Piper at the Gates of Dawn - Crap production?

Seej · Post by **Seej** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:27 pm

Johnny B wrote:Check it out, the mono mix of Piper is coming back to CD:

http://sev.prnewswire.com/entertainment ... 007-1.html

I highly recommend this to anyone who has only heard the stereo mix. I'm not sure one wants to bother with the 3-disc version for extra money unless they're a Floyd freak or don't have those particular singles already, but it's well worth checking out the mono version.

i wouldve thought that both albums wouldve fit onto one cd. and when will EMI remix Arnold Layne and Emily into stereo?!?! and a FRENCH edit of Interstellar? WTF? oh and i already have the stereo mix of apples and oranges on a comp tape i bought years ago. nyah nyah!

Johnny B · Post by **Johnny B** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:52 am

Seej wrote:i wouldve thought that both albums wouldve fit onto one cd. and when will EMI remix Arnold Layne and Emily into stereo?!?! and a FRENCH edit of Interstellar? WTF? oh and i already have the stereo mix of apples and oranges on a comp tape i bought years ago. nyah nyah!

They should fit on one CD. I think it's 37 minutes long. I'm not sure the edit is French, but it was the B-side of a French single... As for Arnold Layne, probably never. That was a four-track recording that would probably not be easy to mix in stereo.

JGriffin · Post by **JGriffin** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:27 am

Tatertot wrote:Did the stereo mix originate much later than the mono mix, like when it first went to CD or something? Just curious

Seems like, as with the Beatle records of the time, the mono mix was considered the "definitive" mix and the stereo was tossed off later as an afterthought. The perception at Abbey Road was that stereo was a gimmicky fad.

japmn · Post by **japmn** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:47 pm

When I listen to records of this era that have a mono and stereo mix option, I usually prefer the mono mix. I once read the stereo mix for The Zombies Oracle and Oddesey was done well after the mono mix and only because the US distributor demanded one. I do not like the old L C R hard stereo mixes and rather just get the nice thick mono.

Seej · Post by **Seej** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 2:33 pm

Johnny B wrote:
Seej wrote:i wouldve thought that both albums wouldve fit onto one cd. and when will EMI remix Arnold Layne and Emily into stereo?!?! and a FRENCH edit of Interstellar? WTF? oh and i already have the stereo mix of apples and oranges on a comp tape i bought years ago. nyah nyah!
They should fit on one CD. I think it's 37 minutes long. I'm not sure the edit is French, but it was the B-side of a French single... As for Arnold Layne, probably never. That was a four-track recording that would probably not be easy to mix in stereo.

shouldnt be *that* hard. its only 4 tracks and 3 minutes long. ive done that for 7 years at home!

left- drums/bass/guitar
center- double tracked vocals (echo added during mixing)
right-organ

hell, fly me to london and i'll mix the damn thing.

Johnny B · Post by **Johnny B** » Sun Jul 01, 2007 8:44 am

Seej wrote: shouldnt be *that* hard. its only 4 tracks and 3 minutes long. ive done that for 7 years at home!

left- drums/bass/guitar
center- double tracked vocals (echo added during mixing)
right-organ

hell, fly me to london and i'll mix the damn thing.

Yes, but do you know how it was tracked? Maybe the organ's on a track with something else... For that matter, do you know where the multi-tracks are? It's amazing the amount of 60s stuff that's missing.

PeterAuslan · Post by **PeterAuslan** » Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:35 am

I find everybody's opinions interesting so I'll add my two cents. I love recordings from this era because of their perceived "flaws". The fact that two bands recording in the same building got significantly different results should be viewed as a godsend. I find that kind of sonic variety is lacking in modern recordings. Yes our modern recordings are immaculate, pristine, huge, punchy etc but they also sound more the same (to me anyway).

Also I am sure the Beatles had significantly more time and resources from Abbey Road then newcomers Pink Floyd.

RefD · Post by **RefD** » Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:14 pm

but they both stole liberally from the same sound effects library!

yah, the Floyd got the smaller room, older gear, less experienced staff, etc.

i still think that the mono version of Piper is amazing.

compare it to the stereo version and you'll notice there's some instruments and vocal parts missing!

which leads me to believe that the stereo version was hacked together from a a random late reduction mix multitrack tape!

Johnny B · Post by **Johnny B** » Sun Jul 01, 2007 5:55 pm

PeterAuslan wrote: Also I am sure the Beatles had significantly more time and resources from Abbey Road then newcomers Pink Floyd.

More resources, probably. Time, they had lots of. Once they started recording and realized how long it was going to take to get the album to sound the way they wanted, they renegotiated their contract. In return for a reduced royalty rate, they got unlimited time at Abbey Road. I'm sure EMI was regretting that around the time of Meddle.

RefD wrote:which leads me to believe that the stereo version was hacked together from a a random late reduction mix multitrack tape!

That's an interesting theory. That would explain an awful lot about that mix. Especially the missing organ part in "Interstellar Overdrive."

Fieryjack · Post by **Fieryjack** » Sun Jul 01, 2007 6:08 pm

"less experienced staff, etc. "

Not true. Norman smith was WAY more experienced than Geoff Emerick and Peter Bown was also no spring chicken. (but obviously George Martin was very experienced)

The stereo version WAS mixed after the initial release of the mono version and I believe nobody from Floyd was present when it was mixed....

RefD · Post by **RefD** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:45 am

Fieryjack wrote:"less experienced staff, etc. "

Not true. Norman smith was WAY more experienced than Geoff Emerick and Peter Bown was also no spring chicken. (but obviously George Martin was very experienced)

The stereo version WAS mixed after the initial release of the mono version and I believe nobody from Floyd was present when it was mixed....

BION, i wasn't talking about Norman "Hurricane" Smith.

Johnny B · Post by **Johnny B** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:27 am

RefD wrote: BION, i wasn't talking about Norman "Hurricane" Smith.

Yeah, but I was. And it was true. Norman Smith, although and experienced and good balance engineer, he was an inexperienced producer when he started working with the Floyd. They were the first band assigned to him as producer. You're going to make some mistakes. Some mistakes were made. Someone more experienced might have done a better job.

The other, even more important thing, is that in the accounts I've read of the making of those early albums, Smith and the band didn't really see things the same way a lot of the time. They seemed to be at odds much of the time and he didn't seem to really get what they were doing, and consequently may not have been the best choice for that band.

The album is still great, and one of my all-time favorites.

Fieryjack · Post by **Fieryjack** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:35 am

My understanding is that Norman Smith came from much more of a 'classical/jazz' orientation and was a little out of his depth.....

I also think that the engineer and the producer had more influence over the sound than the producer--evidenced by See Emily Play and Arnold Layne (engineered by John Woods at Sound Techniques) and Piper (engineered by Peter Bown at Abbey Road)

in my opinion, the sonic result was better at Sound Techniques....

Seej · Post by **Seej** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:30 am

Johnny B wrote:
Seej wrote: shouldnt be *that* hard. its only 4 tracks and 3 minutes long. ive done that for 7 years at home!

left- drums/bass/guitar
center- double tracked vocals (echo added during mixing)
right-organ

hell, fly me to london and i'll mix the damn thing.
Yes, but do you know how it was tracked? Maybe the organ's on a track with something else... For that matter, do you know where the multi-tracks are? It's amazing the amount of 60s stuff that's missing.

That's true, but maybe EMI might have it in their vast archives. Nick Mason said in his book how they tracked it. The band was recorded over 3 tracks (minus Rick), submixed to track 4. Rick added his organ on track 3, then vocals were overdubbed on tracks 1 and 2.

Message Board

Piper at the Gates of Dawn - Crap production?

Re: Piper at the Gates of Dawn - Crap production?

Who is online