Little Richard Penniman - The Best Of Speciality?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as I don't believe that. For me the "magic" is more in the original recording and performance. Sure, there's some in the mix too, but it's not as if just because you do a remix it will all be lost. Well done remixes can be just as "magical" as the original mixes, if not moreso, depending on how good or bad the original was.

Would you really call the original Sam Cooke stereo mixes "magical"? To me, the "magic" resides in the performances and the 3-track session tapes, NOT in the mixes.

 

Luke nails it! In all the to-and-fro on this subject, I think this summary crystalizes my thoughts on the remix issue.
Malc, your point is clearly valid too. I have a lot of respect for the history and magic of the original mix. I want the original and the new. In the end there are different opinions and we'll all "have to agree to disagree".

I was pleased to hear Steve say today that he would remix. He would clearly be the preferred choice for the job. Most of us who like the idea of remixes in principle have stringent criteria which would render many modern remixes unacceptable. Simon and Garfunkel good - My Generation bad.

Let me reiterate this point with full royalties to its author:

"the "magic" is more in the original recording and performance"

 

Heh...thanks...

Luke's takes on a few popular remixes:

- Yellow Submarine - a bit "cleaner", but also really sterile sounding. Interesting to listen to now and then, but not something I come back to often.

- Sam Cooke (both BMG and ABKCO) - while the remixes aren't perfect (the BMG ones are a bit "glassy" and "foggy"; the ABKCO ones are a tad bright and could be wider in places), they are far superior to just about every original stereo mix RCA made. I love echo myself, but original stereo mixes kind of sounded like they were being played back in a high school gym.

- Simon & Garfunkel - While some tracks sound amazing on the original LPs and can't really be bettered (I'm thinking Leaves That Are Green), others seem to improve on the listening experience while staying true to the originals. The Sound Of Silence and I Am A Rock come to mind, which were often really murky sounding.

- My Generation - total garbage. Barely stereo, thin sounding, with modern effects to boot. "When remixes go wrong." Pretty much just something I'll pull out to remember how bad it is.

I'm sure I could think of more, but that will do for now...

BTW, I'm still waiting for Steve to remix and remaster the Sam Cooke catalog. His vocal just doesn't cut through the way it should on the BMG remixes, IMO.

 

What about the tracks that have overdubs?

 

Steve,

Never - ever? - under any circumstances?

Bob

 

First the Montez, now this bit of wonderful news....though I suspect, at least in the near future, you're right. BTW, Tom Port did have a copy of the Montez DCC 2nd press, so you didn't spoil my day after all . In fact, you helped it along quite nicely, Steven. Thank you.

ED

 

Of course, the individual tracks on the multi-track master are of paramount importance in the process of creating a finished product, but the key to geting those tracks to shine is in the mixing process.

I understand that some people would welcome re-mixes of, for example, the Spector classics. But to me that would absolutely destroy the whole beauty and wonder of those sides. Spector is a genius, I love his work. The thought of anyone else overseeing the re-mixing of his creations leaves me cold (thankfully, it sounds like Jody Klein at ABKCO is an original mix advocate).

Fidelity is not the be all and end all (in music reproduction, that is )

 

Malc,

Generally, I agree with your viewpoint on this matter but, two questions for you!

How do you feel when:

1) When the original Stereo mix was poorly executed. (examples: Mama's & Papa's, Jan & Dean, etc.) Typically, in this case I would prefer the original Mono mixes over poorly executed Stereo mixes.

2) The original two-track Stereo mix tape is now worn out.

Regards,

Bob

 

Bob,

in answer to your questions:

1) In many cases I prefer the mono mixes of material from the late 50s and 60s. Good examples from the 60s are the Beatles and Beach Boys records. Take "Paperback Writer" for example - the mono blows the stereo away completely. Another example is "Wendy". In the stereo mix, the intro seems sloppy whereas in mono it is tight and together. "Pet Sounds" and "Sgt. Pepper's ..." are both wonderful mono mixes.

I also like some of the stereo mixes around including some Beatles and Beach Boys (they have that big 60s sound). Bill Porter's recordings sound fantastic in stereo - Elvis, Roy Orbison, Everly Brothers etc....

To answer the question, if a poor stereo mix exists I'll be perfectly happy with the mono. If there is no mono mix (or it's a fold-down), or the mono mix is also poor, then I'll accept it and make do with what history has to offer.

It may be interesting to hear a re-mix but it is not something I particularly like in my experience.

2) If the original 2-track master is worn out then there will be a perfectly good 2nd generation copy somewhere. I'd much rather hear that than a re-mix.

Malc

 

Malc,

I agree with all of your points on #1 - well stated! Mono, during that era, was definitely the place where a lot of "sweat equity" was expended for Radio airplay. Bill Porter - love his Stereo mixes!

#2 - In some cases, I can agree with your comment and in others, I have some concern about generational losses, while typically subtle, from 1st to 2nd generation. I am comfortable with faithful new mixes from the multi-tracks when they are executed with care, respect to the original recorded work and completed on vintage equipment - true to the era. I do understand your point, however!

Bob

 

Here's a point to think about...

Usually, mono mixes were done first. Then stereo mixes were done - sometimes right away, sometimes years later. Those are inherently "remixes". But we still listen to them and enjoy them, don't we? The only difference I see with a "modern" remix is we haven't had it ingrained in our minds for the past 30 years. The "magic" is in the fact that we've heard some of these mixes thousands of times, not necessarily because they are "originals".

There's been some dumping on the stereo remix of Mr. Tambourine Man. What if in fact that mix had been done in 1965, and sounded exactly the same? Would it then be "ok" to listen to?

 

Luke,

the point is that a modern mix does not sound the same as an old mix. However hard you try to emulate an old mix, you cannot turn back the clock. Not only would all the equipment have to be the same (including the mains power supply characteristics ) but then all the settings on every piece of equipment would have to be the same. This is just not possible I'm afraid.

Just as important , however, is the influence of the contemporary musical and cultural environment on the sound that the mixing engineer is attemting to get to. This cannot be re-created convincingly. It sounds tacky to me when I hear a modern re-mix attempting to re-create a time that has passed. It is especially annoying when there are perfectly good mixes in existence (even if they are 2nd gen copies).

To address your first point, you could take your argument to it's extreme and say that the final mono mix of a track is a re-mix as there were previous attempts at that mix.

It seems sensible to me to call the first official release in a particular format an original mix. Any alternate mixes attempted close to the time of the original mix should be referred to as such (ie "Alternate mix"). Any mixes attempted a reasonable ammount of time (I'm thinking a few months....) after the original release can be considered a re-mix. The longer the ammout of time between the original mix and re-mix the more likely that the re-mix will not represent the original mix so well.

Therefore a 5.1 mix of "Harvest" isn't a re-mix in the sense that it is the first attempt at a 5.1 mix.

 

Or, "Distant Shores" by Chad & Jeremy, or any number of Raiders albums of the era--some stereo, some not on most of those.. Laziness, time constraints, not all the multis were in the same place...and "Distant Shores" is wonderful in stereo.
Another question: why wasn't the mono 45 take of "All I Really Want To Do" mixed to stereo instead of using an alternate for the stereo Lp? Then there's "Turn! Turn! Turn!," of course...

ED

 

Malc, a question: would you rather have just the mono mix of "Yellow Sub" with all the vocal parts, or the SONG TRACK remix--however 'modern' or not--with that vocal piece restored? Since both the original and remix are available in stereo, what's the problem? I agree with concerns about remixes being The Last Word for years to come, which, sadly, may well happen with MY GENERATION....but to get "Only A Northern Song" in stereo--albeit very belatedly--doesn't seem like much of a crime to me. Beyond that, the remix proves it could have been mixed to stereo in 1969 for the original Lp. As for not being able to replicate the true, original sound of anything, well, of course not. But as a collector, I can live with somebody coming damned close. What drives me crazy is when, as with MY GEN, the boat is missed entirely and the spirit of 1965 mixing techniques is thrown away completely.

ED

 

Ed,

firts of all, I don't have a problem with re-mixes being available to anyone who wants them! I am concerned, as you are, about the risk of losing the original mixes of classic works of art to their modern re-mixed counterparts in the future.

As to the "Yellow Submarine" issue:

I haven't properly heard the Songtrack version of this song. I auditioned the CD in a store when it came out and while it was quite interesting I decided that it was not really worth the full price to me - if I see it going cheap one day I'll give it a go.

If you are saying that the Songtrack version has the Lennon replies in the last verse starting earlier than on the original stereo mix (as it does on the mono single mix) then that it nice to hear for anyone who want's to hear it. However, I would only want to hear that version in the context of knowing how the original mixes (both mono & stereo) sounded.

Malc

 

Laziness? Terry Melcher just didn't care? Probably the same reasons Capitol never bothered to get the Beatles' stereo mixes from EMI.

 

See, I don't agree with that. While many remixes don't sound exactly like the originals, it's not that they *can't*. Heck, the differences between two mixes done in the '60s are usually far more different than between a '60s mix and a new remix. Why are those '60s differences "ok" but newer differences not ok?

You're assuming that everyone wants to remix with "modern sensibilities", which isn't true. That's certainly not the case for the Byrds and S&G remixes. Heck, many people have been fooled (Steve included!) into thinking that some of those aren't remixes at all.

For as much as I generally don't like the Who remixes, the remix of Won't Get Fooled Again is really a spot-on match to the original. Other than the lack of distortion near the end, the differences are slight, at *best*. Same echo, same stereo spread, same levels, etc.

Who defines what "perfectly good" is? "Perfectly good" to one person might be "total crap" to another. What if those second-gen copies simply don't sound very good? As I've said, to me, the recording and performance are far more important than the mix, and I'd much rather be able to hear those in a good light than listen to something that is sub-par simply because it is the original mix.

Exactly. There are differences. But, so what?

So you'd consider the stereo mix of Penny Lane, for example, an "alternate mix"? Do you find that that mix isn't "valid"?

How about when mono and stereo mixes were done at the same session, yet are very different? What is "valid" then?

 

No, no, no, no, no



But seriously, the stereo mix of "Penny Lane" made on the 30th September 1971 is the first true stereo version of the song released - ie it is the original stereo mix..... (if you read my post you will see that I am trying to say that the first official release in a *particular format* can be considered the original mix *in that format*).

Anyway, let's not get too hung up on definitions here - I only laid out my basic framework for defining which mix is which because I was trying to clarify that the term "re-mix" is usually assumed to mean a later mix attempt on a track that has been mixed at some considerably earlier time rather than the next mix attempt only five minutes after the first.

Now where did you get the idea that I consider an alternate mix as less "valid" than an original mix?

I find any contemporaneous alternate mixes fascinating as they represent the original artist attempting to find the definitive mix for their work - OK, in some cases it may just be staff engineers doing their job. In either case the fact that the mixing was of the era of the recording helps enormously in my interest being awakened.

Again, the point I am trying to make is that the two 60's mixes in the example you give, while not necessarily having the same sound as each other, will sound like they were mixed in the 60s and the modern remix will always sound modern however hard you try to make it sound "old".

 

One could mix something always known as a MONO product, remix it to stereo, but would you want something specifically sounding like it WAS mixed to a 60's mentality (hard left-right or deeper seperation) or something natural to PERFORMANCE where the guitars are seperated, drums dead center, vocals barely anywhere but center.

You could do it authentically, in a 60's wonky stereo mix, but it would never sound REALLY like a 60's mix. You could do things like the Who My Generation double set, but people might complain the mix is too close to mono, not as fun to listen to.

 

So wouldn't the stereo mix of Penny Lane be considered a "re-mix", then, as it was done years after the original (mono) mix?

Would the (only) stereo mix of Only A Northern Song be considered an "original mix" even though it was done in 1999?

A remix is an alternate mix, is it not? Don't you consider remixes less valid than the originals?

Again, I don't believe that. I've pointed out examples of remixes that are so authentic, people who should be able to know the difference couldn't. Do you honestly think the remix of Scarborough Fair sounds "modern"? How about Feelin' Groovy? If anything, I think some of the *original* mixes (say, Patterns) sound more "modern" than the remixes, in that certain things are a bit crisper and jump out more.

If you are using vintage equipment and have the original mix as a guide, why should a remix necessarily sound "modern"? If a producer or engineer wants to produce and "old" sounding mix, what is stopping him?

Of course, let's not forget examples of where the original mix - mono or stereo - is total garbage. How about Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby by the Stones? Great song, great recording (based on bootlegs), but the final mix is nothing but sonic mud. Much of the impact of the recording is lost. I wouldn't hesitate for a second to do a remix of that, in stereo, with all of the various multitrack tapes sync'd up.

 

Why do you say that, exactly? Do you not think the S&G remixes sound like '60s mixes?

 

Oh hell no. But I think the spoiler is, I've heard what an original stereo Rosemary sounds like, and it's not much like the Irwin (?) stuff at all, but plesantly similar in some cases. Depends on which day you catch me. Last week I thought the <=360=> of Bookends was king, but now, the MFSL disc just wins me over again. I'm weird like that. I don't think either are very bad, just different.

If I never knew what the original mix sounded like, I'd not be so picky. But when you're talking about music that WAS available in stereo, then removed and remixed, that's another story. My aim was for a product notoriously MONO but mixed to stereo in recent times (post 80's at least).

I'm trying to remember... like if you mixed something from Musle Shoals that was ALWAYS mono and then you wanted to do stereo. Do you go "past thinking" or do you clam up and say, it's too hard to fake 60's stereo and make it sound wholly effective and authentic in this day and age (especially in the minds of the listener today) so why don't we just GO for something more center-friendly?

If you gave me Aretha Franklin multi's from the very early Atlantic period (if they existed) if I were to remix them, I would take a similar Atlantic Lp and go for that feel. If in 1967, the sound WAS ping-pongy, I would do that.

....but then I would wake up in the middle of the morning, listen again, and not live with that. I would mix it for authentic "live" feel....as if she was in the studio, and paint the stereo picture in a GENUINE directional. Many jazz albums were mixed down like that, and ironically, her gospel and jazz voice suits the picture to the musicians who were always otherwize buried in a stereo mix.

I couldn't put Aretha on the right, her backup singers on the left, and put horns center-left and the bass center-right. It would sound like I'm waay too close.

Donno. I might feel differently tomorrow.

 

OK, let's deal with these three points together.

The original issue that I was dealing with was that of modern re-mixes of vintage material and how I find them dissatisfying in general.

I wasn't talking about mixes, that may or may not be technically called a remix, made years ago such as the stereo mix of "Penny Lane" (in this case, as I argued before, this is the first Stereo mix and is therefore the "original" stereo mix - it is also a re-mix, if by that you mean that the song has been previously mixed in mono!).

The Stereo "Northern Song" from 1999 can indeed be called the "original" stereo mix. It can also be called a re-mix if you like!

As you pointed out, a re-mix may also be called an "Alternate" mix if you want, but this is really getting away from the issue.....

The difference is that the Anesini mixes are cleaner, have a wider flat frequency response (except that the master of the original mix extended above 20KHz !) and greater dynamic range (you don't need to load it into CoolEdit to tell all that either!).

The separation is too good! It doesn't sound like it was mixed in the 1960s at all.

Unless the engineer is willing to use the same tape formulation as originally used, the same equipment in its original spec (not easy 30 or 40 years after the fact) etc. then the results may emulate closely the original sound but won't sound authentic.

Remember when George Harrison was talking in "Anthology" about how people like the sound of recorded music from a certain era and that it is not simply the music but the recording techniques, the sound of the "old boards" etc.?

This is what I'm getting at. The Anesini mixes sound like they were made with very good "modern" equipment (I dare say there was some vintage gear in the chain as well). But the trouble with modern equipment is that it is a little clinical sounding to me. The beauty of the S & G original mixes is that they have the warmth of the original gear impressed on them at every stage, including the final mix. The Anesini mixes lack that final sprinkling of fairy dust that the originals have.

For me, a clean remix in stereo of "Have You Seen..." would absolutely destroy what's good about the track. The way that bass oozes out of the speakers while the horns blare out creates a GREAT sound!


I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this point. At least with what is out there at the moment we can both be happy some of the time.





(It's not all about fidelity. If Spector taught us anything it was that the overall sound of the record is the important thing, not its technical merits.)