Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wall of Sound

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: Wall of Sound

#41

Post by DerpyBaby123 »

jl6 wrote: post #19
lqet wrote: post #11

My favorite anecdote about the Wall of Sound technique is the paralyzing effect "Be My Baby" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSPpbOGnFgk ) had on Brian Wilson, founder of the Beach Boys: > "Be My Baby" had a profound lifelong impact on the Beach Boys' founder Brian Wilson. > When he heard "Be My Baby" for the first time through his car radio, he immediately pulled over to the side of the road and deemed it the grea…

Wow, after reading that legendary endorsement, I listened to it for the first time. I don’t normally think of myself as a philistine, but I’m afraid it didn’t speak to me at all. Maybe you had to be there.

This is a curse of many highly influential works, they seem unoriginal after experiencing the works it influenced first[1].

[1]https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunn...

Re: Wall of Sound

#42

Post by default-kramer »

I don't know if this is even Wall of Sound, but Along Comes Mary by The Association is a super interesting song to me. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URUd5RUAz1I)

It starts with a guitar and a keyboard (panned all the way left and right) plus bass guitar, drums, claps, and vocals. Pretty standard so far. Then we get to the first chorus which introduces brass, cowbell, and vocal harmonies. Right after that, a lower brass comes in which doubles the bass. Later we meet the flute, and then during the final verse the vocal harmonies get more intense. The result sounds huge to me, but each part can be distinctly heard (which is why I'm not sure if this qualifies as "wall of sound").

As if the production weren't enough, the composition is also brilliant. It's catchy and poppy, yet it has some very strange chord progressions and interesting harmonies.

The genre is apparently "sunshine pop" but I haven't been able to find any other songs in that genre that I like even half as much.

Re: Wall of Sound

#43

Post by jl6 »

Lendal wrote: post #35
jl6 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, after reading that legendary endorsement, I listened to it for the first time. I don’t normally think of myself as a philistine, but I’m afraid it didn’t speak to me at all. Maybe you had to be there.

It's too late to listen to it for the first time in 2021. You had to listen to it in 1963, or with that frame of mind, because before then there was nothing else like it. Everything after was influenced by it. And now it's normal. Just like Dylan, or the Beatles or any great influencer. They don't sound that great today. If you weren't alive before them, it seems normal and pedestrian, like a standard that was always…

I’m aware of the Seinfeld effect and I concede that is probably part of it, but I also think your other examples - Dylan and The Beatles - are great, and have stood the test of time far better than The Ronettes.

Re: Wall of Sound

#44

Post by hubbardd »

dekhn wrote: post #33
jl6 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, after reading that legendary endorsement, I listened to it for the first time. I don’t normally think of myself as a philistine, but I’m afraid it didn’t speak to me at all. Maybe you had to be there.

I've heard the song before but when back and listened to it. Sounds like many other terrible recordings from early 60s- terrible mix, terrible background noise, instruments can't be heard distinctly. Contrast Take Five, recorded live several years before. It's got some background noise but it's still so clear you can hear the creaking of the bass during the drum solo. Any track on Pet Sounds. Recorded only a few year…

> Can anybody point out a better recorded example of Spector's wall of sound?

"River Deep - Mountain High" is probably the pinnacle of the wall of sound that Spector did. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9Lehkou2Do) That said, you aren't going to get the clarity you're accustomed to because of the layers and layers of sound required and the fact that up until the mid 60s you were dealing with only 2-3 track recording. The Beatles didn't get access to 8 tracks until late 1968 (Sgt. Peppers was done with two 4 track machines), and 16 tracks weren't common until the early 70s. Wilson did Pet Sounds by initially recording the backing tracks on a 4 track, piping that mono mix into track one of the new 8 track console Columbia had installed, and then using the remaining channels for vocals (one channel for each member) and sweetening. I'd say the best quality recording of Spector's wall of sound is "Let it Down". (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Gyk_gvuIoI)

That said, if you've listened to Pet Sounds and "Wouldn't it be nice" then you've heard the wall of sound.

Re: Wall of Sound

#45

Post by dekhn »

hubbardd wrote: post #44
dekhn wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard the song before but when back and listened to it. Sounds like many other terrible recordings from early 60s- terrible mix, terrible background noise, instruments can't be heard distinctly. Contrast Take Five, recorded live several years before. It's got some background noise but it's still so clear you can hear the creaking of the bass during the drum solo. Any track on Pet Sounds. Recorded only a few year…

> Can anybody point out a better recorded example of Spector's wall of sound? "River Deep - Mountain High" is probably the pinnacle of the wall of sound that Spector did. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9Lehkou2Do ) That said, you aren't going to get the clarity you're accustomed to because of the layers and layers of sound required and the fact that up until the mid 60s you were dealing with only 2-3 track record…

I happened to be listening to that track when I read your comment. My complaint about that track is that it's very muddy (none of the instruments playing together sound very clear).

I went and listened to River Deep- same problem. Just too much sound and poor mixing. Now I'm listening to Let It Down- definitely much cleaner-sounding (less warble and garble).

When it comes to multitrack recordings from the 1960s I still think the best is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983..._(A_Merman_I_Should_Tur... which Hendrix was disappointed in (compared to both the Beach Boys and Beatles concept albums) but has an excellent stereo image, instrument separation, dynamic range, low background noise...

Re: Wall of Sound

#46

Post by hubbardd »

dekhn wrote: post #45
hubbardd wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can anybody point out a better recorded example of Spector's wall of sound? "River Deep - Mountain High" is probably the pinnacle of the wall of sound that Spector did. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9Lehkou2Do ) That said, you aren't going to get the clarity you're accustomed to because of the layers and layers of sound required and the fact that up until the mid 60s you were dealing with only 2-3 track record…

I happened to be listening to that track when I read your comment. My complaint about that track is that it's very muddy (none of the instruments playing together sound very clear). I went and listened to River Deep- same problem. Just too much sound and poor mixing. Now I'm listening to Let It Down- definitely much cleaner-sounding (less warble and garble). When it comes to multitrack recordings from the 1960s I sti…

>My complaint about that track is that it's very muddy (none of the instruments playing together sound very clear).

This is partially the point though. It's meant to evoke a feeling, not to be a picture perfect, clean separation, pristine recording of instruments. One of Spector's sayings when talking about certain instruments in his Wall of Sound arrangements was "Felt not heard".

Re: Wall of Sound

#47

Post by routerl »

codemonkey-zeta wrote: post #39
Lendal wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's too late to listen to it for the first time in 2021. You had to listen to it in 1963, or with that frame of mind, because before then there was nothing else like it. Everything after was influenced by it. And now it's normal. Just like Dylan, or the Beatles or any great influencer. They don't sound that great today. If you weren't alive before them, it seems normal and pedestrian, like a standard that was always…

This is exactly how I felt watching "Citizen Kane". It just felt like an ordinary movie? Still, a good movie, but what was all the hype about? Turns out the gravity of that movie was all about the influence it had on all future generations of film.

See also Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy

"Why is this guy saying all these obvious things as if they were important?"

Because he was literally the first one.

Re: Wall of Sound

#48

Post by wishinghand »

dekhn wrote: post #31

Wrong wall of sound. Actual wall of sound: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_of_Sound_(Grateful_Dead) The grateful dead bankrupted themselves bringing a revolutionary approach to sound reproduction to their touring kit. Unlike every system before and after, it directly routed the audio of each individual player to a unique cluster of speakers. Many of the reproduction qualities are still not easy to achieve today (p…

Is there any advancement in technology that could make it more feasible today?

Re: Wall of Sound

#49

Post by mgkimsal »

jl6 wrote: post #43
Lendal wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's too late to listen to it for the first time in 2021. You had to listen to it in 1963, or with that frame of mind, because before then there was nothing else like it. Everything after was influenced by it. And now it's normal. Just like Dylan, or the Beatles or any great influencer. They don't sound that great today. If you weren't alive before them, it seems normal and pedestrian, like a standard that was always…

I’m aware of the Seinfeld effect and I concede that is probably part of it, but I also think your other examples - Dylan and The Beatles - are great, and have stood the test of time far better than The Ronettes.

Dylan, Stones, Beatles and other evolved over time. Ronettes were primarily one-hit-wonder territory. I know they had multiple 'hits', but they were largely manufactured by Spector. The other examples were self-directed, self-contained and were able to evolve and improve themselves over time.

Had the Beatles never done anything after their first album, it would still be 'good' for its time, but it was their ability to improve each record that gave them such an edge over everyone else.

Re: Wall of Sound

#50

Post by themadturk »

hubbardd wrote: post #46
dekhn wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I happened to be listening to that track when I read your comment. My complaint about that track is that it's very muddy (none of the instruments playing together sound very clear). I went and listened to River Deep- same problem. Just too much sound and poor mixing. Now I'm listening to Let It Down- definitely much cleaner-sounding (less warble and garble). When it comes to multitrack recordings from the 1960s I sti…

>My complaint about that track is that it's very muddy (none of the instruments playing together sound very clear). This is partially the point though. It's meant to evoke a feeling, not to be a picture perfect, clean separation, pristine recording of instruments. One of Spector's sayings when talking about certain instruments in his Wall of Sound arrangements was "Felt not heard".

Another thing to consider is that the Wall of Sound was produced to sound a certain way on a crappy AM car radio speaker. "Muddy" is the goal, because that's what sounded best when you were cruising around the neighborhood on Friday night with the windows down and your arm around a girl.
Post reply on HN