50 Big Ones (Remixes?)

[runnersdialzero]

The "California" single mix on the Brother years comp sounds truly wretched, to me. Compressed as f***. I initially just assumed this was how it sounded until hearing it on the Ten Years Of Harmony comp, where it sounds much better.

Chuck's stereo mixes are a very mixed bag (he'd probably tell you the same given he spent little time on them and didn't even listen to them) and I don't have much desire to see the songs mixes in that style. Several of them are just mono track + the doubled vocals being hard panned left and right (which is a bad move with stereo 90% of the time and I'm not sure why people still insist on mixing like this today). Other examples are even worse - think "The Lonely Sea" or "Keep An Eye On Summer" where lead vocals are hard-panned left or right or something like "Shut Down" where elements leap out at you left and right (literally!) and it's kinda jarring to listen to. Linett's approach is generally more modern (I mean this in a good way) in the way of having a more balanced mix and overall sound, with no hard-panned tracks leaping out at you from the left or right channel.

I'm thinking the real problem with some Linett stereo mixes being so narrow is lack of resources. "Amusement Parks U.S.A." is very close to mono throughout and is not at all consistent with the rest of Mark's work. I think the main track possibly only exists in mono and on the 2012 stereo mix, has had reverb applied to add a bit to the stereo image. The '09 stereo mix of "Don't Worry Baby" is mixed very similarly because there are only three or four tracks to the song (I think three). If that's all they has to work with, that's all they has to work with.

[drbeachboy]

The California single mix on Made In USA Ten Years of Harmony is a flat transfer from what I understand. That never gets done like that anymore, but that digital mastering should still be around. My point is, whether the tape is damaged or not, there are digital copies made that they can work from if they really wanted to release that version.

[runnersdialzero]

The California single mix on Made In USA is a flat transfer from what I understand. That never gets done like that anymore, but that digital mastering should still be around. My point is, whether the tape is damaged or not, there are digital copies made that they can work from if they really wanted to release that version.

That's what I'm sayin' - the Ten Years Of Harmony CD could have been utilized for that song. Maybe it was just preferring the album mix over the single mix. It's not a strictly "singles" compilation.

Also, since when is the "California" single mix on Made In USA? :O :O :O :O :O:Ogf0sdagksdg

[drbeachboy]

The California single mix on Made In USA is a flat transfer from what I understand. That never gets done like that anymore, but that digital mastering should still be around. My point is, whether the tape is damaged or not, there are digital copies made that they can work from if they really wanted to release that version.

That's what I'm sayin' - the Ten Years Of Harmony CD could have been utilized for that song. Maybe it was just preferring the album mix over the single mix. It's not a strictly "singles" compilation.

Also, since when is the "California" single mix on Made In USA? :O :O :O :O :O:Ogf0sdagksdg

Got my compilations mixed up.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I always wondered, in cases when the master is f*cked, such as the master for the single mix of "California"...

It's not, nor is the single mix for "R&R Music". I was told that the single masters for both songs were too damaged to use when I interviewed someone about the 1993 box set back in 1994. However, the Best Of The Brother Years compilation proved that to be a mistaken assumption.

Re: Chuck's stereo mixes... they're not really mixes per se, more re-EQ'd and rebalanced copies of the original 3-track multitrack.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Told ya

[ontor pertawst]

I always wondered, in cases when the master is f*cked, such as the master for the single mix of "California"...

It's not, nor is the single mix for "R&R Music". I was told that the single masters for both songs were too damaged to use when I interviewed someone about the 1993 box set back in 1994. However, the Best Of The Brother Years compilation proved that to be a mistaken assumption.

Re: Chuck's stereo mixes... they're not really mixes per se, more re-EQ'd and rebalanced copies of the original 3-track multitrack.

That's a mix, tho, surely? Mixing down from the original 3-track = mix.

[Andrew G. Doe]

You misunderstand... the stereo 'mixes' 1963-1964 are straight copies of the 3-track session tape that Brian mixed down to mono. All Chuck did to it was rebalance the sound levels and apply EQ. No further mixing was done.

[GuyOnTheBeach]

I always wondered, in cases when the master is f*cked, such as the master for the single mix of "California"...

It's not, nor is the single mix for "R&R Music". I was told that the single masters for both songs were too damaged to use when I interviewed someone about the 1993 box set back in 1994. However, the Best Of The Brother Years compilation proved that to be a mistaken assumption.

Re: Chuck's stereo mixes... they're not really mixes per se, more re-EQ'd and rebalanced copies of the original 3-track multitrack.

Ah, fair enough, thanks for clearing that up .
Although, it does lead me to another question, with the exception of "Do It Again" (I think??) where we know the master was lost, what is the status of the other Beach Boys masters?, is everything there?, not really of any importance, just feeding my general curiosity.

[ontor pertawst]

You misunderstand... the stereo 'mixes' 1963-1964 are straight copies of the 3-track session tape that Brian mixed down to mono. All Chuck did to it was rebalance the sound levels and apply EQ. No further mixing was done.

So are you saying they are straight copies of the 3-track session tapes or a straight copy of Brian's mono mixdown?

EQing and making a copy of a mono mixdown would qualify as "not a mix per se," but a "straight copy" of a 3-track session tape down to stereo is definitely a mix.  

[Andrew G. Doe]

You misunderstand... the stereo 'mixes' 1963-1964 are straight copies of the 3-track session tape that Brian mixed down to mono. All Chuck did to it was rebalance the sound levels and apply EQ. No further mixing was done.

So are you saying they are straight copies of the 3-track session tapes or a straight copy of Brian's mono mixdown?

EQing and making a copy of a mono mixdown would qualify as "not a mix per se," but a "straight copy" of a 3-track session tape down to stereo is definitely a mix.  

Care to explain exactly how you can get stereo from a copy of a mono mixdown ? 

As for the copies, the original 3-tracks were copied down to a 2-track after being rebalanced and EQ'd. No mixing was done.

[ontor pertawst]

Of course I won't explain such foolishness, I was trying to figure out what you were saying!

Copying down from 3-track to 2-track is a mix, Andrew. A simple, rudimentary one but it IS a mixdown. If it wasn't, you'd still have three distinct tracks. I guess next we argue about "per se" or fall into a semantic ditch...so I'll let you have the last word and associated triumph. Have at it!

[EgoHanger1966]

Of course, no one is saying Linnett should be making stereo mixes so wide that they can't be listened to. But check out the original stereo mix of Wendy, and then Mark's remix of it on Warmty of the Sun - intentionally or not, he stayed true the basic principle of the original stereo soundstage and that thing sounds wonderful - all of the vocals (even both sets of b/gs) are in the center, unified as one and sounding glorious! That's one of the powers of stereo - not that mono doesn't have it too - but when a stereo mix just sparkles, it can knock you on your ass - I think a lot more of the catalog has that potential than it has been given.

[runnersdialzero]

Of course, no one is saying Linnett should be making stereo mixes so wide that they can't be listened to. But check out the original stereo mix of Wendy, and then Mark's remix of it on Warmty of the Sun - intentionally or not, he stayed true the basic principle of the original stereo soundstage and that thing sounds wonderful - all of the vocals (even both sets of b/gs) are in the center, unified as one and sounding glorious! That's one of the powers of stereo - not that mono doesn't have it too - but when a stereo mix just sparkles, it can knock you on your ass - I think a lot more of the catalog has that potential than it has been given.

True 'nough. I was actually just thinking today when listening to the newer stereo mix how similar the later stereo mix is to the 60s stereo mix while improving upon it, actually.

[lance]

Of course, no one is saying Linnett should be making stereo mixes so wide that they can't be listened to. But check out the original stereo mix of Wendy, and then Mark's remix of it on Warmty of the Sun - intentionally or not, he stayed true the basic principle of the original stereo soundstage and that thing sounds wonderful - all of the vocals (even both sets of b/gs) are in the center, unified as one and sounding glorious! That's one of the powers of stereo - not that mono doesn't have it too - but when a stereo mix just sparkles, it can knock you on your ass - I think a lot more of the catalog has that potential than it has been given.

But Wendy had an original sixties-era mix, so he remained true to it. Today and Summer Days and Pet Sounds dont. Again, i don't see why it's so important he stay 'faux-authentic' other than to further the illusion that we are sitting listening to a hi-fi 45 years ago.

[EgoHanger1966]

OK, I can see where you're coming from. But these were recordings made in 1964 and 1965. I don't think they benefit from modern EQ and narrow mixing styles. Maybe because I've grown up with 60s music in stereo, but there's breathing room in good vintage 60s stereo mixes. The way they were recorded lends to that mixing style. They are not modern records, no one is trying to market them as new records, so why not mix them in a manner similar to the way they would have been mixed by someone who cared?

[lance]

Maybe the real reason is I am not a big fan of sixties stereo mixes, for the most part. I much prefer mono for nearly every artist I've heard. So for me a 'sixties-style' mix is only for reason of 'faux-authenticity'...frankly, I just wouldn't buy the product otherwise.

[SloopJohnB52]

Do the Anti-60s-Stereo fans also prefer modern remastering techniques such as signal boosting and compression?  I find loud, highly-compressed and overly bright recordings (most of the BB reissues IMO) unlistenable on anything but small cheapo computer speakers.

[runnersdialzero]

Do the Anti-60s-Stereo fans also prefer modern remastering techniques such as signal boosting and compression?  I find loud, highly-compressed and overly bright recordings (most of the BB reissues IMO) unlistenable on anything but small cheapo computer speakers.

I doubt it, why would they?

[EgoHanger1966]

Do the Anti-60s-Stereo fans also prefer modern remastering techniques such as signal boosting and compression?  I find loud, highly-compressed and overly bright recordings (most of the BB reissues IMO) unlistenable on anything but small cheapo computer speakers.

I don't. I actually do think these remasters sound best when using cheapy earbuds.....

[lance]

Do the Anti-60s-Stereo fans also prefer modern remastering techniques such as signal boosting and compression?  I find loud, highly-compressed and overly bright recordings (most of the BB reissues IMO) unlistenable on anything but small cheapo computer speakers.

No, I'm not a fan of super loud recordings. I don't know all the technical terms, have no idea what signal boosting is for example, but I don't like really loudly mastered music.

[SloopJohnB52]

It's curious to me that all of these techniques used on the BB reissues and compilations (just like on so many other artists' reissues) plus the narrow stereo seem to suggest the Beach Boys' desire to rewrite history - to make their recordings more "modern" sounding to appeal to those who no longer (or never did) listen to music in one place on a multi-component system with large speakers.  It's their music, and if they think they will sell more copies by making it sound best on portable devices and car stereos (where high ambient noise basically necessitates a loud, highly compressed sound), it's certainly their right to do so.  I just don't see how anyone with full-range floor standing speakers could consider these remasters an improvement.  Perhaps the narrowing of the stereo is simply to make the songs sound closer to their mono single versions, but then why even bother?  We already have the definitive versions!  The purpose of a new stereo mix should be to let the listener hear things that were previously buried in the mono version, and the wider the stereo, the more things you'll be able to distinguish.

[lance]

The stereo mixes of Today, Summer Days, Pet Sounds, Let the wind Blow are by their very nature 'rewriting history' no matter how they are done. Making a 'wide stereo' mix does not in any way change the fact that, historically, NO TRUE STEREO MIX EVER EXISTED. If you want some sort of historically authentic version, listen to mono...or duophonic.

[Eric Aniversario]

The "California" single mix on the Brother years comp sounds truly wretched, to me. Compressed as f***. I initially just assumed this was how it sounded until hearing it on the Ten Years Of Harmony comp, where it sounds much better.

Is this from the original vinyl release, the US CD release, or the UK CD release?  I have the US CD release that has the album version.  I really regret passing up a used copy of the UK CD release that some guy was selling for $25.  I've really wanted the 45 version of School Days on CD, so much better.