>
Don't know about that one, but the local classic rock station here in
L.A. (Arrow 93.1 FM, KCBS) plays a true stereo mix of the Stones' "19th
Nervous Breakdown." I called the station to find out from what disc/tape
they were playing this, and was told that it was created by one of the
station's engineers (Yeah, right! I guess we now know what Dave
Hassinger's doing these days).
My question is does anyone know from whence this stereo mix came (and
it's actually a very good sounding mix, better than some of the others
from that same period, like "Mother's Little Helper," which pretty much
sucks in stereo!). This could very well be a radio station only disc,
but who knows?
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
Jeffrey Glenn
P.S. This appears to be the same mix as on the DARTFORD RENEGADES boot
CD, but in perfect sound quality (unlike the boot).
-----------[ archived by Spectropop ]-----------
Subject: re-recording/remixing/remastering
Sent: 11/21/97 1:10 AM
Received: 11/21/97 8:03 AM
From: dave prokopy, prokXXX@XXXXXX.net
To: Spectropop List, spectroXXX@XXXXXXies.com
Leonard Hyde, bXXX@XXXXXXt writes:
> 1. Where did the music that is behind "each time things start to happen
> again..." et al, come from? Did the original mix have any music there?
> Was it on the master tapes and Brian killed it during the final mix? Or,
> did somebody at Capitol create that bed by splicing tape together?
it's there on the original instrumental track - you can listen to the
(bootleg) session tape from the instrumental sessions to confirm this.
there's even an alternate vocal version (originally on bootleg, but also
on disc 3 of the new box set) that has the instrumental intact during
THIS section, but mixed out during the first repeat of the "i guess i
just wasn't made for these times" refrain at the end. (brian's vocal is
also treated rather heavy-handedly with tape echo on this alternate
version.)
when brian mixed the eventually-released mono version, he mixed out the
instrumental track during the "each time things start to happen again"
section, mixing it back up for "sometimes i feel very sad." again, this
is similar to how he mixed out the instrumental track during "sloop john
b." - it's there on the original multitrack, it's just mixed out of the
mono mix.
> 2. The original version had no echo on Brian's voice. The stereo mix is
> loaded with echo.
there's plenty of reverb on brian's vocal on the mono mix. one of my
favorite moments on the mono mix is the rather deep, hollow-sounding echo
just on the word "for" in the line "no one wants to help me look FOR
places". the problem is, the same amount of reverb sounds a LOT louder
and noticable in stereo than it does in mono. if you "collapsed" the new
stereo mix down to mono, it'd probably sound very similar to the original
mix.
> Sorry, but by my standards, adding stuff that WASN'T there constitutes
> rerecording, as opposed to remixing and remastering.
well, effects like echo and reverb are almost always added during the
mixing stage, so the simple act of remixing itself (if you add ANY
effects, even in an attempt to replicate an earlier mix) is technically
"re-recording." those are 1996 electrons moving through 1996 wires,
producing 1996 sound waves travelling in a 1996 echo chamber or digital
effects processor, being recorded with 1996 microphones onto a 1996
digital tape. so, yes, technically you're adding "new" stuff to a
thirty-year-old recording.
as for trying to remain faithful to brian's original mix, i think linett
had to strike a balance. remember, again, brian mixed _pet sounds_ VERY
quickly, on equipment he really wasn't SUPPOSED to be using for mixing
(reference the "EQ" article about the box set from last year). had he
had more time and the correct equipment, i'm sure he would have been more
careful, and the original mix would have sounded differently. so, thirty
years later, linett had to walk the line between mixing the album the way
brian DID mix the album, as well as mixing the album the way brian
probably WOULD have mixed it, had he had the chance to do it properly.
so linett made the call (ostensibly with brian's approval, although this
is debatable) to do stuff like mixing out the "camera" conversation from
"here today," and dropping out one of mike's vocals for a few seconds
from the same song because of a mistake mike made.
at any rate, i don't think anyone involved with the box set ever wanted
the new stereo mix to be the "definitive" mix - after all, that's why
they included a remastered version of the MONO mix as a "bonus." the
stereo mix was just an attempt to give listeners an alternate way to
listen to the album.
> One of my pet peeves is remasterers adding their own sensibilities to old
> recordings in the process.
i think we need to make a distinction here. you use several examples to
demonstrate this statement, and not all are really "remastering." some
of the examples were actual re-recordings - starting totally from
scratch, not using ANY of the original material. this was done quite a
bit in the sixties. another example is the distinction between the two
versions of "be true to your school" and "help me, r[h]onda." those are
re-recordings.
then there's remixing, as was done with the _PS_ box, or with the recent
reissues by the who and the byrds. as with the _PS_ set, there's got to
be a balance between remaining faithful to the originals, as well as
correcting mistakes with the original mixes. and it's VERY hard to
create a NEW mix of something and have it sound EXACTLY like the original
- especially if you're dealing with stuff that was recorded several
DECADES earlier, on recording equipment that is woefully primative by
current standards.
remastering is something entirely different. it's really hard -
especially when working with monaural mixes - to affect the sound TOO
much when remastering, unless you use the entirely wrong set of tapes
(nth generation dubs that were supposed to be used for LP mastering,
instead of the first generation banded master tapes). that's not to say
that it can't be done, and i know people will have plenty of examples of
horrendous mastering jobs over the years. but if a mastering job is done
CORRECTLY - using the absolute first generation tapes, with minimal EQ
fiddling - things will sound pretty much as they were intended. now,
whether that's how people REMEMBER hearing them is a different case. for
example, the new simon and garfunkel box set contains material that was
remixed from the original multitracks (basically, the stuff from their
first three albums), as well as stuff remastered from the original
first-generation stereo mixdown tapes (the last two albums). this is the
first time the first generation tapes have been used, literally, since
these albums were originally released in the sixties, and all subsequent
issues (on vinyl and CD) have used multi-generational safety copy dubs.
and people have been so USED to the sound of those sub- par tapes that
the ORIGINAL tapes actually sound quite different to most people!
-----------[ archived by Spectropop ]-----------
Subject: Versions of "Valleri"...
Sent: 11/21/97 5:08 AM
Received: 11/21/97 8:03 AM
From: Mark Easter, MCE1XXX@XXXXXXm
To: spectroXXX@XXXXXXies.com
In a message dated 97-11-20 15:01:11 EST, Big L writes:
<< Sometimes, and this is rare, album versions that came out later were
superior to the 45. The best example I can think of is the Monkees
"Valleri." The original 45 was an amatuerish, garage band sounding
attempt. It was only a hit in a few places. Then, the album comes out,
with the better version (can anybody say "studio musicians?") and the
song is released again, becoming one of their best hits. >>
This is incorrect... the version of Valleri you speak of as being
"amateurish" was actually unreleased on disc until 1990 on the "Missing
Links Volume 2" CD. Some radio stations *did* play a "taped off the air"
version from the 1967 "Captain Crocodile" episode, where this earlier
Boyce/Hart produced version was first used, but it was never issued as a
single. The "better" version (which I would happen to disagree with, but
that's another matter) was released as a single in March 1968, with its
first LP appearance on The Birds, the Bees and the Monkees being one
month later.
Mark
-----------[ archived by Spectropop ]-----------
Subject: Re: You Baby vs. You Baby
Sent: 11/21/97 2:51 PM
Received: 11/21/97 2:53 AM
From: Jamie LePage, le_page_XXX@XXXXXXies.com
To: Spectropop List, spectroXXX@XXXXXXies.com
Darian Sahanaja wrote:
>>From: Jeffrey Glenn, Jeff_GlXXX@XXXXXX.nba.trw.com
>
>>...n.p.: "You Baby" by Linda Scott (from TOUCH THE WALL OF
>>SOUND VOL. 3) - Would it be blasphemous to propose that
>>this version is better (and more Spector-like) than the
>>Spector-produced Ronettes original?
>
>Definitely more grandiose. Both are great for different reasons. The
>Ronettes version features one of the best, if not downright sexiest
>performance Ronnie's ever delivered,...
Thanks for saying that Darian. I adore Veronica's vocal. When she sings
"You're gonna see there's a lifetime of love in me" I BELIEVE it!!! and
the "uh" at the end of each chorus in the fade is a high point in the
Ronettes recorded legacy.
>... but Linda takes the vocal melody to
>new and interesting heights.
Yes, it's a much tougher vocal "youuuuu bebe"
>I must agree though that if I had to decide
>which version would make a better single 45, it would have to be the
>latter.
Apparently Phil Spector agreed with you :-). (As an aside, it is amazing
how many phenomenal Philles recordings remained in the vaults for more
than a decade before Spector finally issued them, Everything Under the
Sun and I Wish I Never Saw the Sunshine to name just two.)
My comments on the Linda Scott version are a bit less enthusiastic than
Jeffrey's though. While I enjoy the record immensely, I think the Spector
version has it all over the Weiss/Glover (who?) version. First of all, I
feel the slower tempo of the Ronettes version is more fitting. Secondly,
the percussion in the Spector version, right from the top of the track,
perfectly illustrates Spector's genius. Glockenspiel, hand claps,
tambourine, finger cymbals, shaker and maybe even wood blocks all
drenched in glorious Gold Star reverb. Whew! Thirdly, gotta hand it to
the players. Although I have never seen the session sheet for this date,
the fills sure sound like Hal Blaine to me, and note that Spector holds
Blaine back, keeping the tension by letting the percussion carry the
choruses all the way to the tag. Then, Blaine is let loose to blast
cannon-like fills - a welcome release that helps keep the intensity of
the track through the fade. In the Weiss/Glover version, the drummer is
playing snare on every quarter note (an effect which I love, btw), and
he's adding fills from the very first chorus. The fills themselves are
respectable, but just don't "quite" have the finesse or hipness of
Blaine's typical work. The sax solo on the Spector version rules.
Finally, kudos to Larry Levine for his masterful blend of the
instruments. I've already mentioned the wonderful percussion on Spector's
version, but the hand claps on the Weiss/Glover version, particularly
during the "B section" of the verses sound like the fake hand claps of
the old Roland drum machines to my ears. Too hot and too dry. There are
many subtleties in the Spector version which are lacking in the
Weiss/Glover version. But don't get me wrong! I really like the Linda
Scott record too.
>Being a consultant for the "Touch the Wall Of Sound" series...
WOW!!! Darian, these are among my favorite GG comps ever!!! I had no idea
you were involved. You rule! Where's your credit? (Thanks a lot, Chu!)
>-Linda Scott and the Zombies on the same page. . .I've died and gone to
>heaven.
You and I both. When Spectropop first started, I expected interesting
topics would come up, but I Never Dreamed discussion would reach the
level it has in such a short time. Besides the knowledgeable fans whose
posts are most appreciated, we have record company people, oldies radio
pros, authors, journalists, recording engineers, professional musicians
and consultants (a music publisher too) on the list. Just wanted to
express thanks again to all for sharing your enthusiasm and knowledge.
LePageWeb
-----------[ archived by Spectropop ]-----------
END
Spectropop text contents © Spectropop unless
stated otherwise.
All rights in and to the contents of these documents, including each element embodied therein, is subject to copyright
protection under international copyright law. Any use, reuse, reproduction and/or adaptation without written permission of the owners is a violation of copyright law and is strictly prohibited. All rights reserved.
