Armin Steiner in outtake from the film The Wrecking Crew talks about "Vegetables

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

WIBN - 8
YSBIM - 4
TNM - 4
DT(PYHOMS) - 4
IWFTD - 8
LGAFA - 4
SJB - 4
GOK - 8
IKTAA - 4
HT - 8
IJWMFTT - 8
PS - 4
CN - 4

Right?

[guitarfool2002]

come to think of it, I think 'Darlin' and some other Wild Honey tracks have the step fades, anyone know where that was mixed?

I just find it weird that so many '65-'66 tracks would have been mixed at Columbia ...

It would be weird because many firsthand sources including Chuck Britz himself have said that Brian mixed with Chuck most often at this time. And if we do the math, even on Pet Sounds, the instrumental tracks cut at Western and at Gold Star were on 4 track, any vocals then done after the instrumentals were done and moved to 8 track were at Columbia...and no one but Columbia did the mixes if the others in town didn't have 8 track machines. Didn't I say that earlier?

Anyway, the film where I got that still frame has a scene of the engineer and Brian again at the Columbia board. A stopwatch is seen laying on the board. The engineer takes two large rotary faders, and at the same time slowly moves one fully counterclockwise and the other fully clockwise, and at the same time Brian's hands come up off the board almost in sync as the engineer's hands pop up, and the engineer clicks the stopwatch immediately.

For those who have mixed tracks on old-school analog from a tape machine without automation...for the record I have and DonnyL obviously has so I'm not talking sh*t far out of my experience level in music here...Brian and the engineer at Columbia were *mixing the track at Columbia*, in this case Good Vibrations, and it looks like they had to do a fade within a certain time, hence the stopwatch for timing. A fade or a crossfade, who the hell knows at this point.

Now that makes sense with the 4-track versus 8-track issue, via mixing at Columbia, and if you watch it they are clearly mixing and doing a timed fade somewhere in the song. Just like Brian and Chuck are mixing something from the Scully 8-track in the other silent film.

It just confuses an already confusing issue, but it proves 1. Tracks were in fact mixed at Columbia in '66 and 2. Brian was allowed to touch the controls on the Columbia board perhaps more than what we may have assumed based on previous comments.

[guitarfool2002]

come to think of it, I think 'Darlin' and some other Wild Honey tracks have the step fades, anyone know where that was mixed?

Unless there were additional unlisted mix sessions held for Wild Honey, it was done at Wally Heider's or at the transitional home studio at Brian's, before it became a more permanent setup...does this sound right?

After May 1967 it appeared Brian all but abandoned his favorite studios like Western, Gold Star, Columbia, etc. So the chances of him mixing anything at those studios at the time of Wild Honey would be slim to none. And Heider had 8 tracks and a replica of Western 3 anyway. But I could be mistaken.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

come to think of it, I think 'Darlin' and some other Wild Honey tracks have the step fades, anyone know where that was mixed?

Unless there were additional unlisted mix sessions held for Wild Honey, it was done at Wally Heider's or at the transitional home studio at Brian's, before it became a more permanent setup...does this sound right?

After May 1967 it appeared Brian all but abandoned his favorite studios like Western, Gold Star, Columbia, etc. So the chances of him mixing anything at those studios at the time of Wild Honey would be slim to none. And Heider had 8 tracks and a replica of Western 3 anyway. But I could be mistaken.

That WH was mixed at WH's is certainly, I think, the conventional wisdom--but that's not worth much, it seems.

[DonnyL]

WIBN - 8
YSBIM - 4
TNM - 4
DT(PYHOMS) - 4
IWFTD - 8
LGAFA - 4
SJB - 4
GOK - 8
IKTAA - 4
HT - 8
IJWMFTT - 8
PS - 4
CN - 4

Right?

sounds right to me. I just listened through the fades on a bunch of different pressings, and can't deduce much ... seems like there was too much 'help' from the cutting engineers, and lots of too-early fadeouts ... 'Here Today' is the only one that is really noticeably fading in 'steps' consistently.

I know for sure I have heard lots of step-fades on '65-'67 material when I was younger, I wish I could remember where. Maybe it was just on specific pressings.

Anyone have the most recent Steve Hoffman 'straight transfer' Pet Sounds? I think that's the only one where he left in the step fades. I have the 1993 version, and he 'helped' it along for the most part.

[DonnyL]

come to think of it, I think 'Darlin' and some other Wild Honey tracks have the step fades, anyone know where that was mixed?

Unless there were additional unlisted mix sessions held for Wild Honey, it was done at Wally Heider's or at the transitional home studio at Brian's, before it became a more permanent setup...does this sound right?

After May 1967 it appeared Brian all but abandoned his favorite studios like Western, Gold Star, Columbia, etc. So the chances of him mixing anything at those studios at the time of Wild Honey would be slim to none. And Heider had 8 tracks and a replica of Western 3 anyway. But I could be mistaken.

Ok, so post-Smiley, I guess it doesn't matter too much, since 8-track was readily available. I also don't know of a source for Wild Honey with the correct fades. Someone would have to listen to the actual, original mix tapes.

[DonnyL]

The thing is, the 'step-fade' thing seems to be specific to Summer Days-Wild Honey era. I don't think anything from 'Today' or before has the step-fades, and certainly it's gone by 'Friends'. Which in my mind, sort of pinpoints it to an 8-track Columbia thing.

So, I'm gonna go with any of the 'step-fade' tracks being mixed at Columbia (at least pre-Smiley). As to which ones these are, it may be difficult to find out. I know of one fairly comprehensive obscure release that seemed to have the raw fades throughout. I'm trying to track it down but it may take awhile. (PM me if you want to know the release -- maybe you can help me find one ... I had it when I was a kid).

'Sunshine Dream' was the closest I could find so far ... 'Here Today' is present without any help at all, and quite jarring. I have a feeling '80s-era Capitol reissues may be the most revealing.

[guitarfool2002]

come to think of it, I think 'Darlin' and some other Wild Honey tracks have the step fades, anyone know where that was mixed?

Unless there were additional unlisted mix sessions held for Wild Honey, it was done at Wally Heider's or at the transitional home studio at Brian's, before it became a more permanent setup...does this sound right?

After May 1967 it appeared Brian all but abandoned his favorite studios like Western, Gold Star, Columbia, etc. So the chances of him mixing anything at those studios at the time of Wild Honey would be slim to none. And Heider had 8 tracks and a replica of Western 3 anyway. But I could be mistaken.

Ok, so post-Smiley, I guess it doesn't matter too much, since 8-track was readily available. I also don't know of a source for Wild Honey with the correct fades. Someone would have to listen to the actual, original mix tapes.

I'd volunteer for that listening assignment.  

[DonnyL]

come to think of it, I think 'Darlin' and some other Wild Honey tracks have the step fades, anyone know where that was mixed?

Unless there were additional unlisted mix sessions held for Wild Honey, it was done at Wally Heider's or at the transitional home studio at Brian's, before it became a more permanent setup...does this sound right?

After May 1967 it appeared Brian all but abandoned his favorite studios like Western, Gold Star, Columbia, etc. So the chances of him mixing anything at those studios at the time of Wild Honey would be slim to none. And Heider had 8 tracks and a replica of Western 3 anyway. But I could be mistaken.

As of right now, I have no reason to doubt WH was mixed at Heider's ... just a vague memory of some WH tracks step-fading ... but Heider may very well have had a board like that too.

[Dunderhead]

I noticed that many of the CBS-tracked Lead vocals were recorded dry, and yet clearly have loads of reverb on them in the final mixes.  I wondered if Brian did that because he preferred the sound of Western's chambers.  Then somebody pointed out to me that they would have to have had mixed them (awesome use of the English language there, thank you) at CBS on the 8-track since that was the only one.  Maybe I was on to something originally?

That makes a lot of sense. I think Brian preferred the combinations he could get at Western. Spector probably needed the two echo chambers at Gold Star because he had fewer tracks to work with, but if Brian had 8 it seems like he would have all the flexibility that he needed.
I don't really know a lot about how it worked in the studio, that's something I'm always trying to find out more about, but nobody seems to really have a definite answer. The way I imagine it is in stages. A few inputs would be sent to the echo chamber, and then, at Gold Star, the output would be sent to the second echo chamber to be combined further with other inputs.  

[guitarfool2002]

come to think of it, I think 'Darlin' and some other Wild Honey tracks have the step fades, anyone know where that was mixed?

Unless there were additional unlisted mix sessions held for Wild Honey, it was done at Wally Heider's or at the transitional home studio at Brian's, before it became a more permanent setup...does this sound right?

After May 1967 it appeared Brian all but abandoned his favorite studios like Western, Gold Star, Columbia, etc. So the chances of him mixing anything at those studios at the time of Wild Honey would be slim to none. And Heider had 8 tracks and a replica of Western 3 anyway. But I could be mistaken.

As of right now, I have no reason to doubt WH was mixed at Heider's ... just a vague memory of some WH tracks step-fading ... but Heider may very well have had a board like that too.

I like your theories so far, with the step-fading. I'm thinking could it have been an issue with similar or common components used in several boards/modules rather than one specific board or one specific volume/fader pot in that board? Meaning if Heider was using a part when building his boards and he may have used the same parts with the same characteristics as Columbia had used in their board or even in Putnam's modules, it would be the same kind of effect across all of them.

I'm really stretching there, but it would be similar to putting a part with a specific flaw into three different car engines, and they'd all show up with the same flaw no matter what chassis it was.

[guitarfool2002]

I noticed that many of the CBS-tracked Lead vocals were recorded dry, and yet clearly have loads of reverb on them in the final mixes.  I wondered if Brian did that because he preferred the sound of Western's chambers.  Then somebody pointed out to me that they would have to have had mixed them (awesome use of the English language there, thank you) at CBS on the 8-track since that was the only one.  Maybe I was on to something originally?

That makes a lot of sense. I think Brian preferred the combinations he could get at Western. Spector probably needed the two echo chambers at Gold Star because he had fewer tracks to work with, but if Brian had 8 it seems like he would have all the flexibility that he needed.
I don't really know a lot about how it worked in the studio, that's something I'm always trying to find out more about, but nobody seems to really have a definite answer. The way I imagine it is in stages. A few inputs would be sent to the echo chamber, and then, at Gold Star, the output would be sent to the second echo chamber to be combined further with other inputs.  

I saw your thread about the Wall Of Sound and was excited to get some discussions rolling! I do have specific info about some of those sounds from several sources, as soon as things slow down elsewhere I'll get them to you.

[DonnyL]

ok, I listened very carefully to the 1993 DCC w/ good headphones, and although Hoffman did manually fade himself, you can still hear the steps.

1 - WIBN - STEPS
2 - YSBIM - (no steps)
3 - That's Not Me - (no steps)
4 - Don't Talk - STEPS
5 - IWFTD - STEPS
6 - LGAFA - STEPS
7 - Sloop - (no steps)
8 - God - STEPS
9 - IKTAA - STEPS
10 - Here Today - STEPS
11 - IJWMFTT - STEPS
12 - Pet Sounds - (no steps)
13 - Caroline No - (no steps)

so ... the 8-track songs ALL have steps, and some of the 4-track songs. But there are no 8-track songs that don't have steps. So, I'd say the ones with steps were mixed at Columbia ... meaning some of the 4-track stuff was mixed there and some wasn't.

Just a theory of course. Would love for anyone with the 2009 Hoffman remaster to have a listen to confirm and chime in.

[Dunderhead]

So how does that mixing process work, if you don't mind explaining it a little.
Did Columbia have a four track and an 8 track? What exactly was on the 8 track? One track with lead vocals, and then how many for background vocals? One for each voice?
Did Brian reduce his four track tape down to one track of the eight track immediately? Or did he take the voices and overdubs from the eight track and one by one combine them with the contents of the four track?

I hope I'm phrasing that coherently. I mean, did Brian say start by taking the lead vocal and mixing it with just one of the instrumental tracks in the echo chamber, and then putting the result onto a single track, and then repeating that process until everything had been used up.

[guitarfool2002]

Mark Linett explained the Pet Sounds track-bouncing process you're asking about in several interviews and articles in more detail, but check out this thread from the archives of this board: Some of your questions are answered.

And it's funny to see the same issues raised then as have been in this thread. And others. 

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,9040.50.html

[Dunderhead]

Mark Linett explained the Pet Sounds track-bouncing process you're asking about in several interviews and articles in more detail, but check out this thread from the archives of this board: Some of your questions are answered.

And it's funny to see the same issues raised then as have been in this thread. And others.  

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,9040.50.html

Thanks a lot. I find the whole topic fascinating, and the closer I listen to some recordings, the more I appreciate the sophistication of the techniques. I've been trying to find a good book about production and sound design, but I can't find one that's really in depth. Do you know of any serious books that dissect all this in detail? What I'd really like is a book that gave a whole history of recording technology beginning with Edison. Something especially comprehensive.
I end up getting disappointed when I buy books that are supposed to be on this subject, because they're always very vague, and emphasize biography and anecdote more than they do actual technical understanding.

[pancakerecords]

Mark Linett explained the Pet Sounds track-bouncing process you're asking about in several interviews and articles in more detail, but check out this thread from the archives of this board: Some of your questions are answered.

And it's funny to see the same issues raised then as have been in this thread. And others. 

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,9040.50.html

Thanks a lot. I find the whole topic fascinating, and the closer I listen to some recordings, the more I appreciate the sophistication of the techniques. I've been trying to find a good book about production and sound design, but I can't find one that's really in depth. Do you know of any serious books that dissect all this in detail? What I'd really like is a book that gave a whole history of recording technology beginning with Edison. Something especially comprehensive.
I end up getting disappointed when I buy books that supposed to be on this subject, because their always very vague, and emphasis biography and anecdote more than they do actual technical understanding.

Fishmonk - This is the closest I know to what you're looking for:

http://www.amazon.com/Perfecting-Sound-Forever-History-Recorded/dp/0865479380/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342324877&sr=1-1&keywords=perfecting+sound+forever

[guitarfool2002]

Mark Linett explained the Pet Sounds track-bouncing process you're asking about in several interviews and articles in more detail, but check out this thread from the archives of this board: Some of your questions are answered.

And it's funny to see the same issues raised then as have been in this thread. And others.  

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,9040.50.html

Thanks a lot. I find the whole topic fascinating, and the closer I listen to some recordings, the more I appreciate the sophistication of the techniques. I've been trying to find a good book about production and sound design, but I can't find one that's really in depth. Do you know of any serious books that dissect all this in detail? What I'd really like is a book that gave a whole history of recording technology beginning with Edison. Something especially comprehensive.
I end up getting disappointed when I buy books that are supposed to be on this subject, because they're always very vague, and emphasize biography and anecdote more than they do actual technical understanding.

This is the book I used, it may seem dated a bit (I got mine early 90's) but the information is terrific: "Sound Advice: The Musician's Guide To The Recording Studio" by Wayne Wadhams. It touches on everything from microphone placement to compressor settings to some of the physics involved in all of it, and everything in between. There is a CD included as well, and a ton of diagrams and examples. It's a great balance between technical and semi-technical, although it's not much on history.

For modern recording techniques, via DAW and all of that, if you get recording software and it comes with a tutorial, that would be a great place to start. Then practically any book on modern recording should be just fine.

Here's the Sound Advice book:
http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Advice-Musicians-Recording-Studio/dp/0028726944

[Andrew G. Doe]

Fishmonk - This is the closest I know to what you're looking for:

http://www.amazon.com/Perfecting-Sound-Forever-History-Recorded/dp/0865479380/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342324877&sr=1-1&keywords=perfecting+sound+forever

Bought this book in a thrift shop with high hopes and expectations. Bit disappointed as it focuses a LOT on the sound wars on CD. Multi-track recording from the 50s and the 60s is covered, but rather superficially. What we really need - or maybe should collaborate on - is a book about the evolution of multi-track recording in LA 1955-1970.

[Dunderhead]

Fishmonk - This is the closest I know to what you're looking for:

http://www.amazon.com/Perfecting-Sound-Forever-History-Recorded/dp/0865479380/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342324877&sr=1-1&keywords=perfecting+sound+forever

Bought this book in a thrift shop with high hopes and expectations. Bit disappointed as it focuses a LOT on the sound wars on CD. Multi-track recording from the 50s and the 60s is covered, but rather superficially. What we really need - or maybe should collaborate on - is a book about the evolution of multi-track recording in LA 1955-1970.

That would be very worthwhile. I'd really like a book that tried to define what production was, that looked in depth at different key records in the history of sound design and critiqued them in an intelligent way. And then if you combined that with a description of different recording technologies, multitracking; flanging; echo; distortion; etc, as well as the history of their development and use, you'd start to have a very interesting book.
And if you also included an essay about the physiology of perceiving sound, and how that figures into how we listen to records, you could really cover a lot of ground.

I bet there are people on this board who could write all those essays, and if you all put them into a short anthology, it would incredibly useful and informative.

[DonnyL]

Fishmonk - This is the closest I know to what you're looking for:

http://www.amazon.com/Perfecting-Sound-Forever-History-Recorded/dp/0865479380/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342324877&sr=1-1&keywords=perfecting+sound+forever

Bought this book in a thrift shop with high hopes and expectations. Bit disappointed as it focuses a LOT on the sound wars on CD. Multi-track recording from the 50s and the 60s is covered, but rather superficially. What we really need - or maybe should collaborate on - is a book about the evolution of multi-track recording in LA 1955-1970.

I'd love to see the 55-70 LA period book ... with as many details as possible. Personally, I could do without any kind of philosophical/psychological stuff though ... plenty of books that cover that stuff already.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

Fishmonk - This is the closest I know to what you're looking for:

http://www.amazon.com/Perfecting-Sound-Forever-History-Recorded/dp/0865479380/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342324877&sr=1-1&keywords=perfecting+sound+forever

Bought this book in a thrift shop with high hopes and expectations. Bit disappointed as it focuses a LOT on the sound wars on CD. Multi-track recording from the 50s and the 60s is covered, but rather superficially. What we really need - or maybe should collaborate on - is a book about the evolution of multi-track recording in LA 1955-1970.

I'd love to see the 55-70 LA period book ... with as many details as possible. Personally, I could do without any kind of philosophical/psychological stuff though ... plenty of books that cover that stuff already.

There has been some talk over the years of putting together a book like this.  I've even toyed with getting a Ph.D. on the subject at UCLA.  The key to such a book being successful would, I think, be having a good mix of technical information, photos, and some personality in there.

I think the stories of a lot of the people involved could be proper biographies by themselves.  Well, Bill Putnam alone.  But that generation of men, who went off to war and came back with some technical expertise, like Chuck, or younger guys who were geeks and music lovers and really got into the scene, like a Desper–these are great personal stories that could be mixed with dry discussion of the circuitry of a Putnam 610 channel.

With plenty of nice photography, I've always envisioned a Beatles Anthology style coffee-table book.

[Dunderhead]

I have really weird tastes I guess. I read a lot of classical music criticism and really prefer the precision and insight those books offer over the anecdotal and conversational style of most books on rock music.

I'd like to see a book that married aesthetic criticism, biography, physics, musicology, etc. I've always wanted something like a rock and roll version of Berlioz's Treatise on Instrumentation. A book that was built on real scholarly research and written in a serious way.

A sort of journal format would be cool. There could be an essay length critical biography of some producer or engineer, another essay examining his production aesthetic through criticism of his key singles, and then you could put essays in that vein alongside ones that looked at the history of a particular recording technology, or of an instrument, or maybe even a recording studio.

Just a book that covered production from multiple angles, showed considerable historical knowledge, and maintained a consistent style of scholarly criticism is the type of book I'm constantly hoping to find, but I'm not sure it exists yet.

[DonnyL]

Fishmonk - This is the closest I know to what you're looking for:

http://www.amazon.com/Perfecting-Sound-Forever-History-Recorded/dp/0865479380/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342324877&sr=1-1&keywords=perfecting+sound+forever

Bought this book in a thrift shop with high hopes and expectations. Bit disappointed as it focuses a LOT on the sound wars on CD. Multi-track recording from the 50s and the 60s is covered, but rather superficially. What we really need - or maybe should collaborate on - is a book about the evolution of multi-track recording in LA 1955-1970.

I'd love to see the 55-70 LA period book ... with as many details as possible. Personally, I could do without any kind of philosophical/psychological stuff though ... plenty of books that cover that stuff already.

There has been some talk over the years of putting together a book like this.  I've even toyed with getting a Ph.D. on the subject at UCLA.  The key to such a book being successful would, I think, be having a good mix of technical information, photos, and some personality in there.

I think the stories of a lot of the people involved could be proper biographies by themselves.  Well, Bill Putnam alone.  But that generation of men, who went off to war and came back with some technical expertise, like Chuck, or younger guys who were geeks and music lovers and really got into the scene, like a Desper–these are great personal stories that could be mixed with dry discussion of the circuitry of a Putnam 610 channel.

With plenty of nice photography, I've always envisioned a Beatles Anthology style coffee-table book.

I've always felt recordings from the '60s were so great because they were the product of the tech-y 'straight man' engineers mixed with the wide-eyed wonder of kids who didn't know any better than to naively push the boundaries ... seems like by the time we got to the '70s, all of the 'standards' had been developed and recordings lost the unique charms of the previous era.

I still think it's unbelievable that we really don't know when or where 'Pet Sounds' was mixed! Seems like basic stuff, yet all we have are assumptions and guesses, really.

[DonnyL]

I have really weird tastes I guess. I read a lot of classical music criticism and really prefer the precision and insight those books offer over the anecdotal and conversational style of most books on rock music.

I'd like to see a book that married aesthetic criticism, biography, physics, musicology, etc. I've always wanted something like a rock and roll version of Berlioz's Treatise on Instrumentation. A book that was built on real scholarly research and written in a serious way.

A sort of journal format would be cool. There could be an essay length critical biography of some producer or engineer, another essay examining his production aesthetic through criticism of his key singles, and then you could put essays in that vein alongside ones that looked at the history of a particular recording technology, or of an instrument, or maybe even a recording studio.

Just a book that covered production from multiple angles, showed considerable historical knowledge, and maintained a consistent style of scholarly criticism is the type of book I'm constantly hoping to find, but I'm not sure it exists yet.

personally, that kind of book would bore me to tears ... although I appreciate that there is a place for that.

recording in L.A. in the '60s is one of the most exciting things I can think of. You can tell there was a real energy and magic happening ... the book should reflect that.  That's something I've always liked about Domenic Priore's writing ... he may not have always had all the correct info, but he certainly knows how to capture that cosmic California enthusiasm. Ditto Greg Shaw and BOMP!