From: brennan@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Joseph Brennan)
Subject: Re: Stereo vs. Twin-track and other recording nits
Reply-To: brennan@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Joseph Brennan)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:05:54 GMT

In article <59316@mimsy.umd.edu> dbk@cs.umd.edu (Dan Kozak) writes:

>     many of the later 4-track recordings
>show up in (at least what seem to me) _very_ odd stereo mixes.  The
>use of only one track to capture the vast majority of the
>instrumental performance obviously has it's limitations

I wrote about this some months ago (and learned a bit from the replies
here).  I think what we're seeing is George Martin's gradual
conversion from a way of working he used for twin-track-- interesting
to study.  Once you study "Beatles Recording Sessions" and start
listening closely, I think you can pick out the 4 tracks on almost all
the recordings up to 1968!

In 1963-65 4-track, GM generally uses use track 1 for rhythm (drums,
bass, John on guitar) just as on twin-track, and this is what tends to
unbalance the stereo mix that gets created later.  Generalizing, GM
then splits what would have been track 2 of twin-track into tracks 2
and 3, namely the lead vocal and the lead guitar, sometimes recording
all 3 tracks at the same time, or sometimes not; and track 4 is extra
stuff recorded afterwards.  I mean to say this is just the model he
seemed to work with, not a rule, and it does vary.

The stereo mixes also follow a general model-- track 1 left, track 2
lead vocal center, and the other stuff right.  How well this works
depends a great deal on what's on tracks 3 and 4.  "I want to hold
your hand" and "A Hard day's night" among others sound pretty good to
me.  "Can't buy me love" is a little odd.  "She's a woman" sounds very
unbalanced, and one cut on "For Sale" has nothing at all on the right
for most of the song-- is it "Every little thing"?  On the whole,
though, I think the stereo mixes on the third and fourth albums are
enjoyable to listen to, the real test, I'm sorry GM has suppressed them.

>I'm thinking of things like _Rubber_Soul_--wouldn't it make more
>sense to mix the "rhythm" (drms/bs/gtr, sometimes 2nd guitar) track
>(singular) in the center and then place the various vocal and
>instrumental overdubs around the "stereo" [sic] picture?  

Now from "Help!" to "Rubber Soul" we get a sharp change in the way the
stereo is mixed.  That GM interview in _Mix_ magazine (1987) brought
up this point.  GM said he was trying to fix the stereo so it would
sound OK played on a mono player!-- I guess the "compatible stereo"
cutting process had come out around then.  It has something to do with
things mixed to center coming out less loudly than things mixed to
either side.  Does that sound right?  He said he regretted doing it
later.  I have not yet heard the "Rubber Soul" remixes on the CD, so I
don't know what he did about it there; it sounded like he was itching
to really redo them with vocals and other sound in the center.

(This carries the idea of mixing for mono one weird step further,
doesn't it!  I noticed a long long time ago that when you make a tape
combining this kind of source with normal stereo mixes, you can't
trust the VU meter on the tape deck, because the widely separated
stuff sounds louder than normal stuff at the same level.  But I don't
know why really.)

Thanks for the comments on the twin-track, regarding leakage during
recording, and crosstalk on the LPs.  I'm not convinced that's all it
is, but I forgot to consider that.  I think the compression on "Roll
over Beethoven" is on the Capitol remix-- "Meet the Beatles"
definitely has more mixing of the channels than "With the Beatles"--
it's dramatic when you play one after the other.  Capitol apparently
did this by mixing the already mixed tapes from EMI.  Sheesh.  Check
out ROB on the "Rock and Roll Music" LP-- GM moved the vocal to center,
leaving the right side of the mix pretty empty.

--Joe Brennan