Why the panning of drums?

[Veracohr]

I was listening to the Grateful Dead's "American Beauty", and when using headphones, you can really notice how things are panned. I got to thinking about the practice in that era of panning the entire drum kit to one side. What is up with this? Perhaps someone who was around then (unlike me) can enlighten me. Was it an artistic decision? I know my viewpoint is influenced by my own adolescence in the current era of mixing (drum kits more or less panned as you would hear them live) but, even trying to achieve an objective view on it, I still don't see what would posess people to pan an entire drum kit to one side unless it was an artistic decision. The Grateful Dead record of course isn't the only one. I can't really think of any others off the top of my head, but I think some Velvet Underground songs may be the same way. And I think some Beatles songs as well, though I wouldn't know for sure about that.

[Dwarf]

Very likely to be the limitations of the time. A lot of times they were recording to 4 or 8 track recorders and the drums would be recorded in mono. Placement in the mix (left, right or centre) would be an artistic decision during the mix. Some of the stuff from the early sixties has band on one side with vocals and solos on the other - try listening to that in headphones! -- Rob

[Rog]

Much of it was due to technical limitations, as pointed out. Another side to it was that stereo was a new concept and producers were still working out what to do with it ... a true stereo panorama or something more creative?

[loudist]

Yea... it was an artistic/technical based decisions at stereo using mono sources. One technical decision was that when folded to mono, things panned hard left and hard right would add 3 db less than what was panned center (the vocal). Drums weren't mixed as loud then as what came later, the vocals were the king element in the mix. Drums and bass migrated to the center when mastering engineers reported that they could cut hotter and louder disks with all that transient and bottom info in the center, and we know what a holy grail haveing loudest mastering has become, it was the holy grail back then too, but they still had a sensibility of preserving the integrity of the music back then though. There are records that were mastered that are better (read: enhanced in a positive manner) than the raw mixes, its just that these days mixes are already 'mastered' with finalizers and such before they are delivered to the Mastering house.

[DC]

I know that the mixing of Sgt. Pepper's album took two weeks for the mono and two days for the stereo version. Most folks had only mono record players at the time so that's where they concentrated their time. Stereo was more a quick experiment.

[loudist]

There are slightly different musical edits between the mono and stereo versions too...

[Raymar]

Did the Grateful Dead record any albums in quad? I had a neighbor with a quad back in the early '70s and he had a few quad vinyl albums. It was interesting to hear instruments seperated into four different speakers. Quad didn't last long but made a comeback as Surround Sound.

[Nawor]

[quote]Originally posted by DC: [b]I know that the mixing of Sgt. Pepper's album took two weeks for the mono and two days for the stereo version. Most folks had only mono record players at the time so that's where they concentrated their time. Stereo was more a quick experiment.[/b][/quote]It is kind of weird listening to early 'stereo' Beatles recordings, with the all the drums and guitars coming out of one speaker and the bass and vocals coming out of the other!

[whitefang]

Yeah, and I recall a few of my early Dylan albums were like that too. In fact, I think the CD reissues I have still reflect that. In early days of stereophonic sound, I suppose the novelty was to emphasize that separation. Many LPs were put out with nothing but sound effect tracks of trains going by, tennis and ping pong games and whatnot, to show off at least two or three aspects of stereo technology. Later on, of course, music engineers found a wide variety of possibilities, and as recording tracks got less troublesome to add and mix, it really took off. Then ways were found to spread the drum track over the entire stereo spectrum, and more exiting novelty could be added to the other parts of the recording. I've never paid too much attention to who engineers what, but for obvious reasons, I made sure I was aware of the name Eddie Kramer. Now, HE did some fantastic things with stereo technology! Mundane as they may now seem to many, they were just LIGHTYEARS ahead of what was going on anywhere else back then. Whitefang

[Matt.Hepworth]

Beach Boys did the same thing. Kind of weird.

[flyscots]

I bet it was a lot of fun to be an engineer in the 60s & 70s. It would have been hard work, really hard compared to now-a-days, but I know I would've enjoyed it. I have read a lot of interviews with engineers and producers from those eras. I have the utmost respect for them. Imagine what Geoff Emerick, George Martin & The Beatles could do with today's technology! [quote]Originally posted by Veracohr: [b]in the current era of mixing (drum kits more or less panned as you would hear them live) [/b][/quote]I know this is a common question, but do you prefer the drums panned from audience perspective or from the drummer's perspective? John Scotsman

[pastudio]

it is too professional! :thu:

[Rog]

[quote]Originally posted by flyscots: [b]I bet it was a lot of fun to be an engineer in the 60s & 70s. It would have been hard work, really hard compared to now-a-days, but I know I would've enjoyed it. I have read a lot of interviews with engineers and producers from those eras. I have the utmost respect for them. Imagine what Geoff Emerick, George Martin & The Beatles could do with today's technology! [quote]Originally posted by Veracohr: [b]in the current era of mixing (drum kits more or less panned as you would hear them live) [/b][/quote]I know this is a common question, but do you prefer the drums panned from audience perspective or from the drummer's perspective? John Scotsman[/b][/quote]Audience perspective every time :thu:

[Tedster]

Listen to Revolver, or any old Beatles album for vocals on one side, and interesting panning due to the bouncing of tracks...

[where02190]

[quote] [b]I know this is a common question, but do you prefer the drums panned from audience perspective or from the drummer's perspective?[/b][/quote]While the modern trend seems to be from the players perspective, I always prefere the audience perspective, afterall, it's unlikely the drummer is the only one who'll ever listen to the recording, and he's the only one who can really realte to that panning spectrum. Hope this is helpful.

[pigknuckles]

Where is it written that drums (or anything for that matter) should be panned a certain way?. Certainly it has become conventional to pan kick, snare, bass and lead vocal near center, but there is no technical requirement for this. Quite a few modern jazz recordings still have drums panned to one side. It can lend a lot of space and clarity to a mix depending upon the arrangement. Audience vs. drummer's perspective is another odd decision to ponder. For me it depends upon what type of presentation "feels" best for the project. No hard and fast rules either way. Still, a piano panned left high to right low seems awkward. I just don't relate to piano that way. This is an interesting topic. To take it a step further, what is your technical, philosophical or psychological reasoning for always panning anything a certain way?

[Rog]

Having drums panned hard L & R can make them seem very up front, like you're standing on top of them. I prefer a narrower image to make them seem further back.

[Science]

The "Yellow Submarine Songtrack" that came out a few years back has re-mixed versions of the Beatle's songs. The bass and drums and lead vocals are all mixed in the center, more like modern conventional recordings. I like these mixes better. They have more clarity and punch and don't sound weird on headphones. The surviving "Beatles" supposedly like these new mixes better as well. Almost everyone I talk to says they prefer the original stereo mixes though. I don't get it. The original stereo mixes were an afterthought done quickly to cash in on the new fangled stereo that was just coming out and being marketed to the mass consumer. The "Yellow Submarine" songs were also remixed for surround. At the Time, Neil Young wrote a scathing article saying that any remix of the Beatles was sacrilege and he would not listen to them. He then went in to detail about how the new re-mixes of his album "Harvest" and some other early material for DVD-A blow away the originals.

[Kris]

[quote]Originally posted by where02190: [b] [quote] [b]I know this is a common question, but do you prefer the drums panned from audience perspective or from the drummer's perspective?[/b][/quote]While the modern trend seems to be from the players perspective, I always prefere the audience perspective, afterall, it's unlikely the drummer is the only one who'll ever listen to the recording, and he's the only one who can really realte to that panning spectrum. Hope this is helpful.[/b][/quote]It doesn't take a 'drummer' to play 'air drums'... anyone can do it...

[trses335]

A factor in the American Beauty drum panning could have been that at the time, the Dead had two drummers. I'll have to listen to it. Were drums panned far L & R? Or all to one side?

[Tusker]

Yes, some of those mixes weren't designed for headphones were they? :D I read an article in EQ with an interesting point of view on recording and panning drums. The author pointed out (appropriately I thought) that the panning of specific drums hits is an attempt to artificially put back something we robbed from the situation. His point is that if we hear drums in an acoustic space we hear (a little) left right information [i]and[/i] all the reflections of the space. If we close-mike each drum separately, we can play with the panning, but we lose the information about the space that we would have had if we had used just two overhead mikes. He sounded pretty convincing. Best, Jerry

[whitefang]

[quote]Originally posted by Rog: [b]Having drums panned hard L & R can make them seem very up front, like you're standing on top of them. I prefer a narrower image to make them seem further back.[/b][/quote]The James Gang used to perform onstage with their drummer placed forward of the bass and Walsh. How would you pan THAT? Whitefang

[Veracohr]

[quote]Originally posted by pigknuckles: [b]This is an interesting topic. To take it a step further, what is your technical, philosophical or psychological reasoning for always panning anything a certain way?[/b][/quote]For me, working on my own electronic music, drums get panned in the way that sounds best and most balanced in relation to the other sounds. So on some songs I may have a hi hat on the right, and other songs on the left. It's been a long time since I've mixed a live band, but I prefer audience perspective. In my own philosophy of mixing, I think the recording should [i]usually[/i] reflect the way it sounds live. Of course there's always going to be things you want to do on the mixing that can't be done live, but I just prefer the drums mixed in a audience perspective. Seems most natural to me. [quote]Originally posted by trses335: [b] A factor in the American Beauty drum panning could have been that at the time, the Dead had two drummers. I'll have to listen to it. Were drums panned far L & R? Or all to one side?[/b][/quote]Actually I don't think every song was panned this way, but the one that made me think about it had the whole drum set panned to the left.

[Rog]

[quote]Originally posted by whitefang: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Rog: [b]Having drums panned hard L & R can make them seem very up front, like you're standing on top of them. I prefer a narrower image to make them seem further back.[/b][/quote]The James Gang used to perform onstage with their drummer placed forward of the bass and Walsh. How would you pan THAT? Whitefang[/b][/quote]I'd probably have the drums very up-front and mute everything else :p

[lakeside studios]

One factor in all this was the quality of home music systems in the 60's. Most folks here in the UK had a mono portable such as the "Dansette" (Motown records sounded great on them cos of that fab compression). Apart from the very few people who could afford Hi-Fi systems, any stereo setups had very poor separation and imaging, and speaker placement was an unknown science, so anything that gave some sense of space, like the "dual mono" thing, sounded better than straight mono. These mixes sound crap in headphones though, and on modern "audiophile" equipment. They sounded awesome back then though.

[Philip OKeefe]

I still like some of those old 60's era mixes... maybe it's just nostalgia... As far as audience vs. drummer's perspective, I don't really care all THAT much, but I usually opt for audience perspective. YMMV. Years ago, they tended to prefer one approach in America, and the other on the other side of the pond. I guess you'll have to dig out some old records to determine who did what. ;)