gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680601 Posts in 27601 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 29, 2024, 09:16:33 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 17 Guests are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Poll
Question: Should this discussion be moved to the Sandbox?
Naahh, Beach Boys, SMiLE and drugs is as on-topic as can be - 99 (67.8%)
It's about time, I've requested this at least 20 pages back - 27 (18.5%)
Who cares, it isn't going to be released anyway - 11 (7.5%)
I don't like drugs and I don't like SMiLE, we might as well delete this discussion - 2 (1.4%)
The SMiLE music and drug use cloud this discussion - 7 (4.8%)
Total Voters: 138

Pages: 1 ... 53 54 55 56 57 [58] 59 60 61 62 63 ... 380 Go Down Print
Author Topic: SMiLE Sessions box set!  (Read 1728698 times)
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1425 on: May 02, 2011, 09:10:08 AM »

But who really knows? Perhaps new multitracks or even old stereo mixes have turned up...

Those would be the 'old stereo mixes' that never existed in the first place ?  Roll Eyes

Remember, Smile would have been issued in mono and DuoPhonic (Capitol memo to Queens Litho plant dated 11/14/66)
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
onkster
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 882


View Profile
« Reply #1426 on: May 02, 2011, 09:23:19 AM »

I second you on that, AGD--you should really hear both. And one of the CD issues contains both on one disc.
Logged
tansen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 621



View Profile
« Reply #1427 on: May 02, 2011, 09:25:45 AM »

You know one thing I am kinda bummed out about is that the 'definitive' CD version of Smile will be in mono. Hopefully we will get all the songs in stereo as well so we can make our own stereo version!

Whoa there. Not 'definitive'. Not even close. CD1 of the two-disc version will be an "as-close-as-we-can-get" approach using the existing (incomplete) 1966-67 material and apparently based on the BWPS template.

The sessions on all the other CDs, as far as I'm aware, will be in stereo.

Sorry, that ("as-close-as-we-can-get") is what I meant by 'definitive' (and also why I put it in quotes), Andrew.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2011, 03:33:54 PM by tansen » Logged

Tansen - "He Who Commands an Army of Notes"
LetHimRun
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 361


View Profile
« Reply #1428 on: May 02, 2011, 09:27:21 AM »

I am incredibly glad it will be coming out in mono.

I LOVE stereo (nothing gets better for me than listening to the 2009 mix of 'Don't Worry Baby' or the stereo mix of WIBN) but there is a depth and warmth achieved with mono that stereo just can't compete with. There is a unity with mono whereas stereo can sound scattered. I enjoy both formats, but mono just seems right for SMiLE - considering the lack of instruments on many of the songs (Wonderful, Friday Night, You Are My Sunshine) I don't think too many of these songs would sound good in stereo. But that's just me. And please prove me wrong Mr. Linett!

For those of us buying the boxset I have no doubt that we'll be treated to both stereo and mono for the majority of the SMiLE songs.

I really want Wonderful in stereo. Put the harpsichord to the left, backing vocals to the right, (give them both stereo reverb) and lead vocal in the middle, and that will sounds awesome. Or even spread the BG vox around in the stereo image and put the harpsichord behind Brian's voice - that should work too.


The the former option will sound like the Beatles remasters where the guitar is on the direct left, drums and bass on the direct right, lead vocals direct front, etc etc....the Beatles stereo remasters sound like rubbish. I'll agree with you on the latter though - a subtle stereo mix of Wonderful would probably sound really good.

Funny, O&O is one of my top 5 favorite albums and I've never heard it in mono - I must do that one of these days.

Odessey and Oracle in mono is magnificent. Listening to it in stereo was my first encounter with it and was the only way I had heard it for a while, but I came across a mono mix of Changes and it was like hearing the song all over again. I found O&O in mono and couldn't believe the difference (literally in some of the songs as AGD pointed out) and the overall sound and feel was such so much better. Butcher's Tale really stands out and is much more ominous.
Logged
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5865


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #1429 on: May 02, 2011, 09:40:45 AM »

I am incredibly glad it will be coming out in mono.

I LOVE stereo (nothing gets better for me than listening to the 2009 mix of 'Don't Worry Baby' or the stereo mix of WIBN) but there is a depth and warmth achieved with mono that stereo just can't compete with. There is a unity with mono whereas stereo can sound scattered. I enjoy both formats, but mono just seems right for SMiLE - considering the lack of instruments on many of the songs (Wonderful, Friday Night, You Are My Sunshine) I don't think too many of these songs would sound good in stereo. But that's just me. And please prove me wrong Mr. Linett!

For those of us buying the boxset I have no doubt that we'll be treated to both stereo and mono for the majority of the SMiLE songs.

I really want Wonderful in stereo. Put the harpsichord to the left, backing vocals to the right, (give them both stereo reverb) and lead vocal in the middle, and that will sounds awesome. Or even spread the BG vox around in the stereo image and put the harpsichord behind Brian's voice - that should work too.


The the former option will sound like the Beatles remasters where the guitar is on the direct left, drums and bass on the direct right, lead vocals direct front, etc etc....the Beatles stereo remasters sound like rubbish. I'll agree with you on the latter though - a subtle stereo mix of Wonderful would probably sound really good.

Funny, O&O is one of my top 5 favorite albums and I've never heard it in mono - I must do that one of these days.

Odessey and Oracle in mono is magnificent. Listening to it in stereo was my first encounter with it and was the only way I had heard it for a while, but I came across a mono mix of Changes and it was like hearing the song all over again. I found O&O in mono and couldn't believe the difference (literally in some of the songs as AGD pointed out) and the overall sound and feel was such so much better. Butcher's Tale really stands out and is much more ominous.

I first heard Pet Sounds in stereo. When I heard 'You Still Believe In Me' in mono it was like hearing a completely different version of that song. Looks like I'm in for the same experience with O&O!
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site

God must’ve smiled the day Brian Wilson was born!

"ragegasm" - /rāj • ga-zəm/ : a logical mental response produced when your favorite band becomes remotely associated with the bro-country genre.

Ever want to hear some Beach Boys songs mashed up together like The Beatles' 'LOVE' album? Check out my mix!
tansen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 621



View Profile
« Reply #1430 on: May 02, 2011, 09:42:47 AM »


Odessey and Oracle in mono is magnificent. Listening to it in stereo was my first encounter with it and was the only way I had heard it for a while, but I came across a mono mix of Changes and it was like hearing the song all over again. I found O&O in mono and couldn't believe the difference (literally in some of the songs as AGD pointed out) and the overall sound and feel was such so much better. Butcher's Tale really stands out and is much more ominous.

Definitely with you on Butcher's Tale, and even though Changes sounds magnificent in mono, i still really love that song in stereo - it's a lot more psychedelic that way (specially with the left panned lead vocal reverb). I agree on 'This will be our year' too, definitely not only better in mono, but like Matt/Andrew said, different. But songs like A rose for Emily, I want her she wants me, Friends of mine and TIme of the season I prefer in stereo.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2011, 09:46:18 AM by tansen » Logged

Tansen - "He Who Commands an Army of Notes"
Austin
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 218


View Profile
« Reply #1431 on: May 02, 2011, 10:11:07 AM »

While I support new mono mixes on the basis that it's how Brian would have done it, keep in mind that statements about Smile chiefly being a mono album have to be considered in the context of 60's mixing technology. The Pet Sounds Sessions booklet has a technical section written by Mark Linett that explains how Pet Sounds would have been impossible to mix in stereo, even if Brian/whoever wanted to, because there was no way to sync up the instrumental and vocal tracks after the necessary bounces (I don't have the boxset readily available, so please correct me if I've got the specifics wrong). Mono almost certainly would have given Brian more instant creative leeway, without the extra hurdles.

So, yes, Smile was conceived in mono given the stereo technology of 1966, but it's a totally different picture today, and any stereo mixes shouldn't be dismissed because of such statements. Even the relatively-recent stereo Pet Sounds mixes could benefit from the advances made just in the last three or four years.
Logged
Matt Bielewicz
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 648


View Profile
« Reply #1432 on: May 02, 2011, 10:27:36 AM »

Those would be the 'old stereo mixes' that never existed in the first place ?  Roll Eyes

Remember, Smile would have been issued in mono and DuoPhonic (Capitol memo to Queens Litho plant dated 11/14/66)

Andrew, I'm very enthusiastic about this stuff, but after 15 years, I admit that I am still a rookie, really. I have heard countless mixes of H&V sections in stereo over the years, but I've never known whether those were scratch mixes done at the time (unlikely given Brian's hearing situation, I grant you), quasi-official mixes done later by (say) Carl in the early 70s, or, as it seems is actually the case, stereo 'fan mixes' done by bootleggers from the original tapes many years later. I've never been certain. And I have been further confused by learning that Chuck Britz definitely did stereo mixes (with minimal or no involvement from Brian) of material from the group's early albums. I wondered whether some of the bootlegged SMiLE sections in stereo might, in a similar fashion, have been contemporaneous 'Britz mixes' that had somehow found their way into the hands of collectors and so onto bootlegs.

I take it that this isn't the case, then? And that the stereo SMiLE boots came from mixes done later? Do you have any info to that effect? Seriously, I'd be really interested to know...!

Cheers,

MattB
Logged
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1433 on: May 02, 2011, 10:45:36 AM »

Those would be the 'old stereo mixes' that never existed in the first place ?  Roll Eyes

Remember, Smile would have been issued in mono and DuoPhonic (Capitol memo to Queens Litho plant dated 11/14/66)

Andrew, I'm very enthusiastic about this stuff, but after 15 years, I admit that I am still a rookie, really. I have heard countless mixes of H&V sections in stereo over the years, but I've never known whether those were scratch mixes done at the time (unlikely given Brian's hearing situation, I grant you), quasi-official mixes done later by (say) Carl in the early 70s, or, as it seems is actually the case, stereo 'fan mixes' done by bootleggers from the original tapes many years later. I've never been certain. And I have been further confused by learning that Chuck Britz definitely did stereo mixes (with minimal or no involvement from Brian) of material from the group's early albums. I wondered whether some of the bootlegged SMiLE sections in stereo might, in a similar fashion, have been contemporaneous 'Britz mixes' that had somehow found their way into the hands of collectors and so onto bootlegs.

I take it that this isn't the case, then? And that the stereo SMiLE boots came from mixes done later? Do you have any info to that effect? Seriously, I'd be really interested to know...!

Cheers,

MattB

Any stereo 'mixes' on the existing Smile boots are in reality either just the raw multitracks or, as you say, fan mixes produced decades after the event. The 1963-64 stereo mixes Chuck did are mostly very little more than the raw 3-track session tapes balanced and with a little added eq and reverb (in fact some of the instrumental tracks on Chuck's 'mixes' were of course a mono reduction mix supervised by Brian, but as you'll agree, things are complicated enough as it is !). As with all Beach Boys album masters handed to Capitol 1965-66, Smile would have been mono, and would have been rendered into DuoPhonic at the tower.
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
Matt Bielewicz
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 648


View Profile
« Reply #1434 on: May 02, 2011, 11:21:55 AM »

Thanks Andrew, great info. As always!

And Austin, I agree that SMiLE would have been impossible to mix into anything but mono back in 1967, as Pet Sounds was the year earlier. But as I said upthread, I think that with SMiLE, that might *still* be the case despite the intervening advances in recording tech, because the tape archive isn't anything like as comprehensively stocked as it was/is for Pet Sounds...

MattB
Logged
Roger Ryan
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1528


View Profile
« Reply #1435 on: May 02, 2011, 11:44:00 AM »

I agree with Matt B. in that I think the choice for the SMiLE "album" to be mixed in mono is a practical one based on current availability of tapes. A reverse problem develops from this decision, however: how do you create a mono mix of "Cabin Essence" with a finished lead vocal when Carl's '68 lead can only be found on the mixed stereo master?

And that, folks, brings this thread back to page 1 or thereabouts.  Grin
Logged
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1436 on: May 02, 2011, 11:44:50 AM »

And Austin, I agree that SMiLE would have been impossible to mix into anything but mono back in 1967, as Pet Sounds was the year earlier.

It would have been perfectly technically possible to mix Pet Sounds for stereo in 1966, but, aside from the obvious reason (which could have been circumvented by having, say, Carl or Bruce assist Brian during the mixdown), Brian elected to mix in mono as it gave him complete control over how the finished product sounded in peoples homes.
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
Matt Bielewicz
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 648


View Profile
« Reply #1437 on: May 02, 2011, 12:44:34 PM »

Whoa, Andrew. Surely not? I mean, I know Brian actively chose mono because of Spector and his hearing and the degree of control and everything... but beyond that, surely it truly would have been a practical impossibility to mix a stereo Pet Sounds with all the same vocals on it in 1966. Other than as a mix with stereo vocals and a mono instrumental backing? Or do I have that wrong too?

I should be clear... I know folk DID mix in stereo back then, and Brian could have, notionally (with some help from someone who could hear stereo, as you say)... but I thought that with the tapes recorded in the way they were for Pet Sounds, you couldn't have mixed stereo in May 1966. Not at the same time as the mono mix was made, and not without the instruments still being in mono on at least some of the songs.

My understanding was that with many of the tracks on Pet Sounds (Wouldn't It Be Nice and God Only Knows are two that spring to mind, but I'm pretty sure that I Just Wasn't Made For These Times is like this too) the completed instrumental backing take was mixed to mono and put on track one of a new tape, to which the vocal overdubs were then added. So you could only ever have had a mono instrumental backing with stereo vocals from that tape (and Brian, of course, simply mixed everything to mono from those second tapes with the vocals). To create a true stereo backing with stereo instruments AND stereo vocals would have required the simultaneous playing back at mixdown of the original tape used to record the instrumental backing *with* the tape used to record all the vocals, in perfect sync... and no-one could do that in 1966, nor for many years afterwards. You could start two multitracks off together at as close to the same time as you could manage, and do a lot of work to ensure that they were running at the same speed, but they would *always* drift apart and out of perfect lock.

George Martin tried something like this to give himself more tape tracks when recording the orchestral crescendo for A Day In The Life on Sgt. Pepper, but it was hopelessly unreliable. Fortunately, the orchestral crescendo wasn't very long (so the 'drift' over the course of that section wasn't too serious), and as it was a 'chaotic' recording anyway, without a strongly defined tempo, he got away with it...

If I do have all that right, then even if Chuck Britz or Carl or ANYONE at Capitol had wanted a true stereo Pet Sounds in 1966, like the one we eventually got in 1996, they couldn't have mixed one?

MattB
« Last Edit: May 02, 2011, 12:49:20 PM by Matt Bielewicz » Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1438 on: May 02, 2011, 12:49:47 PM »

1967 is when the mono/stereo crossover really started in pop music, and it was a pretty controversial affair, believe it or not. There were lawsuits brought against record companies for their pricing and the issues of playability of a stereo record on a mono needle, and vice-versa. The technology was relatively new outside the more sophisticated (re: 'older') record-buyers so all these issues were new to kids buying pop albums. Stereo albums were also priced at around a dollar more than the mono counterpart in the US around the time of Pet Sounds.

Aside from the producers' control over the listening experience, pop music was mixed in mono specifically for the AM radio market, which was exclusively mono. FM up until later in '67 was still an experimental thing in the US, and a lot of FM stations would broadcast programmed music on tape because the money was still in AM and they just didn't care about FM as much. You would not mix a single targeted for top-40 airplay in stereo if top-40 were strictly mono. So that was the business and practical consideration versus the artistic control issues from Brian and Spector, and others. They had to sell these records too. Through 1967, the mono single mix was *the* focus. Stereo mixes of albums were almost an afterthought, an experiment like FM radio in pop music for young listeners, until the listening habits shifted.

It is really incredible to think how radical some of these changes were in 1966 and 1967, but it literally opened up a whole new world when pop music was thought of as something other than 45 rpm singles and AM radio top-40 broadcasts. It is also why the impact of a mono single from 1966-67 can be much different from the stereo mixes heard for decades now on "greatest hits" compilations and FM oldies radio, after listeners were conditioned to hear their pop music in stereo.

Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1439 on: May 02, 2011, 01:00:36 PM »

If I do have all that right, then even if Chuck Britz or Carl or ANYONE at Capitol had wanted a true stereo Pet Sounds in 1966, like the one we eventually got in 1996, they couldn't have mixed one?
MattB

I'll jump over my long post to chime in here: Stereo mixing for pop music including the Beach Boys, Beatles, etc. at the time of Pet Sounds was considered an afterthought. Stereo to a lot of younger listeners was still the novelty of hearing a ping-pong ball or a jet taking off on those test records. Pop music mixed in stereo had no purpose if the main delivery systems at home, in the car, or anywhere a radio signal was heard was a mono broadcast, so the engineers punched up certain frequencies to cut through in mono, and radio stations did the same thing all over again at their boards as the songs were broadcast.

All the labels cared about was getting the mono single to the radio, and the engineers themselves often did the stereo mixes very fast after they'd toil on the mono. Those 66-67 stereo mixes have some very bizarre and primitive panning where the entire drum kit was panned hard right, the bass with it, vocals were center-panned, and guitars etc. were hard left, or whatever.

So if Brian's working method was the same geared toward a final mono mix, they'd need to alter some of what he did with bouncing tracks if a true Pet Sounds stereo mix was the goal in 1966. But since it never was, such a true mix could not have happened and even if it did the nature of a true stereo mix was different in 1966 than it would be a few years later. Could they have done it with 4 tracks of backing and 4 tracks of vocals assuming vocals were done at Columbia's 8-track facility, in 1966 standards? Perhaps, but the way Brian bounced tracks would need to be altered as he was cutting the tracks, and his whole mindset was blending sounds in mono from the first take to the final mix.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Matt Bielewicz
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 648


View Profile
« Reply #1440 on: May 02, 2011, 01:07:07 PM »

Thanks, guitarfool. That's what I thought. Pet Sounds notionally *could* have been in stereo - IF it had been recorded differently, and the tapes used differently, from the start. But from the finished multitrack tapes that Brian used to mix the mono master in 1966, it was impossible until there was a reliable way of sync'ing the tape used to record the instrumentals with the tape used for the vocal overdubs. That was my understanding.

Oh and Roger, we *can* avoid going RIGHT back to page 1 re: Carl's Cabinessence vocal from the 1968 20/20 sessions. I gather the multitrack tape for that 1968 session is missing too...? (I think) but fortunately, even if that is true, the stereo mix is one of those rare 60s ones with Carl's vocals left and right in stereo, and the backing track dead centre in mono... which means you can phase-cancel the backing track to obtain the lead vocals in mono (as I have done). That isn't a great solution, as you then have a doubled vocal in mono only, but of course if the mix you're aiming to produce for, say, a certain forthcoming de luxe box set is ALSO in mono, it's much less of a problem...!

If I remember rightly (it's years since I did this) the choruses are mixed differently, and the instrumental backing doesn't cancel perfectly from those, so you get the vocals plus a bit of backing from those sections when you phase-cancel. But perhaps the chorus vocals are still available on the '66 multitrack? If THAT one has survived to the present day, that is - I don't know!

So, it would be *possible* to use Carl's 1968 vocal, I think, in a new mono mix. Of course, the pertinent question is, whether this *should* be done. OK, now we ARE back on page 1 of the thread!

MattB
Logged
tansen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 621



View Profile
« Reply #1441 on: May 02, 2011, 01:11:38 PM »

By the way, I guess you all have heard this before, but figured it was time for a re-fresh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIJOTmWabcY

Surely, they must have paid royalties.
Logged

Tansen - "He Who Commands an Army of Notes"
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1442 on: May 02, 2011, 01:57:15 PM »

Whoa, Andrew. Surely not? I mean, I know Brian actively chose mono because of Spector and his hearing and the degree of control and everything... but beyond that, surely it truly would have been a practical impossibility to mix a stereo Pet Sounds with all the same vocals on it in 1966. Other than as a mix with stereo vocals and a mono instrumental backing? Or do I have that wrong too?

I should be clear... I know folk DID mix in stereo back then, and Brian could have, notionally (with some help from someone who could hear stereo, as you say)... but I thought that with the tapes recorded in the way they were for Pet Sounds, you couldn't have mixed stereo in May 1966. Not at the same time as the mono mix was made, and not without the instruments still being in mono on at least some of the songs.

My understanding was that with many of the tracks on Pet Sounds (Wouldn't It Be Nice and God Only Knows are two that spring to mind, but I'm pretty sure that I Just Wasn't Made For These Times is like this too) the completed instrumental backing take was mixed to mono and put on track one of a new tape, to which the vocal overdubs were then added. So you could only ever have had a mono instrumental backing with stereo vocals from that tape (and Brian, of course, simply mixed everything to mono from those second tapes with the vocals). To create a true stereo backing with stereo instruments AND stereo vocals would have required the simultaneous playing back at mixdown of the original tape used to record the instrumental backing *with* the tape used to record all the vocals, in perfect sync... and no-one could do that in 1966, nor for many years afterwards. You could start two multitracks off together at as close to the same time as you could manage, and do a lot of work to ensure that they were running at the same speed, but they would *always* drift apart and out of perfect lock.

George Martin tried something like this to give himself more tape tracks when recording the orchestral crescendo for A Day In The Life on Sgt. Pepper, but it was hopelessly unreliable. Fortunately, the orchestral crescendo wasn't very long (so the 'drift' over the course of that section wasn't too serious), and as it was a 'chaotic' recording anyway, without a strongly defined tempo, he got away with it...

If I do have all that right, then even if Chuck Britz or Carl or ANYONE at Capitol had wanted a true stereo Pet Sounds in 1966, like the one we eventually got in 1996, they couldn't have mixed one?

MattB

Had he wanted to mix Pet Sounds in stereo, Brian could have used Columbia's 8-track for the tracking sessions as well as the vocal sessions. He'd done it before, on a couple of Summer Days songs... but the gameplan was mono from the beginning. Cut the track on Western's 4-track, then take the tape to Columbia and mix it down to one track of their 8-track machine (or mix it down at Western then copy it to the Columbia console, but you lose a generation that way). You're thinking about going back to the tapes the way he recorded and mixed them (which was impossible in 1966), I'm thinking recording and sub-mixing with stereo in mind from the off... which of course never entered Brian's mind.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2011, 02:00:50 PM by Andrew G. Doe » Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1443 on: May 02, 2011, 02:04:13 PM »

By the way, I guess you all have heard this before, but figured it was time for a re-fresh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIJOTmWabcY

Surely, they must have paid royalties.

If even if Brian is credited as a co-composer (which of course he should be), he wouldn't get royalties as the SOT publishing was sold by Murry. Anyone got the album know if there's any acknowledgement of the lift at all ?
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
OBLiO
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 171

Do The Hokey Pokey with all your might


View Profile
« Reply #1444 on: May 02, 2011, 02:04:30 PM »

I wonder if the process could be or has been duplicated, in that a MONO mix would be the first mix made. I would prefer a MONO mix supervised by Brian with his ear for what it is supposed to sound like, using the MONO Smiley Smile Past Master as a reference... and from there a stereo mix made using the mono mix as reference. I don't know if Duophonic makes sense today considering that historically it was an afterthought. Any other mix beyond the MONO mix would be considered an afterthought.
Logged

"Remember - only you can prevent forest fires" - Smokey the Bear
tansen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 621



View Profile
« Reply #1445 on: May 02, 2011, 02:21:53 PM »

By the way, I guess you all have heard this before, but figured it was time for a re-fresh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIJOTmWabcY

Surely, they must have paid royalties.

If even if Brian is credited as a co-composer (which of course he should be), he wouldn't get royalties as the SOT publishing was sold by Murry. Anyone got the album know if there's any acknowledgement of the lift at all ?


I've got it (it's a single/EP), and no acknowledgement there at all. Who did Murry sell the catalogue to again?
« Last Edit: May 02, 2011, 02:23:04 PM by tansen » Logged

Tansen - "He Who Commands an Army of Notes"
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1446 on: May 02, 2011, 02:25:44 PM »

By the way, I guess you all have heard this before, but figured it was time for a re-fresh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIJOTmWabcY

Surely, they must have paid royalties.

If even if Brian is credited as a co-composer (which of course he should be), he wouldn't get royalties as the SOT publishing was sold by Murry. Anyone got the album know if there's any acknowledgement of the lift at all ?


I've got it (it's a single/EP), and no acknowledgement there at all. Who did Murry sell the catalogue to again?

Irving/Almo.
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1447 on: May 02, 2011, 02:28:52 PM »

One other very important aspect: adding effects to the tracks. Brian had a great ear for shaping his tracks, and there are a few occasions where you can actually hear it happening on various SOT takes and the like.

When Brian was at Western, he had the use of Bill Putnam's equipment, Universal Audio, some of which at the time was revolutionary. At Western, he had access to the 610 preamps, the LA-2A opto-compressor, and whatever echo chambers Putnam had, not to mention their tape delay possibilities. At Columbia, he had 8 tracks to work with - which was a big deal - but the rooms and some of the equipment never sounded as good for instrumental tracking as Western. Gold Star - when Brian could book it - had the best echo chambers around, and other various sonic quirks about the sounds bouncing around that small room that made those records sound different.

Brian's skill was using all of that stuff to his advantage. he took it as far as it could go with Good Vibrations, where he picked the best parts of each and spliced them together into one mono mixdown. A "greatest hits" of LA studio sounds available in 1966, perhaps on one record?

The point is in 1966 *especially* those details mattered more to Brian than maybe other producers, and when he was adding those sounds like the echo chambers and Putnams compression to a certain track on the fly, and printing that to tape, there was no way to 'remix" that kind of live recording ethic. What happened in that room was what you got.

"Wind Chimes" is a perfect example, in the way Brian added reverbs, echos, and EQ's to each one of those piano tracks as they were mixed down into one mono track. The effects and the timbres of each different piano makes that track special, and to mix something like that in stereo after the effects become vital to the performance is missing the point. Same with some of the "bicycle rider" piano sections, where the echos and reverb are all over the place. Some of those sounds cannot be duplicated after the minute they're recorded.

It had to be mono for Brian all the way to make all this work, whether he only had one good ear or not. His recording approach changed radically after Smiley Smile and I'll say it never felt as unique and as special as his peak in 66-67.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Matt Bielewicz
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 648


View Profile
« Reply #1448 on: May 02, 2011, 02:36:05 PM »

You're thinking about going back to the tapes the way he recorded and mixed them (which was impossible in 1966), I'm thinking recording and sub-mixing with stereo in mind from the off... which of course never entered Brian's mind.

Check, Andrew. Good, I'm not going mad. Not yet, anyway.

As regards using eight-track for the track AND vocals... wouldn't even that have been pushing it, with some of the complex vocal stuff on Pet Sounds? With, say, three tracks used up on the instruments, that wouldn't leave too many for the vocals given how complex some of them are.

Although, yes, you're right, he could have sub-mixed as he went along to free up more tracks. The Beatles did it often enough!

Ultimately, though, you're right - the point is that though Brian *could* have done Pet Sounds this way to enable him to make it in stereo... he didn't... and he didn't!

And excellent points, guitarfool, about the effects. Another compelling reason why there'll never be a stereo mix of Wind Chimes that sounds very different to the mono version, or which can use stereo to its full potential.

MattB
Logged
Dan Lega
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 191


View Profile
« Reply #1449 on: May 02, 2011, 02:38:59 PM »

But what does that even mean? He doesn't owe his greatness to his influences? Without his influences who knows what would have happened. What if Brian's dad never beat him? What if Brian never heard Rhapsody in Blue? What if he never turned on the radio and caught Be My Baby? What if he had never smoked that first joint or did that first hit of LSD?

I might grant you that Brian had some innate talent that existed independently of everything else (even that's questionable though depending on what side of the nurture v nature argument you side with), but ultimately Brian used his influences as tools to shape that talent into the form of Pet Sounds or SMiLE. Once you start subtracting influences you're subtracting experiences, you're taking away the things that made Brian Brian.

My observation, based on some 35 years or reading about, researching and talking to The Beach Boys and their milieu, is that even before having his first toke in 1964, Brian was already Brian as the likes of us understand it. The drugs merely amplified what was already there: as has been said many many people, some much closer to the centre than any of us, Brian was the last person in the world who should have taken or been offered LSD.




Alright, this is from approximately 10 pages ago, but I just want to chime in this one time.  I'm leaning more toward Fishmonk's side of the tale in this debate.  All three Wilson boys were troubled with addiction to drugs.  Therefore, since back in those days people didn't know what LSD could do, I don't see it worthwhile blaming anyone about Brian's taking of LSD.  With an addictive personality you're going to try a new drug.  No one is to blame.  Andrew, above you seem to hint that Brian was already teetering on the edge of a mental problems.  I believe that, too, and that is why when Laren Daro (or whatever his name is) laughs about giving Brian LSD it's because to him he didn't see much of a difference between pre-LSD Brian and post-LSD Brian.  And you know, we weren't there.  We didn't know Brian intimately then, and we don't know him intimately now.  Daro did know him then.  Therefore, I would say Daro has a better perspective than us.  Of course, he could be wrong, but you have to admit he has the better perspective.  Do I wish Brian had not taken drugs?  Yes, because it seems they did do him harm.  But, you know, I don't really know for sure.  But drugs did affect Brian, and whether they affected his music for bad or for good we'll never know, unless there's a parallel universe out there somewhere in which things happened differently.

So I don't know why people are getting on Fishmonk's case in this debate.  I haven't seen him (or anyone) say "I'm glad Brian took drugs."  He's just pointing out what he thinks Brian's drug-taking might have done to him.  I don't see the harm in that.

And for the record, I've never done hard drugs, and I don't have an addicitve personality and have never wanted to use them.  However, there are people who have these traits and do these things -- and sometimes you can't help them no matter what you do.

Love and merci,  Dan Lega
Logged
gfx
Pages: 1 ... 53 54 55 56 57 [58] 59 60 61 62 63 ... 380 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 1.433 seconds with 24 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!