3 ms·

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 s

by jl6 5y ago

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.

HFguy 5y ago
Exactly what you said. The issue is that it influenced everything that came after. So it doesn't sound novel now.
dekhn 5y ago
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 years later, and under heavy influence by Spector, it sounds so much dramatically better. Can anybody point out a better recorded example of Spector's wall of sound?
- hubbardd 5y ago
  > 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 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 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.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    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_Turn_to_Be) 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...
    - hubbardd 5y ago
      >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".
      - themadturk 5y ago
        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.
Lendal 5y ago
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 there. Only it wasn't. At some point someone had to invent that great leap forward, then everyone after copies it, and so today it is taken for granted as the standard baseline from which you build your thing onto.
- codemonkey-zeta 5y ago
  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.
  - routerl 5y ago
    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.
- jl6 5y ago
  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.
  - mgkimsal 5y ago
    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.
DerpyBaby123 5y ago
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/SeinfeldIsUnfunny https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunn...

by jl6 5y ago

HFguy 5y ago

Exactly what you said. The issue is that it influenced everything that came after. So it doesn't sound novel now.

dekhn 5y ago

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 years later, and under heavy influence by Spector, it sounds so much dramatically better. Can anybody point out a better recorded example of Spector's wall of sound?

hubbardd 5y ago
> 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 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 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.
- dekhn 5y ago
  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_Turn_to_Be) 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...
  - hubbardd 5y ago
    >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".
    - themadturk 5y ago
      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.

Lendal 5y ago

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 there. Only it wasn't. At some point someone had to invent that great leap forward, then everyone after copies it, and so today it is taken for granted as the standard baseline from which you build your thing onto.

codemonkey-zeta 5y ago
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.
- routerl 5y ago
  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.
jl6 5y ago
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.
- mgkimsal 5y ago
  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.

DerpyBaby123 5y ago

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/SeinfeldIsUnfunny https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunn...