Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by peerke, Jan 29, 2006.
Makes sense to me.
It's the STEREO reference point, in terms of sound quality(and the fact it's all stereo, no rechanneling jobs)...but the MONO is still the reference point for the mixes, since they came first. No attempts to remix to stereo would likely be of any value, they've already tried. 5.1 would be interesting, but a fun novelty at best.
Not if all you're doing is remixing to make things 'sound better.' The idea of 5.1 mixing is to open up the sound; if better sonics comes as a result, fine, but it's a different animal from stereo, where there is already a reference source(or more than one). The special magic that went into most mono back when that was the first source was sometimes captured in the stereo mixes, but more often, it wasn't. Subsequent stereo remixes might add clarity, but they lose the magic. If you're gonna lose the magic, logical to lose it in 5.1, since it does have the express aim of isolating tracks, instruments and vocals that normally doesn't happen mixing down to two channels.
Richards' mix didn't harm anyone, but it's nonetheless crude, as twin-track is. Just how can you *improve* the sound of twin-track mixes? You have something in one channel, the rest in another. No way to make a balanced mix out of that...except to take the two tracks and mix to mono, which they already did.
The YELLOW SUB disc was fun to hear, but the DVD's 5.1 was more fun still. The tendency to replace old mixes with new is always a possibility(and has happened more times than we'd like to think), so be careful what you wish for.
Now I'm really confused. I never brought up 5.1 mixes....and it's not what I'm looking forward to. I mentioned the German MMT LP because it's considered THE source for the stereo mixes of those individual tracks. The original mono mixes are not currently available, though you can still pickup the EP Box ocassionally. My point was simple....these definitive stereo mixes (btw, the official CD also uses these mixes) were done after the Beatles broke up. I've read post after post that any remixing or even remastering somehow will ruin the original artists intent...this is quite obviously NOT true. Not a single Beatle attended those post-breakup sessions...and while George Martin did the remixes he did change the sound, timber and instrumentation of some of the tracks. But, he did so in a way most people believe enhanced the sound.
Believe me, if he somehow succeeded in making Help and Rubber Soul a better listening experience back in '86, few people would be complaining today. Sure, there are some purists out there who want an exact replication of the original albums and singles, but this may prove to be near impossible. None of us know (except perhaps Steve?) what the original masters sound like, some prefer the sound on the original Parlophone LPs, some the LPs re-pressed for the Blue Box Set or MFSL....others prefer the Japanese or German releases. Point is, even making dedicated straight transfers of the masters, through properly calibrated machines and lovingly mastered may not please all. These "new" CDs will sound completely unique unto themselves. Should a mastering engineer make them sound like their original vinyl counterparts? If so, which vinyl should be the annointd choice? Or should he make them sound as close as possible to the sounds heard on the original masters? I just read where Steve mentioned having to somehow alter the mixes on his Everly Brothers comp to make them sound like they were recorded circa 1961, and not have them sound so contemporary, eventhough the sounds heard on the tapes were phenomenal.
Don't forget, there are more than 100 mix variations of Beatles songs....that's almost half their recorded output. Even back in their heyday, different mono and stereo mixes were made that were officially released and sanctioned by the Beatles, George Martin and EMI. No one complained then that the US mono And I Love Her had Paul's vocal single-tracked and the UK version had it double-tracked!! So which one is the correct version? Both were mixed by Martin, both were officially available....Ron
...good one STEVE!...he may have been premature in his decision.
Well....a tangent, but for the record....that's not entirely true. "Penny Lane" and "Baby You're a Rich Man" are 1970's mixes, and had never been mixed into stereo before. Penny Lane is pretty similar to the mono, probably because most of the elements were premixed onto one track. "Baby" is missing a very cool backwards echo effect, which they attempted but couldn't replicate. "Strawberry Fields Forever" is a remix/replacement of a 1966 mix with different panning and levels (the earlier one is preferred by me). All other songs are the original stereo mixes from 1966-7. Some of those mixes _are_ very different from the mono mixes (esp. "Blue Jay Way") but those differences were in place in 1967.
I have to say...I'm not opposed to making remixes available as long as the original mixes remain available; which is not the case right now, of course. The only problem is...most of the remixes are not as good as the originals. They lack the magic.
A notable exception is the version of "For No One" on the "Anthology" DVD. They did a Pet Sounds-style unbounce, and it is a much fuller mix, with better stereo imaging, than the original Revolver stereo mix. I imagine that better stereo mixes would be possible for much of Rubber Soul; they just have not been done right yet, for the most part. And they may never be.
Of course those are the 3 songs in question. But your facts aren't exactly correct . Penny Lane was remixed into stereo 30 Sept 1971, there are added elements; brass, piano, firebell that are NOT on the mono mix. BTW, what is your source for saying that backward effect on Baby You're A Rich Man, was "attempted but couldn't be replicated"? The entire track sounds completely different in this 22 October 1971 remix. Electric guitar is heard prominently and the clavoline and backing vocals sound different as well. Strawberry Fields, for reasons unknown, was given a new stereo mix on 7 November 1971, replacing several previously done and released stereo mixes. This one has the edit at the 1 minute mark smoothed out somewhat and the swordmandel was mixed quite differently. It also has a longer fade, revealing that Lennon uttered "cranberry sauce", not once but twice. Again my point being these post-breakup mixes are now considered THE official mixes. IMO, remixing isn't necessarily a bad thing, if done properly AND the original recordings stay in print. I would never be in favor of issuing new remixes, whether they be stereo, hi-rez or 5.1/6.1 mixes, if THEY became the official mixes and the others were put out-of-print. Ron
He did it cause...
he was tried of hearing for twenty years how bad they were.
Now he's had to listen...
FOR TWENTY YEARS
how bad these mixes are!!!
Those elements are all on the mono mix, altho buried. All the pianos are on the same track IIRC (from the 4th reduction mix!), so they couldn't have added a piano without going back to the first gen tape (which wasn't done until the Anthology dvd stereo soundtrack).
Absolutely. The vocals especially sound much better on the "Yesterday & Today" album. I hate all the reverb on the vocals on the Past Masters mixes!
Paul's voice is double-tracked on the US mono mix whenever he sings "I Love Her" or "And I Love Her" and it's double-tracked on the bridge as well. Interesting to note that the original print of the film had this mix.
With all due respect, wouldn't Martin have used the original first generation tapes in 1971, when he first mixed PL and BYARM into stereo? He obviously couldn't make a proper true stereo mix from the mono tapes!!! And there were no other mixes available for which he could use. For unknown reasons, those two tracks never even received an experimental stereo mix when recorded.....although Strawberry Fields and When I'm 64 did (Penny Lane era)....and the other songs destined for Yellow Submarine (BYARM era), including All You Need Is Love all had stereo mixes prepared.
There are surely sounds on the master that are not heard on the mono mix....perhaps Sir George kept one of the faders down during the mono mix, and when making the stereo mix (some FIVE years later) he opened the faders completely. How else can one account for the differences plainly heard? Especially, the descending trumpet line heard after "it's a clean machine" that is not on any previous mono mix. The differences in BYARM are even more pronounced. Most of the electric guitar heard in the stereo mix is not on the mono mix at all...which is carried by piano, bass and clavoline. It's not buried! I'm listening to them both as I write this. And there are effects on the mono mix, not on the stereo mix that must originated on the the master. Ron
PS I was speaking of mix differences (and how two different mixes were officially released and authentic), but for accuracy sake the main body of the US mono mix of And I Love Her has a single-tracked vocal...I know bits are double-tracked.
Your terminology is confusing the hell out of me.
"There are surely sounds on the master that are not heard on the mono mix...".
What does this mean? The mono mix IS the master. Something that is not yet mixed is not a master.
Can you restate?
I'm enjoying reading this stuff..
Those stereo mixes made for the Oldies album of songs not yet issued in stereo were some of the worst mixes made back in the day for The Beatles - "We Can Work It Out", "Day Tripper", and worst of all "I Want To Hold Your Hand". "Work" isn't too bad, but the other two? - calling them lame would be a compliment.
The original stereo mix of "Day Tripper" is great to my ear - I don't know why they decided to remix it a year later.
Now that I've read the responses I suppose this is incorrect but I remember hearing that George Martin was disappointed that "A Hard Day's Night" and "Beatles For Sale" were accidentally released in mono and wanted to make sure that the same thing didn't happen to the next set of discs so he figured by remixing them he'd have control over what went out to the public. I also heard that he couldn't remix "Revolver" because of all the tape loops used in "Tomorrow Never Knows".
Yes, "Day Tripper" in particular is the one that I remember hearing on Past Masters and thinking "What the hell?????". That stereo mix of "I Want To Hold Your Hand" goes without saying.
This is 100% correct information. Too bad this couldn't have been post #2 in this thread.
There are surely sounds on the multi-tracks that are not heard on the mono mix...and vice versa. The descending trumpet heard after "its a clean machine" is heard on the stereo mix, it is not on the mono mix. Is this clear? Steve, I've always referred to the multi's as the masters. Don't you? When you talk about using the original, first-generation masters aren't you referring to the multi's???
Ah, guess it wasn't a dream after all.
I thought the multitracks would be called...well, the multitracks, or maybe "working tapes" or something.
"First generation masters" I thought would be the first mono or stereo tapes created by mixing down from the multis. "Second generation" or beyond would simply be any copies made from the first generation masters.
If that was the case he'd be remixing.
I'm thinking that he didn't do it for free. Anybody consider that THAT might be a pretty strong motivation?
A master is something that is MIXED from a multi track tape. A multi-track tape is not a MASTER.
A MASTER is something that can be "MASTERED" to a phonograph record. It is set in stone. Multi-track tapes must all be MIXED to a fresh tape to create the master. See? A master mix either stereo or mono is considered first generation no matter what the history of the Multi-tracks are and how many tape generation bounces the multi-track tapes might have gone through..
I'm sure on the four-track multitrack tapes of Penny Lane that the mixing technique was different for the mono and the stereo.
Track one: MUSIC TRACK
Track two: VOCAL COMP TRACK
Track three: orchestra one
Track four: orchestra two
Thank You. Now may I ask. What "tapes" did George Martin use when making the stereo mixes of Penny Lane and Baby You're A Rich Man? Ron
The 1971 PL remix were done from the final 4 tracks. PL from the Anthology 2 CD (as well as DVD) was done by syncing up all of the pre-bounced multitracks so you have 12 (or 16?) Penny Lane multitracks to work from. Ditto for BYARM - the '71 mix is from the final 4 track while the Songtrack remix is from syncing the pre-bounced multi's up.
Separate names with a comma.