American Band movie--a question about it

[Andrew G. Doe]

I think the track to suffer the most from the sound quality degradation was definitely Heroes And Villains.

There were so many layers of so many amazing things there, I think it was simply impossible to do a decent mix where you could hear everything clearly at once, given the technology at the time.

Nowadays, though... you'd think it would be possible...

Only if you had all the original multitracks to hand. Last I heard, this was not the case. In having 98% of the session tapes available, Pet Sounds was a glaring exception.

[Roger Ryan]

Given what he had to work with, I thought Mark's stereo remix of H & V was a big improvement over the original single. Just taking some of the organ out of there helped a lot!

[onkster]

Yes, AGD, but too much reverb...bugs me. Why did that ever get put in?

[Roger Ryan]

Yes, AGD, but too much reverb...bugs me. Why did that ever get put in?

The original mix was way too dry for my taste, so the reverb was warranted. I also appreciated the breaths being minimized. I guess it comes down to whether you like the "home-made" feel of the SMILEY SMILE tracks or the more polished pro-studio sound of the SMiLE sessions. For a number of SS tracks ("With Me Tonight", "Wonderful"), the "home-made" recording/mixing techniques have a certain charm to them. However, I do not feel this approach benefits "Heroes & Villains".

[DonnyL]

i've wondered about the bouncing issues as well; i always though it was strange that they used one track of the instrumental 4-track multi-tracks for a reference mix, but now i'm realizing:

it could have been that Brian/Chuck wanted to do the mix at Western, so they used that 4th track ... but was it just a "reference" to be matched by the engineers at Columbia, or was it the actual mix that was transferred to the 8-track machine (thus creating another bounce).  i would guess a reference, but who knows.

[DonnyL]

Yes, AGD, but too much reverb...bugs me. Why did that ever get put in?

The original mix was way too dry for my taste, so the reverb was warranted. I also appreciated the breaths being minimized. I guess it comes down to whether you like the "home-made" feel of the SMILEY SMILE tracks or the more polished pro-studio sound of the SMiLE sessions. For a number of SS tracks ("With Me Tonight", "Wonderful"), the "home-made" recording/mixing techniques have a certain charm to them. However, I do not feel this approach benefits "Heroes & Villains".

in my opinion, the stereo and mono PET SOUNDS have an equal amount of reverb (the reverb does sound a bit different though).  the thing is, stereo creates the illusion of a larger amount of reverb.  i would guess that if you fold the stereo down to mono, the reverb levels would be comparable.

[Roger Ryan]

Yes, AGD, but too much reverb...bugs me. Why did that ever get put in?

The original mix was way too dry for my taste, so the reverb was warranted. I also appreciated the breaths being minimized. I guess it comes down to whether you like the "home-made" feel of the SMILEY SMILE tracks or the more polished pro-studio sound of the SMiLE sessions. For a number of SS tracks ("With Me Tonight", "Wonderful"), the "home-made" recording/mixing techniques have a certain charm to them. However, I do not feel this approach benefits "Heroes & Villains".

in my opinion, the stereo and mono PET SOUNDS have an equal amount of reverb (the reverb does sound a bit different though).  the thing is, stereo creates the illusion of a larger amount of reverb.  i would guess that if you fold the stereo down to mono, the reverb levels would be comparable.

Uh, but we were discussing the stereo remix of "Heroes & Villains"...or, at least, I was.     As far as PET SOUNDS goes, I agree that the amount of reverb is about the same between the original mono mix and the stereo remix. However, there is no question that Mark added reverb to "Heroes & Villains" in the stereo remix where there was little to no reverb in the original mono mix. I believe Mark was trying to get the track to sound closer to what a SMiLE version would have sounded like instead of replicating the more stripped-down SMILEY SMILE approach.

[Andrew G. Doe]

i've wondered about the bouncing issues as well; i always though it was strange that they used one track of the instrumental 4-track multi-tracks for a reference mix, but now i'm realizing:

it could have been that Brian/Chuck wanted to do the mix at Western, so they used that 4th track ... but was it just a "reference" to be matched by the engineers at Columbia, or was it the actual mix that was transferred to the 8-track machine (thus creating another bounce).  i would guess a reference, but who knows.

They had to use one track of the 4-track for a reference/sub mix, otherwise mixing the Western tape to the Columbia 8-track would have to be done from scratch. This is what I think they did:

Recorded the instruments on to three of the tracks at Western.

Do a rough/sub mono mix on to track 4.

Take the tape to Columbia and mix the instrumental from the Western multi to (say) track one of the Columbia 8-track: saves a generation

Record the vocals on the other seven tracks.

Mix it all to mono, at Columbia of course.

The key to this is that, to make a true stereo multitrack, Mark was able to sync the reference mix on the Western 4-track with the mono track mixdown on the Columbia 8-track. If they'd mixed a full Western 4-track to mono at Columbia, there'd be no reference mix to sync. Or, not being an engineer, am I missing something here ?

Later... well, duh, and isn't that exactly what Mark said in the liners to the stereo Pet Sounds releases ? Here's the relevant bits:

As has long been obvious, Brian Wilson was always a major innovator when it came to recording technique. Starting with the Summer Days Album in 1965, he began to make use of the new 8 track tape decks that a few of the studios in Los Angeles had recently received.

Neither United/Western (where Brian did most of his recording), nor Gold Star (his second favorite studio), had an 8-track. So, as he so often did, he adapted to the available technology and continued to cut his instrumental tracks on the 1/2" 3-track and 4-track machines that were then the industry standard.

The difference was that now, instead of cutting the entire band in mono onto a single track, leaving two or three tracks for vocals, the engineers (Chuck Britz, Larry Levine and others), began to spread out the band onto three tracks so that Brian would at least have some control over the mix when he dubbed the instrumental track to mono on a second tape before adding the vocals.

Recording the track in stereo was never the goal of using the four-track this way. The division of the instruments was only done with an ear toward what sounds Brian might want to highlight later. Typically, drums, keyboard, percussion, etc. would be on track one, horns on track two, and bass and additional percussion, or sometimes guitar, on track three.

Track four usually contained a rough reference mix in mono of the track which was used for playback at the session, and that would be erased and used for any additional instrumental overdubs (mostly strings) that Brian added. Amazingly, tracks like "Wouldn't It Be Nice" and "God Only Knows" were completed in a single long session without any instrumental overdubs. 30 years later, the work on these sessions is an achievement in both production and engineering that in my view remains unsurpassed.

Although he dubbed some tracks down to mono onto another 4-track, leaving three tracks for vocal or instrumental overdubs, many of the tracks on the Summer Days... album (including such classics as "California Girls" and "Let Him Run Wild") were mixed in mono onto a single track of the 8-track machine (at CBS Recording Studios), allowing Brian the luxury of as many as seven additional tracks for vocals.

At any rate, depending upon his need, Brian continued to employ the method of recording sessions on 4-track, dubbing a mono instrumental mix to either a 4 or 8-track machine and then adding vocals. About a third of Pet Sounds ultimately ended up on 8-track, but either way, by the time the vocals were recorded, the backing track was already "locked" in mono.

However, a mono track was exactly what Brian wanted since, like his main production influence Phil Spector (not to mention the Peedles who were more concerned with the mono mixes until after Sgt. Pepper), Brian felt that making records in mono allowed the producer to present the record exactly as he wanted it heard without any interference from the listener's stereo which could be set-up in many different ways that might affect the sound. Also, in those days, rock records were made to be heard on car radios (which were then all mono), so the producers deliberately mixed for their main market.

Whether the instrumental track had been dubbed down to a single track on 4-track or 8-track, the backing tracks were all in mono, the technical reason why there could not be a true stereo mix of Pet Sounds made in 1966. You could say that because the instruments were "locked" in mono, you couldn't mix in stereo.

So, Pet Sounds was created in 1966 as a mono album, and although Capitol did issue it in "Duophonic" stereo (an electronic process that simulated stereo), it has never been released in true stereo until now. Before work on this box began, the idea of a stereo mix was discussed at length with Brian, and he decided that subject to his approval, a stereo version of Pet Sounds would be included in this collection.

Technically, the creation of a stereo mix presented a typical problem found with most recordings from this time period. Because the track had been mixed into mono on a second tape machine before the vocals were recorded, the only way to have a stereo instrumental track to use for this new stereo mix was to sync the vocal overdubs to the original master track.

To do this, the original instrumental multi-track tape was transferred onto a digital multi-track, and then, after carefully matching the tape speeds of the track and vocal tapes, the vocals were manually synchronized to the track using the (1966) dubbed track on the vocal tape as a guide.

The result was a single multi-track digital master tape of each song with all of the discrete tracks that Brian recorded in 1966 in "sync."

[SloopJohnB]

Given what he had to work with, I thought Mark's stereo remix of H & V was a big improvement over the original single. Just taking some of the organ out of there helped a lot!

Well, that's a matter of taste. Out of all the stereo remixes done over the years, there are many that I like, some I don't care about, a few that aren't very good, but there's only one that I HATE with a passion, and that's the stereo remix of H&V.

The buzzing Baldwin HT-2R is one of the key elements of the single version in my opinion, and without it H&V just isn't the same.

[drbeachboy]

Given what he had to work with, I thought Mark's stereo remix of H & V was a big improvement over the original single. Just taking some of the organ out of there helped a lot!

Well, that's a matter of taste. Out of all the stereo remixes done over the years, there are many that I like, some I don't care about, a few that aren't very good, but there's only one that I HATE with a passion, and that's the stereo remix of H&V.

The buzzing Baldwin HT-2R is one of the key elements of the single version in my opinion, and without it H&V just isn't the same.

Could you explain to me what the buzzing organ does to the song that without it makes the mix hated with a passion? I asked because I never really noticed it missing and never took much notice that it was on the mono mix.

[hypehat]

Well that mix DOES go kind of 'special' in the second verse..... And it isn't exactly a wide spread and is REALLY loud. My preferred H&V mix is the Cantina one anyway 

[DonnyL]

Oops. I thought you were talking about pet sounds ... This thread is getting confusing !

[DonnyL]

Re: Andrew's last response: 

yes, i am aware of those methods ... What we were discussing is the possibility that some of reference mixes themselves might have been transferred to one track on the 8 track at columbia, as opposed to mixed from scratch there.

[SloopJohnB]

Well, that's a matter of taste. Out of all the stereo remixes done over the years, there are many that I like, some I don't care about, a few that aren't very good, but there's only one that I HATE with a passion, and that's the stereo remix of H&V.

The buzzing Baldwin HT-2R is one of the key elements of the single version in my opinion, and without it H&V just isn't the same.

Could you explain to me what the buzzing organ does to the song that without it makes the mix hated with a passion? I asked because I never really noticed it missing and never took much notice that it was on the mono mix.

If you never really noticed it missing, it might be time for an hearing test  To me, the Baldwin added some kind of strange, "menacing" vibe, thus creating some kind of "uncomfortable feeling" that I can't find on the stereo remix. The organ also plays a simple line compared to what it's been replaced with in the stereo remix, some might argue that it makes the single version sound underproduced, but in my opinion it makes the stereo remix sound... Overdone.

And it isn't exactly a wide spread and is REALLY loud.

Really, REALLY loud indeed.

[drbeachboy]

Thanks for the explanation, and yes my hearing is just fine, thank you. With the way Brian mixed down, I can see why this would be missing. Similarly, this is like the missing guitar in the stereo version of She Knows Me Too Well. To me this is more obvious than the organ buzz and I miss hearing it in the stereo version, but not to the point that I will not listen to it. It just struck me that someone would hate with a passion organ buzz in a song.

[SloopJohnB]

Thanks for the explanation, and yes my hearing is just fine, thank you.

I was just joking 

With the way Brian mixed down, I can see why this would be missing. Similarly, this is like the missing guitar in the stereo version of She Knows Me Too Well. To me this is more obvious than the organ buzz and I miss hearing it in the stereo version, but not to the point that I will not listen to it. It just struck me that someone would hate with a passion organ buzz in a song.

I agree about She Knows Me, but to me it's still listenable. Maybe I hate the H&V remix because the single version is my favorite song...

[drbeachboy]

Thanks for the explanation, and yes my hearing is just fine, thank you.

I was just joking 

With the way Brian mixed down, I can see why this would be missing. Similarly, this is like the missing guitar in the stereo version of She Knows Me Too Well. To me this is more obvious than the organ buzz and I miss hearing it in the stereo version, but not to the point that I will not listen to it. It just struck me that someone would hate with a passion organ buzz in a song.

I agree about She Knows Me, but to me it's still listenable. Maybe I hate the H&V remix because the single version is my favorite song...

I know you were joking, no problem. I should have used a . I listened to both mixes multiple times on the way to work this morning and the lack of organ buzz had no affect on me.  If it is your favorite tune then I can understand why you feel the way you do. The biggest difference for me with the stereo version is openness of sound. The mono version is so dense that the stereo version has a bit of emptiness to it. The one good thing about the stereo version is the background vocals sound so much cleaner and clearer. I know it's heresy, but my favorite version of H&V is the live In Concert version. That version flat out rocks. There is something about the lead vocal that makes the studio version seem like it is plodding along in sections. It's definitely not the backing track, because that moves along quite nicely. It could very well be the denseness causing this too.

I think She Knows Me Too Well sounds great in stereo, but after listening to it for 46 years with the guitar insert, I miss hearing it on the stereo version. I keep waiting for it kick in and it never comes.

[Roger Ryan]

Oops. I thought you were talking about pet sounds ... This thread is getting confusing !

You know, I now think that onkster was talking about PET SOUNDS! Oh well, too late now.

I was amazed at how brilliant the "Heroes & Villains (Sections)" backing tracks sounded when I heard them in '93 and wondered why Brian buried them under simplistic organ chords in the final mix. Therefore, when Mark's stereo remix arrived, I was thrilled to now hear the more intricate backing track chorus (replicated on BWPS).

[guitarfool2002]

i've wondered about the bouncing issues as well; i always though it was strange that they used one track of the instrumental 4-track multi-tracks for a reference mix, but now i'm realizing:

it could have been that Brian/Chuck wanted to do the mix at Western, so they used that 4th track ... but was it just a "reference" to be matched by the engineers at Columbia, or was it the actual mix that was transferred to the 8-track machine (thus creating another bounce).  i would guess a reference, but who knows.

Taking into consideration all the comments posted since this post, where Mark Linett spells out the nuts-and-bolts of how he did it with Pet Sounds, I'd have to think when Brian and Chuck did those mixdowns of the instrumentals at Western, they were thinking of the end result. Whatever they did was the way it was going to be, mixed to mono on that one track. I wouldn't consider it a reference mix as that implies changes will be made later in the process.

I compare it to doing a crossword puzzle with an ink pen - whatever you choose to write is locked in. It was Brian's ability to see the bigger picture and have an idea of the final results in his mind at these stages of the process that made him so unique.

One other issue: Why have the engineers at Columbia/CBS remained anonymous through the decades? Everyone that goes the next step in reading and researching the Beach Boys and LA pop music in general knows the names Chuck Britz, Larry Levine, etc...yet who were the guys at Columbia who mixed Pet Sounds? Compared to Chuck, Larry, and others, they're hardly discussed.

One thing to bring up...obviously by the photos they had that 8-track at Western by early 1967, whether it was Brian's or Heider's or whoever else it belonged to. Remember Chuck Britz is on record saying he mixed down the "Cantina" version of Heroes, and he was working at Western. I wonder why Brian didn't follow the usual procedure as he did on Pet Sounds, unless he *wanted* to mix at Western with Chuck and with the availability of an 8-track at Western he could mix the Heroes single there.

[bgas]

i've wondered about the bouncing issues as well; i always though it was strange that they used one track of the instrumental 4-track multi-tracks for a reference mix, but now i'm realizing:

it could have been that Brian/Chuck wanted to do the mix at Western, so they used that 4th track ... but was it just a "reference" to be matched by the engineers at Columbia, or was it the actual mix that was transferred to the 8-track machine (thus creating another bounce).  i would guess a reference, but who knows.

Taking into consideration all the comments posted since this post, where Mark Linett spells out the nuts-and-bolts of how he did it with Pet Sounds, I'd have to think when Brian and Chuck did those mixdowns of the instrumentals at Western, they were thinking of the end result. Whatever they did was the way it was going to be, mixed to mono on that one track. I wouldn't consider it a reference mix as that implies changes will be made later in the process.

I compare it to doing a crossword puzzle with an ink pen - whatever you choose to write is locked in. It was Brian's ability to see the bigger picture and have an idea of the final results in his mind at these stages of the process that made him so unique.

One other issue: Why have the engineers at Columbia/CBS remained anonymous through the decades? Everyone that goes the next step in reading and researching the Beach Boys and LA pop music in general knows the names Chuck Britz, Larry Levine, etc...yet who were the guys at Columbia who mixed Pet Sounds? Compared to Chuck, Larry, and others, they're hardly discussed.

One thing to bring up...obviously by the photos they had that 8-track at Western by early 1967, whether it was Brian's or Heider's or whoever else it belonged to. Remember Chuck Britz is on record saying he mixed down the "Cantina" version of Heroes, and he was working at Western. I wonder why Brian didn't follow the usual procedure as he did on Pet Sounds, unless he *wanted* to mix at Western with Chuck and with the availability of an 8-track at Western he could mix the Heroes single there.

IF the 8 track was Brian's, what happened to it?  Did he take it home to use in the home studio? ( any pics from there to prove/disprove?)

[guitarfool2002]

i've wondered about the bouncing issues as well; i always though it was strange that they used one track of the instrumental 4-track multi-tracks for a reference mix, but now i'm realizing:

it could have been that Brian/Chuck wanted to do the mix at Western, so they used that 4th track ... but was it just a "reference" to be matched by the engineers at Columbia, or was it the actual mix that was transferred to the 8-track machine (thus creating another bounce).  i would guess a reference, but who knows.

Taking into consideration all the comments posted since this post, where Mark Linett spells out the nuts-and-bolts of how he did it with Pet Sounds, I'd have to think when Brian and Chuck did those mixdowns of the instrumentals at Western, they were thinking of the end result. Whatever they did was the way it was going to be, mixed to mono on that one track. I wouldn't consider it a reference mix as that implies changes will be made later in the process.

I compare it to doing a crossword puzzle with an ink pen - whatever you choose to write is locked in. It was Brian's ability to see the bigger picture and have an idea of the final results in his mind at these stages of the process that made him so unique.

One other issue: Why have the engineers at Columbia/CBS remained anonymous through the decades? Everyone that goes the next step in reading and researching the Beach Boys and LA pop music in general knows the names Chuck Britz, Larry Levine, etc...yet who were the guys at Columbia who mixed Pet Sounds? Compared to Chuck, Larry, and others, they're hardly discussed.

One thing to bring up...obviously by the photos they had that 8-track at Western by early 1967, whether it was Brian's or Heider's or whoever else it belonged to. Remember Chuck Britz is on record saying he mixed down the "Cantina" version of Heroes, and he was working at Western. I wonder why Brian didn't follow the usual procedure as he did on Pet Sounds, unless he *wanted* to mix at Western with Chuck and with the availability of an 8-track at Western he could mix the Heroes single there.

IF the 8 track was Brian's, what happened to it?  Did he take it home to use in the home studio? ( any pics from there to prove/disprove?)

This is the first photo I thought of after reading the question. It's Brian at home in 1966, with a 4-track machine containing the same model Scully 280 rack units as in the Western photo, and a sweet tube McIntosh amp on top. But again, it is clearly a 4-track machine: The 8-track in the film remains the mystery...

[guitarfool2002]

Adding to that photo: Here is a shot from the "home studio". The tape machine is a 3M similar to the one I posted earlier of Wally Heider's machine. Here are both photos to compare:

Home studio:


Heider's 3M machine:


Not saying the model pictured behind Desper was Wally's machine, but just the same type of machine. It's definitely not the 8-track shown at Western, nor the 4-track in Brian's earlier home photo.

The one person who could address this part of it would be Stephen Desper.

[Ed Roach]

Not saying the model pictured behind Desper was Wally's machine, but just the same type of machine. It's definitely not the 8-track shown at Western, nor the 4-track in Brian's earlier home photo.

The one person who could address this part of it would be Stephen Desper.

Pretty certain that the first time a studio was set up briefly at Brian's house, it was Heider's equipment.  But this would have been before Desper was on the scene.  I'm almost certain that Dennis told me this had caused a rift between them & Wally for a time, because they took what they learned from bringing his equipment in, then ran with the idea & built their own studio without Heider's involvement.  He thought he'd remain around to be a part of designing it, too.

[mrski]

The only references I can find of Chuck "mixing" Pet Sounds were for a stereo release in another country, four songs mixed in primitive stereo.

Any idea which country and which specific record?

When American Band came out I can remember some fuss being made that some of the included Pet Sounds tracks appeared in true stereo for the first time... Would it be correct to assume that therefore 'primative stereo' probably equates to something like 'duophonic' as opposed to 'true' stereo...?

[Andrew G. Doe]

The only references I can find of Chuck "mixing" Pet Sounds were for a stereo release in another country, four songs mixed in primitive stereo.

Any idea which country and which specific record?

When American Band came out I can remember some fuss being made that some of the included Pet Sounds tracks appeared in true stereo for the first time... Would it be correct to assume that therefore 'primative stereo' probably equates to something like 'duophonic' as opposed to 'true' stereo...?

Am I alone in thinking this info re: Chuck mixing Pet Sounds tracks in stereo is, given the nature of how the album was recorded and our current state of knowledge regarding same, now questionable ?

Turning a mono master into DuoPhonic isn't mixing by any stretch of the imagination. More audio vandalism.  

As for Brian not being allowed to touch the board at Columbia, hopefully I'll be seeing Bruce pre-gig tomorrow, so I'll try to remember and ask him.