The Recording of Fun, Fun, Fun and Don't Worry Baby

[Jason]

I know it's probably my ears playing tricks on me but the versions of Fun Fun Fun and The Warmth of the Sun on MIC sound different. Those aren't remixes, are they?

[metal flake paint]

My hearing ain't what it used to be, but Dennis was present at the Fun, Fun, Fun session, for the instrumental insert takes at least. At one point, you can hear Brian admonish Dennis yelling, "Hey Dennis, don't make the PICK-UPS!!! You're not gonna make the rhythm, don't make 'em, ?, don't make 'em, forget it." 

[Mayoman]

I know it's probably my ears playing tricks on me but the versions of Fun Fun Fun and The Warmth of the Sun on MIC sound different. Those aren't remixes, are they?

They are.

[DonnyL]

What I just thought of too was the timing of when some of these studios would have gotten a "new" four track to replace a 3-track, or whatever...because as many interviews and memories exist with specific details, hardly any mention the date. I guess the only obvious factor is like the case here  of Fun Fun Fun, where access to the master tapes can show obviously what was used to record it, versus what may have been available. No way to tell.

But with something like Spector at Gold Star - It was mentioned somewhere (here?) about Larry Levine using a 3-track for the "classics", while Levine himself almost talked down on the Ampex 3-track they used early on in favor of a 4-track Scully which had better features and better sound...so it wasn't a case of the "Wall Of Sound" aura owing a debt to 3-track recording if the engineer himself says the three-track machine wasn't as good as the 4-track that replaced it. They bounced tracks on 4-track just like they did on 3-track.

Interestingly, Mark Cunningham claimed in his book "Good Vibrations:  A History Of Record Production" (Sanctuary Music Library, 1996/1998, pp. 62 & 80) that Gold Star had a Scully 4-track by January '65, and that it was used for the BBs' "Do You Wanna Dance" - but this is evidently wrong, as the only multis from that session in the archives are 3-track. I posed the question of when Gold Star acquired their first 4-track to the Gold Star FAQ website back in February 2004, and their reply was "We all agree that it was mid 1966" (the "we" constituted all three principals - David Gold, Stan Ross, and Larry Levine, all of whom were still with us at the time). I managed to get a more specific approximate time, to within two months, while researching the "Good Vibrations" recording chronology for the "SMiLE Sessions" box set...the first "GV" session, at Gold Star on 2/17-18, was 3-track (then it was transferred to 4-track at Western for overdubs), but the next "GV" tracking session, also held at Gold Star (on 4/9) was 4-track. So, by early April '66, Gold Star had a 4-track, but they apparently didn't have one in mid-February. For whatever reason, they lagged behind Western by a good six months.

That's really interesting, and I have to say it's a little later than the impression I got reading through some less-specific archived interviews with Levine, and also there is an interview conducted by Harvey Kubernik about 10 years ago where 4-track is specifically mentioned in working with Spector several times in the transcript, and it suggests earlier than '66 from what kinds of sessions they seem to be referring to.

That's what I meant by confusing as hell earlier -  - There are a lot of recollections and very specific details but no one seems to have put enough of a specific date or time to when any of this changed, and that's the thing we're trying to figure out!  It's cool that you connected these dates via Good Vibrations. Now does this mean too that Wouldn't It Be Nice was done on 3-track at GS then moved over to 4? It would have been almost the same time as the photos I'm about to post here...

And again, consider the often behind-the-times Abbey Road had a 4-track running at sessions in 1963, so if Gold Star didn't get theirs until '66 they were really late to the game.

Craig: To confirm further what you just posted, here are those screenshots I took of the Feb. 1966 session at GS captured on film...you see clearly the Ampex and various "clues" pegging it as the 3-track setup (Donny L, confirm? ) so they still had it in Feb '66. It's great to have film evidence, innit? 

Yeh that's an Ampex 300 3-track, and a 350 mono 1/4"  deck. Curious is the deck next to the 3-track. Looks like another stripped-down or custom 3-track deck, based on an Ampex 300 transport. Actually looks like a playback-only machine. They probably recorded on the main 3-track (3 sets of tube electronics, with the transport in a separate console to the right), the played back on the playback-only machine, and recorded to the standard 3-track on fresh tape.

What this suggests with regard to the "Fun Fun Fun" conundrum is that there would have had to be a third deck if these overdub variations were to have been dubbed from the same takes simultaneously. Since they had this platback-only deck specifically for bounces, this suggests a rented machine. It'd make more sense that a 4-track would be rented for a session, rather than a third 3-track ...

Which leads me to my question:

C-man -- do we know for sure that all "FFF" multis in the vault are 3-track? It really seems like one of the masters could have been on 4-track.

Also worth noting is the Beatles stuff was 1" 4-track, which is sonically superior to 1" 8-track. Also, 3-track is slightly better than 4-track in terms of fidelity.

[c-man]

<<Also worth noting is the Beatles stuff was 1" 4-track, which is sonically superior to 1" 8-track. Also, 3-track is slightly better than 4-track in terms of fidelity.>>

Yes, 3-track 1/2" is slightly better in fidelity than 1/2" 4-track...but not necessarily 1" 4-track. Were any of the 4-track machines in use in the U.S.A. (at least West Coast) at the time of the 1" variety?

If a 4-track WAS being used for "FFF", wouldn't they have used all four tracks? I know Brian generally just used the fourth track for a mono mix, but that was over a year later when 4-track had become the new standard at Western and Gold Star.

I neglected to ask if my proposed scenario was even possible...to simultaneously feed two separate 3-track recorders with different mixes (on one, the two vocal tracks were combined, or bussed, into on track - and on the other, it was two other tracks that were combined instead).

[guitarfool2002]

The proposed scenario of feeding two separate 3-track machines: If this is 1963, you might run into first synching issues between the different machines trying to get them perfectly together on repeated takes and/or playbacks, and second you might run into various phasing issues when playing them back or even monitoring them. There was no guarantee that the motors would run at exactly the same speed, and as it was 1963 you might get traces of a whooshing phase shifting effect because of this that wouldn't be wanted. I'm running off the top of my head, corrections welcome!

Donny: I cannot remember where, or in what context, but only recently I read one of the old-school engineers say that the 4-track machines were actually better fidelity and sound quality than what they had available with 3-track machines around the time 63-65 approximately. I wish i could recall who this was...Levine? Stan Ross? Damn memory...

[DonnyL]

<<Also worth noting is the Beatles stuff was 1" 4-track, which is sonically superior to 1" 8-track. Also, 3-track is slightly better than 4-track in terms of fidelity.>>

Yes, 3-track 1/2" is slightly better in fidelity than 1/2" 4-track...but not necessarily 1" 4-track. Were any of the 4-track machines in use in the U.S.A. (at least West Coast) at the time of the 1" variety?

If a 4-track WAS being used for "FFF", wouldn't they have used all four tracks? I know Brian generally just used the fourth track for a mono mix, but that was over a year later when 4-track had become the new standard at Western and Gold Star.

I neglected to ask if my proposed scenario was even possible...to simultaneously feed two separate 3-track recorders with different mixes (on one, the two vocal tracks were combined, or bussed, into on track - and on the other, it was two other tracks that were combined instead).

Well, I think 1" 4-track (or 2" 8-track) is overkill, but all other things being equal, it's more or less indisputable that they offer a better 'fidelity' than 1/2" 4-track or 1" 8-track ... whether or not they sound 'better' would be subjective. The width per track is about twice as wide, so the sound should be 'fatter' and the S/N ratio better.

Studer made most of the 1" 4-tracks, and they were used primarily in Europe. I was adding this info in reference to the 'Beatles didn't go to 8-track until later' topic to speculate that the preference for 1" 8-track would be workflow, not sound quality ... though the end results could be 'better' because of fewer bounces, etc.

I'm not aware of any studios in the US using 1" 4-track or 2" 8-track in the '60s. Ampex made a 1" 4-track, but it's an obscure deck that almost no one used.

Yeh, your proposed scenario is technically possible, but unlikely. They'd have to set up two different busses on the board, and have two 3-tracks going, as well as splitting the signal ... it would be crazy ... which means they'd have a third 3-track deck ... unlikely. More likely to me -- depending on what's actually in the vaults -- is that they rented a 4-track, or the studio was auditioning one or something. I can't imagine why a third 3-track would be employed. We've seen an 8-track deck in Western in Dec(?) '66, which goes against conventional wisdom.

So we have working tracks for "FFF" that have:

1 - vocal group 1
2 - vocal group 3
3 - full track incl. overdubs

Then another mix that has:

1 - vocal groups 1 + 2
2 - basic track
3 - overdubs

... my guess is either:

1. The final master is 3-track, and the vocal overdub is a different take on the final ... i.e., the UM takes with the overdub track isolated was a work in progress, and they ultimately went back to the previous 3-track and wiped one of the vocal tracks, then bounced the full inst. track to one track on the new 3-track while overdubbing the second vocal group to it's own track (doubt they were thinking about stereo vocals, but they maybe wanted to control the vocals more intricately).

OR

2. The final master is 4-track, and it looks like this:

1. vocal group 1
2. vocal group 2
3. basic
4. overdubs

The UM people could have panned these any way they wanted when they were 'mixing'.

PS -- if my memory is correct, the orig. stereo mix has some tom fills at the end that seem to be on one of the vocal tracks, not centered.

[DonnyL]

The proposed scenario of feeding two separate 3-track machines: If this is 1963, you might run into first synching issues between the different machines trying to get them perfectly together on repeated takes and/or playbacks, and second you might run into various phasing issues when playing them back or even monitoring them. There was no guarantee that the motors would run at exactly the same speed, and as it was 1963 you might get traces of a whooshing phase shifting effect because of this that wouldn't be wanted. I'm running off the top of my head, corrections welcome!

Donny: I cannot remember where, or in what context, but only recently I read one of the old-school engineers say that the 4-track machines were actually better fidelity and sound quality than what they had available with 3-track machines around the time 63-65 approximately. I wish i could recall who this was...Levine? Stan Ross? Damn memory...

I think c -man meant syncing like bouncing and doing live overdubs while bussing out different parts to two separate decks ?

Yeh I guess the guy was probably remembering that the 4-track deck just happened to be a better or more modern machine ... they probably made some 'headway' with the heads, sync response, etc.

[guitarfool2002]

The proposed scenario of feeding two separate 3-track machines: If this is 1963, you might run into first synching issues between the different machines trying to get them perfectly together on repeated takes and/or playbacks, and second you might run into various phasing issues when playing them back or even monitoring them. There was no guarantee that the motors would run at exactly the same speed, and as it was 1963 you might get traces of a whooshing phase shifting effect because of this that wouldn't be wanted. I'm running off the top of my head, corrections welcome!

Donny: I cannot remember where, or in what context, but only recently I read one of the old-school engineers say that the 4-track machines were actually better fidelity and sound quality than what they had available with 3-track machines around the time 63-65 approximately. I wish i could recall who this was...Levine? Stan Ross? Damn memory...

I think c -man meant syncing like bouncing and doing live overdubs while bussing out different parts to two separate decks ?

Yeh I guess the guy was probably remembering that the 4-track deck just happened to be a better or more modern machine ... they probably made some 'headway' with the heads, sync response, etc.

True, maybe I misunderstood what C-man was asking - but even so, you're bussing out to two separate decks, those extra decks would still need to be in perfect sync when it came time to combine everything as it came back to be blended/mixed, wouldn't they? If there was even the slightest change in the motor speed or voltage or whatever else it would start audibly phasing, wouldn't it? I'm just thinking that synching even two decks in 1963 wasn't that easy nor that common if it was done at all, especially on a Beach Boys single that was going to be a mono mix. I can't think of many examples from that specific era where an extra tape machine was linked that way...especially if more than one "take" of the mix was needed.

I just have in mind the mid-1967 Geoff Emerick at EMI mix session having all kinds of problems keeping the orchestra tracks in time with the basics on Day In The Life running two machines in sync during playback, and ultimately the linked machine did drift out enough that the final mix has the brass re-entry noticeably off the beat. They couldn't keep it in sync after the initial link. And that was 1967, not 1963! Just thinking out loud.

[c-man]

I really don't think there's a "FFF" 4-track in the vaults, but I will double-check with Alan.

And, were there actually 2" 8-track machines in existence?? I've never heard of 2" being used until the dawn of the 16-track era. Tom Scholz of Boston fame started out buying a used 1" 8-track and equipping it with a 12-track head, if I remember correctly.

[DonnyL]

I really don't think there's a "FFF" 4-track in the vaults, but I will double-check with Alan.

And, were there actually 2" 8-track machines in existence?? I've never heard of 2" being used until the dawn of the 16-track era. Tom Scholz of Boston fame started out buying a used 1" 8-track and equipping it with a 12-track head, if I remember correctly.

2" 8-tracks exist, though they were not made until later. Jack White records his record on 2" 8-track (Studer). I don't have much interest in European decks or Euro recording history, so I don't have a lot of info on Studers. I doubt Ampex ever made a 2" 8-track, but all you'd need is to have someone make a  2" 8-track headstack.

2" 16 came out in late '67 ... "Everything Playing" by the Lovin Spoonful is the first 16-track record (Mirasound in NY).

Tom Sholtz had a Scully 284 1" 12-track, which was a stock machine. This deck came out around '67 as well. 'Electric Ladyland' was one of the famous record cut on 12-track.

[c-man]

2" 16 came out in late '67 ... "Everything Playing" by the Lovin Spoonful is the first 16-track record (Mirasound in NY).

Tom Sholtz had a Scully 284 1" 12-track, which was a stock machine. This deck came out around '67 as well. 'Electric Ladyland' was one of the famous record cut on 12-track.

Hmm, that's interesting, considering Scholz has specifically stated that he modified an 8-track with a 12-track head...I'm recalling a Goldmine Boston cover story from '98 that mentions this. By the time Boston landed their record deal, 2" 24-track had become the industry standard...so they transferred Scholz' 1" 15-ips 12-track basic basement recordings to 2" 30-ips 24-track tape (covertly, so the record company wouldn't know) and added the vocals at pro studios in Los Angeles. Intersting story.

Sorry to derail the topic...

[Andrew G. Doe]

You have no idea just how much I love this kind of stuff.

NO. IDEA.

[Alan Smith]

It's fucking great stuff; AGD is not a sole admirer

[c-man]

2" 16 came out in late '67 ... "Everything Playing" by the Lovin Spoonful is the first 16-track record (Mirasound in NY).

Tom Sholtz had a Scully 284 1" 12-track, which was a stock machine. This deck came out around '67 as well. 'Electric Ladyland' was one of the famous record cut on 12-track.

Hmm, that's interesting, considering Scholz has specifically stated that he modified an 8-track with a 12-track head...I'm recalling a Goldmine Boston cover story from '98 that mentions this. By the time Boston landed their record deal, 2" 24-track had become the industry standard...so they transferred Scholz' 1" 15-ips 12-track basic basement recordings to 2" 30-ips 24-track tape (covertly, so the record company wouldn't know) and added the vocals at pro studios in Los Angeles. Intersting story.

Sorry to derail the topic...

Oh, and the 2006 remaster of Boston's first album includes a couple of shots of Tom Scholz' basement studio control room set up...obviously from slightly later in time, since a 24-track machine is among the gear...but one of the tape machines definitely has 8 VU meters...looks similar, but not identical, to my Tascam 1/2" 8-track (which I bought new in 1989).

[guitarfool2002]

I've also enjoyed this, especially the "reverse engineering" scenarios and trying to work them out as I read them. Very interesting.

One point I'd like to ask, and it hit me while trying to calculate and figure out some of Donny's and C-man's formulas.

If something is reverse-engineered to try figuring out the whole mechanism/process/design, the main point is still the notion of a finished product, and how they got from point A to point B at each stage.

In this case, the finished product is "Fun, Fun, Fun", from 1963...we're not dealing with "Bohemian Rhapsody" or any of a number of infamously complex and complicated mixes that were full of strange choices in the process and dozens of components that needed a lot of hands on the board, yet produced a great record.

Question: Was it really that complex of a process to get the final mix of Fun Fun Fun? I can't get the fact that it was 1963 out of the equation, and the fact that the Beach Boys as recording artists were just over a year old at the time if that. Would this much have been done for one song at this time?

Or is perhaps a more simple solution the answer, simple as in a basic bouncing from deck to deck to free up tracks as we know was done on many classic records of this era from the engineers and artists who made the records?

It just seems like this much complexity to produce Fun Fun Fun might be too much complexity considering the context and the era, not to mention the artist involved.

And question #2, let's assume it was as complex of a process as some of the scenarios suggest: Did any other Beach Boys single or individual song receive this many steps in the process from 1963-1966? And there were far more complex-sounding BB's records than Fun Fun Fun at this time.

[DonnyL]

I've also enjoyed this, especially the "reverse engineering" scenarios and trying to work them out as I read them. Very interesting.

One point I'd like to ask, and it hit me while trying to calculate and figure out some of Donny's and C-man's formulas.

If something is reverse-engineered to try figuring out the whole mechanism/process/design, the main point is still the notion of a finished product, and how they got from point A to point B at each stage.

In this case, the finished product is "Fun, Fun, Fun", from 1963...we're not dealing with "Bohemian Rhapsody" or any of a number of infamously complex and complicated mixes that were full of strange choices in the process and dozens of components that needed a lot of hands on the board, yet produced a great record.

Question: Was it really that complex of a process to get the final mix of Fun Fun Fun? I can't get the fact that it was 1963 out of the equation, and the fact that the Beach Boys as recording artists were just over a year old at the time if that. Would this much have been done for one song at this time?

Or is perhaps a more simple solution the answer, simple as in a basic bouncing from deck to deck to free up tracks as we know was done on many classic records of this era from the engineers and artists who made the records?

It just seems like this much complexity to produce Fun Fun Fun might be too much complexity considering the context and the era, not to mention the artist involved.

And question #2, let's assume it was as complex of a process as some of the scenarios suggest: Did any other Beach Boys single or individual song receive this many steps in the process from 1963-1966? And there were far more complex-sounding BB's records than Fun Fun Fun at this time.

You're absolutely right man ... that's kind of where I was trying to get to.

I mean, the idea here is that there is something that can't be explained on the UM boots that seems to suggest there are two different versions of the same multi or ... it was on 4-track. The master being on 4-track goes against conventional wisdom, but to me is a simpler explanation.

Basically, there's one version of "FFF" that seems to have 3 discrete tracks: 1-vocal group, 2-vocal group overdub, and 3-full inst. track. Then there is another that seems to have: 1-both vocal groups, 2-basic track, 3-inst. overdub.

It's precisely because it's 1963 that makes you wonder how the hell that could have happened, ya know? They were bouncing from deck to deck, so it's not like they can just cut discrete elements in and out.

So, if this were 4-track is would be easy: 1-vocal group, 2-vocal group overdub, 3-basic track, 4-inst. overdub. This 4-track master could create BOTH of the mixes  we're talking about.

Like the studio was auditioning 4-tracks or rented one out to play around with, and they went about "FFF" in the usual 3-track manner, while incorporating the 4-track as well. That theory seems simple to me. My question was whether or not we know for sure there's a 3-track mix of "FFF" on the final, or maybe there's a missing tape, etc. etc.

OR -- as I presented in one of my theories above, they simply made one 3-track bounce, then decided to re-do one of the vocal takes and bounced the track together and kept the vocals separate because they weren't sure about one of the takes or something.

It probably wasn't so complicated at the time -- it would be more like, 'oops we didn't plan that very well and ran out of tracks, let's try this unorthodox thing ... cool, that worked well' ... meanwhile, we're left wondering what they hell they did !

[DonnyL]

2" 16 came out in late '67 ... "Everything Playing" by the Lovin Spoonful is the first 16-track record (Mirasound in NY).

Tom Sholtz had a Scully 284 1" 12-track, which was a stock machine. This deck came out around '67 as well. 'Electric Ladyland' was one of the famous record cut on 12-track.

Hmm, that's interesting, considering Scholz has specifically stated that he modified an 8-track with a 12-track head...I'm recalling a Goldmine Boston cover story from '98 that mentions this. By the time Boston landed their record deal, 2" 24-track had become the industry standard...so they transferred Scholz' 1" 15-ips 12-track basic basement recordings to 2" 30-ips 24-track tape (covertly, so the record company wouldn't know) and added the vocals at pro studios in Los Angeles. Intersting story.

Sorry to derail the topic...

Oh, and the 2006 remaster of Boston's first album includes a couple of shots of Tom Scholz' basement studio control room set up...obviously from slightly later in time, since a 24-track machine is among the gear...but one of the tape machines definitely has 8 VU meters...looks similar, but not identical, to my Tascam 1/2" 8-track (which I bought new in 1989).

Teac 8-track:



Scully 8-track:



Scully 12-track:

[Ron]

It's interesting that this topic has presented itself at this time, since the past couple of days I've been preparing an essay on the making of "Fun, Fun, Fun" to accompany my MIC online sessionography.

Both of these songs are among the earliest examples of the Boys working with three generations of 3-track tape. In the case of "Don't Worry Baby", the basic track was cut in mono, then the other two tracks of the first-gen tape were filled with double-tracked backing vocals. Then there was a transfer to a second-gen 3-track, in which the two background vocal tracks were combined onto one track and the basic instrumental track remained on its own discrete track. Brian's first lead vocal was recorded onto the remaining open track of this second-gen tape, and Carl's guitar intro & break were recorded on the same track, probably as a punch-in after-the-fact. It was from this generation that the new 2009 stereo mix for Summer Love Songs was prepared, and that is on MIC as well. Then, a final 3-track to 3-track transfer was made, to a third-gen tape, during which Brian doubled his lead as a live feed onto the same track that his original lead was being dubbed to. This third-gen tape was used to mix the original mono and stereo versions.

That's interesting... does that mean that the 2009 lead isn't double tracked?  I'll have to dig that out and see how it sounds, one of the best things about Brian's vocals was when they were doubled IMHO

[c-man]

DonnyL wrote: <<Like the studio was auditioning 4-tracks or rented one out to play around with, and they went about "FFF" in the usual 3-track manner, while incorporating the 4-track as well. That theory seems simple to me. My question was whether or not we know for sure there's a 3-track mix of "FFF" on the final, or maybe there's a missing tape, etc. etc.

OR -- as I presented in one of my theories above, they simply made one 3-track bounce, then decided to re-do one of the vocal takes and bounced the track together and kept the vocals separate because they weren't sure about one of the takes or something.>>

On the first point, maybe...but the problem with that scenario is that on the SOT mix, there's only 3 discrete elements, not 4...I would think if the producers of SOT were mixing from a 4-track, they wouldn't have combined both vocal tracks (unless they were working with a vintage board that had four inputs but only the 3-position output).

On the second point, I'm thinking it's unlikely, because (in my proposed scenario, at least) the organ overdub is being recorded onto the third-gen tape as the two vocal tracks are being mixed together. To achieve your scenario, they would have to have re-recorded the organ solo while redubbing to the Gen-3 tape, with the two vocal tracks separated. Not impossible, but it seems to me like the final organ take on the SOT disc IS the final take that's on the record.

[LeeDempsey]

It's interesting that this topic has presented itself at this time, since the past couple of days I've been preparing an essay on the making of "Fun, Fun, Fun" to accompany my MIC online sessionography.

Both of these songs are among the earliest examples of the Boys working with three generations of 3-track tape. In the case of "Don't Worry Baby", the basic track was cut in mono, then the other two tracks of the first-gen tape were filled with double-tracked backing vocals. Then there was a transfer to a second-gen 3-track, in which the two background vocal tracks were combined onto one track and the basic instrumental track remained on its own discrete track. Brian's first lead vocal was recorded onto the remaining open track of this second-gen tape, and Carl's guitar intro & break were recorded on the same track, probably as a punch-in after-the-fact. It was from this generation that the new 2009 stereo mix for Summer Love Songs was prepared, and that is on MIC as well. Then, a final 3-track to 3-track transfer was made, to a third-gen tape, during which Brian doubled his lead as a live feed onto the same track that his original lead was being dubbed to. This third-gen tape was used to mix the original mono and stereo versions.

That's interesting... does that mean that the 2009 lead isn't double tracked?  I'll have to dig that out and see how it sounds, one of the best things about Brian's vocals was when they were doubled IMHO

Craig can correct me, but I think what he meant was that all three tracks from the first-generation 3-track (mono instrumental, two backing vocal tracks) were sync'ed up with the track from the third-generation tape with the doubled lead and instrumental punch-in, to create four tracks in Pro Tools from which the new mix was created.  But I've been known to be wrong before...

Lee

[guitarfool2002]

On the first point, maybe...but the problem with that scenario is that on the SOT mix, there's only 3 discrete elements, not 4...I would think if the producers of SOT were mixing from a 4-track, they wouldn't have combined both vocal tracks (unless they were working with a vintage board that had four inputs but only the 3-position output).

On the second point, I'm thinking it's unlikely, because (in my proposed scenario, at least) the organ overdub is being recorded onto the third-gen tape as the two vocal tracks are being mixed together. To achieve your scenario, they would have to have re-recorded the organ solo while redubbing to the Gen-3 tape, with the two vocal tracks separated. Not impossible, but it seems to me like the final organ take on the SOT disc IS the final take that's on the record.

When I read this, I thought about one aspect which could be a factor in what has been analyzed so far, and I put the phrases in bold:

Could it be that in trying to decipher what was done to mix the record in 1963, the SOT process has been given more weight than it possibly carries for that goal? I'm just thinking of what SOT was, how and when it was done, etc. and maybe the SOT "evidence" is making the equation more complex?

We have an idea what was done with SOT, and in some obvious cases there are key elements of the tracking process missing from the SOT collections, meaning there were things like overdubs flown in live during mixdown and whatnot that were not on the multis when the SOT folks did their own remixing.

So I'm just thinking, whatever is on SOT and what was "remixed" to create SOT was not only done with a modern mindset using equipment that was similar too but not exactly what Brian and Chuck (or whoever else) used originally, but it was also done with a different mindset where the "mixing" was thought of as a catch-all rather than designed to create a final mix for a record release. So they'd get possibly tracks on those tapes that Brian or Chuck may not have weighted very heavily, yet for SOT's purpose of getting it all out there and mixing everything they found into some kind of hastily done balance mix ('kitchen sink' mixing...), they had some things which weren't considered in 1963, and vice versa.

I'm just thinking out loud, but maybe what the SOT people did or didn't do with what they found is getting in the way of trying to calculate what Brian and Chuck did in 1963 with what they had to work with.

This thread has been on my mind all week, and yesterday I listened to the original '63 mix as would have been heard in 1964 - As I replied to Donny, there may have been extensive work done to reach that point, but when listening it's not that complex of a mix nor is it really that multi-layered of a record production.

I don't have any valid theories to offer, wish I did, but maybe in the analysis process removing some of the SOT factors would get closer to what was done in 1963?

[Catbirdman]

I don't have any valid theories to offer, wish I did, but maybe in the analysis process removing some of the SOT factors would get closer to what was done in 1963?

Hang on...1963? I thought Fun, Fun, Fun was started January 1, 1964, which is still the latest information on the Bellagio site. Has new evidence come to light they started working on the song earlier than was known? Sorry, I did try to read back through the thread to find the answer myself, but didn't see anything regarding dates...and man, is this thread technical. (Not complaining - I know it's threads like these that make this a special place.)

[DonnyL]

DonnyL wrote: <<Like the studio was auditioning 4-tracks or rented one out to play around with, and they went about "FFF" in the usual 3-track manner, while incorporating the 4-track as well. That theory seems simple to me. My question was whether or not we know for sure there's a 3-track mix of "FFF" on the final, or maybe there's a missing tape, etc. etc.

OR -- as I presented in one of my theories above, they simply made one 3-track bounce, then decided to re-do one of the vocal takes and bounced the track together and kept the vocals separate because they weren't sure about one of the takes or something.>>

On the first point, maybe...but the problem with that scenario is that on the SOT mix, there's only 3 discrete elements, not 4...I would think if the producers of SOT were mixing from a 4-track, they wouldn't have combined both vocal tracks (unless they were working with a vintage board that had four inputs but only the 3-position output).

On the second point, I'm thinking it's unlikely, because (in my proposed scenario, at least) the organ overdub is being recorded onto the third-gen tape as the two vocal tracks are being mixed together. To achieve your scenario, they would have to have re-recorded the organ solo while redubbing to the Gen-3 tape, with the two vocal tracks separated. Not impossible, but it seems to me like the final organ take on the SOT disc IS the final take that's on the record.

hmm ... I'd say that final scenario is more plausible that the one where they had a third 3-track going though.

What if they were overdubbing vocal group 2 and organ solo at the same time ?

I mean, let's say it went like this:

* They do a few takes with the vocal overdub being submixed with the first vocal, and the inst. overdub going live to their own track (all simultaneously)

* Upon playback, they realize they want more control over the 2nd set of vocals instead of the organ, so they swap the busses (i.e. the organ goes with the basic track, and the vocal stays on it's own.

[DonnyL]

On the first point, maybe...but the problem with that scenario is that on the SOT mix, there's only 3 discrete elements, not 4...I would think if the producers of SOT were mixing from a 4-track, they wouldn't have combined both vocal tracks (unless they were working with a vintage board that had four inputs but only the 3-position output).

On the second point, I'm thinking it's unlikely, because (in my proposed scenario, at least) the organ overdub is being recorded onto the third-gen tape as the two vocal tracks are being mixed together. To achieve your scenario, they would have to have re-recorded the organ solo while redubbing to the Gen-3 tape, with the two vocal tracks separated. Not impossible, but it seems to me like the final organ take on the SOT disc IS the final take that's on the record.

When I read this, I thought about one aspect which could be a factor in what has been analyzed so far, and I put the phrases in bold:

Could it be that in trying to decipher what was done to mix the record in 1963, the SOT process has been given more weight than it possibly carries for that goal? I'm just thinking of what SOT was, how and when it was done, etc. and maybe the SOT "evidence" is making the equation more complex?

We have an idea what was done with SOT, and in some obvious cases there are key elements of the tracking process missing from the SOT collections, meaning there were things like overdubs flown in live during mixdown and whatnot that were not on the multis when the SOT folks did their own remixing.

So I'm just thinking, whatever is on SOT and what was "remixed" to create SOT was not only done with a modern mindset using equipment that was similar too but not exactly what Brian and Chuck (or whoever else) used originally, but it was also done with a different mindset where the "mixing" was thought of as a catch-all rather than designed to create a final mix for a record release. So they'd get possibly tracks on those tapes that Brian or Chuck may not have weighted very heavily, yet for SOT's purpose of getting it all out there and mixing everything they found into some kind of hastily done balance mix ('kitchen sink' mixing...), they had some things which weren't considered in 1963, and vice versa.

I'm just thinking out loud, but maybe what the SOT people did or didn't do with what they found is getting in the way of trying to calculate what Brian and Chuck did in 1963 with what they had to work with.

This thread has been on my mind all week, and yesterday I listened to the original '63 mix as would have been heard in 1964 - As I replied to Donny, there may have been extensive work done to reach that point, but when listening it's not that complex of a mix nor is it really that multi-layered of a record production.

I don't have any valid theories to offer, wish I did, but maybe in the analysis process removing some of the SOT factors would get closer to what was done in 1963?

I think you're correct in a philosophical sense. And we're on the same page in terms of referencing SOT as 'clues'.

However, we have the situation where if we're listening to the orig. mix, it just sounds like a regular 3-track mix (vocals 1 / vocals 2 / track) -- no mystery.

But we have the SOT which isolates two elements (the inst. overdubs) which should not have been available to isolate ... they would have been locked together.

So, yeh it makes more sense to me that the master was 4-track and the SOT people combined the two vocals together for their 'mix' for whatever reason.

If this is proven to not be a possibility (4-track, that is) ... then, my other theory makes okay sense to me. More than a third 3-track being present anyway.