DCC Archive Beach Boy Stereo Mixes

I have to dissagree with you guys who think that Chuck Britz faded out some of the BB tracks early "to get out of there"....

For one thing, Brian may not have been there when they were doing the stereo mixes, but I'd bet Steve Venet was. Even if he wasnt, Chuck most likely mixed what sounded right to his ears. Chuck was a pro, he wasnt gonna fade a song early for all eternity just to grab a smoke!!

You may not know this, but Chuck worked with Coltrane, Dizzy Gilespsi, Buddy Rich, and many other famous musicians. He had a reputation for excellence.

Mikey

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you about Chuck, but it begs the question: Why are so many of the early Beach Boys stereo mixes so poor? I had my DCC "Endless Summer" disc in last night, and while many of the tracks sound phenomenal, "Fun Fun Fun," for instance, is virtually unlistenable (to me) in stereo. As Steve has mentioned, the backing track is pushed back so far that it sounds like the band is a whole room away while Mike Love is singing right in front of you (two Mike Love's, actually ... gotta love all that '60s double tracking!!).

There are exceptions, but I'm with those who prefer most '60s Beach Boys in mono.

[ November 01, 2001: Message edited by: Jeff Partyka ]

 

Ooooo, I can't wait to try this now. "Fun Fun Fun" is one of my five favorite BB tunes ... wonder if I can find a way to get home early today ... ;-)

 

Steve,

Did you chat with Chuck when he came over to the studio that time before he died?

 

Yeah, after picking up a few of the remastered twofers, I came to the exact same conclusion - listening in mono makes everything balance out correctly. Nice, although you lose the stereo then...

BTW, I believe Mikey was thinking of *Nik* Venet, not Steve... I could be wrong, but I don't believe he had much, if any, input after the first few albums.

 

Steve,
What is your opinion on the Pet Sounds stereo mix made by Mark Linett for the boxset? I know that it was approved by Brian Wilson. When you worked on Pet Sounds, have you ever considered to release any existing stereo mix? I know that it's not in DCC's rules to use remixes but I think this one is great but would need your breath of life of course.

 

I think the stereo mix of 'Pet Sounds' is a great novelty (it's fun to hear everything separated) but the mono original is the one with the "fairy dust". Brian was attempting to make a hybrid Phil Spector production with the mixing/blending of different sounds/instruments/vocals. It works... It is funny about Brian supervising/approving the stereo re-mix. It's like Stevie Wonder giving a thumbs up to his publicity photo.

Todd

 

Digital processing? Such as? To the best of my knowledge, Mark used almost all vintage equipment for the project, including a desk that was either similar to or actually came out of Western. I'll have to dig out the interview he gave...

 

Have any of you compared the stereo remixes (Dance, Dance, Dance and Heroes & Villains) on Hawthorne, CA with their mono counterparts? The change in sound quality is really jarring when you hear them back to back. The sleigh bells on the stereo Dance, Dance, Dance sound really different. It's clearer, and louder like everything else, but hearing it on the heels on the mono version on the Razor & Tie "Greatest Hits," it doesn't seem too pleasant.

According to the liners, they used the original tube equipment to play back the material, but they also mention other equipment that would suggest that they dumped it on a digital workstation to remix the stuff. I'm almost certain this is how they did the Pet Sounds material.

[ November 02, 2001: Message edited by: Camarillo ]

 

It's *possible* that the stuff was sync'd on a digital workstation (not sure, have to check), but it wasn't *mixed* on a digital workstation, at least for Pet Sounds. Mark Linett used a vintage board very similar to the one used at Western back in the day.

I've got an article (from EQ mag, I believe) on the mixing of Pet Sounds to stereo. I'll post it on my website when I get home.

 

Luke, if you can post the article on your website that would be great.

But please also ost a link to you website here, ok?

Mikey

 

Of course. It's just that it's a PDF file, so I can't exactly copy and paste it and post it here (well...with a lot of work, perhaps).

Also, to clear something up, you don't need to dump stuff on a digital workstation and use pitch correction software to sync stuff up. You can just run the two machines back to back using vari-speed. That's the way Yellow Submarine was done, I believe. Of course, they ****ed that up in other ways.

 

Ok. It *sounds* like the stuff was transferred to a digital multitrack, but that the syncing was done manually, ie via vari-speed. That would seem to be the case with California Girls, as the sync goes out a bit on there (it's harder to do via vari speed).

Damn. This isn't working. If you want the article, e-mail me. In the mean time I'll try to figure out some other way to get it up.

[ November 02, 2001: Message edited by: Luke Pacholski ]

 

Luke,

I think they used a digital workstation for "Yellow Submarine". I remember reading an article before it's release talking about the wonders of digital multitrack/syncing...

Todd

 

They put it on a workstation, but I'm pretty sure they sync'd manually. My buddy was making a bit deal about that, because he really doesn't like doing it digitally.

Ok, *HERE* is the article. Sorry for having to zip it - the article is "protected" and won't work correctly if posted straight as a PDF (I tried that first).
http://lukpac.org/articles/eq.zip

 

Thanks, Luke, for the article!

Towards the very end it says that he used a Lexicon 300:
http://www.lexicon.com/300/

which appears to be a digital multi effects box (reverb, pitch shifting, etc). So at least one digital effects processor was used.