Dave Dexter, Capitol and the Beatles

Always!

 

of course! : )

 

Then I guess I don't know better! I'm not part of your exclusive club!

 

the door is always open... all is welcome...always room to learn new things...: )

 

Thank you for your kind offer, but that window closed a long time ago. As a film score aficionado, I adore the work of Ken Thorne, and as a jazz fanatic, I will always love Dave Dexter.

 

OK, gotcha my friend. : ) I love Dave as well!

 

I'd like to know what Capitol's workflow was for creating Duophonic Beatles tracks, and if it was done in one pass. Presumably they'd have the mono playback on two mixer inputs, EQ each channel, have a send/return for echo, and also add the delay to one channel and maybe invert the phase. Not sure how they would have added the delay though. I've not read anything about Capitol's facilities other than the mono and stereo mixing setup they had earlier (like that used ~ 1961 on Sinatra's Swingin' Session). I'm pretty sure Capitol completely changed their gear right after that.

 

A poster named 'AFT' posted this (below) in a classical newsgroup in 1998 - maybe it can lend some insights (only the Capitol bit included here; other labels' methods are covered in the original post):

CAPITOL DUOPHONIC SOUND and its offshoots.

It became apparent in the early marketing of stereo records, at least
by 1960, that mono would not "sell": all the major labels soon dropped
much of their pre-stereo catalogue items, even if their artistic and
historic merit superceded the recent stereo issues. "With the advent
of stereo...monaural albums gradually disappeared from the catalogues
of major record companies. Carson Taylor, one of Hollywood's most
highly regarded sound engineers and member of the staff of Capitol
Records, became intrigued with the idea of recreating in stereo from
the original mono master tape certain of these past performances. By
careful research with then-modern technology, Taylor provided a new
stereo-type version quite acceptable to the medium." (Notes from the
reissue of old Capitol chamber music recordings with Ann Mason
Stockton, harp, and Felix Slatkin conducting, on Crystal Records
compact disk album No. CD171, published 1995.)

I have not researched any possible AES papers of Taylor detailing his
technique (if such exist) but I have done what I could to analyze his
efforts purely by their sound impressions direct from the LPs or CD
reissues.

First, a "bath" of spacious, true-stereo echo is created; I would
surmise that this was created acoustically, using "stairwell" echo
chamber methods, or with a large metal plate affixed with multiple
pickups. The monaural signal is fed into the echo system, and the
"stereo" echo is retrieved and then mixed back with the original
signal. Depending upon the particular issue investigated, there is
also a large amount of electrical noise introduced (this involved
multiple generations of non-Dolby tape dubbing, and most if not all of
the electronics had many vacuum tube stages, and would appear to be
much hissier than modern amplification systems.)

Second, a crude re-positioning of the highs and lows is achieved,
probably with very rudimentary old Pultec equalizers. In effect, the
highs are boosted and fed to the left channel (at the same time, the
bass is cut on the left); and the lows are boosted and fed to the
right (with a cut in highs in the right channel feed.) This is done
ONLY on the stereo channels containing the original monaural source,
sans the "bath" of stereo echo.

The combined effects might be achieved today in a more subtle and
acceptable manner, but in the early sixties, the available technology
and the goals for disk reproduction apparently drove the engineers to
exaggerate the effects to the maximum that could be obtained. In
addition, the multiple tape generations caused a veil over the sound,
dulling the quality of the monaural originals. Thus, the result is
decidedly noisy, dull, over-resonant, and obviously artificial.

I remember my own intense disappointment with the Capitol "stereo" LP
issue of the famous (mono mastered) album "Duets with the Spanish
Guitar" with Laurindo Almeida and Salli Terri. The original monaural
issue was crisp and clean; the artificial "Duophonic" dub was mushy,
hissy, and indistinct (it sounds much better now, in the modern CD
transfer on EMI Angel Studio CDM 7 63256 2, which has only a modicum
of phony stereotizing, compared to the blowsiness of the Capitol
2-channel LP.) The Duophonic versions of the outstanding 'first set'
of Haydn Salomon symphony performances (93-98) by Beecham were
similarly inferior on the "stereo" LPs to the more solid monaural
originals.

Another example that is better on CD but is closer to the original
"stereo" vinyl release is the Ann Mason Stockton/Felix Slatkin
recording mentioned at the beginning of this section: in the Harl
McDonald Suite and Caplet Poe incidental music, one can hear most of
the original peculiar phasy and disembodied sound of Taylor's
Duophony. My impression is that when Capitol transferred these
stereotizings to LPs, they added even more electronic limiting than
was used in the original mono recording sessions; this extra limiting
is absent in the EMI and Crystal compact disk transfers, and much if
not all of the extra hiss on the LPs is missing.

I personally have the highest regard for Carson Taylor, a fine
gentleman who I had the privilege of meeting in the early seventies at
an AES convention in Los Angeles (I recall watching his intense
concentration at a demonstration of a new Ampex tape oxide, and his
critical detection of just the slightest bit of noise modulation: he
was a truly talented engineer!) Carson's work as a stereo recordist
on such sessions as the Stokowski performance of Loeffler's "A Pagan
Poem" (true stereo, Hollywood, July 1957, available on EMI Classics 5
65074 2) reveals his excellent comprehension of the european EMI
"Stereosonic" methods, as altered and enhanced for more "American"
tastes for directionality. If his "Duophonic" techniques were
ultimately unsuccessful in the opinion of purists, it would be because
of limitations of available technology, as well as the failings of LP
issues made from noisy tapes.

Google Groups

 

And quite the dick move it was. Difficult to know what would possess a grown-up to write a piece like that in the days after Lennon had been killed. Totally bizarre.

"Lennon became more intransigent as the Beatles successes pyramided. He demanded a different manager than the others after Brian Epstein died [sic]. He differed with his three colleagues violently in the operation of their disastrous Apple label [sic]. And it was Lennon who bitched the loudest about my choice of songs to be included in the group's Capitol albums. Nothing we did at Capitol appeased him."

 

american stones lps were actually better than the english ones, covers too, usually, up until satanic.

 

I can defend his motivations at that point in time for how he handled the records and how he underestimated the Beatles. Again, there was no one, maybe not even them, who thought this stuff was going to last 60 years.

There is no defense for this, zilch. That was no time to settle scores. It's beneath contempt.

 

I'm aware of Dexter's attitude towards the group, but do we know exactly when he submitted this piece for publication? Could it have been prior to John's death? It was the published story that came "about a couple weeks after John Lennon’s death".

Having now read the original Billboard apology, it appears that Dexter's piece would have been written after John's death. So, dickish, yes.

 

I think the length of the delay varied over time. I have a Duophonic copy of Les Baxter's Tamboo! that sounds amazing. The delay is extremely subtle, and at times, you are fooled into thinking it is real stereo.

 

Beyond the in appropriate timing of this piece, the arrogance and underlying contempt he had for the Beatles is apparent. How dare Lennon presume to complain about his decisions? How dare he want to actually have input in how their music was presented? The condescending view that Lennon was an annoyance that needed to be appeased rather than an artist who cared about his work speaks volumes.

 

yep.

label prexy's - with incredibly rare exception - have *always* felt that their artists were a nuisance to be "dealt with" as summarily as possible. keep them in the studio and even "high" if that was their thing. some have been known to jump for joy upon hearing of a flagship artist beyond their prime's demise.

also "dead" legacy artists are far more "valuable" than living ones, and they have "less say".

 

Thanks. So the mono went to the echo chambers on a send and the stereo return was then mixed back with the dry original which had the high/low EQ treatment. I'd still like to know how they got the delay, though. Maybe they used another tape machine's monitor output.

I just checked Ticket To Ride, and the delay is ~34 milliseconds. And, the delayed channel's phase in inverted. Of course, that could be accidental. The Duophonic I Want to Hold Your Hand appears to have a delay of ~22 ms. I agree the delay can be pretty effective.

 

As I noted above, unless you owned the record company — and the only person who did was Sinatra in those days — you basically were looked at as hired help who were supposed to do what you were told, when you were told, by people who were in positions of authority over you. And it was all about the Benjamins, it wasn't art, it was product.

Part of the Beatles' revolution was changing that dynamic. Dexter was simply a product of a different time, not Satan.

 

They are all grown men in business together. John Lennon expressed his art very effectively, all things told, whether that was hampered or facilitated by Dexter to whatever degree.

 

Perhaps. But I suspect part of his "I know better than you" condescension was related to the fact that they were rock and roll musicians. Are there any instances of Dexter talking this way about a jazz or or pop artist? I'm sure Sinatra took a very active role in how his work was presented at Capitol... did Dexter ever complain about his "bitching" or about having to "appease" him?

 

Oh absolutely there was some anti-rock animus on Dexter's part.

The thing is, who was going to mess with Frankie? You might wind up with your legs broken.

 

I wonder how he felt about the 1966 Beatles backlash; people were buying more Capitol Beatles product and burning it.

 

As long as Capitol got their cut, he probably cared three cacas.

If I were younger, I'd probably be just as outraged as some folks are at Dexter. Because I went through a phase of basically being rock-centric in my tastes, listening to nothing else, and I put all the people I listened to on pedestals, especially the Beatles, and I absolutely would've flared if anyone messed with them.

Forty years as a journalist, and interacting with a lot of famous people, including some that I've seen nekkid in sports locker rooms, and seeing that there's nothing really special about them and learning in fact that some of the most famous and "talented" of them are utter morons, has basically ruined me from putting anyone on a pedestal. It's made me cynical.

But the thing is ... donning Kevlar ... as the years have passed I've grown to love the kind of music that was in Dexter's wheelhouse just as much as rock. Maybe that's one reason I can't hate the man. Plus I understand the strife between bean-counters and artists. I work in a business that used to value creativity. I still think I'm a creative person at heart. But the bean-counters have taken over and I've had to adjust to survive.

 

Definitely written after Lennon's death, in fact written in response to Lennon's death. Clearly a very damaged old man by that point.

 

I think you're presenting a false dichotomy here, because there are plenty of us who do like and appreciate jazz and classic pop of the 50s, but also find fault with Dexter's attitudes and choices regarding the Beatles. I don't put the Beatles or any celebrity in a pedestal, nor would I describe my feeling toward Dexter as hatred or outrage. I just think it's unfortunate that a person who didn't have much knowledge or affinity about and for rock music was put in charge of managing it, and I think many of the choices he made in that role are well worthy of criticism.

 

Don't disagree and respect your feelings. I have detected through this thread what I have taken to be ... and perhaps I'm mistaken, but we all have our own prisms ... a rock-centric, Beatle hero worship attitude toward Dexter. Like "how dare he."

He was a man of a different time, thrown into a position that he probably didn't want to be in. I won't say he did the best he could. I'll say he probably had no clue what to do because it was out of his wheelhouse.