Piper at the Gates of Dawn - Crap production?

[Fieryjack]

I have known / loved this album for years-- but I realize the only reason I like it is because I like the songs and the writing.

Does anybody else feel like this album could have been A LOT BETTER? I don't know much about Norman Smith, but everything I read on the subject leads me to believe that he had a straightjacket around Syd and the rest of the group. To me, end result is not very impressive (from a recording perspective). Take for example:

1) The Drums (what drums). You can tell Nick Mason is beating the hell out of the drums on many tracks (Mathilda Mother, for example). Where the hell are they in the mix? BARELY audible in the right speaker. Listen to the snare (and bass drum) on "Bike" - performance is TIGHT, but recording/mix of these elements are sh*t - no dynamics whatsoever. WHAT HAPPENED? Cymbals sound crap too. Maybe Norman wasn't a drum guy but damn, this aspect probably changed the outcome of the record for the worse.

2) Vocals -- Syd's performances are brilliant, but I don't hear any high end or upper frequency in any of the recorded voices. Also, the tight delay effect on Syd's voice is so overused on the album (The Gnome, Chapter 24, Flaming). Chapter 24 has the vocals totally clipping out at the end [sunrise, sunset]!

3) Acoustic guitars - sound terrible. Beautiful passage in The Scarecrow - muddled up beneath the rest of the mix. No dynamics on the acoustic to be heard. Also there is a wonderful guitar in the Gnome. Can't even hear it!

4) Syd had a fantastic ear and could have double tracked, done harmonies, etc. with ease (as he proves on 1st solo album Madcap Laughs even in his mental state). Why wouldn't a producer take advantage of this natural ability?

5) Overall, the album sounds a lot duller than it could have. Syd's Floyd played much harder live than anything that appears on the record and the delivery was softened up beyond belief (listen to any of their early bootlegs or their work done at Sound Techniques).

The record's merits are things that a producer just couldn't **** up. Interstellar Overdrive, Astronony Domine. Just have a damn mic up on these tunes and you won't screw it up (can't take the drums out on these, they're in the DNA). Bike -- so eccentric that a producer can't mess it up.

Sargeant Pepper was being mixed in Abbey Road's studio 1 as Piper at the Gates of Dawn was being recorded in studios 2 and 3. Yet the dynamics in Sgt. Pepper are so much more obvious (talking stricly sonics here) and seem to be so much clearer. If you listen to Floyd's other stuff from the same era (i.e. See Emily Play and Arnold Layne, both recorded at Sound Techniques), they are sonically much better than what came out of Abbey Road.

Fantastic album that fell tragically short from a sonic perspective, I believe. Thoughts?

[;ivlunsdystf]

I think of it as muddy/cool in the Velvet Underground/REM Murmur sort of way, therefore I think of it as immune to historicist criticism ... but I also agree that it sounds crummy by today's standards.

[joeysimms]

Thoughts?

You should hear the mono mix - still a bit muffled/murky, but way different from the stereo mix
pm me a mailing address and i'll send you a copy.

[honkyjonk]

Hmmm,

I guess I'd like to hear something where some of that stuff was brought out a little better. But I still like it as it is. Great album for sure.

If someone went back and mixed it again, and it didn't sound like a plastic bag full of fake icicles, that might be good, but you know how these remasters go. Mostly plastic bags full of fake icicles.

[Veej007]

I have known / loved this album for years-- but I realize the only reason I like it is because I like the songs and the writing.

there's a moral in there somewhere...

[;ivlunsdystf]

Thoughts?

You should hear the mono mix - still a bit muffled/murky, but way different from the stereo mix
pm me a mailing address and i'll send you a copy.

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

[chris almighty]

I think it's great for what it is. If it were anything else, who knows what any of us would think about it. It's all relative. Albums (by actual artists) are works of art. It's like saying "would the Mona Lisa look as good if it had more brown in it?"

[;ivlunsdystf]

Okay, but maybe it was conceived by the original artists as the mono mix and then later shoehorned into a mono mix by some third party in a hurry...

[Fieryjack]

I think it's great for what it is. If it were anything else, who knows what any of us would think about it. It's all relative. Albums (by actual artists) are works of art. It's like saying "would the Mona Lisa look as good if it had more brown in it?"

Yes, but to a large degree, the producer is responsible for the outcome of a musician's art--he's 'driving the car'. DaVinci (likely) didn't have anyone looking over his shoulder or choosing colors for him. In my view, Norman Smith probably took some pretty strong liberties and messed with Floyd's actual "sound".

I think it's particularly interesting that Norman Smith apparently refuses to discuss his work with Pink Floyd--does he himself see this as a flawed production? In the case of Pink Floyd, they had many chances after Piper to learn and develop their music (which obviously developed into a lengthy career). As far as Syd was concerned however, this was to be his "defining moment". He got a lousy shake at solo record #1 and #2 as well, with Gilmour banging out tracking in a day and a half on Madcap in between tour dates.

Oh well. Enough of my bantering on Syd

[Johnny B]

Thoughts?

You should hear the mono mix - still a bit muffled/murky, but way different from the stereo mix
pm me a mailing address and i'll send you a copy.

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

The mono mix is the original, as approved by the band. The stereo mix was done later by Smith without the band's input. This is, of course, the version widely released on CD. There was a 1997 CD release of the mono mix, and it blows the stereo mix away. It does still have an overall muddy sound as noted above, but it's far less workmanlike and more creative than the stereo. And there's a hell of a lot of stuff that's completely inaudible in the stereo that's front and center in the mono (like Rick Wright's organ in the beginning of "Interstellar Overdrive"). I also think some of the album's sonic defects are less noticeable in the mono mix (like that big amp hiss at the beginning of "Lucifer Sam.")

This was, I believe, Norman Smith's first turn as a producer. He was previously a balance engineer at Abbey Road and he worked on a lot of the Beatles' pre-Sgt. Pepper's albums. He obviously didn't "get" the band, and his production on both of their first two albums is less than sympathetic. For all of the half-baked and tossed off ideas that fill up their third album, the band-produced soundtrack from the film More, the fully-realized songs like "Cirrus Minor," "The Nile Song" and "Cymbaline" are all produced better (at least from a sonic perspective) than much of the two previous albums. Following the fourth album, Ummagumma, Smith stated that the band needed to "get down to some serious work." This would be the last album he would produce with Pink Floyd, as he was given "executive producer" status on the next album, with the group self-producing, as they would up until The Wall, which was co-produced by Bob Ezrin.

[BrianK]

Hmmm. I basically disagree. I think they were pushing boudaries of sound - not JUST HiFi tone. They were doing what later became popular (and had been on Sgt Pepper), which is modifying sounds.

Astronomy Domine is really well-produced: it brings OUT that song you love, and the layered vocals are chosen very nicely, the guitar tone is great, etc.

BTW _ Saucerful of Secrets is one of my favorite sounding albums of all time; fantastic production! Beautiful tones, especially the organ work and bass sounds. It's not as freaky '60s as the first album, but I prefer it for many reasons...

[Johnny B]

BTW _ Saucerful of Secrets is one of my favorite sounding albums of all time; fantastic production! Beautiful tones, especially the organ work and bass sounds. It's not as freaky '60s as the first album, but I prefer it for many reasons...

Really? That's cool. I've never heard anyone say that about that album before. There's bits of it that I like a lot (like "Jugband Blues," which is amazing) and bits that I think were better live (like the title track, ironically enough). I definitely think that album is underrated, though.

In any case, I think you're right about their pushing the boundaries of sound. I don't think Pink Floyd's record production was about HiFi tone until much later on. They were all about pushing the boundaries of what you could do with sound until fairly late in their career. I think that probably really started with The Wall. It's a shame that, Dark Side of the Moon aside, they're known for what I generally consider to be their worst, least creative albums. Their experiments didn't always work, but they pushed things a lot further than most "pop groups," which is something I've always liked about their work.

[Fieryjack]

Yes, now that you mention it that's an interesting point....they were more into shaping their "sound" than "hi-fi" early in their career, then it reversed. Seems like the obsession with "hi-fi" maybe robbed some creativity.

Personally I do like the later stuff too - up to and before Final Cut. Can pretty much do without everything after that (except Roger's Ca Ira of last year, which was brilliant)

[blixton]

I think jugband blues sounds sooooo incredible. I suppose it would be futile trying to recreate that sound as its abbey road. That song's production sounds so much like 'Day in the life' to me. The same sound. I just wish I could get that bass reverberant guitar sound.

[Johnny B]

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.