The Wall-of-Sound Explained: Appendix to Part 6

This section addresses Arta's comment on Part Six:

"Be careful of formulas, dude. The best art tends to violate, rather than adhere to, any kind of rigid formula -- that's why the exceptions you note (like '1979') are some of the best songs."

I think he is right. But let me try to reconcile his comment with the seemingly contradictory formula of wall-of-sound.

Yes, the wall-of-sound is more or less a formula, but it is a formula against the establishment method of producing music. It is not meant to constrain; it is meant to open up new possibilities for music production. For instance, to allow for the idea that maybe muddiness is not a bad thing, that clarity is not always the right thing.

Part Six makes some recommendations for songwriters but it would be a mistake for songwriters to follow them blindly. In making the points above, I am only trying to remind producers about the little details that matter. Maybe you will disagree with them, but I will feel better that you disagree with me than if you had never considered those points, one way or another.

So many pop producers take for granted that their artists know what they are doing. They do not ask questions. They do not think about what they are doing, beyond making phone calls and getting the right engineers at the session. I want producers to take more responsibility in the art that they are producing. Before they put electronic beats into a song, I want them to ask themselves, why am I using electronic beats? Is there no better way? Am I being considerate to my listeners?

Wall-of-sound is a Dogme 95 for music. Follow it or not, but recognize it as a statement against the idea that popular music can only come from the modern ways of production, from the big labels' studios. It is to realize that people do not always care for stereo trickery, that people don't just want to dance to synthesized beats. That people miss the vintage sounds.

I have a friend who has heard both versions of Smile, and she says that the remake is lacking something from the original. Is it the voice, I ask? No, she replies. There is something wrong with the mix. It is not as warm, or something. She can't put her finger on it.

I think I know why she didn't like the new Smile. It is too clean. Everything sounds so deliberate. The stereo mixing overwhelms you with sound. But it seems like I am only describing the way most, if not all, records are produced today. I tell you, people (young people!) are still listening to Pet Sounds, the Rolling Stones, the Velvet Underground, the Beatles... why? I don't think it's just because of the songwriting. There is something about the production that is missing in contemporary records.