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

[DonnyL]

This thread is fun.

So he maybe had the track locked in and transferred to 8 track. That makes a lot of sense to me. If Brian knew about how many generations down the master of You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin was, he would have had no reservations about losing one measly generation, PS standng for Phil Spector and all...

How many generations down is it? I know some Motown stuff went through like 5-9 bounces.

[guitarfool2002]

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.

Maybe it depended on who was assigned to engineer the session and how strict they were on the union rules. Phil Ramone told a similar story about not being allowed to touch a single thing on the board by a union engineer he was working with, and he was Phil friggin' Ramone! You also mention cigarettes and booze, etc, and one Wrecking Crew musician told me personally that he remembered they were not allowed to smoke in Gold Star (and presumably other studios too), yet we have film of Sonny Bono smoking in front of an RCA 44 at Gold Star,  photos and films of people smoking in the control rooms, and stories of Joe Osborn's music stand being piled high with burned out cigarette butts by the end of a session. I got the impression musicians smoking was an everyday thing, but some studio managers would probably be more strict about enforcing it than others.

Remember too the Michael Vosse Fusion quote that Western had "an engineer named Chuck" who would let Brian work the board, I think he was suggesting that's why Brian liked working at Western.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

Everybody knows that audio equipment sounds much better after a few years of second hand smoke burnishing its electronics. 

[DonnyL]

Everybody knows that audio equipment sounds much better after a few years of second hand smoke burnishing its electronics. 

I think that might actually be true. I'm working on trying to prove that a vintage microphone stand will produce a better result than a current model ... so far I have no evidence.

[guitarfool2002]

Everybody knows that audio equipment sounds much better after a few years of second hand smoke burnishing its electronics. 

I think that might actually be true. I'm working on trying to prove that a vintage microphone stand will produce a better result than a current model ... so far I have no evidence.

The practical part of me says blowing smoke into a classic ribbon microphone or an old Telefunken (or any gear in general) isn't the best idea.

The other part of me says it didn't seem to be much of an issue with Frank Sinatra's microphones. Of course I doubt anyone would have had the guts to tell Frank he couldn't smoke in the studio. 

[halblaineisgood]

.

[Andrew G. Doe]

This one, Columbia 1966:

I remembered that one shortly after I made the post... my only explanation is that this is a later session and maybe the Columbia suits changed their minds when presented with a film camera. Good publicity and all that.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Maybe some staff were stricter than others.

This seems to make the most sense. We've all met jobsworths before, plus the more sensible people who allow stupid rules to be bent. Are you telling me some jobsworth wouldn't take great delight in stopping "the great producer" touching the board.

[D409]

This thread has led me to re-read the relevant section of Charles L Granata's Pet Sounds book "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times", and the following quote on the original mix from Steve Douglas :

"I remember when Brian turned in Pet Sounds. It was full of noise. You could hear him talking in the background - it was real sloppy. He had spent all this time making this album and zip, dubbed it down in one day or something like that."

This section of the book goes on to make an "educated guess" as to the reasons for this, e.g. maybe Brian couldn't hear some of the technical issues, or was just going for the right feel.

[hypehat]

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.

Could these be the alternate rough mixes on The Pet Sounds Box?

I don't think it's that weird that they would create such a mix, myself, if only to sling it on a tape or an acetate for BW to listen to at the end of the day.

[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.

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.

Thanks and I identify with all of that but what can you do but carry on.

[Cam Mott]

I also bet it is a case of Columbia strict official rules and unofficial whatever Brian can talk the Columbia engineer into letting him do. Isn't one of Anderle's stories that Brian wanted a home studio because studio suits were putting a stop to Brian's hands-on in the studio which suggests he had had hands-on prior inspite of the policy. Should look that up instead of relying on memory. I'm guessing Brian sought out engineers like Chuck at Western and maybe Ralph and Jerry at Columbia who would allow him to do what he wanted.

Isn't it already established that Western had 8 track access as early as PS or am I confused. I agree with you Donny about what would be the concerns toward a mono mix. Does Brian really seem to have worried about generational loss on the way to a mono mix? It seems to me he was not worried about it or artifacts and stray noises etc. but did whatever was expedient.

Here it is: "With Brian, it was him, then it was the Beach Boys, then it was the studio, the physical problems with electronics, then it was fighting, um, at Columbia for instance when after all these months one night one of the Columbia representatives showed up and saw Brian working the knobs on the control board and said, "You can not do that. The engineers have to do that. You are not an engineer, you are not a Columbia engineer." Brian laughed at him, he thought the guy was putting him on. But the guy was serious.
This then started Brian's getting out of other people's studios — that, plus the fact that he couldn't get time when he wanted time, which could be like three in the morning, "let's go record." Brian could work those knobs better than anyone I've ever seen, including any engineer. He would mix a lot of his things right there as they were recording, he wouldn't have to wait, he'd be adding his echo, mixing and blending right while they were performing."

[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.

Could these be the alternate rough mixes on The Pet Sounds Box?

I don't think it's that weird that they would create such a mix, myself, if only to sling it on a tape or an acetate for BW to listen to at the end of the day.

These would not be complete mixes w/ vocals, but just the backtrack. I don't think any of these have been released or booted anywhere.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Isn't it already established that Western had 8 track access as early as PS or am I confused.

Confused.   There's session footage alleging to be "Fire" from the 1985 video-biog which is patently Western and in which an 8-track is seen where there shouldn't logically be one: the date would have to be post 11/28/66. There's a whole thread about it in the archives, but the informed (i.e. not by me) opinion is that in early 1966, Columbia had the only 8-tracks in town.

[hypehat]

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.

Could these be the alternate rough mixes on The Pet Sounds Box?

I don't think it's that weird that they would create such a mix, myself, if only to sling it on a tape or an acetate for BW to listen to at the end of the day.

These would not be complete mixes w/ vocals, but just the backtrack. I don't think any of these have been released or booted anywhere.

Oh, I get ya. Wonder what those mixes are then....

[Mikie]

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.

I encourage you to keep it up and not quit until you get answers. You're doing fine! You just have to get to the right people with the evidence in hand to confirm stuff. You're doing the legwork for this research - sometimes these things take time. But it's worth it and appreciated! 

[DonnyL]

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.

I encourage you to keep it up and not quit until you get answers. You're doing fine! You just have to get to the right people with the evidence in hand to confirm stuff. You're doing the legwork for this research - sometimes these things take time. But it's worth it and appreciated! 

Yes, I agree -- Craig is a great asset to this board, and one day I think we'll see the benefits of all of this back & forth !

[Mikie]

Well, you ain't bad yerself there, Bay Area guy.  You ask a lot of good questions and are gettin' purty deep into this studio stuff here.

[Ebb and Flow]

I'm not sure how many here know this, but you CAN hear a few of the mono backing tracks that Brian made before vocals were added on the SOT Pet Sounds release.  Because everything on that was hard panned, on the tracks where the first overdub is included you can typically just isolate the left or right channel and get the backing track by itself.  They were transferred at the wrong speed, but adjusting their pitch to around 97.33% brings them back to where they should be.

And a lot of the little issues that give the mono mix its character can be heard in the backing tracks, so not all of the "faults" in the mix were done during the final mixing.

Things like the piano in IJWMFTT aren't very audible in these mixes either, so I wouldn't blame it too much on phase cancellations and whatnot.  That's just how he wanted it.

[DonnyL]

Well, you ain't bad yerself there, Bay Area guy.  You ask a lot of good questions and are gettin' purty deep into this studio stuff here.

Let's get this love-fest back on track!

I'm not sure how many here know this, but you CAN hear a few of the mono backing tracks that Brian made before vocals were added on the SOT Pet Sounds release.  Because everything on that was hard panned, on the tracks where the first overdub is included you can typically just isolate the left or right channel and get the backing track by itself.  They were transferred at the wrong speed, but adjusting their pitch to around 97.33% brings them back to where they should be.

And a lot of the little issues that give the mono mix its character can be heard in the backing tracks, so not all of the "faults" in the mix were done during the final mixing.

Things like the piano in IJWMFTT aren't very audible in these mixes either, so I wouldn't blame it too much on phase cancellations and whatnot.  That's just how he wanted it.

Just to clarify, I'm talking about the backing track 'mixes' that occupy a single track on some of the instrumental track 4-track multis.

[hypehat]

I'd still submit that the fourth track mixes, if just instrumental, would be reference mixes for acetates and the like after the days work? I can't think of any other reason why you'd just sacrifice a track on an album as dense as PS, mind. Were the backing tracks recorded on three tracks, then? (the first CIFOTM session comes to mind where Brian asks Chuck to work on two tracks springs to mind, if indeed that's what he's asking)

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

Were the backing tracks recorded on three tracks, then?

By and large, yes.  Even with the luxury of four track tape, most of the backing tracks were recorded to three track, even big productions like WIBN and GOK.  GOK is a special case because it's essentially a two-track recording, because one whole track is just string bass.  This despite GOK having a ton of instruments at the date.

So having that 4th track open must've been important.

[hypehat]

GOK is a special case because it's essentially a two-track recording, because one whole track is just string bass.  This despite GOK having a ton of instruments at the date.

Good lord. IIRC, everything - strings, french horns, three basses, guitars, pianos harpsichords was recorded at once, right? The production genius of Brian Wilson, ladies and gentlemen.

[DonnyL]

I'd still submit that the fourth track mixes, if just instrumental, would be reference mixes for acetates and the like after the days work? I can't think of any other reason why you'd just sacrifice a track on an album as dense as PS, mind. Were the backing tracks recorded on three tracks, then? (the first CIFOTM session comes to mind where Brian asks Chuck to work on two tracks springs to mind, if indeed that's what he's asking)

Yes, some (most?) were recorded on just 3-tracks of a 4-track tape. There are strange decisions made, such as the 'God Only Knows' session Josh and I were discussing in detail in one of the other threads. That track layout has the basic track (live) spread out on only 2 tracks, then a string bass is isolated on it's own track. The 4-track was the reference mix.

Part of the problem is that we are still sometimes thinking from a modern perspective. The logic they were using was based on a pre-multi-track universe.

I think the studios (and board routing?) were still set up with 3-track in mind. 3-track has some advatages to 4-track in that the tape tracks are wider, so there is less noise. Not that it matters when using 3 tracks of a 4-track, but some engineers probably just did things the way they were used to getting good results with. Especially since they had 3 echo returns, etc. Makes sense.

They could have easily mixed the reference mix to a mono 1/4" in any case (whether for acetate dubs or to transfer to 8-track), which is part of what makes this weird. I guess they just figured, why not use the open track?

In this case, it's clear the mono dubdown of the instrumental track was the goal. Recording a band live to mono or 2-track was standard. Get as much finished as you can as early as possible.

So, let's say they made a reference mix on the 4th track, cut an acetate, Brian got home and found it to be just right. Would he want to transfer that exact mix to the 8-track for vocal overdubs, or 'remix' the 3 tracks for better sound quality? My vote goes to transferring the track already mixed at Western.

Of course, this is all speculation without hearing what this 4th track mix sounds like. Presumably, Mark has listened to these and determined that they are references. And perhaps they are markedly different than the finals. But maybe he just listened briefly and made an assumption, and they are indeed the same mix.

[DonnyL]

Another theory --

MAYBE the 4th track was mixed LIVE TO MONO in the cases where there were no overdubs. We would know for sure by listening to the multis -- if the 4th track was BOUNCED (mixed after the fact), then it would appear with a slight delay compared to the other 3-tracks. If mixed live (as an alternate mono mix), then it would be in sync. THIS would make this thing make a lot more sense, because then you would have a first generation mono to transfer to the 8-track. Of course, any sessions that had an overdub would make this impossible.