What Beatles Songs Were Mixed 'Later' In Stereo?
DavisK
when I noticed that even though the song was intitially mixed into mono back
in 1968, it wasn't until January of 1970 that a stereo mix was created.
I was curious as to which Beatles tunes were not mixed into stereo until
years later after their initial release? I think that 'Baby, You're A Rich
Man', 'Penny Lane' and 'All You Need Is Love' weren't offered true stereo
mixes until 1973 or so, when the Magical Mystery Tour album was finally
released in Britain. And 'You Know My Name, Look Up The Number' remained in
mono until the Anthology 2 album (unfortunately, only the vocals are in
stereo - ADT'd, I believe). And we didn't get a true stereo mix of 'Only A
Northern Song' until last year's 'Yellow Submarine Songtrack'.
I figure, most of the songs would be single-only releases that weren't put
onto albums later on. So which songs were mixed in later years into stereo?
Thanks for any replies.
Lord Tim Brent
wrote:
OK,here goes..
Novemer 1966:
For the Collection Of Oldies album,stereo mixes were made for FRom Me
To You(though Geoff Emerick forgot to mix the harmonica back into
FMTY),I Want To Hold Your Hand,and This Boy(accidentally mixed-this
mix not used until 1981 EP).
October 1968:
All You Need Is Love is remixed in stereo for Yellow Submarine.
December 1969:
For the Hey Jude album,Lady Madonna,Rain,Hey Jude,and Revolution were
mixed in stereo.
January 1970:
The Inner Light mixed in stereo(not used until 1981 EP)
September 1971
Penny Lane remixed in stereo for the german MMT album.
October 1971
Baby,You're A Rich Man remixed in stereo for the german MMT album.
I am not sure when Only A Northern Song was remixed,or You Know My
Name.
The following 3 songs only exisrt in mono:
Love Me Do,the Ringo version
She Loves You(also in duophonic,or fake stereo)
I'll Get You(also in fake stereo).
Tim
-----------------
Duchy Of Grand Fenwick
The Church Beatle will now pass among you
No foreign coins,please.
Luke Pacholski
(Lord Tim Brent) wrote:
>OK,here goes..
>Novemer 1966:
>For the Collection Of Oldies album,stereo mixes were made for FRom Me
>To You(though Geoff Emerick forgot to mix the harmonica back into
>FMTY),I Want To Hold Your Hand,
IWTHYH was done twice before, once in 1963 and once in 1965. Both of
these mixes were used on foreign pressings. I know the 1963 mix was used
on some German LPs.
>and This Boy(accidentally mixed-this
>mix not used until 1981 EP).
The stereo mix of This Boy was first used in 1976 (Australia I believe),
but it is not the 1966 mix - that is so far unreleased as far as I can
tell. The released stereo mix is from 1963, probably done at the same
session as IWTHYH.
>October 1971
>Baby,You're A Rich Man remixed in stereo for the german MMT album.
>I am not sure when Only A Northern Song was remixed,or You Know My
>Name.
I believe OANS had different tapes running in sync together - it would
have been too hard to recreate the mix. As far as YKMN, I believe edits
were made in John's mono mix. Also, why would a remix be necessary? It
wasn't issued on LP till long after the Beatles broke up (Rarities?).
>The following 3 songs only exisrt in mono:
>Love Me Do,the Ringo version
Both versions. P.S. I Love You as well.
>She Loves You(also in duophonic,or fake stereo)
>I'll Get You(also in fake stereo).
Luke
Bob Gassel
>Love Me Do,the Ringo version
>I'll Get You(also in fake stereo).
Why do you list only the Ringo version of "Love Me Do", BOTH versions exist
only in mono...and what about "P.S. I Love You"?
DavisK
Luke Pacholski wrote in message ...
>In article <3940117e...@news.cis.dfn.de>
>The stereo mix of This Boy was first used in 1976 (Australia I believe),
>but it is not the 1966 mix - that is so far unreleased as far as I can
>tell. The released stereo mix is from 1963, probably done at the same
>session as IWTHYH.
>
Wasn't it a two track recording? If so, then there wouldn't be much
differences between the mixes, right?
>>October 1971
>>Baby,You're A Rich Man remixed in stereo for the german MMT album.
>>I am not sure when Only A Northern Song was remixed,or You Know My
>>Name.
>
>I believe OANS had different tapes running in sync together - it would
>have been too hard to recreate the mix. As far as YKMN, I believe edits
>were made in John's mono mix. Also, why would a remix be necessary? It
>wasn't issued on LP till long after the Beatles broke up (Rarities?).
>
It was remixed for Anthology 2, with the extra sections added in.
DavisK
about 'I Feel Fine', 'She's A Woman', 'I'm Down', 'Ballad of John And Yoko',
'Old Brown Shoe', 'Get Back' and 'Don't Let Me Down'? (I think 'Yes It Is'
was mixed into stereo for the Beatles '65 album). Sorry for all the
questions...
Lord Tim Brent wrote in message <3940117e...@news.cis.dfn.de>...
>OK,here goes..
>Novemer 1966:
>For the Collection Of Oldies album,stereo mixes were made for FRom Me
>To You(though Geoff Emerick forgot to mix the harmonica back into
>FMTY),I Want To Hold Your Hand,and This Boy(accidentally mixed-this
>mix not used until 1981 EP).
>October 1968:
>All You Need Is Love is remixed in stereo for Yellow Submarine.
>December 1969:
>For the Hey Jude album,Lady Madonna,Rain,Hey Jude,and Revolution were
>mixed in stereo.
>January 1970:
>The Inner Light mixed in stereo(not used until 1981 EP)
>September 1971
>Penny Lane remixed in stereo for the german MMT album.
>October 1971
>Baby,You're A Rich Man remixed in stereo for the german MMT album.
>I am not sure when Only A Northern Song was remixed,or You Know My
>Name.
>The following 3 songs only exisrt in mono:
>Love Me Do,the Ringo version
>She Loves You(also in duophonic,or fake stereo)
>I'll Get You(also in fake stereo).
Lord Tim Brent
>>The following 3 songs only exisrt in mono:
>>Love Me Do,the Ringo version
>>She Loves You(also in duophonic,or fake stereo)
>>I'll Get You(also in fake stereo).
>
>Why do you list only the Ringo version of "Love Me Do", BOTH versions exist
>only in mono...and what about "P.S. I Love You"?
Lewisohn had them listed under stereo mixing,altough they appearantly
took a mono mix and made it fake stereo.I may have misunderstood how
they did it,I had assumed that the two track was in existance then.
Lord Tim Brent
wrote:
>Was 'Paperback Writer' mixed into stereo for the 'Hey Jude' album? And how
>about 'I Feel Fine', 'She's A Woman', 'I'm Down', 'Ballad of John And Yoko',
>'Old Brown Shoe', 'Get Back' and 'Don't Let Me Down'? (I think 'Yes It Is'
>was mixed into stereo for the Beatles '65 album). Sorry for all the
>questions...
>
Paperback Writer:Late October 1966,for A Collection Of Oldies.
I Feel Fine and She's A Woman were mixed for stereo at the same time
as the other tracks from those sessions(Beatles For Sale),Oct/Nov
1964.
I'm Down was mixed at the same time the Side 2 tracks from Help! were
mixed in 1965.
Get Back and Don't Let Me Down were mixed in April 1969 with the
mono,as Capitol issued both as a stereo 45.
Neither The Ballad Of John And Yoko or Old Brown Shpe were mixed for
mono,as EMI chose startinh during that time to issue stereo 45s in the
UK.
EgwEimi
quoted here.
>For the Collection Of Oldies album,stereo mixes were made for FRom Me
>To You(though Geoff Emerick forgot to mix the harmonica back into
>FMTY),
The song had already been released in stereo in 1965 in Germany, and the stereo
version (sans harmonica during the intro) had been released by Capitol (in
mono, though) on the StarLine single.
Some say that the "stereo mix" was simply a copy of the twin track tape, with
some EQ'ing.
>I Want To Hold Your Hand,
Already mixed for stereo in
1963, although that mix was not
released until later (Australia,
1976). Germany
originally had rechanneled stereo,
but the song was mixed for stereo
again in 1965 and was released in Germany.
>and This Boy(accidentally mixed-this
>mix not used until 1981 EP).
There was also a 1963 mix of
"This Boy," which apparently
was the one that was used later.
The 1981 EP did NOT feature
the true stereo mix of "This Boy" --
a mistake. The true
stereo mix had already been
released in Canada and in
Australia in 1976.
Mixed from four track.
>October 1968:
>All You Need Is Love is remixed in stereo for Yellow Submarine.
>December 1969:
>For the Hey Jude album,Lady Madonna,Rain,Hey Jude,and Revolution were
>mixed in stereo.
But "Hey Jude" was almost released in stereo originally. Since that was not
the norm in England or the US, the song was mixed for mono instead.
>January 1970:
>The Inner Light mixed in stereo(not used until 1981 EP)
>September 1971
>Penny Lane remixed in stereo for the german MMT album.
>October 1971
>Baby,You're A Rich Man remixed in stereo for the german MMT album.
"Penny Lane" may have been mixed for the Australian "Essential Beatles" album
and then released on the German
MMT LP. The date of the Australian LP is sometimes given as 1971 and sometimes
as 1972.
>I am not sure when Only A Northern Song was remixed,or You Know My
>Name.
"Only a Northern Song" -- Like "It's All Too Much," the original release had
been a combination of real and fake stereo. Not mixed for "true" stereo until
the Yellow Submarine Songtrack. In the case of OANS, this was due to the
horrendous combination of two master tapes which had produced the original mix.
An alternate version of OANS is found on
Anthology 2.
>The following 3 songs only exisrt in mono:
>Love Me Do
Both versions. "PS I Love You" is
also available in mono only.
>She Loves You(also in duophonic,or fake stereo)
The original tape synchronized two tapes
manually and contained about 9 edits.
Although most say that the tape was destroyed, it is possible that it was
simply too difficult to reproduce the original mono mix for stereo.
>I'll Get You(also in fake stereo).
Well...on "Second Album," the harmonica appears to be on one track all by
itself, but this may be a "trick."
Someone else asked:
Was 'Paperback Writer' mixed into stereo for the 'Hey Jude' album?
No. It had already been released in
true stereo in England, although the
version on Hey Jude is a different mix.
> And how
>about 'I Feel Fine',
Released in stereo in 1966. Mixed contemporary with the mono mix.
>'She's A Woman',
Mixed for stereo right away (1964) and
released in Australia in 1966-7 on
Greatest Hits, Vol. 2. Not available
elsewhere until the EP boxed set (1981).
> 'I'm Down',
Mixed for stereo right away (1965) and
released right away, on the Japanese "Help!" EP. Not released in most
other countries until the 1976 release
of Rock and Roll Music.
>'Ballad of John And Yoko',
'Old Brown Shoe', 'Get Back' and 'Don't Let Me Down'?
All released in stereo originally, and stereo ALONE, in the case of the first
two. In the UK, GB/DLMD was in mono, but the single was stereo in the USA.
>I think 'Yes It Is'
was mixed into stereo for the Beatles '65 album
In the USA, "Yes It Is" is on the Beatles VI album. Although a stereo mix was
made, it was considered unsatisfactory due to dropout in the tape, which
apparently occurred early. The dropout problem was fixed in 1985, and in 1986
the song appeared for the first time in true stereo on the Heineken Beer
promotional cassette, Only the Beatles (UK only).
After that (1988), the stereo mix appeared on Past Masters and became common.
Add also "Sie Liebt Dich," not released
in stereo until Rarities (1980), although mixed for stereo in 1964.
"Strawberry Fields Forever" was mixed right away for true stereo and released
on the MMT LP in the USA. For the German release (1971), all subsequent
European releases, and the CD, a new stereo mix from 1971 was used.
"Across the Universe" was not mixed at all until over a year and a half after
recording, but I guess if you count this, you have to count all the
Sessions/Anthology material, too.
Frank
Lord Tim Brent
>>She Loves You(also in duophonic,or fake stereo)
>
>The original tape synchronized two tapes
>manually and contained about 9 edits.
>Although most say that the tape was destroyed, it is possible that it was
>simply too difficult to reproduce the original mono mix for stereo.
>
I beleive Dave Haber has said the same,and the SLY's may have been
used for SLD.
>"Strawberry Fields Forever" was mixed right away for true stereo and released
>on the MMT LP in the USA. For the German release (1971), all subsequent
>European releases, and the CD, a new stereo mix from 1971 was used.
>
Actually there were two stereo remixes in 1966,according to
Lewisohn,RS3 and Rs5,RS3 being a joining of RS1 and RS2,RS 5 being a
mix of RS1 and RS 4(2 and 4 being of the second part of SFF).RS 3 is
the one given to Volye Gilmore for the US MMT,and IIRC RS 5 to Odeon
for the German MMT.
DavisK
Writer' which I think featured a count-in, and some noodling on the guitars
as the guys started to sing the harmonies in the intro (I haven't listened
to it for awhile, so I'm just barely remembering it). I remember reading in
a book (I think it was 'Tell Me Why') that this version was included in some
Beatles collection that was released around 1980 (a giant compilation
comprising of several discs, I think). Anyway, was that mix used on any
other record before that point in time? EgwEimi said that the mix of
'Paperback Writer' on the 'Hey Jude' album was different from the 'Oldies'
mix. Did the 'Hey Jude' album feature the count-in version?
Lord Tim Brent wrote in message <39405c9...@news.cis.dfn.de>...
Lord Tim Brent
wrote:
>I remember The Lost Lennon Tapes playing an alternate mix of 'Paperback
>Writer' which I think featured a count-in, and some noodling on the guitars
>as the guys started to sing the harmonies in the intro (I haven't listened
>to it for awhile, so I'm just barely remembering it). I remember reading in
>a book (I think it was 'Tell Me Why') that this version was included in some
>Beatles collection that was released around 1980 (a giant compilation
>comprising of several discs, I think). Anyway, was that mix used on any
>other record before that point in time? EgwEimi said that the mix of
>'Paperback Writer' on the 'Hey Jude' album was different from the 'Oldies'
>mix. Did the 'Hey Jude' album feature the count-in version?
I dont have the actual disc bui my notes say that there was a
different mix of Paperback Writer on disc 5 of The Beatles Box From
Liverpool.a mail-order set from 1980,issued by World Records UK(EMI).
Anders Viberg
DavisK <dav...@globalserve.net> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:wCX%4.1232$0l2....@news2.tor.primus.ca...
>
> Luke Pacholski wrote in message ...
> >In article <3940117e...@news.cis.dfn.de>
> >The stereo mix of This Boy was first used in 1976 (Australia I believe),
> >but it is not the 1966 mix - that is so far unreleased as far as I can
> >tell. The released stereo mix is from 1963, probably done at the same
> >session as IWTHYH.
> >
>
> Wasn't it a two track recording? If so, then there wouldn't be much
> differences between the mixes, right?
>
"This boy" is a 4 track, recorded in fact on the first session Beatles used
4 track (17 October 1963).
You can clearly hear it's a 4 track if you're listen to the stereo version,
i.e. it hasn't got the vocals on one side and the instruments on the other.
It's more spread out. (The version on the "Free as a bird" CD single has got
the same stereo picture too unlike the other material from Anthology 1 which
is basically mono.)
/Anders
Ed
I remember Paperback Writer is identical to the version on Hey Jude LP,
i.e. like on Beatles 1962-1966 but with stereo image reversed.
I'm only sleeping is different regarding the backwards guitar inserts.
In article <394080b9...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
timb...@canada.com (Lord Tim Brent) wrote:
> ave
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ronnie Clark
>
>Both versions. P.S. I Love You as well.
Not true - having recently recorded these from vinyl onto computer, I've
performed various stereo "tests" on the stereo 'Please Please Me' album, and
while the stereo on these two tracks is not the best example you could
possibly find, it does exist on "Love Me Do" and "P.S. I Love You," mainly
as a frequency function (left channel - upper frequencies amplified, lower
frequencies subdued ; right channel - upper frequencies subdued, lower
frequencies amplified -- I have often pondered the meaning of duophonic
stereo - is this what it is?). Feel free to download the MP3s from my site,
and perform your own analysis if you don't believe me! (Though it has to be
said, the stereo on "I Saw Her Standing there" is far superior to the rest
of the record.)
Ronnie
--
Hear the Beatles' earlier works in glorious stereo:
http://listen.to/beatles_rarities
Updated 2000.06.05
Ronnie Clark
Lord Tim Brent wrote in message <39403c1...@news.cis.dfn.de>...
>>>Love Me Do,the Ringo version
>>
exist
>>only in mono...and what about "P.S. I Love You"?
>
>Lewisohn had them listed under stereo mixing,altough they appearantly
>took a mono mix and made it fake stereo.I may have misunderstood how
>they did it,I had assumed that the two track was in existance then.
The reply I wrote to Luke Pacholski's post not two minutes ago :) :-
Having recently recorded these from vinyl onto computer, I've
Ronnie Clark
Bob Gassel wrote in message
<20000608183632...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
>>The following 3 songs only exisrt in mono:
>>Love Me Do,the Ringo version
>>She Loves You(also in duophonic,or fake stereo)
>>I'll Get You(also in fake stereo).
>
>Why do you list only the Ringo version of "Love Me Do", BOTH versions exist
>only in mono...and what about "P.S. I Love You"?
The reply I wrote to Luke Pacholski's post not two minutes ago (again!) :-
Not true - having recently recorded these from vinyl onto computer, I've
Ronnie Clark
>
>Both versions. "PS I Love You" is
>also available in mono only.
Not true - see my replies to Luke Pacholski, Tim Brent or Bob Gassel
Michael Davis
> Not true - having recently recorded these from vinyl onto computer, I've
> performed various stereo "tests" on the stereo 'Please Please Me' album, and
> while the stereo on these two tracks is not the best example you could
> possibly find, it does exist on "Love Me Do" and "P.S. I Love You," mainly
> as a frequency function (left channel - upper frequencies amplified, lower
> frequencies subdued ; right channel - upper frequencies subdued, lower
> frequencies amplified -- I have often pondered the meaning of duophonic
> stereo - is this what it is?). Feel free to download the MP3s from my site,
> and perform your own analysis if you don't believe me! (Though it has to be
> said, the stereo on "I Saw Her Standing there" is far superior to the rest
> of the record.)
Yes, this is duophonic stereo. One side is "treble" and the other side is
"bass."
Side note -- has anyone with the appropriate software (esp. a good EQ
filter) tried to separate out instruments on any of the mock-stereo and/or
mono mixes? Just curious...
Mike Davis
******************************************************************************
"I like kids, I used to be one."
--Ringo Starr, 1998
davi...@pilot.msu.edu, michae...@usa.net, dav...@pa.msu.edu
http://www.pa.msu.edu/~davism -- NEWLY MODIFIED!
******************************************************************************
DavisK
Anders Viberg wrote in message <8hqcte$ldp$2...@zingo.tninet.se>...
Has there ever been a mix of 'This Boy' that DIDN'T put the vocals on one
side and the instruments on the other? You'd think that with 4 tracks, they
would have spread the instruments around evenly, like in 'I Want To Hold
Your Hand' or 'Money (That's What I Want)' (which I still think was recorded
in 4 track based on the way it was mixed).
DavisK
Ed wrote in message <8hqgmj$krr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>I have a special limited cassette edition of Beatles Box and from what
>I remember Paperback Writer is identical to the version on Hey Jude LP,
>i.e. like on Beatles 1962-1966 but with stereo image reversed.
Is that version the same as on 'Past Masters 2'? What are the differences,
if there are any?
Michael Davis
> Your Hand' or 'Money (That's What I Want)' (which I still think was recorded
> in 4 track based on the way it was mixed).
>
Money was two separate 2-tracks linked together, I think. Or perhaps it
consisted of two different mono mixes mixed to two-track. I'll have to
check Lewisohn again...
Ronnie Clark
>filter) tried to separate out instruments on any of the mock-stereo and/or
>mono mixes? Just curious...
I've tried it on mono before, as part of my analogue electronics work, and
depending on the song it can either be wonderful or hopeless. Before I got
ahold of the stereo copy anyway, on "And I Love Her" I managed to almost
totally separate out the bongos, but Paul and the guitar were too close in
frequency range to separate. That funny clicking noise in the song was
fairly easy to isolate, though it lay in the middle of Paul's upper voice
range, so would appear on its own and as part of Paul and the guitar. Funny,
don't know why I didn't try to get the bass <shrugs>
Mister Charlie
*I* bought in 1968 was most certainly in stereo. First stereo
single I ever owned, I believe, shortly following that up with
Light My Fire by the Doors.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Luke Pacholski
<ron...@blugman.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Not true - having recently recorded these from vinyl onto computer, I've
>performed various stereo "tests" on the stereo 'Please Please Me' album,
>and
>while the stereo on these two tracks is not the best example you could
>possibly find, it does exist on "Love Me Do" and "P.S. I Love You," mainly
>as a frequency function (left channel - upper frequencies amplified, lower
>frequencies subdued ; right channel - upper frequencies subdued, lower
>frequencies amplified -- I have often pondered the meaning of duophonic
>stereo - is this what it is?). Feel free to download the MP3s from my
>site,
>and perform your own analysis if you don't believe me! (Though it has to
>be
>said, the stereo on "I Saw Her Standing there" is far superior to the rest
>of the record.)
Well, that's not true stereo. That's fake stereo, which doesn't count -
it was created from a mono source, not multiple tracks.
Luke
Luke Pacholski
<Pine.GSO.4.10.100060...@kepler.pa.msu.edu>, Michael
Davis <dav...@pa.msu.edu> wrote:
>Side note -- has anyone with the appropriate software (esp. a good EQ
>filter) tried to separate out instruments on any of the mock-stereo and/or
>mono mixes? Just curious...
I did talk to someone who has been doing this, or who knows somebody who
does this. On the phone he played me a track first with no vocals then
only vocals. From a mono source. Now, I can't comment on whether it is
actually usefull or not (ie, how good the quality is), but some
technology does exist...
Luke
Luke Pacholski
<dav...@globalserve.net> wrote:
>Wasn't it a two track recording? If so, then there wouldn't be much
>differences between the mixes, right?
This Boy? Nope. 4 track. Along with IWTHYH.
>It was remixed for Anthology 2, with the extra sections added in.
Yes, but there's a section missing on Anthology 2.
Luke
Luke Pacholski
car...@aol.comnixspam (John Larrabee) wrote:
>It was two mono mixes, miraculously synched to produce a "true" stereo
>mix. To
>perfectly synch two tape machines was not an easy feat in 1963.
It was an impossible feat in 1963, and a nearly impossible one today.
That's *not* how the mix was created. If two tapes were sync'd that both
had vocals on them, the vocals would not be dead center, but would have
an ADT effect to the left and right. This mix has them dead center.
>But I'm glad they did. This is one instance in which the stereo version
>absolutely rips the mono to shreds.
Yea, it's a good mix. Now, they *might* have sync'd two 2 track machines
together, using the vocal from 1 only (and mixing it center), but that
doesn't seem too likely to me. Who knows.
Luke
Luke Pacholski
<dav...@globalserve.net> wrote:
>Has there ever been a mix of 'This Boy' that DIDN'T put the vocals on one
>side and the instruments on the other? You'd think that with 4 tracks,
>they
>would have spread the instruments around evenly, like in 'I Want To Hold
>Your Hand' or 'Money (That's What I Want)' (which I still think was
>recorded
>in 4 track based on the way it was mixed).
Not of the original take. The alternate take on the FAAB single was
mixed with vocals center.
Of course, the 1966 stereo mix might have the vocals centered, but as
far as I know that mix has never seen the light of day.
Luke
Luke Pacholski
<anders...@zeta.telenordia.se> wrote:
>"This boy" is a 4 track, recorded in fact on the first session Beatles
>used
>4 track (17 October 1963).
>You can clearly hear it's a 4 track if you're listen to the stereo
>version,
>i.e. it hasn't got the vocals on one side and the instruments on the
>other.
>It's more spread out.
I'm not claiming the song was recorded on two track (it wasn't), but
that's not to say it isn't possible. If George Martin wanted to he could
have recorded the band in stereo, with the vocals on both tracks.
Instead, he separated the instruments and vocals (for the most part) to
have more freedom later for the mixing of the vocals.
> (The version on the "Free as a bird" CD single has
>got
>the same stereo picture too unlike the other material from Anthology 1
>which
>is basically mono.)
Actually, the 1963 TB mix has rhythm left, lead guitar center, and
vocals right (like the 1963 mix of IWTHYH). The mix on the FAAB single
has rhythm left, vocals center, and lead guitar right. It is also not as
wide of a mix.
Luke
Luke Pacholski
Charlie <ccmj5N...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>Sorry, someone, but the Hey Jude b/w Revolution 45 single that
>*I* bought in 1968 was most certainly in stereo. First stereo
>single I ever owned, I believe, shortly following that up with
>Light My Fire by the Doors.
Are you sure Light My Fire was stereo? I've got a dub of an Elektra
single, and it's clearly mono...
Luke
Luke Pacholski
(Lord Tim Brent) wrote:
>Here's from Lewisohn
>IWTHYH
>mono 21 October 1963
>stereo 21 October 1963
>8 June 1965
>7 november 1966
>
>This Boy
>mono 21 October 1963
>stereo 10 November 1966
>
>from Sessions:
>....'This Boy',conversly,from 1963,was treated to its first stereo
>remix because of a mistake. When the album line up was dictated by
>ntelephone from Manchester Square to Abbey Road someone inadvertantly
>called 'Bad Boy''This Boy'.The Abbey Road people,being efficient,had
>the original four-track of 'This Boy' out of the library and remixed
>before the mistake was spotted....
>Lewisohn,p.86,entry for 10 November 1966.
Yea, that's what the book says. However, it's incorrect. First of all,
the stereo mix of TB *very* closely resembles the 1963 stereo mix of
IWTHYH - same stereo placement. Second, the stereo mix has shown up on
boot with Norman Smith's voice announcing RS1 (I believe). "Normal"
wasn't doing Beatles sessions in 1966, and the notes indicate Peter
Brown did the 1966 stereo mix anyway.
Luke
John Larrabee
It was two mono mixes, miraculously synched to produce a "true" stereo mix. To
perfectly synch two tape machines was not an easy feat in 1963.
But I'm glad they did. This is one instance in which the stereo version
absolutely rips the mono to shreds.
John L.
EgwEimi
>Actually there were two stereo remixes in 1966,according to
>Lewisohn,RS3 and Rs5,RS3 being a joining of RS1 and RS2,RS 5 being a
>mix of RS1 and RS 4(2 and 4 being of the second part of SFF).RS 3 is
>the one given to Volye Gilmore for the US MMT,and IIRC RS 5 to Odeon
>for the German MMT.
>
Lewisohn does not continue past early 1970. There was a new stereo mix
made on 26 Oct 1971 at George Martin's AIR Studios. This is the mix that was
used on the German (and French) Magical Mystery Tour LP.
Frank
EgwEimi
George Martin had synchronized twin track tapes for parts of "Please Please Me"
and "From Me to You." With "She Loves You," apparently he synchronized tapes
for large portions of the song, making the mono mix almost impossible to
duplicate. "Money" represents the next step -- an attempt to combine two twin
track tapes together. This had to be done manually, and Lewisohn notes briefly
the time it took to do the job properly.
Regarding "Duophonic" --
ordinary rechanneled stereo is created by treating a mono recording as stereo,
separating highs into one channel and bass into the other.
Duophonic, which is a trademark owned by EMI, makes use of TWO mono recordings,
synchronizing them closely enough that they sound like two separate channels.
"ADT" (artificial double tracking) is based on the same premise but operates on
one or several channels of a stereo recording instead of on the whole
recording.
The first mix of "I Want to Hold Your Hand" and the stereo mix of "This Boy"
from 1963 show the transition from a twin track to a four track way of
thinking. Previously, "placement" was only important to the extent that the
sounds on one channel be distinct from the sounds on the other channel. With
four track recording, one could more easily place elements of the recording
anywhere between left and right -- although the center was the usual "third"
location.
Frank
Lord Tim Brent
<lukpac...@lukpac.org> wrote:
>In article <3940117e...@news.cis.dfn.de>, timb...@canada.com
>
>The stereo mix of This Boy was first used in 1976 (Australia I believe),
>but it is not the 1966 mix - that is so far unreleased as far as I can
>tell. The released stereo mix is from 1963, probably done at the same
>session as IWTHYH.
>
Here's from Lewisohn
IWTHYH
mono 21 October 1963
stereo 21 October 1963
8 June 1965
7 november 1966
This Boy
mono 21 October 1963
stereo 10 November 1966
from Sessions:
....'This Boy',conversly,from 1963,was treated to its first stereo
remix because of a mistake. When the album line up was dictated by
ntelephone from Manchester Square to Abbey Road someone inadvertantly
called 'Bad Boy''This Boy'.The Abbey Road people,being efficient,had
the original four-track of 'This Boy' out of the library and remixed
before the mistake was spotted....
Lewisohn,p.86,entry for 10 November 1966.
Anders Viberg
Mister Charlie <ccmj5N...@yahoo.com.invalid> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:0245a08f...@usw-ex0104-033.remarq.com...
> Sorry, someone, but the Hey Jude b/w Revolution 45 single that
> *I* bought in 1968 was most certainly in stereo. First stereo
> single I ever owned, I believe, shortly following that up with
> Light My Fire by the Doors.
>
>
*
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Check this out again please.
I'm pretty sure "Get back" was the first stereo single in US and "Ballad of
J & Y" in UK.
Any other countries had to go with the masters these two had.
/Anders
DavisK
Luke Pacholski wrote in message ...
>>mix. To
>>perfectly synch two tape machines was not an easy feat in 1963.
>
>That's *not* how the mix was created. If two tapes were sync'd that both
>had vocals on them, the vocals would not be dead center, but would have
>an ADT effect to the left and right. This mix has them dead center.
>
>>absolutely rips the mono to shreds.
>
>together, using the vocal from 1 only (and mixing it center), but that
>doesn't seem too likely to me. Who knows.
Yeah, I'm a bit skeptical when it is said that two tapes were synched
together to create one mix. That's very tough to do, because there are so
many variables that could cause the two tapes to go out of synch, like
machine speed fluctuation (even a minute change could cause phasing or that
ADT effect). But if each channel had different instruments on them, and
neither had the same, then the changes in speeds wouldn't be noticeable.
That doesn't explain how they were able to get centred vocals, though,
unless they dubbed their vocals on top of the two tracks after the tapes had
been combined by copying that new master to another tape and recording their
vocals simultaneously.
Luke Pacholski
<dav...@globalserve.net> wrote:
>Yeah, I'm a bit skeptical when it is said that two tapes were synched
>together to create one mix. That's very tough to do, because there are so
>many variables that could cause the two tapes to go out of synch, like
>machine speed fluctuation (even a minute change could cause phasing or
>that
>ADT effect). But if each channel had different instruments on them, and
>neither had the same, then the changes in speeds wouldn't be noticeable.
>That doesn't explain how they were able to get centred vocals, though,
>unless they dubbed their vocals on top of the two tracks after the tapes
>had
>been combined by copying that new master to another tape and recording
>their
>vocals simultaneously.
Well, it's possible, rather than having two mono mixes, to have used 2
twin track tapes. That would give you 3 tracks (I'd assume the rhythm
track was on both tapes), so the vocals (from one of the tapes) could be
mixed center.
I'm not sure that's what they did, but...
Luke
Jeff U.
news:wCX%4.1232$0l2....@news2.tor.primus.ca...
>
> As far as YKMN, I believe edits
> >were made in John's mono mix. Also, why would a remix be necessary? It
> >wasn't issued on LP till long after the Beatles broke up (Rarities?).
> >
>
> It was remixed for Anthology 2, with the extra sections added in.
>
...and two sections that were always there were removed!
Jeff U.
Anders Viberg
Jeff U. <opusjeff(spamsucks)@fast.net> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:8i4501$6...@nntpb.cb.lucent.com...
Yeah, that was annoying.
/Anders
DavisK
Jeff U. wrote in message <8i4501$6...@nntpb.cb.lucent.com>...
>DavisK <dav...@globalserve.net> wrote in message
>news:wCX%4.1232$0l2....@news2.tor.primus.ca...
>>
>> As far as YKMN, I believe edits
>> >were made in John's mono mix. Also, why would a remix be necessary? It
>> >wasn't issued on LP till long after the Beatles broke up (Rarities?).
>> >
>>
>> It was remixed for Anthology 2, with the extra sections added in.
>>
>
>
>...and two sections that were always there were removed!
>
What sections were removed? I think they shortened the ending voices, but I
don't recall anything being taken out.
Bungalow Bill
Didn't I hear or read somewhere that ALL songs were recorded in
original mono and mixed to stereo later?
I remember hearing about how long the mixing sessions for mono
were and then when they did the stereo mixes, often times they
weren't even present. I know that John Lennon was REALLY into
the mono sound.
Am I just rambling here or does anyone else remember this?
ALL THE CHILDREN SING!
corporat...@my-deja.com
Bungalow Bill <barrymN...@midamericareps.com.invalid> wrote:
> This is really a response to everyone posting here.
>
> Didn't I hear or read somewhere that ALL songs were recorded in
> original mono and mixed to stereo later?
>
> I remember hearing about how long the mixing sessions for mono
> were and then when they did the stereo mixes, often times they
> weren't even present. I know that John Lennon was REALLY into
> the mono sound.
>
> Am I just rambling here or does anyone else remember this?
No, I remember this as well. The Beatles were very involved in the
mono mixes, and didn't care much about the stereo mixes. In fact, I
remember reading how Emerick said that the only way to really listen to
Pepper was in mono.....I must say that I enjoy the mono Pepper
tremendously, but I was saving that for a different thread...
> ALL THE CHILDREN SING!
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mister Charlie
Bungalow Bill <barrymN...@midamericareps.com.invalid> wrote:
>This is really a response to everyone posting here.
>
>Didn't I hear or read somewhere that ALL songs were recorded in
>original mono and mixed to stereo later?
>
>I remember hearing about how long the mixing sessions for mono
>were and then when they did the stereo mixes, often times they
>weren't even present. I know that John Lennon was REALLY into
>the mono sound.
>
>Am I just rambling here or does anyone else remember this?
>
** LOL **
The word has always been (lewisohn) that the Beatles, only
after Beatles For Sale (basically with Rubber SOul), started
atending just the mono mixing sessions, never the stereo ones
which were considered second-rate. However, last time I brought
this up (here in fact) I was roundly told by a few that this was
just conjecture and that indeed the Fabs or some of them
participated in stereo mixes on later recordings.
Seems all the acetate boots I have are mono, which is what the
Beat's "proofed" their records with...so....???
Mister Charlie
<anders...@zeta.telenordia.se> wrote:
>
>Jeff U. <opusjeff(spamsucks)@fast.net> skrev i
>diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:8i4501$6...@nntpb.cb.lucent.com...
>> news:wCX%4.1232$0l2....@news2.tor.primus.ca...
>> >
>> > As far as YKMN, I believe edits
>> > >were made in John's mono mix. Also, why would a remix be
necessary? It
>> > >wasn't issued on LP till long after the Beatles broke up
(Rarities?).
>> > >
>> >
>> > It was remixed for Anthology 2, with the extra sections
added in.
>> >
>>
>>
>> ...and two sections that were always there were removed!
>>
>
>
>
>Yeah, that was annoying.
>
>/Anders
>
best bits...the handclaps...man, they butchered it...they could
have easily dropped in the extra section and left the rest
intact.
Bungalow Bill
>
>** LOL **
Ouch! (Steve Martin impression insert here...) Oh I'm a ramblin
ramblin ramblin guy....ramblin!
>The word has always been (lewisohn) that the Beatles, only
>after Beatles For Sale (basically with Rubber SOul), started
>atending just the mono mixing sessions, never the stereo ones
>which were considered second-rate. However, last time I brought
>this up (here in fact) I was roundly told by a few that this was
>just conjecture and that indeed the Fabs or some of them
>participated in stereo mixes on later recordings.
>
>Seems all the acetate boots I have are mono, which is what the
>Beat's "proofed" their records with...so....???
Well my point was that they were all recorded basically to be
mono. Soooooooo...the crowd that complains about the "new"
mixes on Yellow Submarine should realize that all the stereo
mixes are essentially new and the Beatles didn't have a heavy
hand in many of them.
ALL THE CHILDREN SING!
DavisK
Bungalow Bill wrote in message
<26af2ed4...@usw-ex0106-045.remarq.com>...
>This is really a response to everyone posting here.
>
>Didn't I hear or read somewhere that ALL songs were recorded in
>original mono and mixed to stereo later?
>
I think you have the terminology mixed up. If they recorded in mono, then
they wouldn't have been able to mix in stereo later. They technically
recorded in stereo, if it was a two track, or more, tape.
They spent a long time mixing in mono because their primary market was the
British audience, who, for some reason, preferred not only their singles in
mono (which was understandable, since only mono AM radio existing on both
sides of the Atlantic), but also their albums in mono. The stereo mixes
were for the countries outside of the UK, and even though time was spent
mixing the songs, the Beatles put more effort into the mono mixes. And yes,
there were times when they weren't present for the stereo mixes. I wish I
had Lewisohn's book so I could give a more detailed response about that.
Jeff U.
news:8i6pga$d04$2...@zingo.tninet.se...
> > >> It was remixed for Anthology 2, with the extra sections added in.
> > >>
> > >...and two sections that were always there were removed!
> > >
> > What sections were removed? I think they shortened the ending voices,
but
> I
> > don't recall anything being taken out.
> >
>
> Check it out again.
> There's a VERY rough edit (4.21) on the Anthology version.
> According to Lewisohn the complete version is 6´08", the Ant. edit is 5'
> 43".
> Not much but still...
> Annoying it is.
>
> /Anders
>
And they also almost completely mixed out John's belch in the final seconds
and faded it early...bastards!
Jeff U.
Luke Pacholski
<dav...@globalserve.net> wrote:
>They spent a long time mixing in mono because their primary market was the
>British audience, who, for some reason, preferred not only their singles
>in
>mono (which was understandable, since only mono AM radio existing on both
>sides of the Atlantic), but also their albums in mono. The stereo mixes
>were for the countries outside of the UK, and even though time was spent
>mixing the songs, the Beatles put more effort into the mono mixes. And
>yes,
>there were times when they weren't present for the stereo mixes. I wish I
>had Lewisohn's book so I could give a more detailed response about that.
Well, the stereo mixes were for the UK just as much as they were for
elsewhere - the UK albums were always in stereo, unless you count the
month or so gap between the mono and stereo LPs of Please Please Me.
Frequently the US used fake stereo versions of tracks where true stereo
versions were issued in the UK or elsewhere. It wouldn't seem like they
cared about stereo that much!
Interesting to note that mono was phased out in Germany in 1965 or so...
Luke
Anders Viberg
DavisK <dav...@globalserve.net> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:4yq15.1899$223....@news1.tor.primus.ca...
> >news:wCX%4.1232$0l2....@news2.tor.primus.ca...
> >>
> >> As far as YKMN, I believe edits
> >> >were made in John's mono mix. Also, why would a remix be necessary? It
> >> >wasn't issued on LP till long after the Beatles broke up (Rarities?).
> >> >
> >>
Anders Viberg
> > Check it out again.
> > There's a VERY rough edit (4.21) on the Anthology version.
> > According to Lewisohn the complete version is 6´08", the Ant. edit is 5'
> > 43".
> > Not much but still...
> > Annoying it is.
> >
> > /Anders
> >
>
>
seconds
> and faded it early...bastards!
>
> Jeff U.
>
So now we waits for the single edit in stereo.
And the complete version in stereo, and without these extra vocals they put
in there, (perhaps from the early take of 67)
Which I think doesn't belong there.
/Anders
Anders Viberg
> elsewhere - the UK albums were always in stereo, unless you count the
> month or so gap between the mono and stereo LPs of Please Please Me.
>
> Frequently the US used fake stereo versions of tracks where true stereo
> versions were issued in the UK or elsewhere. It wouldn't seem like they
> cared about stereo that much!
>
> Interesting to note that mono was phased out in Germany in 1965 or so...
>
> Luke
>
All mixings were delivered from Abbey Road Studios, they sent over the mono
mixings for the singles, which indeed was only released in mono. But when
Capitol put together there own compilations of tracks for their LPs and
always included single tracks where they had no stereo, they instead got
together these awful mock stereo mixings.
/Anders
DavisK
Anders Viberg wrote in message <8i72a9$80l$1...@cubacola.tninet.se>...
And in many cases, which is why I started this thread in the first place,
the singles didn't receive a proper stereo mix until years later. 'Baby
You're A Rich Man' had to wait about 5 years before being mixed into stereo.
DavisK
Anders Viberg wrote in message <8i71ji$6tr$1...@cubacola.tninet.se>...
>
>So now we waits for the single edit in stereo.
>And the complete version in stereo, and without these extra vocals they put
>in there, (perhaps from the early take of 67)
>Which I think doesn't belong there.
>
They mixed the Anthology version in much the same way 'It's All Too Much"
was available for the longest time until the 'Songtrack - all of the
instruments are in mono, and only the overdubbed vocals and occasional
percussion (at least on 'It's All Too Much') is ADT'd. Kind of a cheap way
of doing a stereo version. They still need to pull all those instruments
apart and give the song a proper stereo mix.
Lord Tim Brent
26 October
12.45-13.05
Kansas City
27 October
12.30-13.00
Every Little Thing
Eight Dats A Wek
What You're Doing
Honey Don't
4 noverber
10.00-13.00
remaining 9 tracks
So all 14 tracks were mixed in stereo in 3.50
Lord Tim Brent
wrote:
>They spent a long time mixing in mono because their primary market was the
>British audience, who, for some reason, preferred not only their singles in
>mono (which was understandable, since only mono AM radio existing on both
>sides of the Atlantic), but also their albums in mono. The stereo mixes
>were for the countries outside of the UK, and even though time was spent
>mixing the songs, the Beatles put more effort into the mono mixes. And yes,
>there were times when they weren't present for the stereo mixes. I wish I
>had Lewisohn's book so I could give a more detailed response about that.
>
>
Probable reason(at least as for LP's) from what I have read,back in
the 1960's a stereo LP cpst considerably more than a mono one,and in
the Uk the parent were not more likely tp give their daughters(most
back then bought by girls) the extra money for a stereo LP.American
parents probably being slightly more generous in that regard.
Luke Pacholski
(Lord Tim Brent) wrote:
>For Beatles For Sale it was defineatly a hurried stereo mix
>
>So all 14 tracks were mixed in stereo in 3.50
Could be, but a) they had already done the mono mixes (ie, knew what
they were doing), b) the stereo mixes still sound great, no matter how
fast they were done.
Luke
John Calabro
"Luke Pacholski" <lukpac...@lukpac.org> wrote in message
news:lukpac+usenet-8A9...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
Could you elaborate on your logic behind point a.?
Point b. is a personal preference, and has no bearing on the valid point
that 3 1/2 hours to 'mix' 14 tracks shows very little effort.
John Calabro
Anders Viberg
John Calabro <giga...@yahoo.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:PxX15.177$T13....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink
.net...
A good engineer makes a good sound "instantly". In live concerts or in the
studio. Beatles in the early days was mostly recorded live with a few
overdubs. Rather easy mixes. Besides that the mono mixes didn't took that
much longer to do.
/Anders
Luke Pacholski
Calabro" <giga...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Could you elaborate on your logic behind point a.?
Do I really need to? We've been over this before. Obviously, if a mix
(mono) has already been worked on, the engineer will have a good idea of
how to create the stereo mix already - where to fade, what effects to
use, etc...
>Point b. is a personal preference, and has no bearing on the valid point
>that 3 1/2 hours to 'mix' 14 tracks shows very little effort.
Yea, well, the songs are not really that complex to begin with - the
"mixing" really wasn't that time consuming of a process. Yea, little
effort was made because little was needed.
Luke