Early BBoys Stereo

[Ana-Lu]

Most early stereo on rock/teen pop records was sloppy, severe, and lopsided.

Most of those early BBoys stereo mixes, by comparison, had the right idea, with the instruments generally in the middle and vocals spread out left and right.

Unfortunately, two particular quirks ruin what would otherwise be great mixes.

1 - The instruments are generally lower in the mix, and the stereo versions lack the balls and punch on the mono versions; and

2 - Those ridiculously abrupt fades, where the instruments disappear and you just hear vocals.

What the hell were the engineers thinking when they did those fades? (Don't Back Down and Fun Fun Fun are the worst).

Do the multi-tracks for those early recordings (63-64) still exist?  Why not do killer stereo mixes of the (better) songs from this period, with the same stereo image as the originals, but with ballsier rhythm and longer fades?

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

The engineers were thinking:  When is this stereo fad going to end?  Oops, time for my bowling league.

The short answer is, some multis exist, many do not.  All the Shut Down 2 and Little DC multis are effectively missing.

Apparently, Chuck would often mix the stereo mixes in mono, not considering them worth switching the outputs to the stereo speakers.

[Ana-Lu]

So why go through the extra trouble to yank the instrument fader down early in the fade?  It doesn't make sense.

[the captain]

I might get nailed for this since it's off the top of my head, but I've had in my head for years that I've read it was an intentional BW "trick" or decision to pull the instrumental tracks out first, letting the vox continue. But I really don't recall at the moment where I read it, or who wrote it. And I'm not sure I care enough to dig. But I thought I'd offer the drunken recollection, anyway.

(In other words, it may have been a very conscious decision by Brian Wilson.)

[Ana-Lu]

I could believe that if it happened on both the mono and stereo versions. 

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

I'd be pulling the instruments down real fast too if I were in a group that sang as prettily as the Boys.

It may have something to do with monitoring in mono while mixing in stereo?  It's kind of a stretch, but maybe the center channel's apparent loudness when folded down to mono made it seem louder than it was and thus it would be attenuated more?

I don't know that this question is really answerable unless somebody had it first hand from Chuck.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Brian had pretty much nothing to do with the stereo mixes 1963-64 except to maybe listen to them once (if that) and nod. They're Chuck's babies - and way better than a lot of Beatles stereo mixes.

[lance]

Tons better than the Beatle's mixes.

My only problem--though I think this is a problem with four-track music in general--is the high end is too piercing. I find the same problem with twelve-string guitars in Beatles stereo stuff(If I Needed Someone, for example) Brian Wilson's falsetto, the Door's organ. It hurts my ears on headphones!

[king of anglia]

That's nothing to do with four track mixes. It's probably the mastering on the CD versions of some albums. The earlier Beatles CDs are quite harsh and The Beach Boys 2fers are really quite bright compared to the original vinyl masterings. It's a common problem - some mastering engineers think that adding top end equates to clarity and quality.

Some of the best early(ish) stereo recordings I've heard are the Bill Porter engineered Elvis albums. Elvis Is Back! in particular is fantastic - 3 tracks mixes, the instruments spread naturally over the stereo field, Elvis's voice in the centre channel awash with beautiful chamber echo, two drum kits, all tube technology, exceptional musicians, one of the best singers of this century in his prime... I could go on. It's like being in the room with the band. And all this was done in 1960 on a 3 track tape machine.

[Ana-Lu]

If you want to hear great early stereo, you need to stay away from stuff marketed to kids.

[Vega-Table Man]

That's nothing to do with four track mixes. It's probably the mastering on the CD versions of some albums. The earlier Beatles CDs are quite harsh and The Beach Boys 2fers are really quite bright compared to the original vinyl masterings. It's a common problem - some mastering engineers think that adding top end equates to clarity and quality.

I absolutely agree; the only Beach Boys CDs I've heard that come close to sounding like the best vinyl editions are the DCC gold discs and the old '80s "Pastmasters" editions from Japan ... Though even these have their problems in places.

I almost always prefer the mono mixes over the stereo for the early Beach Boys stuff. The odd fades and far-too-faint backing tracks are main reasons; the "Fun, Fun, Fun" fade is a real problem, because in the stereo mix it only goes around one-and-a-half times or something, and it's gone! That tag is a highlight of the song and I like it to stick around longer than that.

[lance]

That's nothing to do with four track mixes. It's probably the mastering on the CD versions of some albums. The earlier Beatles CDs are quite harsh and The Beach Boys 2fers are really quite bright compared to the original vinyl masterings. It's a common problem - some mastering engineers think that adding top end equates to clarity and quality.

Some of the best early(ish) stereo recordings I've heard are the Bill Porter engineered Elvis albums. Elvis Is Back! in particular is fantastic - 3 tracks mixes, the instruments spread naturally over the stereo field, Elvis's voice in the centre channel awash with beautiful chamber echo, two drum kits, all tube technology, exceptional musicians, one of the best singers of this century in his prime... I could go on. It's like being in the room with the band. And all this was done in 1960 on a 3 track tape machine.

I'm sure you are right. I'm certainly no expert!
 My assumption that it had to do with four track was that I  have had these problems only with stereo(or duophonic) mixes of sixties stuff whereas "later" sixties stuff i.e. eight-track recordings doesn't pierce my ears as much.

As it is, I tend to prefer the mono versions of early sixties stuff . I'd get it on vinyl if that were feasible, but alas,  it's not.

 That said,  remixes like the "modern" stereo mix of Pet Sounds sound fantastic to me, and I'm not so much a purist as to say if they could do that with some of the older stuff(Today or whatever) my ears would be much pleased.

[sockittome]

Hey, if you don't mind the 2 cents worth from a first time poster here, I always felt that on the early songs, there was not much thought put into the instrumentation.  Afterall, it was all about the Boys' vocals, right?  So the stereo mixing may just emphasize any quirks in the backing, although back in the day the attitude might have been, "who's gonna notice, anyway?"  Just a thought.

It's interesting though, that once Brian took the reins (Today), the instrumentation became as intricate and promanent as the vocals.  What a combination!

[lance]

Well as an experienced poster with at least sixteen posts under his belt, I have to say you are totally wrong.

 

Seriously I think the instrumental versions of a lot of those early pre-Today stuff are gorgeous. Also, I would guess that he had the reins by Surfer Girl at least. But they aren't as complicated!

[sockittome]

Imagine if "Do You Wanna Dance" would've been cut two years earlier.  You would've had drums, bass, rhythm guitar, and an occassional lead instrument, probably an organ.  That's it.  We're talking difference between night and day here.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

Hey, if you don't mind the 2 cents worth from a first time poster here, I always felt that on the early songs, there was not much thought put into the instrumentation.  Afterall, it was all about the Boys' vocals, right?  So the stereo mixing may just emphasize any quirks in the backing, although back in the day the attitude might have been, "who's gonna notice, anyway?"  Just a thought.

It's interesting though, that once Brian took the reins (Today), the instrumentation became as intricate and promanent as the vocals.  What a combination!

Brian actually took the reins for Surfing USA, so any evolution in the instrumentation was a product of his own learning curve.  Don't forget that at the same time that the Beach Boys were cutting garage band surf-punk, Brian was producing other artists using the stable of Spector musicians on much larger productions.

Imagine if "Do You Wanna Dance" would've been cut two years earlier.  You would've had drums, bass, rhythm guitar, and an occassional lead instrument, probably an organ.  That's it.  We're talking difference between night and day here.

I don't mean to sound like I'm just correcting everything you say...but to be fair, you just pretty much described the instrumentation to DYWD.  It's Drums, basses, guitars, organ, and saxes--all of which had been on Beach Boys records since the beginning.  The Timpani was somewhat exotic, I guess...and the extra numbers of instruments, but I still think of that track as a bit of a throwback.  And when you consider that quite a few tracks from Today! are pretty sparse, I don't think it's fair to say that there was a sudden interest in expanding the instrumentation.

[sockittome]

Ok, I see your points.  It's been awhile since I've listened to any of the early material.  Perhaps I need to go back and revisit those first albums.

[John]

There's a few things like celeste and mallets on Surfin' USA LP, timbales and the harp on Surfer Girl LP, and All Summer Long has harpsichords and the like on.