The Smiley Smile Message Board

As we know, Brian Wilson made an artistic decision to mix all albums from Beach Boys Today to Wild Honey in mono (I'm not sure of the circumstances behind the simply produced Surfin' Safari) and yet, Capitol released all those albums in Duophonic and another type of fake stereo. Did Brian Wilson ever react to this intrusion and perversion of his artistic intention — has he ever dealt with this in any interview?

It's a we'll known fact that Brian was deaf in one ear, which is why he preferred mono over stereo (as that's what he could hear). I've never read any comments by him about the records, but I'm sure he stayed away from them, as just about any stereo effects (no matter how bad they were), were most likely lost on him. By staying away from them, I'm sure there was no reason to react. That's my opinion of course. I really don't know for sure.

I don't know about Brian but my reaction to DuoPhony Stereo is akin to tossing my cookies.

Or in the in words of Lucy Van Pelt: BLEECH!

Oh man, here we go....   Now everyone is going to want to chime in on whether they like/dislike Duophonic, instead of sticking with the point of the thread

In this case, as there doesn't seem to be anything known about the question of the thread, why not? It would be interesting to know if there are people who like duophonic. The only track where duophonic works for me over the speakers is TLGIOK, which of course on headphones sounds unbearable just like the others.

BTW, before I got new speakers, my stereo had developed some kind of automatic duophonic on its own! :-D

And if I wasn't too lazy for using the search function, I'd look for the link to a thread where Mr. Desper describes extensively Brian's special problems hearing stereo recordings with his one ear.

Excellent question, and the answer would seem to be "no-one knows". I'm thinking that if he had, he'd probably have run screaming from the room, so you might argue that this indicates he didn't... but that would be on a par with assuming that, as Shakespeare is never referred to as wearing trousers, he didn't. (Thank you, Bill Bryson)

I'd've thought BW wouldn't have been too interested. Given the state of the mix on the original  Pet Sounds release, the detail in such things doesn't seem to have bothered him too much.

I don't think pristine audio quality really came into the picture until SWD arrived on the scene and made his mark, esp in the early 70s.

I'm sure SWD wasn't too happy with having a fake stereo Cottonfields implanted on the British version of Sunflower.

Great book, I read that years ago.

First, I wonder if Brian ever listened to the Duophonic albums even once, and, second, I wonder if he really cared.

I find it an interesting question.  The only thing I'll add is that I'd be curious as to how much market share these duophonic releases took up percentage-wise vs monaural?  In other words the less of them out there the less Brian would likely care?  And vice versa.

In that era I was just a kid buying records and it probably hardly occurred to me to see if the platter was mono or electronically re-channeled.  But I do recall seeing that on records time to time.  But as for my own collection, I do not recall any -- meaning I am guessing they were a drop in the bucket of LPs released.  Just a guess.

Were there any "duophonic" 45s?

I am so glad that I am not alone in thinking that.

The general blurb on Duophonc releases implied that the process was "enriching" recordings from the past, which, of course, kinda conflicts with the album title "The Beach Boys Today." ::)

I'm not sure that everything from the "Surfin' Safari" album could be presented in stereo. The recordings from Capitol Studios, yes, but the recordings from World Pacific Studios("Surfin') & Western Studios("Surfin' Safari" & "409"), I doubt it. It now seems apparent that The Western Studios demo session("Surfin' Safari", "409","The Lonely Sea","Their Hearts Were Full of Spring" and[possibly] a re-make of "Judy") were not 3-track recordings, but rather 1-track recordings with the overdubs accomplished via mono to mono copying. Many of you will cite the released stereo mix of "The Lonely Sea" as evidence that stereo mixes of "Surfin' Safari" & "409" should have been possible. But it is more likely that the stereo "The Lonely Sea" features later, stereo  vocal overdubs onto the original mono recording, and that these overdubs were done not only to achieve a fuller sound, but also to make it possible for there to be a stereo version of the song.

Mastering engineer Steve Hoffman(who worked with the Hite Morgan productions for the CD "Lost and Found") has made contradictory statements. At the time of that CD's release, he stated that the recordings could have been presented in stereo, but that the mixes would have simply been vocals on one side/ instruments on the other side. Years later, he said that "Surfin' " was recorded direct to mono. So who knows? But one thing is certain: The Beach Boys don't want any more "Morgan" outtakes released, and years ago, Brother Records went to court to stop a 2-CD set of the complete Morgan sessions.

 But one thing is certain: The Beach Boys don't want any more "Morgan" outtakes released, and years ago, Brother Records went to court to stop a 2-CD set of the complete Morgan sessions.

[/quote]

I didn't know this story...... why did The Beach Boys/Brother Records stop the 2 CD set?....

It's not as if they are awful recordings..... its a wonderful document of a developing band....

RickB

I didn't know this story...... why did The Beach Boys/Brother Records stop the 2 CD set?....

It's not as if they are awful recordings..... its a wonderful document of a developing band....

RickB
[/quote]

It was  BE setup. Perhaps the BBs, as most of the rest of the world now, just didn't like him. Maybe more than they don't want the Morgan stuff released.  here's some background:
  http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/the-beach-boys-first-wave-project-lawsuit-progress.15382/

ahhh Great Bgas!

a huge chapter I have somehow missed over the years....

I tried to click on the 'content/tracklisting' of the 2 CD set.... but I cant find a link....

60 % previously unreleased.......... anyone have a tracklisting or info link on this?

Thanks dudes.

oooops!!  just found the tracklisting by going to the surfsuprecords.com website....

RickB

COMMENT :  To the Above Question

In my discussions with the group, not one of them appreciated the Duophonic® product.

In many cases, Capitol released mono versions in Duophonic without their permission and in a matter of course, as they did with many other artists (Frank Sinatra, The Beatles, Miles Davis, etc.) whose careers span both the mono era and stereo era (and even the surround era) so as to bring the entire offering into the stereo catalog. Retailers also were complaining about needing to carry both LP stereo and LP mono versions of many releases, so Duophonic releases of old monophonic albums eliminated the need for double stocking.

As you may know the Duophonic process splits the mono signal into two parts, slightly delaying one side not greater than 50ms with filters on each side favoring highs and lows, respectfully. Even a person with SSD (single-sided-deafness) or a loss of 70% like Brian, will hear a confused sound.

For normal-hearing people Duophonic is interpreted by the binaural hearing mechanism as a nebulous expansion of a point source. That is, no sound seems to come from a specific position in space, rather all sounds seem to come from a vague and imprecise location between the speakers. In our case the brain takes the non-delayed signal and applies The Precedence Effect. This effect, also known as The Haas Effect, is a fairly rudimental psychological acoustic phenomenon, in that when two identical sounds are delayed, as the delay is lengthened the left and right sounds will become sufficiently decorrelated producing a blurred image source (up to 50ms). You and I do not hear the two delays as two delays, rather as one big sound. But the SSD listener (Brian) hears the two delays as two delays or a double-sound. Every drum beat, guitar pluck, and piano note is heard as a quick double-beat or repeat. The SSD listener not only hears Duophonic this way, but also hears regular stereo in this double-sound. If you electronically combine stereo left and stereo right signals to one mono combination signal, the SSD listener does not hear a double sound, but do the same for Duophonic and even YOU will hear a double sound.

Brian mixed in mono because that is how he hears. Capitol Records released Brian’s mono mixes in Duophonic for retail inventory reduction and to make releases containing both stereo and mono mixes sound more similar, i.e., stereo & Duophonic. Before that, and I guess before your time -- before the CD -- when it was vinyl records, the record industry was all mono. Brian had many hits before the stereo LP was popular. 20/20 was the first true stereo album.

Capitol Records has the contractual authority to release product as they see fit for a given market. They control the contents, order, and sound presentation once the masters are signed over to them. The master recordings are paid for by the record company and remain their property. How they release the product they paid for and own is just a matter of property rights. Brian and Brother Records can object, but that is all.

In the interest of “full disclosure” I will tell you that in many Beach Boy recordings I made have, down in the mix somewhere, instruments or vocals are treated with a Duophonic-like widening. Usually this is done to some mono tracks to make them sound better or provide a needed ambiance. I usually worked with the Orban Stereo Synthesizer, which produces a fake stereo signal in a slightly different way, a way that is mono and SSD compatible. Unlike Capitol’s Duophonic, the Orban approach splits the entire audio spectrum into bands a few notes wide each (sort of like the black and white notes of the piano). After that, the “black” notes go to the left and the “white” notes go to the right. This broadens the mono signal into a wide sound, but when combined does not produce any double imaging. I gave a demo to Capitol, thinking they would want to use a superior product, but they were not interested, pointing to the trademark, copyright & patent on Duophonic that they wished to keep using – a corporate thing. So if Brian were to object to Duophonic releases he would just run up against the legal department. Artistic control has its limits!

The only objection ever raised with Capitol management, that I know got their attention, resulted in the inclusion of a MONO version of Pet Sounds in the box set “The Pet Sounds Sessions.”  The story goes that Carl was so insistent with Capitol that the Box Set would not be complete without a CD copy of the entire album as it was originally mixed in true mono – not Duophonic. To use Carl’s words, “Pet Sounds should be heard the way Brian mixed it, in mono and not in fake stereo.”

Good Listening,  ~Stephen W. Desper

Great info! I wanted to add another element to the mono-vs-stereo issue that may have gotten lost in the history of record sales. I heard this radio ad from Sears on an August 1966 broadcast aircheck recording, advertising a sale on the newest record releases. Among the titles advertised were "Going Places" by Herb Alpert and the TJB, "Dirty Water" by the Standells, and albums from the Animals and Righteous Brothers.

The sale was for monaural albums at $1.99, and stereo albums for $2.79, and this again happening in summer 1966, one of the last years before mono releases of pop albums were all but phased out in favor of stereo.

So it would seem there was also a financial interest involved for the record labels, as they were charging more for the stereo mix than the mono mix of the same albums. And that would suggest at least some of the reasoning behind the process such as Capitol's "Duophonic" and whatever other labels may have been using under their own processes...they could take a mono album, give it the Duophonic treatment, and the retail price would be higher.

I also dug up some time ago this article from Billboard in 1959 where Atlantic had upped their prices for stereo albums:
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/billboardmar21959.jpg)

Also, again buried in the pages of old Billboard magazines, there were several reports of cases addressing the compatibility issues between mono and stereo records, where some actions were taken to address the problem which might happen where a turntable stylus may only reproduce mono, and what releases could or could not be played on someone's home equipment if it were either mono or stereo. Then you see printed on some period vinyl a notification saying something like "Playable on mono and stereo equipment".

I wish I could recall or find some of those, because it does tie into this topic just a bit, and it revisits some industry concerns (if not follow-up legal cases and whatnot) about record buyers not being able to play certain stereo records on their turntables.

Interesting stuff, for sure. Like most everything, it's art versus commerce and following the profit margins.  :)

COMMENT: 

Guitar Fool's post only underscores the fact that this is a business, THE MUSIC BUSINESS. Many decisions and '"turns in the road" seem stupid or rediclous when viewed from today's perspective, but just remember that $$$ speak louder than any amplifier when it comes to being a musician with a recording contract.     ~swd

It was  BE setup. Perhaps the BBs, as most of the rest of the world now, just didn't like him. Maybe more than they don't want the Morgan stuff released.  here's some background:
  http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/the-beach-boys-first-wave-project-lawsuit-progress.15382/
[/quote]

Now, I've given BE as much grief as anyone else here, and rightly so in my opinion, but in this instance, I'm with him: this tracks had been released on roughly a gazillion low budget/lo-fi compilations since 1969, and no-one in BRI had a problem with it to judge by their deafening silence, so to suddenly come over all concerned (and more, to suddenly decide THEY owned the tapes) over 30 years later is the epitome of unconvincing. My take on why is simpler: BRI, and Capitol, needed to nail BE on something and chose this, knowing that he didn't have the financial resources to fight them... and they were right.

However, that he was still announcing that the set would come out, and still accepting orders and advance payment some two months after he was made aware of the impending lawsuit, somewhat mitigates my sympathy for him in this case. In the fall of 2000, I was strongly advised to disassociate myself from him, by someone whose name you'd know (posts here now and then, and no, not Peter) as the incoming was on its way.

Now, I've given BE as much grief as anyone else here, and rightly so in my opinion, but in this instance, I'm with him: this tracks had been released on roughly a gazillion low budget/lo-fi compilations since 1969, and no-one in BRI had a problem with it to judge by their deafening silence, so to suddenly come over all concerned (and more, to suddenly decide THEY owned the tapes) over 30 years later is the epitome of unconvincing. My take on why is simpler: BRI, and Capitol, needed to nail BE on something and chose this, knowing that he didn't have the financial resources to fight them... and they were right.

However, that he was still announcing that the set would come out, and still accepting orders and advance payment some two months after he was made aware of the impending lawsuit, somewhat mitigates my sympathy for him in this case. In the fall of 2000, I was strongly advised to disassociate myself from him, by someone whose name you'd know (posts here now and then, and no, not Peter) as the incoming was on its way.
[/quote]

Andrew - I'm confused.  I read the stuff in the links.  If Hite Morgan was only a "producer" they work for the artist.  The artist "brings the talent" and the "production operation" makes the music "available" with their "production operation." I would think that the artist maintain ownership, unless they make a deal for some rights. 

They might have a copy, but it seems that it is the artists'  intellectual property, and they are merely "caretakers" of the work.  It is usually the artists' to exploit their work, not a producer, absent an agreement to the contrary, I would think.  I was under the impression that producers "work for" an artist, and absent a recording contract that makes them sort of "employees."  I'm thinking that would have been Capitol.   By that time, some of the artists were learning how to do production.  Or were already artist with production training and background.

Unless they "sold the work" to Hite Morgan, which doesn't sound as though it makes sense.  Or, if they had a contract to "work for them" with certain conditions.  You probably know more about the early stuff and how it was packaged and released.

Interesting, anyway.  ;)

It often happens that a band will sign into a contract with a label or a label offshoot to release their music, and within that contract is something about owning the master tapes, or at least controlling them for a specified period of time. So the artist may have actually 'signed away' the control and physical ownership of the master tapes while maintaining some ownership over what's on those tapes as intellectual property, but the "label" or whoever got the control of the master tapes in the contract has the power over how and when they are released.

There have been many cases of both big-name and small-time artists who have finished an album but despite their best efforts cannot get those who control the masters to release it due to these contracts. I've heard stories spanning all decades about finished albums left "sitting on the shelf" which is a form of music industry purgatory, and the reasons range from personal grudges to those financing the label running out of money and leaving nothing to work with expect binding contracts that hold up releases.

And a lot of artists will take these cases to court in order to get the control of their master tapes so they can then shop them somewhere else if they want to see them released. But often the lightning in the bottle of a hot artist releasing a follow up to a successful release will fade away as the tapes sit in legal limbo.

I'm guessing...mind you I have little actual insight into the Morgan deal and what was signed...that since Morgan not only was "producer" but also ran the record label which the songs were targeted for, he would have in the contract to release the songs on his label an agreement giving him control over the masters. It wouldn't be too far from standard practice through the years, unless the band specifically asked for such control in the contract.

And from the looks of things, this band of Hawthorne teenagers and their budding manager-father all with no success or no industry clout or experience didn't do that - perhaps they got swept up in the excitement of "cutting a record" with a local pro like Hite and trusted whatever papers Morgan had in front of them. Therefore Hite got the master tapes and for whatever length of time the contract said, he could do with them what he pleased.

Excellent "industry custom and practice" analysis.  I didn't realize that they owned the label, too.  Or, maybe forgot.  It almost sounds predatory in a way, and extortionist to make artists wait, as you say, "in purgatory."  Now with video in the mix that wasn't there, amateur video on YouTube sort of takes control from labels.  Or if an artist does their own amateur video, and uploads it, they can market their own stuff, and have better bargaining power going into the board room.

And, I'm thinking of Rebecca Black and Justin Beiber who seemed to become recruited from without the industry, rather than knockIng at the industry door.  Hite Morgan is old-school.  These newer artists are, or seem to be, less at the industry mercy. It is probably a good thing.  

You're probably correct about the factors at work with the early days work.  Thank you for the great analysis! I know it is early, and Sunday but you know you've earned yourself a  :beer

Funny, I thought that "Friends" was the first album specifically recorded with stereo in mind. The album was released only in stereo in the U.S.A.(overseas territories that did issue a mono L.P. did so by using a "Fold-Down" from the stereo mix).

Also, these days, Capitol(who obviously wants to release more Beach Boys archival CD's in the future) generally does yield to the wishes of BRI. Even after "Pet Sounds" had been released on CD in original mono and (1996) remixed stereo, Capitol's Japanese affiliate wanted to release the "Duophonic" version on CD. BRI said "No", and so it wasn't released.

Thank you very much for your explanations, mr. Desper! :)


What is the difference between the stereo on Friends and that on 20/20?

COMMENT:   I said 20/20 was the first true stereo album -- operative word here is "true".  If you define stereo as a bunch of mono tracks panned left and right, then Friends and many earlier albums could be classified as being "stereo". By way of example, God Only Knows was recorded with mono being the final release format. Yet, it has a "stereo" release because Mark mixed it by panning the mono tracks to various positions in the stereo panorama. This is all explained in my study-video on God Only Knows available at http://swdstudyvideos.com.

All this left and right panning is called amplitude derived stereo. This was the very early way of making so-called stereo recordings. I remember how, when stereo was first being demo-ed in stores, we were all so impressed with a train going left to right or hearing drums on the right and a sax on the left and a vocal in the center. Stereo was all about separation back then.

True stereo has both amplitude and phase derived stereo elements. Phase derived stereo includes vector summations or frequency selective delays between the left and right signals. This type of stereo not only produces a listening experience of direction (the amplitude part) but also spatial immersion (the phase derived part), called dimension. How both elements are mixed can also produce the impression of depth. 

Thus a true stereo recording has all three elements, not just one or two. The three elements for true stereo reproduction are: Direction – Dimension – Depth  or as the advertising and promotional people call it 3D or the three D’s.

20/20 was the first Beach Boy album that was conceived and recorded with both amplitude and phase derived stereo as its release goal.

My statement is made from a recording engineer's point of view. The A&R department can print any term on the jacket they wish to, but I know what I hear.

~swd

Re: Morgan and the pre-Capitol tapes - apparently there's a letter in the Capitol archives from Hite giving them permission to use his master of "Surfin'" on the first album. That indicates to me that all three parties involved considered him the legal owner of the master. Interestingly... (he looks thoughtfully into the middle distance while tugging gently on his beard)... I don't ever recall anyone referring to any payment for the session, which would establish ownership, so in the absence of said info, we must assume that Morgan donated the studio time against possible future royalties. I know the band did enter into an agreement with Morgan concerning promotion and distribution and that, when he failed to fulfill (I'm doing this off the top of my head, thus caveat lector), handed the band back to Murry, who promptly did the rounds of the LA labels.

Additionally, as previously stated, the band, and BRI, didn't say word one about the myriad crappy comps that the Morgan tapes turned up on from 1969 on, notably the impeccable 1991 DCC release Lost and Found 1961-62, which used the original tapes which had been rediscovered in Bruce Morgan's closet (no, seriously). I would have thought if there was any moment to start waving and say "'scuse me but those are ours", it would have been then.

Thanks for that great reply.

I kind of like Duophonic. I much prefer to it to the 'phase'-adjusted modern 'remixes'. I recently got an old tube Wollensak 1580 stereo reel player, along with a couple NOS BB reels ... the tapes sounds really really good, even though some of the masters are the duophonic versions.

In my experience, and I'm obviously not in the same league as most of you guys in this area, Duophonic can sound good on the right device. It sounds awful on my 2 year old hi-res turntable, but they actually sound pretty good on the early '60s turntable (that looks more like an end table) that belonged to my great aunt. Like SWD said, it's all about the business, and they were selling these to people who owned turntables like those, not audiophiles.

Seconded! :)