Re: Hearing mono Sgt. Peppers
- From: "fredbloggstwo" <fredbloggstwo3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 14:29:38 +0100
"mdspiro@xxxxxxxxx" <mdspiro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1181338543.488795.35880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 8, 3:39 pm, "fredbloggstwo"
<fredbloggst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Barrabas" <s...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4661a847@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Underground Garage on Sirius radio are playing
Sgt. Peppers tracks in mono.
Not just a mono setting of the stereo one.
Lucy In the Sky With Diamonds is the mono version
with extra flange or phasing on the vocals, like the
one used in the original soundtrack of Yellow Submarine.
Didn't really notice it was in mono till Lucy In The Sky With
Diamonds was played. Where could they have gotten it?
The mono mix of Sgt Peppers was the only one purported to have involved
the
Beatles themselves so this is where their influence came in to the album
production. Also the beauty of the album is because it was monitored in
mono: the engineer did this (a) because of technicalities of the J37 tape
recorder and (b) so that the different musical layers of the songs came
to
bear and not rely on effects such as panning which is where many modern
groups fall over as they rely on letting the computer fix the mix. The
recent BBC documentary showed this where several large-name bands retired
from the project because they couldn't get the act sufficiently together
to
play as a group in the studio. Looks like talent and skill takes a back
seat
to modern studio technology.
madswitcher
HUH??? Your post make little sense:
1) Whether or not the Beatles were present in the control room during
the stereo mixdown is irrelevant. The actual mixing was done by the
engineers, not by Beatles. They were rarely present during any of
their albums' mixdown sessions. Their "influence" on the production
was musical -- not technical. The "beauty of the album" is not the
mono or stereo mix, but rather the songwriting, the eclectic
instrumentation, the arrangements, and the overall flowing concept,
etc.
I think not: previous albums had very little involvement from the artists,
but if you refer to Lewisohn's book, they made other suggestions during the
Pepper mono mixdowns that were then carried forward to the stereo versions.
2) What do you mean that in mono "the different musical layers of the
songs came to bear and not rely on effects such as panning which is
where many modern groups fall over as they rely on letting the
computer fix the mix"? The different layers are there in both mono
and stereo versions. The difference is that in stereo, the left-right
separation allows us to pick out and appreciate the layered tracks in
greater detail compared to when they are stacked on top of each other
in one mono channel. How is that a crutch? I would argue that it's
actually easier to hide musical flaws in a mono mix than in the more
revealing stereo!
I think you will find that engineers at that time took the point of view
that very few people listened to pop music in stereo. This was usually the
domain of 'classical' listeners. It was therefore mixed as if it would be
played through a radio or Dansette record player. Hence the defintion of
each instrument had to stand out in a mono mix. It was not unheard of for a
clash of instruments to happen and for the engineer to suggest an
alternative guitar or the like.
The availability of stereo facilities gave the engineer more scope for
adding their own artistic talent to the recording by the use of panning etc,
although, again, this was limited due to the layout of the 4-track REDD
desks used, two channels of which were hard-panned left and right during
mix-down to stereo. This also gave them some problems which is why one
version of 'She's leaving home' is 30 second longer than the other.
3) What BBC project are you referring to? What bands couldn't perform
what songs in a studio? And what does this have to do with mono vs.
stereo mixes? Of course, the world is full of bands who use studio
tricks to create complex recordings, and then cannot perform those
songs live. Certainly, the Beatles were not in that category.
The BBC documentary I refered to is the 40th celebration radio broadcast
where the announcer specifically made this point. Also if you watch the
television version, a couple of the groups admit that they had extreme
difficulty getting their act together in performing using 4 track
techniques.
They
were first and foremost a tight perfoming unit who could nail a song
live in the studio. They did that from their first album on. Pepper
was the first time they tried to create something specifically not
designed for perfomance, since they had decided to stop touring at
that point. The complex layered recordings were landmark experiments
in both musical and audio production ... and I feel the stereo mix
reveals the complexity of those experiments in greater detail.
I agree with this point but don't forget that you have two channels to
listen to and the gap between them, but the stero mix is an added bonus and
was not the primary obective. Again listen to the singles - they are alive
and contain great presence because they were mixed to mono.
Happy listening
Madswitcher
.
- References:
- Hearing mono Sgt. Peppers
- From: Barrabas
- Re: Hearing mono Sgt. Peppers
- From: fredbloggstwo
- Re: Hearing mono Sgt. Peppers
- From: mdspiro@xxxxxxxxx
- Hearing mono Sgt. Peppers
- Prev by Date: Re: Yoko's Curry-ous
- Next by Date: Re: Yoko's Curry-ous
- Previous by thread: Re: Hearing mono Sgt. Peppers
- Next by thread: Re: Hearing mono Sgt. Peppers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
