No, I don't think so. But it's not very different from the stereo mix, either. "Revolution" is noticeably different in mono.
It's more complicated than that. In "Recording the Beatles" they mention that the mono mix was made from the stereo mix. Lewisohn mentions the same thing, but then mentions that the mono mix was then re-done. There is the additional complication that the song was recorded at Trident and that our friend Mr. Scott had to do a little magic on the mix that he created at Trident. Was that mix a stereo mix or a mono mix?
http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/beatles/var-1968.html HEY JUDE basic recording- 31 Jul 1968 at Trident additional recording- 31 Jul, 1 Aug 1968 at Trident master tape- 8 track [a] mono 8 Aug 1968. UK: Apple R5722 single 1968. US: Apple 2276 single 1968. CD: EMI single 1989. stereo 5 Dec 1969. US: Apple SW 385 Hey Jude 1970, Apple SKBO-3404 The Beatles 1967-1970 1973. UK: Apple PCS P718 The Beatles 1967-1970 1973. CD: EMI CDP 7 90044 2 Past Masters 2 1988, EMI CDP 7 97039 2 The Beatles 1967-1970 1993. Drums are mixed louder in stereo . Mono [a] is 5 seconds longer than the longest appearance of , long fade. This song has appeared with early fades on some compilations (in stereo).
Not to split hairs, but we need to be careful in talking about how something is "recorded" with respect to it being mono or stereo. In recording engineering terms, a source is only recorded in stereo when it is recorded with at least two discreet microphones in a micing configuration like "spaced pair" or "x-y" designed to capture the stereo spectrum of the instrument. The signals from each mic are then recorded to discreet tracks, which are then panned to some degree opposite of each other during stereo mixdown. Pianos, string sections, vocal ensembles, and drum kits (with overheads) are most frequently recorded in this manner. OTOH, most of the primary elements of a rock performance - including guitars, bass, kick, snare, other individual elements of the drum kit, and vocals - are recorded in mono. So rather than being "recorded in stereo", most recordings in the 60s and actually to this day can best be characterized as multi-track MONO recordings. Thus, contrary to the popular (mis)conception, just because a recording is made to a multi-track format - whether it be 2-track, 4-track, 8-track, 24-track or whatever - does not by definition make it a stereo "recording." Getting back to the original post, it's interesting how some stereo mixes folddown well to mono, and others don't. Thus the constant concern for "mono compatibility" for broadcasting on AM radio, sometimes leading to bizarre overcompensations such as the original stereo mix for "Rubber Soul."
Well, I assumed with pop and rock from the sixties, that stereo was an afterthought so, when I'm looking for 45's or LP's i was going to concentrate on finding the mono version( My tastes riuns to The Byrds, Raiders,Asscociation, some Jazz, Pop etc)Is there a book orsite ( besides this one) with this info?
With most pre-1968 Rock fold downs are going to be the very rare exception. Any big label Rock act like the three you mentioned would have had different dedicated mixes (and perhaps different different engineers) for mono and stereo. For example, all of the Byrds albums up to and including Notorious are dedicated mixes.
The 1960 Elvis sessions were recorded with Stereo in mind with drums and percussion panned left and right with vocals in the middle and bass etc.. and a live mix with the microphone levels etc set up beforehand. Nothing comes close when comparing sound to Beatles, Stones etc. where the sound pretty much sucked for a lack of a better word.(performance is a different matter lol).by 1970 stereo was old to Elvis recordings and new to a lot incredibly. * A good example is Speedway mono and Elvis Gold Records Volume 4 mono (and rarer) are really rare recordings because thats when RCA phased out mono for Lps. 1967...
Agree - a lot of those recordings - particularly from the "Elvis Is Back" sessions - sound really fantastic, with a vividness that realizes the true potential of recording in real stereo.
Well yes, I'm aware of the possibilities in recording in stereo. I was really just trying to stay on topic with the original thread which was specifically about mono recordings. My point was simply to establish the difference between the 'recording' and the 'mix'. Abbey Road also experimented with 'true' stereo recordings in the 50s on some classical material as well as on some Joe Loss using crossed pairs of microphones. I can't say I've ever heard the Joe Loss material...
That is not correct. Bill Porter recorded Elvis with mono in mind. He just didn't want to bother with creating two different mixes. The balance is not quite perfect in stereo with vocals being a bit too loud. In mono it's perfectly balanced.
No he did not... he placed the 2 drummers perfectly in spectrum (stereo)..do not know where you got that info..and it was folded down for mono. RCA made a big deal (and they deserved it) of LIVING STEREO. It was not that duophonic or double mono where it is impossible to have vocals in the middle.Bill Porter used 3 track recorder BUT only for safety. Never used for release to this day mainly because they are inferior to live mix.
He not only recorded for mono, but he monitored in mono. The folded down tape is the sound he wanted: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=1350918&postcount=2
He thought of mono alright as an after thought..killed 2 birds with one stone. But it was stereo first. To the contrary it would be like most 2 channel for monos..very lopsided.
Sorry, but I disagree. He was killing two birds with one stone, but if he's monitoring in mono how can he be thinking of stereo first?
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/archive/index.php/t-3533-p-3.html "Steve Hoffman05-06-2002, 09:45 PM Remember, Bill didn't do those two Everly songs. They were done by an earlier engineer without a proper stereo console. The guy was just winging it. I think they hired Bill soon after. " I know that RCA didn't have a stereo console when "Poor Jenny" was recorded, because Bill Porter's first job at RCA in Nashville was to hand build one! So, he built it (the way he wanted it) and made sure that the stereo image was "natural", with plenty of center fill. In fact, one can ALWAYS tell a Bill Porter RCA-Victor Studio mix by the drums being in the center of the stereo image. Bill told me that the drum channel was "hard wired" to play in the center, and no one could move it anywhere else! Imagine back in 1960 when Elvis recorded in there for the first time. All live, TWO drummers, the Jordanaires, bass, piano, guitars, electric bass and whatever else the song called for. Porter HAD NO SECOND. In other words, he did everything; set the mics in the studio up, thread up the tapes, hit record, (on both machines); announce the take numbers, EVERYTHING. All with the RCA-Victor execs standing behind him breathing down his neck. Nerves of steel I tell ya! BTW, that is Bill's voice on the "slate" of "Such A Night" on the ELVIS IS BACK disc."
Sorry to disagree too but...I agree to disagree with you! Lol! Here is a sample from 1960..nothing or almost nothing can touch that soundwise and as a fan..performance too! LOL ! http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=D106F7314AC11FA6
Look I don't disagree that the recordings are amazing and they sound great in stereo. I was just disputing that mono was an afterthought for Porter. I also agree that a well balanced recording was exactly what he was going for, but I think that you can make a great argument that mono was the real end product.
We're just having a little disagreement. I'm arguing that mono was not an afterthought with Bill Porter given that he monitored in mono.
I think I'd have to go with another side on this one. He may have been a "progressive" engineer, but RCA still considered Elvis a kid's act at that time (early 60's). And that entails an emphasis on mono, AM radio, etc...
Ah, I see. Well, he wanted to keep everything first generation (so he told me) and the only way he could do that other than building TWO consoles, one for mono and one for stereo was to do it this way. He told me that mono was the key and the NYC execs wanted a punchy mono sound from Nashville. The first thing that Bill ever said to me on the phone was that he apologized for the low vocal levels on the stereo Elvis songs he did. I told him they sounded fine to me and that is when he explained that they were actually engineered to sound "balanced" in a L+R mono fold. He actually never thought that many of his mixes would ever be issued in true stereo but he wanted them that way just in case. So, it was a slight afterthought because of the lower vocal level. I'll let you in on a secret: A few Elvis songs (like DEVIL IN DISGUISE) were remixed in the early 1960's at RCA-Victor in NYC for the ELVIS GOLD RECORD series from the three track, discarding Bill's original stereo mixes (too "soft"). The version on the DCC Gold CD was my remix from the three track trying to emulate Bill's original stereo mix (since destroyed). He liked my end result; very "Bill Porter-like" So, there you have it.
