Yet another "Pet Sounds" reissue....

[anazgnos]

The issue is that, really, a stereo mix of Pet Sounds (an album created and released in mono) is very much like colorizing a classic movie like Casablanca or Citizen Kane.

I respect the opinions of people who prefer the mono mix, but the colorization comparison frequently trumpeted isn't exactly accurate. Colorizing films involves creating synthetic color information that was never recorded in the first place. The separation needed for a stereo Pet Sounds has always been there. The audio equivalent of colorization is more like Duophonic, or a mono mixdown passed through harmonic extraction.

It'd be more like if they recut the film from the original negative or removed some frame masking so you could see more of the backgrounds...but that's a much less snappy metaphor.

[guitarfool2002]

To recap:

I've always kind of wondered whether there was a segment of the audience that regarded the stereo mix as a George Lucasy, "Special Edition" kind of thing that tosses everything great about the original out the window...

One of the only ways you could make that comparison would have been if someone had added samples, triggered drum sounds, or some other new, obvious additions to the original tapes, and in this case that simply wasn't done. The original tapes were given a stereo mix, and no new parts were added which were not already there on the multitracks in 1966. This is all about aesthetics, and personal preferences. If there are folks out there comparing a stereo Pet Sounds to Lucas adding digitized characters to the original print of the film, I'd say that's a bit too much of a stretch.

I really appreciate the level of care and respect given to sets like the Pet Sounds and Smile sessions box sets. And the beautiful thing about the way these were handled is how we, the buyers, can choose if we want to play the mono or the stereo mixes where available. If you're a purist, the mono Pet Sounds album as released in '66 was there on a single disc. If you prefer the stereo remix, that's there in the same box. The Monkees box sets handle the mono/stereo issues in much the same way by offering both in the set. What else could we need in the way of having a choice between mono and stereo albums?

Nothing was added to the original master tapes of Pet Sounds. Nothing - and if something had been added, something musical or an instrument which wasn't recorded in 1966, then yes, the comparison to colorizing a black-and-white film would be more appropriate. Or a comparison to Lucas putting a character in a Star Wars scene who wasn't on the original reels of film when it was shot might fit. But as it stands, nothing of the sort was done. If you prefer stereo, it's there, if you prefer mono, it's there too, or to be a total purist buy an original Capitol pressing! They're available.

How about this one to consider: The extensive cleaning and restoration of the Sistine Chapel ceiling, which revealed bright and vibrant colors that were masked and distorted under decades of soot, dirt, smoke, and wax residue from candles and other assorted pollutants inside the chapel. There was controversy about "artist's intent" with that restoration, too, but anyone seeing the results or a before-and-after comparison of even one figure on that ceiling can judge if restoring the colors was a good or bad thing. If you saw the ceiling prior to the 1990's, then saw it today, it might be a shock to see the difference. I suppose hearing Pet Sounds in stereo could cause a similar reaction after hearing it on vinyl in mono for however many decades...

[Mikie]

Your opinion is absolutely worthless to me.

No sh*t.  Who's the Spacecase, Doc?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I can see both sides of this issue.

In the case of Pet Sounds (as opposed to Today/Summer Days/maybe even Wild Honey) it's clear that Brian put the whole thing together with mono in mind. All the stacking/blending of various instruments so that they sound like a singular entity: all this has been well articulated, and I think it's fair to say that audible separation of the instruments was close to the opposite of what Brian was going for. To my ears, with Pet Sounds, when you start wedging in spaces in the "room" things lose a bit of the intended flat sort of balance. Hal Blaine and Jim Gordon are playing very stripped down drum parts with all the extra percussion filling in where hi-hats/ride cymbals would normally be and these elements are meant to bleed and blend and when separation is introduced, the individual elements are less impressive.

I can't speak for Brian, but it seems this is what he strongly and explicitly intended with Pet Sounds. Today, for instance, sounds to me like a more typical rock band production with some extra flourishes and just sounds muddy in mono (though some fans swear by the mono) to me. I agree that the stereo Pet Sounds is vital for historical and educational purposes as a peek behind the curtain, and some songs found fabulous with the extra separation.

[Jcc]

I bought a SACD player several years back...picked it up for about $150.00 at The Good Guys (remember them?).  For me, it depends on whether the SACD is regular stereo or multichannel.  If it is regular 2-channel stereo, I can't really hear a difference between the SACD and a regular well-remastered CD.  On the other hand, if the SACD is multi-channel, then the difference is amazing on a stereo system equipped to handle it!  I have a Police Greatest Hits album in SACD multichannel, and my favorite song is "Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic".  You hear every instrument and every note.  It sounds like a completely different song.  I think I heard once that Sony would use that version of the song to demo their SACD players in stores. 

So, if Pet Sounds is going to be a 2-channel SACD, I'll pass on it, but if it's multichannel, I'll definitely pick it up.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

You ain't gotta choose! You can have both! Sometimes I want mono, sometimes I want stereo! Can't we all just get along? The SACD sounds great! Not a replacement, an alternative! Get the DCC Gold too!

[Chris Moise]

Interesting to see those that praised the The Smile Sessions fly-ins and pitch shifting so critical of the Pet Sounds remix. I would've thought those bothered by the liberties taken with the stereo PS would be incensed by how the material was presented on disc one of TSS.

[Custom Machine]

So, if Pet Sounds is going to be a 2-channel SACD, I'll pass on it, but if it's multichannel, I'll definitely pick it up.

The new MoFi SACD is two channel.  If you want Pet Sounds in multichannel surround, go for the 2003 DVD Audio release, which contains a two sided disc with Pet Sounds in 5.1 surround in the DVD Audio, Dolby Digital, and DTS Digital formats.  The new MFSL SACD sounds wonderful, but (not counting You Still Believe in Me) it sounds very close to the 1997 stereo mix on which it is based.  It's a dual layer release, and the CD layer sounds essentially the same to me as the SACD layer, with the added benefit that the red book CD layer does not contain the track indexing error on Here Today which is found on the SACD layer.

[Bill Ed]

Is the 1966 release of Pet Sounds really a monophonic recording? In light of the box set and subsequent dvd-audio release, the answer must be a resounding NO. The "monophonic" Pet Sounds is nothing more than a hurriedly prepared fold-down of multichannel recordings to a single channel, replete with the attendant artifacts. Perhaps Capital should have marketed the album as "Unophonic".

None of this was sufficient to keep it from being my favorite album the last 40 years or so, but I don't understand the Cult of Monophonic who cannot abide to listen to the album with both ears.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I guess the point would be that it was folded down because Brian conceived it for mono and the hurried  "Unophonic" dub-down was close enough to actual mono.

[Chris Moise]

The "monophonic" Pet Sounds is nothing more than a hurriedly prepared fold-down of multichannel recordings to a single channel, replete with the attendant artifacts. Perhaps Capital should have marketed the album as "Unophonic".

None of this was sufficient to keep it from being my favorite album the last 40 years or so, but I don't understand the Cult of Monophonic who cannot abide to listen to the album with both ears.

You're totally missing the point. It has nothing to do with "hearing it with both ears." What is significant about the 1966 mix isn’t that it’s mono – it’s the differences in reverb, tonality, how the vocals are blended, the relationship btw the track and vocals, etc. Nothing to do with stereo vs. mono, it’s good mix vs a great one (regardless which you prefer.)

For example, while the stereo remix is far better sonically the vocal blend during the "I Just Wasn"t Made For These Times" chorus is superior. The 1966 mix is the one Brian Wilson slaved over. Sure, he was hurried but don’t tell me he didn’t slave over blending the layers of harmonies on the chorus. The mix is part of the performance , Brian's talent behind the board is a big part of his legend. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.

[guitarfool2002]

None of this was sufficient to keep it from being my favorite album the last 40 years or so, but I don't understand the Cult of Monophonic who cannot abide to listen to the album with both ears.

Did you know the Polyphonic Spree was originally named the "Cult of Monophonic"? It helps explain the schtick with the robes.

[I. Spaceman]

I hate when people throw out blanket statements like "piece of crap" without one reason why they feel that way. If people care enough to throw opinions like that out there, then at least give us all an explanation (like you & guitarfool2002 did) why you feel the way you do.

Awww, sowwy about that, precious one. Here's the deal: I dislike the stereo Pet Sounds in the same way I dislike this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdT-9ld7WlE

Of course, some maroon will now come along and say how great that looks.

Your opinion is absolutely worthless to me. Man, we really need an ignore button.

Your life itself is worthless to me.

[I. Spaceman]

I hate when people throw out blanket statements like "piece of crap" without one reason why they feel that way. If people care enough to throw opinions like that out there, then at least give us all an explanation (like you & guitarfool2002 did) why you feel the way you do.

Awww, sowwy about that, precious one. Here's the deal: I dislike the stereo Pet Sounds in the same way I dislike this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdT-9ld7WlE

Of course, some maroon will now come along and say how great that looks.

Comparing the stereo mix to a colorized version of Casablanca couldn't be anymore moronic. You're the maroon.

That should read "any more". Two words, Dr. Worthless.

[I. Spaceman]

I can't say I disagree. I always find myself going back to the mono mix. The stereo mix doesn't have anything close to the immediacy and the passion that the mono mix does.

Sorry, but when I hear Wouldn't It Be Nice, I wanna hear da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da BOOM...  BADOOM and not da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da  da da da da TAP ALTER SADDLE.

Brian wanted the listener to hear that song exactly like that, Pet Sounds in mono is the best way to enjoy the album. The stereo mix is for hearing and learning about the instruments in the background.

Exactly.

[I. Spaceman]

The issue is that, really, a stereo mix of Pet Sounds (an album created and released in mono) is very much like colorizing a classic movie like Casablanca or Citizen Kane. In fact, wasn't it Mark Linett who made a similar remark? Yeah, you may see or hear more, but at what cost? Some people enjoy their memories. For a band whose fanbase is constantly at war with each other over "what Brian wanted" I'm still stunned that the stereo mixes of EVERYTHING haven't been sworn off by the holier-than-thous that inhabit our lovely fanbase.

I prefer the mono mix. I prefer Casablanca in black and white. It was the artist's intent. The stereo mixes are nice as a novelty. Brian worked in mono during his glory days. The immediacy is gone from the stereo mix of Pet Sounds. The muddy sound of the mono (as well as the hiss) is where the magic lies. I don't prefer to get lost in symphonic trappings and interlocked vocals in two channels on the stereo mix. I like it in my face. The bass in the gut. The thundering drums. The ringing guitars. All of that is GONE in the stereo mix. The mono mix is a clear case of the sum being much more than the parts. That's the magic of the Brian Wilson production.

Quoted for truth.

[I. Spaceman]

the vocal blend during the "I Just Wasn"t Made For These Times" chorus is superior. The 1966 mix is the one Brian Wilson slaved over. Sure, he was hurried but don’t tell me he didn’t slave over blending the layers of harmonies on the chorus. The mix is part of the performance , Brian's talent behind the board is a big part of his legend. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.

I am surprised anyone who thinks they are a Brian Wilson fan would disagree with this. It is so obvious that the mono mix is THE Brian-created and approved mix, THE version of Pet Sounds for the ages.

[Mikie]

Leave Dr. Beachboy alone, Dufus.   He contributes worthwhile stuff to this board.

[I. Spaceman]

Leave Dr. Beachboy alone, Dufus.   He contributes worthwhile stuff to this board.

I was around this board before you or him, when the board started, and I was a moderator once as well. Who in the hell ARE you, anyway?
All I did was state my very strong opinion on the remix of an album, and I have to endure uncalled-for insults from people who are only fit to be patronised by me. Ya'll are laughable and late to the party.

[drbeachboy]

Leave Dr. Beachboy alone, Dufus.   He contributes worthwhile stuff to this board.

I was around this board before you or him, when the board started, and I was a moderator once as well. Who in the hell ARE you, anyway?
All I did was state my very strong opinion on the remix of an album, and I have to endure uncalled-for insults from people who are only fit to be patronised by me. Ya'll are laughable and late to the party.

I don't give a crap how long you have been on this board. I asked you a question and you started the pissing match. All I asked was why you thought the stereo version was a "piece of crap", since you didn't bother to the first time. You are an ex-moderator, so you should understand that if you make a statement like that, that someone is going to ask you why you feel that way, considering most members here think quite the opposite. Also, considering you have 363 posts on this board, I'd say that you are the one late for the party, at least as "I. Spaceman".

[AllIWannaDo]

I can see both sides of this issue.

In the case of Pet Sounds (as opposed to Today/Summer Days/maybe even Wild Honey) it's clear that Brian put the whole thing together with mono in mind. All the stacking/blending of various instruments so that they sound like a singular entity: all this has been well articulated, and I think it's fair to say that audible separation of the instruments was close to the opposite of what Brian was going for. To my ears, with Pet Sounds, when you start wedging in spaces in the "room" things lose a bit of the intended flat sort of balance. Hal Blaine and Jim Gordon are playing very stripped down drum parts with all the extra percussion filling in where hi-hats/ride cymbals would normally be and these elements are meant to bleed and blend and when separation is introduced, the individual elements are less impressive.

I can't speak for Brian, but it seems this is what he strongly and explicitly intended with Pet Sounds. I agree that the stereo Pet Sounds is vital for historical and educational purposes as a peek behind the curtain, and some songs found fabulous with the extra separation.

great post

[AllIWannaDo]

Leave Dr. Beachboy alone, Dufus.   He contributes worthwhile stuff to this board.

I was around this board before you or him, when the board started, and I was a moderator once as well. Who in the hell ARE you, anyway?
All I did was state my very strong opinion on the remix of an album, and I have to endure uncalled-for insults from people who are only fit to be patronised by me. Ya'll are laughable and late to the party.

I don't give a crap how long you have been on this board. I asked you a question and you started the pissing match. All I asked was why you thought the stereo version was a "piece of crap", since you didn't bother to the first time. You are an ex-moderator, so you should understand that if you make a statement like that, that someone is going to ask you why you feel that way, considering most members here think quite the opposite. Also, considering you have 363 posts on this board, I'd say that you are the one late for the party, at least as "I. Spaceman".

i've only got 92 posts, can i join in? 

[drbeachboy]

Leave Dr. Beachboy alone, Dufus.   He contributes worthwhile stuff to this board.

I was around this board before you or him, when the board started, and I was a moderator once as well. Who in the hell ARE you, anyway?
All I did was state my very strong opinion on the remix of an album, and I have to endure uncalled-for insults from people who are only fit to be patronised by me. Ya'll are laughable and late to the party.

I don't give a crap how long you have been on this board. I asked you a question and you started the pissing match. All I asked was why you thought the stereo version was a "piece of crap", since you didn't bother to the first time. You are an ex-moderator, so you should understand that if you make a statement like that, that someone is going to ask you why you feel that way, considering most members here think quite the opposite. Also, considering you have 363 posts on this board, I'd say that you are the one late for the party, at least as "I. Spaceman".

i've only got 92 posts, can i join in? 

Absolutely! He/She (not sure with using the word "precious") brought that into the conversation, not me.

[drbeachboy]

Leave Dr. Beachboy alone, Dufus.   He contributes worthwhile stuff to this board.

I was around this board before you or him, when the board started, and I was a moderator once as well. Who in the hell ARE you, anyway?
All I did was state my very strong opinion on the remix of an album, and I have to endure uncalled-for insults from people who are only fit to be patronised by me. Ya'll are laughable and late to the party.

Patronize my ass you cocky motherfu*ker!

[Zach95]

All I want to know if Dr. Beach Boy is in fact a real doctor.  Then he's got every right to patronize anyone