to answer that. I wouldn't put a show on youTube if I wasn't ready to do that. May I just turn what you said around and say perhaps you are being too dismissive of the weathered producer experience? Taking it as an ego thing or a condescending thing or an attack rather than thinking through that there might be some value or truth in that perspective, and that my only goal is the same as yours - to further our understanding of what actually happened? We all have things to learn. When I started the show, I didn't know much about this stuff at all, and I learned from the research that you guys did, and I think it was great stuff. You asked me at the very beginning to be open to reframing my thinking and I think I was. It just happened that, again, a few things here and there have not lined up to me, based on my experience and my own ears. And as I've said before, I would hope you'd all accord me that same openness in revisiting your own thinking. None of us is perfect, right? |
|
|
|
Post by karmafrog on Aug 2, 2021 10:59:17 GMT -5
Since they are totally different performances, it's hard to pick out spots, but here are a few:
00:03:073 - Left piano obviously plays slightly different rhythm than the right one
00:03:390 - right bass lets up on palm muting more than left bass
00:13:04 - basses again don't sync up very well and timbre changes for a moment with muting
around 00:23:00 - obvious rhythmic variation between L and R pianos
00:25:00 et seq. - big difference in bass timbre as doing that slide thing with palm muting creates more opportunities for timbral variations - rhythm is slightly off, too.
around 00:35:203 - very noticable different in attacks and entry on sax
around 00:43:036 - saxes are way off in rhythm and articulation
around 00:46 et seq - L band and R band get a bit off
01:08:432 - obvious departure between L and R basses in timbre and rhythm
01:20-01:25 - R bass digs in and really hits the palm muting and pick attack hard, obvious difference from Left
01:26:00 - fairly prominent rhythmic diff between L and R pianos.
01:31:654 - rhythmic attack difference between L and R saxesThese are the most pronounced differences I can find, but there are many more subtle ones too. Thanks Joshilyn - I'm going to put this in ProTools right now and I'll tell you what I hear in a sec after I've given it a due listen. If I agree with your assessment I will certainly say so with good grace. If I don't, I hope you will take it with the same good grace. |
|
|
|
Post by karmafrog on Aug 2, 2021 11:38:12 GMT -5
Since they are totally different performances, it's hard to pick out spots, but here are a few: 00:03:073 - Left piano obviously plays slightly different rhythm than the right oneI hear exactly the same riff in both channels here. 00:03:390 - right bass lets up on palm muting more than left bassI hear this but it doesn't sound like a performance issue but some kind of a sonic artifact that's cutting in when the bass frequencies exceed a certain level. The riff is otherwise exactly the same. 00:13:04 - basses again don't sync up very well and timbre changes for a moment with mutingI hear this also, but again, this doesn't sound like a performance thing but the same kind of sonic artifact as the previous example. But again, the riff is exactly the same. around 00:23:00 - obvious rhythmic variation between L and R pianos
The pianos are doing the same thing. The snare here is a little early which creates the illusion that the piano - which is buried on the snare side - is in time with it. 00:25:00 et seq. - big difference in bass timbre as doing that slide thing with palm muting creates more opportunities for timbral variations - rhythm is slightly off, too.As I said I am pretty sure what you are hearing as palm muting is some kind of a sonic artifact that's making the low end cut out when it exceeds a certain level. There is a difference here in that there's a prominent bass weirdness in the right channel but the left channel here the bass is inaudible, so that's not a difference. around 00:35:203 - very noticable different in attacks and entry on saxNot hearing any difference in performance here. I am hearing, again, an audio illusion created by the different EQ that creates a stereo effect. around 00:43:036 - saxes are way off in rhythm and articulationThere's a heavy blow here that is accentuated on one channel because it's brighter, and it catches the edge of the horn. It's less obvious on the other channel because, again, of the EQ. But it's the same. around 00:46 et seq - L band and R band get a bit offThe snare is late, which is specific to the one track (because according to my theory, that is an overdub). The underlying band performance is the same. 01:08:432 - obvious departure between L and R basses in timbre and rhythmI don't hear a difference here that can't be explained by a difference in the EQ. I do hear the guitar on the snare side and not on the non-snare side, which is interesting. by the way notice at 1:10 the exact same piano lick in both channels 01:20-01:25 - R bass digs in and really hits the palm muting and pick attack hard, obvious difference from LeftI hear just that the bass is more prominent on the right channel, and again, the palm muting you hear seems to be an audio artifact so it makes sense that the more aggressive the bass gets, the more you'd hear it. 01:26:00 - fairly prominent rhythmic diff between L and R pianos.Again, that's the snare out of time with the piano creating that impression. The piano under it is the same. 01:31:654 - rhythmic attack difference between L and R saxesAgain, this is an impression created by the EQ difference. If you bump up the EQ on the L channel, you can hear the same attack. These are the most pronounced differences I can find, but there are many more subtle ones too. **** Respectfully, these are all pretty much EQ and sonic anomalies, and - realizing that I am having to play the musician/producer card here, but what can I do - that these are the most obvious differences, there's no place where the band gets off time or varies what the licks they play in either channel, pretty much clinches it to me that this is one band performance. To be fair, the issue of the guitar could bear further close investigation - but as a possible overdub in and of itself, not as harbinger of an entire different band performance. It is very late here, and I have monopolized this thread too long, so I will wish all a good night, and I'm sure others can weigh in with their thoughts, and thanks for such an interesting conversation! I again want to thank everyone for watching and taking such an interest, and I might as well post the link to the show again! Here 'tis... |
|
|
|
Post by Joshilyn Hoisington on Aug 2, 2021 11:49:58 GMT -5
Well I guess we are at an impasse. I believe that you are wrong and would literally bet my life on it, and indeed, the lives of my family and all loved ones. I would bet everything I own.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joshilyn Hoisington on Aug 2, 2021 13:06:39 GMT -5
To try to be a little more systematic about it, so we can leave the listening part of it out, I think it would behoove us all to track the scenarios that would result in the two possible outcomes.
So Adam, to be clear, you are contending that:
A band (that may or may not have been the Beach Boys) records the basic track for No-Go showboat to one track of a tape.
At some later point, somebody overdubs a single snare onto a second track of the tape, and the snare mic is positioned so close to the playback monitor such that it captures the performance of the basic track coming out of it pretty tightly.
And as an aside, if this is your theory, do you think it was bad engineering or an intentional effect? Because we know that the engineers were competent enough to either suggest the drummer wear cans or at least position the mic such that the speaker was in a null. If it was done at Western, (I acknowledge you think it may be RR), we know that Chuck Britz was a pretty big fan of the Sennheiser MKH 405 on Snare / overhead. That is a very directional Small Diaphragm Condenser and Chuck (Or CL from RR) would certainly be skilled enough to place it such that the bleed from the playback would be minimized, at the very least, it would sound much more off mic? As I said, the 405 is in effect a short shotgun mic, and its null would sound very much like a distant off-mike thing. But even a 545 or a 666 would have a quieter null than we are hearing.
Then, singers add doubled vocals to the two remaining tracks? (Be they on the same tape or a second gen via a mono dub with simultaneous OD)
Then, the mixing engineer took this either intentionally strangely-recorded track and panned it hard out to emphasize the effect?
OR
Are you suggesting that they intentionally re-channeled the basic and did a reduction mix with the snare for an intentional effect?
Either way, would you agree that, for it to have ended up this way, it was an intentional effect -- basically using the studio as a very dry reverb chamber chamber while also adding a snare?
Or are you suggesting that the engineers were incompetent, and then emphasized their incompetence by panning it such that it emphasizes the bleed?
|
|
|
|
Post by Joshilyn Hoisington on Aug 5, 2021 12:37:07 GMT -5
Here's a nice little anecdote from Carl that serves as a nice counterbalance to our subjectivities about how fast the music could be learned (I bolded the bold text): Carl Wilson: "When I was ten, I'd have to sing a background part. The thing about that kind of modern jazz is that the parts are very strange; it's not like singing Christmas carols. I had to listen really hard; they weren't your regular three-chord tunes. If I'd make a mistake, he'd say, "No, it goes like this," and I'd have to do it again until I got it right. Just so it would be more fun, I started to learn my parts more quickly. It was great training. By the time I was fifteen, I could hear a part once and have it."I suspect Carl was the best at this, but one could perhaps infer that the rest of them had been subjected to Brian's process enough by then to have a similar ability to pick these things up quickly. Source: The Beach Boys High Times and Ebb Tides Carl Wilson Recalls 20 Years With and Without Brian Geoffrey Himes September 1983 fridaynightboys300.blogspot.com/2015/10/carl-wilson-interview-from-1983.html |
|
|
|
Post by donnylang on Aug 9, 2021 0:47:44 GMT -5
It would have to be two different tracks panned L/R, because if it were the same track doubled, it would sound mono/more centered instead of the separated sound. It would sound like Duophonic or something if the levels and/or EQ were not quite the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by craigslowinski on Aug 9, 2021 7:10:07 GMT -5
It would have to be two different tracks panned L/R, because if it were the same track doubled, it would sound mono/more centered instead of the separated sound. It would sound like Duophonic or something if the levels and/or EQ were not quite the same. In Adam's theory, there would be a slight delay in the monitor playback reaching the microphone used for the overdub, creating a quasi-stereo effect (Duophonic recordings also use a delay, as well as EQ, to create their fake stereo effect). |
|
When you come at me and say "it's this way, case closed" and you're not really taking in my argument, that could be taken as condescending as well. I am trying very hard not to take it that way, and I think so should you. 