Kool! Thanks. Bill Porter (read some other interview) was ALWAYS thinking 3 dimensional..thus stereo! Lol! PS. In my opinion the "thus stereo" part.
You have started me thinking. I am writing this without checking either of the bibles, this is memory and I know how wrong that can be. The day after hearing it at Trident I heard it in the playback acetate cutting room. That room was mono. That was the tape that was brought down for all to hear. Was it the tape we spent hours working on ? I wish I could tell you. I know what I think but I don't know for sure, so I'll keep my mouth shut. Cheers
I exagerated about "after thought". But he went for that stereo sound..and it was not a fluke because like I said..released originally in 1960.
Not for the album..most sales (have to check 99% ) were Living Stereo ..for the singles of course it was mono. And contrary to other people doing mono mixes ..the fact that they are foldowns should say something..Don't you think? They were NOT dedicated mono mixes that happened to sound good in stereo.
Thanks, Steve. That's pretty much what I though. Of course you had to add the little extra nugget at the end.
Thanks, Ken. The mystery continues. One of the things that puzzles me, though, is that Lewisohn says that you made both mono and stereo mixes at Trident. But if the intention was to release a mono single why would you do that?
I really can't imagine that that was the case. I don't know the sales figures, but I would guess that mono sales of the LP beat the stereo 4 or 5 to 1. Remember that most people back then had mono turntables only and you could not play stereo LP's on mono turntables back then. Regarding your last comment. Read Steve's post above. He got it straight form Bill Porter himself.
Thanks, Ken! I, too, am going to speculate that Ken would think it was the mono. Why? Because they already knew it was the new A-side. Just look at the flipside, "Revolution". They still didn't care about stereo when it came to songs they knew were going on the 45's. That didn't happen until early '69...
Steve has mentioned that the mono Strange Days is a "clever fold down". Can anyone describe what he means by that? What would be a way to create a "clever" fold down?
IIRC, Steve meant that the track was not just folded down, but it was treated to EQ and compression and echo to give it some character. Much like a contemporary (in 1967) mono mix would sound. One thing that I assume (although I don't know) is that in this case a mono tape was made, since a couple of the songs were true mono mixes. In the case of Bill Porter's recordings I would guess that no mono tape would exist.
Good point. I've always assumed a stereo mix was made as a bit of an indulgence. After all, wasn't the fact that they were specifically using Trident just to record that song, an indulgence in itself? I don't know. They "nailed" the stereo on "Lady Madonna" for 'Hey Jude' in '69. Very difficult to distinguish between that and the original mono. I think "Hey Jude" is just a case of a very good mimicking of the mono. Not just some stereo fold-down, IMO...
I see. I was referring to the album, not just the title track. I found an old post of Steve's where he mentions that the title track and Unhappy Girl were the only true mono mixes. I know Unhappy Girl has a tamborine or something that isn't on the stereo mix..
Quote: Originally Posted by Chris M Steve has mentioned that the mono Strange Days is a "clever fold down". Can anyone describe what he means by that? What would be a way to create a "clever" fold down? If they went to that much trouble for it, you would think it would be just, if not, as easy to do a full mono instead. Maybe something to do with the way Rothchild/Botnick recorded? Weren't they big on splicing/editing in parts of different takes to create the final mixdown tape? I guess that could have made a dedicated mono more of a chore?
But if you do fold-down 'Strange Days' you get some weird twittering happen at the end with (I think) the high hat. I heard this a couple of weeks ago so I'm not entirely sure. Could you get around that sort of stereo-to-mono fold with eq or compression? I would have thought not. Unless quite a bit of something was added in the cutting room and the actual master tape allows you to fold it without artifacts appearing in the mix...
It was NOT a dedicated mono mix. At the very least you can concede it was a stereo session as well. The 3 track machines* were setup for Elvis' first recordings after the army ...and so on..stereo was definitely thought and every single album starting 60-77 was released in stereo and last mono album 1967. Like I said quite a few posts before this..by 1970 stereo was old to Elvis recordings! *Elvis Presley: A Life In Music by Ernst Jorgensen.
I can concede all of that. They were even releasing stereo singles. But it was a niche market in 1960.
By "twittering", do you mean phasing? I would think they could pretty easily get around that by just slightly changing the speed of one of the two tracks which comprised the stereo master...
The track 'Strange Days'. I'm working at the moment so I can't check. I was listening to a gold label stereo copy but I did notice a weird 'mon -1' and mon-5 etched into the deadwax. What would that stand for?
I see. That track actually is a dedicated mix. But most of the album is a fold down according to Steve.
OK, sorry I'm getting confused between the album and the song! Thought your previous post about 'Strange Days' being a 'clever fold-down' was talking about the song
"My Eyes Have Seen You" has a different fade on the mono than the stereo. They are both the same length, but where the stereo mix fades out while Jim is singing "television skies, television skies", the mono mix has that vocal disappear close to the end while the band just churns on in the fade.
I had heard a mono version of Airel Ballet by Harry Nilsson( Thanks Andrew S) that sounds very different from the stereo, I prefer it over the stereo in fact, is it a dedicated mix or fold down? I can not find it anywhere and it is driving me crazy!
