Post by racerguy June 26, 2006 (11 of 66)
|
|
According to Abbey Road Studios' website, the Anthology surround-sound remixes were created using "electronic processing and artificial ambience."
|
|
|
Post by rieux June 26, 2006 (12 of 66)
|
|
racerguy said:
According to Abbey Road Studios' website, the Anthology surround-sound remixes were created using "electronic processing and artificial ambience."
Hi,
For most of the Anthology 5.1 mixes after Rubber Soul peroid, original tapes were used when possible. What does that mean? In those days (After 1966), there were only 4 track machines, which of course was not enough for the Beatles creativity. So engineers were force to record, for example, the quartet for Eleanor Rigby on 4 tracks, mixed it to one track in another machine, so there was 3 more tracks left, and so on... But fortunately many of these original tapes survived, and now they can resincronize all the 4 track tapes to have, let's say, some 8 or 10 tracks, and have some decent surround. That's why you can hear marvelous surround mixes of Something or I'm the warlus on the Anthology.
|
|
|
Post by terence June 27, 2006 (13 of 66)
|
|
thanks racerguy and rieux, that's exactly the information i was seeking.
i've ordered it! and thanks for raising the issue edvin in the first place....
|
|
|
Post by Dan Popp June 27, 2006 (14 of 66)
|
|
rieux said:
So engineers were force to record, for example, the quartet for Eleanor Rigby on 4 tracks, mixed it to one track in another machine, so there was 3 more tracks left, and so on... But fortunately many of these original tapes survived, and now they can resincronize all the 4 track tapes to have, let's say, some 8 or 10 tracks, and have some decent surround. That's why you can hear marvelous surround mixes of Something or I'm the warlus on the Anthology.
Well, George Martin's earlier book differs from your description. He wrote that they most often erased the "solo" or premix tracks when they did a "tape reduction" (bounce). The reason is obvious to anyone who has ever tried to synchronize two tapes without SMPTE time code. They drift. In fact, that inability to match tape speed is the basis of "flanging," and there is a humorous story about the naming of that effect in the book as well. The Beatles did play short bits from two tapes in order to do further tape reduction, but the only "clock" in the machines of the day was the 50Hz AC power line. They simply could not do what you are describing for a 2.5-minute song.
The reason that the Anthologies are different (as I and others have pointed out before) is that they use material that is "not finished," and therefore not as "tape-reduced." Plus they can now lock audio signals together like track 1 of the "master" and track 3 of an earlier work tape. Thus you have surround... you have the song... but you do not have the "classic" version of the song in surround. You have bits and pieces artificially stuck together and artificially enhanced.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, if you like it.
Now if one is recording the string quartet on "Rigby" first, those tracks can of course be laid to one track of a new tape, and we can resurrect each of those tracks if the original tape is extant. [Note, however, that these four tracks are probably not discrete instruments, nor would a 'stereo pair' even be used.] But anything you want to add after the first two elements are on tape, must be on the same tape, or timing problems will frustrate your efforts. So I think we're looking at a very limited number of songs which could be remixed for surround entirely from their original bits, which would yield anything like what the audience expects.
|
|
|
Post by Edvin June 27, 2006 (15 of 66)
|
|
Dan Popp said:
.. you have the song... but you do not have the "classic" version of the song in surround. You have bits and pieces artificially stuck together and artificially enhanced.
Is this correct when it comes to the DVD versions? I doubt it. The Anthology CD´s were made up of bits and pieces but the DVD versions sound classic to me.
Artificial...? As soon as you put together two takes it´s artificial, no? So every recording we can find on this site is artificial.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Popp June 27, 2006 (16 of 66)
|
|
Edvin said:
Artificial...? As soon as you put together two takes it´s artificial, no? So every recording we can find on this site is artificial.
Edvin,
As I said, artificial is OK if you like it. But there wasn't much excitement about "Let It Be...Naked," an artificially natural reformulation of that album using modern tech. I'm afraid that people hear Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" SACD and dream of something similar from "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band." That would be truly amazing. But if my memory of Martin's book is passably correct, it's not possible.
|
|
|
Post by Edvin June 27, 2006 (17 of 66)
|
|
Dan Popp said:
You have bits and pieces artificially stuck together...
Yes I know, but isn´t that how records are made? Hasn´t this been the general method since the tape was invented. How come all of a sudden it´s artificial - and in contrast to what. The only answer I can find is a live performance.
Why is it more artifical when McCartney removes the Spector orchestrations than when Spector adds them in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by Dan Popp June 27, 2006 (18 of 66)
|
|
Edvin said:
Dan Popp said:
You have bits and pieces artificially stuck together...
Yes I know, but isn´t that how records are made? Hasn´t this been the general method since the tape was invented. How come all of a sudden it´s artificial - and in contrast to what. The only answer I can find is a live performance.
Why is it more artifical when McCartney removes the Spector orchestrations than when Spector adds them in the first place?
Well, a little bit of amateur philosophizing may be in order by way of explanation, if you'll indulge me.
Yes, all pop records are "artificial" in the sense that they do not represent an actual performance done in real time, but rather a collection of performances made by the artist/s. They are analogous to a collage of photographs rather than a single snapshot.
Those who object to an 'artificial' recording are often referring to something that the artist could not have performed, and which they feel represents a kind of fakery - pitch correction of vocals being Exhibit A.
There is something else at work. You are no doubt familiar with the controversy caused by certain movie directors re-cutting and 'enhancing' their films years after their first release. In that case, the audience has become attached to the originals in a fairly powerful way, and the art has passed, in a certain sense, into the possession of the culture. Even though the artist's intent should in all cases be the deciding criterion, it is received in some quarters as something like blasphemy for these directors to mess with the icons they have created.
Thus it is for music. With 50% of the Beatles no longer able to express their opinion on the issue of artistic intent, and the other 50% seemingly unwilling to re-create (yet again) their work, it is difficult to make the case that surround mixes must be made in order to complete the vision of its creators. In fact, the marriage of music and medium is one reason for the Beatles' phenomenal success, IMO.
So in this case, "artificial" refers to bending the original intent of the artists into something which would have been impossible - an anacronism - and actually counter to their intent, based on the very form in which it was created. You yourself said, "thank heaven for mono" or something to that effect, regarding the (artificial) stereo mixes of the early recordings. That's all I meant. Let's let the medium and the message speak together, as they have, not fight each other.
Now as to your question about Spector's 'contribution' and digitally removing him, I'm glad McCartney finally got to release "The Long and Winding Road" his way - his life has been so hard already. Far be it from me to begrudge him such a rare ray of sunshine. My objection is only to the technical manner in which they did it. Spector, for all his faults, produced a listenable album out of what was universally acknowledged to be a pile of unusable gunk. If they needed digital workstations to produce the album without him, that seems a little "artificial" (and perhaps a tad ungrateful as well) to me.
But this is only my opinion, of course. Thanks for the question.
|
|
|
Post by tream June 27, 2006 (19 of 66)
|
|
Dan Popp said:
Now as to your question about Spector's 'contribution' and digitally removing him, I'm glad McCartney finally got to release "The Long and Winding Road" his way - his life has been so hard already. Far be it from me to begrudge him such a rare ray of sunshine. My objection is only to the technical manner in which they did it. Spector, for all his faults, produced a listenable album out of what was universally acknowledged to be a pile of unusable gunk. If they needed digital workstations to produce the album without him, that seems a little "artificial" (and perhaps a tad ungrateful as well) to me.
But this is only my opinion, of course. Thanks for the question.
Since we are expressing opinion, mine is that "The Long and Winding Road" sucks with strings, and finally made sense to me when I heard the version without strings (first released on Anthology). And I felt the same about "Let It Be", which I bought on initial release. I think "Naked" is a much better record.
|
|
|
Post by terence June 28, 2006 (20 of 66)
|
|
i like them both. and i can't wait to hear all the 5.1 material discussed above when the copy of anthology i've just ordered arrives.
how amazing it WOULD be were all (or some of) the pre-mix down tapes for, say, sgt pepper's or abbey road available and somebody were able to do a decent MC job on them....
|
|
