The Truth About S&G "Sounds Of Silence"

The real engineer is "Jonny Silver"

 

How was Roy Halee credited on the mono LP? Expressly as having done the mix?

 

He wasn't. See above.

 

Are you serious? Without that remix there is no Simon and Garfunkel other than an obscure long out of print one off album in the early 60s and some bizarre uber obscure singles by this odd group called Tom and Jerry . And maybe we have any number of threads about the group Simon and Stewart.

 

I'm very serious.

You seem to assume that "that remix" made the record. Why? What makes you think (I guess) that another mix of the same recording would have tanked in the charts?

Or are you simply saying that the remix was a necessary step in getting the record to market? If that's the case, then why isn't the guy who cut the 45 just as important? Or the guy who created the metal parts? Or the people who actually ran the presses?

 

We don't know what another mix would have done. But we know what this one did. The original song along with the album had already flopped on the first try. With out this single there is no Simon and Garfunkel as we know it. I think it is fair to give extreme importance to every element of this single that was added to the original version. The mix is a huge part of that sound.

 

The whole reason the overdubs happened in the first place was because there was interest in the original recording. If there hadn't been, Tom Wilson likely would have never done the overdubbing in the first place.

And if we're giving "extreme importance to every element of this single that was added to the original version", then people like the cutting engineer apparently deserve just as much credit.

 

Coupla things:

1. Obscure long out of print one off album in the early 60s? More revisionism. It was released in October 1964, so not "long out of print" if we're talking about the recording and mixing of the hit version of SOS, which occurred what, like 6 or 8 months later.

2. Obscure. Not exactly. As the story goes, the acoustic version of The Sound of Silence was getting airplay in some key markets. That's how Tom Wilson got the idea (a good one) to turn it into a electric folkrock tune.

3. Out of print. Hmm. Anyone have any real proof of that? Yes, I've read the usual 're-released in 1966 and went to #30 on the charts' citations, but is that the way it really happened? I kinda don't think so. My 7th edition Goldmine Record Album Price Guide shows mono and stereo editions and label variations for both 1964 and 1965. So I'm wondering where the 'long out of print' idea got started. Doesn't sound like it was ever out of print.

 

No the cutting engineer doen't deserve just as much credit. The mix was a very creative element the cut was not.

 

The mix was a very creative element? How so? Does the multitrack sound completely different from the final mix?

Is the mix more creative or important than the actual recording? The engineer of which is not officially credited?

 

We are talking about what would have been without the hit version of The Sound of Silence. With out that there is no Simon and Garfunkel as we know them. It's 2014. So yeah, it would be loooooooong out of print.

Some airplay wasn't going to change the course of history. There was no more Simon and Garfunkel and there would not have been any more Simon and Garfunkel without the hit version of The Sound of Silence. So without that it most certainly would be obscure today.

It was out of print and would have stayed out of print if not for the hit version of The Sound of Silence.

I think maybe you are missing my point. The hit version of The Sound of Silence is THE reason Simon and Garfunkel got back together. So you can not under state the importance of that song. Given that it was a remake taken from a song and album that actually was already released and was already a failure should tell us that the new version had something the original did not that made it hit material. So I think it is fair to say that everything that went into the revision was vital. The mix was a huge part of the new sound. So it is fair to say it was extremely important and that there may not be any Simon and Garfunkel as we know then without that mix. The only real question is would a different mix on the new version been as much of a hit. I think they caught lightning in a bottle and the answer is more likely no than yes.

 

What are you basing any of that on?

 

Do you think all mixes of the same multi track recordings all sound the same? Yes, the mix was a very important element as was the arrangements and the recording. All those elements were vital to getting that unique sound. It was a collective stroke of genius. They all deserve credit.

 

On a basic understanding of how much a mix impacts any given recording.

 

The same? No. But mind blowingly different in a case like this? Nope.

I would argue you are grossly overstating the importance in this case.

 

I totally disagree. At that time put 10 different engineers in the mixing room with the same elements and you get 10 totally different sounding songs.

 

Or maybe Long John Silver (just to sneak a Beatles reference into another thread!)

 

That's pretty impressive since it's a basic 4-track recording.

 

I thought it was Ed Feinblatt.

 

Here is the thing...I believe him too..I never said he was lying...what I said is...who cares? That song would have made them big if it was mixed backwards.

 

Wow, great graphic. Impressive find.

 

PSR&T Billboard chart action:

10/29/66 - listed under "New Album Releases"

11/5/66 - a "New Action" album
11/12/66 - enters chart at #115
11/19/66 - #28
11/26/66 - #16

12/3/66 - #13
12/10/66 - #12
12/17/66 - #5
12/24/66 - #4 - peaks at #4, highest it would get on the chart
12/31/66 - #4

1/7/67 - #7
1/14/67 - #13
1/21/67 - #18
1/28/67 - #18

2/4/67 - #19
2/11/67 - #23
2/18/67 - #25
2/25/67 - #27

3/4/67 - #44
3/11/67 - #46
3/18/67 - #50
3/25/67 - #62

4/1/67 - #62
4/8/67 - #59 - starts moving back up the chart
4/15/67 - #51
4/22/67 - #49
4/29/67 - #45

5/6/67 - #42
5/13/67 - #37
5/20/67 - #35 - second peak at #35
5/27/67 - #37

6/3/67 - #39
6/10/67 - #42
6/17/67 - #50
6/24/67 - #63

7/1/67 - #66
7/8/67 - #85
7/15/67 - #88
7/22/67 - #90 - certified RIAA Gold ($1 million in sales)
7/29/67 - #91

8/5/67 - #98
8/12/67 - #102
8/19/67 - #105
8/26/67 - #115

9/2/67 - #115
9/9/67 - #116
9/16/67 - #113
9/23/67 - #117
9/30/67 - #117

10/7/67 - #122
10/14/67 - #121
10/21/67 - #126
10/28/67 - #131

11/4/67 - #143
11/11/67 - #145
11/18/67 - #153
11/25/67 - #155

12/2/67 - #161
12/9/67 - #163
12/16/67 - #164
12/23/67 - #164
12/30/67 - #162

1/6/68 - #160
1/13/68 - #163
1/20/68 - #167
1/27/68 - #167

2/3/68 - #169
2/10/68 - #168
2/17/68 - #103 - starts moving back up the chart
2/24/68 - #81

3/2/68 - #69
3/9/68 - #40
3/16/68 - #38 (Graduate soundtrack enters at #114)
3/23/68 - #23 (Graduate soundtrack #4)
3/30/68 - #15 (Graduate soundtrack #2)

4/6/68 - #5 (Graduate soundtrack #1) - third peak at #5
4/13/68 - #5 (Graduate soundtrack #1)
4/20/68 - #5 (Graduate soundtrack #1)
4/27/68 - #5 (Graduate soundtrack #1, Bookends enters at #71)

5/4/68 - #6 (Graduate soundtrack #1, Bookends #4)
5/11/68 - #6 (Graduate soundtrack #1, Bookends #2)
5/18/68 - #9 (Graduate soundtrack #1, Bookends #2)
5/25/68 - #9 (Graduate soundtrack #2, Bookends #1)

6/1/68 - #5 (Graduate soundtrack #2, Bookends #1)
6/8/68 - #5 (Graduate soundtrack #2, Bookends #1)
6/15/68 - #6 (Graduate soundtrack #1, Bookends #2)
6/22/68 - #8 (Graduate soundtrack #1, Bookends #2)
6/29/68 - #11 (Graduate soundtrack #2, Bookends #1)

It definitely got a huge bump thanks to The Graduate, but the highest chart position (#4) was shortly after the initial release in 1966.

 

I don't think he is lying either. I don't really care either way but if I were him I would want it to at least be known.

 

We'll never know that, now will we? The secret of a successful single is the mix. Everyone knows that.

 

Tell that to the songwriters, arrangers, musicians, producers, recording engineers, mastering engineers, promotion men, DJs, etc.