Super 8 Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 What were they thinking when they did that? You know what I'm talking about, it's been done on numerous older recordings. I'm listening to a recording a friend of mine gave me of Mike Bloomfield, Al Kooper and Steven Stills. All of the instuments are hard-panned to the right or the left. I can handle this with some things, but NEVER the drums or bass! It's just WRONG! Why did they do that? Super 8 Hear my stuff here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tedster Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 A lot of that seems to happen on old "Mono-reprocessed for stereo" recordings. You'll find that on a lot of early Beatles albums, too. "Cisco Kid, was a friend of mine" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliengroover Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 I heard the answer some time ago, but forget exactly what it was. I think they stopped doing it once DJs became more prominent, because there was often a lack of "balance" in those vinyl grooves, causing the needle to "jump". Great thing about mixes like that is listening to them separately. Peace If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking 'til you do suck seed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunny Knutson Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 They didn't have any choice. In the olden days, right speakers were made for drums, and left speakers were for guitars. https://bunny.bandcamp.com/ https://theystolemycrayon.bandcamp.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip OKeefe Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Sometimes it's done for artistic reasons. Sometimes it's done due to a technical malfunction (not to be confused with "wardrobe malfunctions"). Take Matthew Sweet's "Divine Intervention". The drums are all over on the right. Why? Well, the stereo compressor they were using as a big part of the drum "sound" went belly up as they were doing it, and they only had a single channel... so they went with it. Matthew was prettty insistent that it was due to the equipment malfunction and NOT due to them trying to do a "Beatles thing" - not that there's anything wrong with that. As far as the records from the 1960's, it comes down to two things: Stereo production was still a fairly "new" thing, and so everyone was still experimenting. But more likely, the culprit was the lack of tracks. Most records of that era were done on 4 tracks, or 8 if you were lucky, and lots of bounces was fairly common. Thus, the drums were frequently recorded to a mono track, and like I alluded to earlier, panning drums to one side was a fairly common production decision back in that time period. It's never bothered me - probably because I'm old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.WOW Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 (not to be confused with "wardrobe malfunctions"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salyphus Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Because it sounds better that way. Even better would be to have each instrument coming out of its own speaker. Better to have the sounds mix in the air, as in a real musical performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 8 Posted February 8, 2004 Author Share Posted February 8, 2004 Originally posted by Philip O'Keefe: It's never bothered me - probably because I'm old. You ain't that old... I understand experimenting. But I've used to record 4-track with mono everything and boucing tracks and it was never necessary to pan the drums and bass completely over to one side. Drums and bass were always center with everything else panned. Super 8 Hear my stuff here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip OKeefe Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 I understand where you're coming from Super 8 - I started on 4 track decks back in the 1970's... (yes, I AM old! ) and I used to pan the drums and bass up the middle. But WHY do we do that? Well, going back to the 1960's again, they found that when they were cutting the vinyl, if there was too much bass energy on one side or the other, the record player stylus would skip... and people (bands / producers / engineers) were looking for more bass in their records. Notice how much more bass there is in many recordings as the '60's progressed into the '70's when compared to some of the late 50's / early '60's records. Anyway, my point is that there was indeed a technical reason why we all started going "up the middle" with drums (especially kick) and bass. But that reason NO LONGER exists with CD's and other digital playback media... but the practice remains. Probably because that's what people have grown accustomed to hearing. So while I think there's musical and sonic reasons for wanting the kick and bass up the middle (low bass frequencies are more omnidirectional and harder to "place" or hear in the stereo spectrum), and I understand the historical and technical reasons why we do things the way we often do, I don't feel I need to be a slave to the practice - if I feel like panning the drums and / or bass a different way for whatever reason, I'll certainly consider doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP3 Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 A great song that does this (verses only) is "Kill Eye" by Crowded House. Check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip OKeefe Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Originally posted by TinderArts: A great song that does this (verses only) is "Kill Eye" by Crowded House. Check it out.Aaah, Mitch Froom's production work is great - I'm a big fan of his as well as of Crowded House. I'm working on something right now where I'm stealing (okay, "being influenced by" ) production ideas and approaches from Mitch, SGM and Brian Wilson - all in one song. It's actually turning out pretty cool, if I do say so myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hendmik Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 The Doors did it. I chalk it up to early experimentation with stereo. The drums weren't viewed as a fundamental instrument. Worked for them. I think we're doing the same thing with surround today. In 20 years, people will hear our 5.1 mixes and cringe. Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform. Mark Twain (1835-1910) -------------------- Reporter: "Ah, do you think you could destroy the world?" The Tick: "Ehgad I hope not. That's where I keep all my stuff!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20to20 Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Mixes done that way do sound weird to our ears.... But when those "1st-generation stereo" AEs were given the capabilty to separate elements of the mono mix and give them their own speaker, they loved that sound... It essentially gave them two unique mono mixes... Let the listening room mix them back together...! Some mixing boards back in the day boasted a 3-way "panning" switch on each channel... With it you could choose L, R or center... Bob Phillips 20to20soundesign Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 They did it that way so it would be easier to pull samples later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanner Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Originally posted by Bunny.: They didn't have any choice. In the olden days, right speakers were made for drums, and left speakers were for guitars.what mean? AMPSSOUNDBETTERLOUDER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunny Knutson Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Originally posted by stanner: Originally posted by Bunny.: They didn't have any choice. In the olden days, right speakers were made for drums, and left speakers were for guitars.what mean? Thanks for asking. Due to an early misinterpretation of the Blumlein Universal Lower-Level Stereo Hypersonic Interactivity Theory, all percussion instrumentation was thought to be more definitively reproduced by loudspeakers designed for the right channel of consumer audio hardware. At the time, in 1954, the vast majority of commercially marketed loudspeakers designed for for the left channel of consumer audio hardware, were engineered for realistic reproduction of stringed instrumentation, such as guitars or violins, while speakers designed for the right channel were engineered for percussive sounds like drums and cymbals. In 1962, it was discovered (by Phil Spector) that Blumlein's Theory had been gravely misunderstood; despite the new revelation, it took over a decade for the stylistic influence of this mistake to subside. https://bunny.bandcamp.com/ https://theystolemycrayon.bandcamp.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip OKeefe Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Yer KILLIN' me here Bunny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunny Knutson Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 It's all about the Blumlein Universal Lower-Level Stereo Hypersonic Interactivity Theory. https://bunny.bandcamp.com/ https://theystolemycrayon.bandcamp.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnS Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Originally posted by Bunny.: It's all about the Blumlein Universal Lower-Level Stereo Hypersonic Interactivity Theory. LMAO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip OKeefe Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 In 1962, it was discovered (by Phil Spector) that Blumlein's Theory had been gravely misunderstood The father of stereo and mono's biggest proponent... this post has to go down as one of the all time CLASSICS - it certainly gets my vote for "post of the month" - maybe even of the year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylver Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Originally posted by Bunny.: It's all about the Blumlein Universal Lower-Level Stereo Hypersonic Interactivity Theory. I thought that was just gas. I really don't know what to put here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spokenward Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 I'm thinking that the recording in question is Super Session (link to Al Kooper anecdote) . I thought that the purpose was to match the cover art. Dig it! 3 super heavy players! yeah! Put your ear next to the speaker, man, then you will get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultravibe Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 GOLD! Andrew Mazzocchi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duddits Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Kind of like when Sly and the Family Stone puts everything on one speaker, and a tambourine on the other. I may be just a cat, but I think they did this cause stereo was kind of new, and they just didnt know what to do with the second speaker. Its not because they made some artistic choice, but because they were inexperienced with stereo techniques. Its the same thing these days with 5.1 and other surround formats. Lots of rediculous mixes just cause the format is new and people haven't figured out how to do it yet. Dooby Dooby Doo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmy2000 Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 I know Bunny was foolin around, but would I be right in thinking dedicating one speaker to lows to mids and the other to mids and highs would reduce intermodulation distortion? Obviously these days we position our speakers left and right to give us a stereo field. If you were used to mono though maybe you wouldn't automatically think in those terms. You might then choose to leave the speakers in the centre and use the 2 channels to improve the quality of the mono reproduction. Could be talking out of my arse I know, but it's just a thought...... In his blue velour and silk you liberated, a boy I never rated, and now he's throwing discus, for Liverpool and Widnes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halljams Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Originally posted by Sylver: Originally posted by Bunny.: It's all about the Blumlein Universal Lower-Level Stereo Hypersonic Interactivity Theory. I thought that was just gas.Shit, i believed every word of it, still do! Check out SUPERVIBE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prague Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by Bunny.: They didn't have any choice. In the olden days, right speakers were made for drums, and left speakers were for guitars.Right, I think a "continuous pan" was yet to be developed. Bing Crosby was the first to use multi-tracking. The orchestra on one cahnnel, Bing on the 2nd, and the announcer on the 3rd. Then the whole thing was broadcast later in mono (of course). But all of the tracks were done separately. Bing liked it so he could sing at his convenience (with a "perfect" orchestra take) and play golf during his radio show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prague Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by Bunny.: They didn't have any choice. In the olden days, right speakers were made for drums, and left speakers were for guitars.Right, I think a "continuous pan" was yet to be developed. Bing Crosby was the first to use multi-tracking. The orchestra on one cahnnel, Bing on the 2nd, and the announcer on the 3rd. Then the whole thing was broadcast later in mono (of course). But all of the tracks were done separately. Bing liked it so he could sing at his convenience (with a "perfect" orchestra take) and play golf during his radio show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salyphus Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Sounds like B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T. theory to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryson Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by Super 8: What were they thinking when they did that? You know what I'm talking about, it's been done on numerous older recordings. I'm listening to a recording a friend of mine gave me of Mike Bloomfield, Al Kooper and Steven Stills. All of the instuments are hard-panned to the right or the left. I can handle this with some things, but NEVER the drums or bass! It's just WRONG! Why did they do that?To compensate for hallucinogens. Notice that when on acid, you'll hear the drums and bass move toward the center of the musical panorama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.