PET SOUNDS mono mix -- WHO, WHEN, WHERE, HOW ?

[DonnyL]

A thread for filling in any info re: when, where, how & by whom the original mix of PET SOUNDS was made.

Most puzzling to me is the lack of known info regarding this topic.

(Apologies if some background info here is missing, feel free to fill in the blanks)

I think Chuck probably mixed 'Sloop' and 'Caroline' at Western.

For the 8-track songs, either:

1. Western rented an 8-track, and Chuck & Brian mixed it there (possible)

2. Chuck went w/ Brian to Columbia, and they mixed it there (unlikely)

3. A staff engineer mixed it w/ Brian at Columbia (most likely)

I think that possibly some of the 4-track songs were mixed at Columbia as well. Some of the original fades move in 2 db 'steps' (instead of a smooth fade). I believe this is an artifact of the board at Columbia. I have yet to determine exactly which songs have these step fades because it's really difficult to tell in some cases. Certainly 'Here Today' and 'GOK' are the most extreme examples. Most releases feature mixes with 'help' from the mastering engineers, and even those that supposedly don't (the Hoffman CDs) sound to me like maybe some of them fade too soon as well.

There are a variety of anecdotes that suggest there was a single mix session for PS, but I think some people (like Fred Vail) are referring to the mastering session (cutting the final 1/4" tape to lacquer).

Was there really a single session for mixing a group of songs? Or was each song mixed as they went along, after the vocals were completed? I suspect there was a final mix session that maybe included half of the songs, the other half having been mixed previously along the way.

Any other info / ideas ?

[Andrew G. Doe]

Fred was very specific that he was at the mastering session with Brian at Capitol: I think it was quasi-authoritatively established that the engineer was Wally Traugott.

Re: Columbia, a lay reader would likely go away from here with the strong impression that they only had 8-track capability, whereas of course they had 4-tracks coming out of their ears. Given that Western in early 1966 almost certainly didn't have an 8-track, the instrumental 4-track would have necessarily have been sub-mixed onto Columbia's 8-track from a 4-track there (also to save sound quality). Thus, all the tracks would have been at least part-mixed on the fly. Given that tracks were issued as singles while the recording was in progress, one grand final mixing session is implausible.

[DonnyL]

Fred was very specific that he was at the mastering session with Brian at Capitol: I think it was quasi-authoritatively established that the engineer was Wally Traugott.

Wally Traugott being the mastering engineer, right?

Weren't there some other folks w/ stories about the 'mixdown session'? Didn't someone say something about him 'mixing it down in one day' or something?

[Andrew G. Doe]

I believe that was Steve Douglas, in the course of complaining about all the 'noise' left in the mix. Steve was, I think, a Capitol A&R dude.

[SMiLE-addict]

I vote for this as Nerdiest Topic of the Year.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Why... thank you. 

[DonnyL]

Re: Columbia, a lay reader would likely go away from here with the strong impression that they only had 8-track capability, whereas of course they had 4-tracks coming out of their ears. Given that Western in early 1966 almost certainly didn't have an 8-track, the instrumental 4-track would have necessarily have been sub-mixed onto Columbia's 8-track from a 4-track there (also to save sound quality). Thus, all the tracks would have been at least part-mixed on the fly. Given that tracks were issued as singles while the recording was in progress, one grand final mixing session is implausible.

Yeh, this is what I've always assumed, though I wonder if MAYBE the 4th track 'reference' mix on some of the 4-track masters was actually the final mono track mix, then simply transferred to the 8-track when the 4-track was brought to Columbia. You'd lose a generation of audio clarity, but would gain the capabilities of using Western and Chuck for the track mix. Considering they were mixing the entire mono track to a single track on the 8-track, using the best fidelity and flexibility was clearly playing 2nd fiddle to artistic preference and workflow on this record.

[DonnyL]

I vote for this as Nerdiest Topic of the Year.

It ain't no 'What color Pendleton shirt was Al's favorite?' but it's alright !

[Andrew G. Doe]

Re: Columbia, a lay reader would likely go away from here with the strong impression that they only had 8-track capability, whereas of course they had 4-tracks coming out of their ears. Given that Western in early 1966 almost certainly didn't have an 8-track, the instrumental 4-track would have necessarily have been sub-mixed onto Columbia's 8-track from a 4-track there (also to save sound quality). Thus, all the tracks would have been at least part-mixed on the fly. Given that tracks were issued as singles while the recording was in progress, one grand final mixing session is implausible.

Yeh, this is what I've always assumed, though I wonder if MAYBE the 4th track 'reference' mix on some of the 4-track masters was actually the final mono track mix, then simply transferred to the 8-track when the 4-track was brought to Columbia. You'd lose a generation of audio clarity, but would gain the capabilities of using Western and Chuck for the track mix. Considering they were mixing the entire mono track to a single track on the 8-track, using the best fidelity and flexibility was clearly playing 2nd fiddle to artistic preference and workflow on this record.

Again, you have three options:

1 - mix it down from the Western 4-track at Columbia on to one track of their 8-track...

2 - mix it down at Western to another 4-track then copy it to the Columbia 8-track...

3 - er... dammit, I forgot the third option...

Given that Bruce has been consistent with me asking over the decades that Brian wasn't allowed to so much as look at the board at Columbia, much less actually touch it, I'd go for two. Lose a generation, retain creative control.

Or... heh, what you said anyway.

[DonnyL]

Re: Columbia, a lay reader would likely go away from here with the strong impression that they only had 8-track capability, whereas of course they had 4-tracks coming out of their ears. Given that Western in early 1966 almost certainly didn't have an 8-track, the instrumental 4-track would have necessarily have been sub-mixed onto Columbia's 8-track from a 4-track there (also to save sound quality). Thus, all the tracks would have been at least part-mixed on the fly. Given that tracks were issued as singles while the recording was in progress, one grand final mixing session is implausible.

Yeh, this is what I've always assumed, though I wonder if MAYBE the 4th track 'reference' mix on some of the 4-track masters was actually the final mono track mix, then simply transferred to the 8-track when the 4-track was brought to Columbia. You'd lose a generation of audio clarity, but would gain the capabilities of using Western and Chuck for the track mix. Considering they were mixing the entire mono track to a single track on the 8-track, using the best fidelity and flexibility was clearly playing 2nd fiddle to artistic preference and workflow on this record.

Again, you have three options:

1 - mix it down from the Western 4-track at Columbia on to one track of their 8-track...

2 - mix it down at Western to another 4-track then copy it to the Columbia 8-track...

3 - er... dammit, I forgot the third option...

Given that Bruce has been consistent with me asking over the decades that Brian wasn't allowed to so much as look at the board at Columbia, much less actually touch it, I'd go for two. Lose a generation, retain creative control.

Or... heh, what you said anyway.

I mean mix it to the 4th track on the same 4-track master ... it's noted in the various reissues that often only 3 tracks of the 4-track would be used for the session, and the 4th track was reserved for a mono 'reference' mix. I always found it to be peculiar that they would create this reference mix. This lead me to suspect that that it would have been THE mono mix, which could then be easily transferred (as opposed to mixed) to the 8-track in one go, instead of spending valuable vocal-session studio time to get the mono track mix just right to the 8-track.

[halblaineisgood]

.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I don't have the booklet readily to hand right now, but I'm pretty sure Mark wrote that when preparing the stereo mix, he had effectively 11 tracks to work with once he'd synced the instrumental 4-track to the mono mixdown on the 8-track, thus 4 tracks of music and seven of vocals. This implies to me that the Western 4-t was mixed down to the Columbia 8-t rather than merely copied... or am I missing something ?

[Dunderhead]

This really is your white whale Donny, isn't it?

[DonnyL]

I don't have the booklet readily to hand right now, but I'm pretty sure Mark wrote that when preparing the stereo mix, he had effectively 11 tracks to work with once he'd synced the instrumental 4-track to the mono mixdown on the 8-track, thus 4 tracks of music and seven of vocals. This implies to me that the Western 4-t was mixed down to the Columbia 8-t rather than merely copied... or am I missing something ?

Well, it of course depends on the song, but there are several 4-track tracking session tapes that have only 3 tracks filled, and the 4th track contains a mono mix. Linett said that this 4th track was for 'reference', and the conventional wisdom is that the 3-tracks were then mixed to one track of the 8-track master. My theory is that this 4th 'reference' track might actually be the mono mix that was transferred.

I think there are some 8-track masters where all 8-tracks were not even used. I don't doubt that some of the songs have a total of 9-10 discrete tracks. Of course, the instrumentals have much fewer. And on something like 'Here Today', Mike has like 4 tracks of lead vocals, since they overlap a little in places.

[DonnyL]

This really is your white whale Donny, isn't it?

Sure is! I think the original mono mix of Pet Sounds is basically the greatest achievement in recorded sound. And it also happens to be a record that was created in a fairly unorthodox manner, even for the era. I'd love to get to the bottom of (or at least more info) regarding how this thing came together. I think it's pretty clear that BW was after that final mono mix, everything else was just a means to an end. And here we are almost 50 years later dissecting the 'means' ... I'm interested in the steps he and the engineers took to get this thing locked down.

[guitarfool2002]

I vote for this as Nerdiest Topic of the Year.

It ain't no 'What color Pendleton shirt was Al's favorite?' but it's alright !

Damn, how did I miss that one? Ranks up there with what was Dennis' favorite color. 

[guitarfool2002]

Given that Bruce has been consistent with me asking over the decades that Brian wasn't allowed to so much as look at the board at Columbia, much less actually touch it, I'd go for two. Lose a generation, retain creative control.

Bruce may have been consistent in his memories of it, but remember the GV film shot at Columbia, which I had captured in still frames in another thread of those scenes showing Brian and the engineer working a timed fade and Brian is working the board. There are other shots of him doing other board moves in other scenes, too.

So what Bruce may remember might be the case for some sessions, but it's on film showing this may not have always been the case at Columbia.

[guitarfool2002]

This one, Columbia 1966:

[Cam Mott]

It could be staged for the purpose of filming.

[guitarfool2002]

It could be staged for the purpose of filming.

How did I know that was coming? 

Please take a look at the entire film, specifically the shots of Brian and the engineer at the board. There are things that they do which mean nothing to anyone who had never been in a mix session. One of them is holding a stopwatch, which was the old-school method. They are moving faders in such a way that you wouldn't bother staging that. They do a slow fade, not a quick one, suggesting they may have been timing something to fit where it needed to fit, or just checking how long the track would be as the fade ends. At the end, they click the stopwatch, when the track fades into silence or whatever.

All of those things mean *nothing* to people who have not mixed in that way. They would *not* stage such a specific thing for shits and giggles, if it were staged they'd just show the engineer randomly twiddling knobs on the board and people wouldn't care if they had never sat at or worked a mixing board. I have seen footage like that which was done purely for the camera, and it does not look like that GV footage.

It's the same deal as when they hire a pro guitarist to coach an actor, the real guitarists still know when it's a fake and when an actor isn't bothering to come close to the actual notes, but the general audience could care less and doesn't know the difference.

Again, I knew this was coming. We have video showing Brian and the Columbia engineer working a mix, doing a fade, but it can't be real, it has to be staged?

Why is this exactly? Is it too out of our reach to see that film and conclude that maybe what Bruce saw firsthand in that studio and described was one thing, but this film suggests something else may have also happened? Or does it that film need to have been faked or staged to explain what we're seeing unfold on camera, or explain what Bruce said, or something else entirely?

[DonnyL]

Yeh, if anything I'd say photos and footage tell us more than any personal anecdotes and recording industry lore ever could. Like the photos of the 8-track at Western in late '66.

[guitarfool2002]

Yeh, if anything I'd say photos and footage tell us more than any personal anecdotes and recording industry lore ever could. Like the photos of the 8-track at Western in late '66.

Exactly, and some of the challenging reactions to finally seeing something on film which we've only heard anecdotes about, like this and the 8-track footage, can sometimes veer into moon landing conspiracy territory.

I admit it gets frustrating to finally find something with some historical value, find a clue or an answer to a question in films like this, and it can become a case of either challenging the validity or realism of the footage itself, challenging the person(s) who either posted it or saw something in it, or just ignoring it completely. It gets frustrating, or maybe I'm just having a bad day, either one.

[Cam Mott]

It still could have been staged, if you're convinced for the reasons you cite it's not I gladly accept that. It doesn't require having a cow and suggesting all you've suggested about the suggestion.

[guitarfool2002]

It still could have been staged, if you're convinced for the reasons you cite it's not I gladly accept that. It doesn't require having a cow and suggesting all you've suggested about the suggestion.

It wasn't just that or specifically reacting to your post (especially since I respect you a lot and think you are one of the best researchers on this or any board), but this same thing has happened before with things I saw and posted about other studio films and whatnot, and I'm reaching the "why bother" point. This Columbia film was discussed in other threads, I made the same points, posted basically the same information with screen shots, and it feels like all of that is forgotten. Just like the 8-track film, you spend hours trying to get something interesting or find a new angle on a topic through these films and it doesn't seem to make much of a dent. So, essentially, why bother? let someone else dig it up and search for the clues on their free time, I'm losing the enjoyment of doing it.

[DonnyL]

It's not staged ... I mean, maybe they gave the 'star' some leeway for the cameras, but if that's the case, it's safe to assume they would have loosened their rules on other occasions as well. On the other hand, if they really had such a strict policy about non-staff touching faders, they surely wouldn't want it caught on film!

I don't doubt that Columbia had such a policy, and that Bruce witnessed what he did, and that likely discouraged Brian from doing certain types of work there if possible, but it's not feasible that one of the biggest producers in the business was seriously not allowed to touch faders. Maybe some staff were stricter than others. Studios probably had similar rules about drugs, booze, cigarettes, guests, food, etc ...

In any case, I still think Brian had a preference for doing as much as he could at Western for most tracks, and these possible issues at Columbia were an influence.