Down On Me

[punkin]

I was listening to the radio this eve on the way home and they played an early version of Janis Joplin's "Down On Me". Something that struck me was the way it was mixed. The entire drum kit and bass seemed to panned hard right, the guitar hard left and the vocals on both side.

Doesn't sound bad...just different. I'm kinda currious though, was it something they did for effect, was it the mix method flavor of the day or was this due to equipment limitations.

While listening it occurred to me to fade left and then fade right. I did notice just a hint of high hats very very low on the left and similarly, a very very light touch of the guitar in the right. You couldn't notice this when the stereo was centered, in fact it almost sounded like bleed through.

Anyways, just an observation followed by curriousity.


Later

 

[RAMI]

The Beatles "did" that too, as did many bands from the early to mid-60's. I put "did" in quotations because I don't think it was something originally intended. It's more of a result of changing mono mixes to stereo. Though there may be more to it than that.

 

[Cult_Status02]

I noticed that too on a Guitar Wolf track, I was listening too it while driving and noticed it does sound good, but the vocals and kick drum were on the left and everything else on the right, I panned back and forth and when I was on the left I could here the other stuff from the headphones of the singer and the kick drum only. Pretty cool, I thought.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

"Down On Me" was released in 1966. At that time it could go either way as to whether it was recorded in real time on a desk with only a pan switch and a 2-track, or whether it was recorded that way for stylistic reasons. My guess - and it's *only* a guess, since a quick search revealed no engineering notes yet - is that it's the former.

That's not a stereo synthesis from a mono recording, however. That was usually accomplished by some kind of bandpass filtering that was split between channels or some very basic delay technique, or something along those lines (for an example, check out the stereo version of the Stones' "Have You Seen You Mother Baby".) But there's no way to split a mono recording into instruments seperated by track.

G.

 

[RAMI]

But there's no way to split a mono recording into instruments seperated by track.

Thanx for the explanation, Glen. I wasn't too sure about the mono/stereo thing. But what I meant by "the result of changing a mono mix to stereo" wasn't that they somehow converted a mono mix. I thought that some Beatle recordings were recorded on 2 tracks but released in mono and then EMI (or whoever) released them in stereo by just splitting the 2 tracks left and right (which pissed of George Martin). I may be WAAAYYYY off with that one too, but that's what I meant by "converting a mono mix"..

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I thought that some Beatle recordings were recorded on 2 tracks but released in mono and then EMI (or whoever) released them in stereo by just splitting the 2 tracks left and right (which pissed of George Martin). I may be WAAAYYYY off with that one too, but that's what I meant by "converting a mono mix"..

I will never claim to be an expert on Beatles production; with the possible exception of "Paperback Writer" - which for some inexplicable rhythmic reason manages to hold my interest - I got tired of all other things Beatles after the 7 trillionth listen and 3 billionth tribute, both of which probably occured back around October of 1981, I think (*ducks his head to try to avoid the barrage of flaming catapult rocks about to be incoming from every direction *) Besides, I was more of a Animals/Stones guy back in the 60s myself .

That disclaimer aside, if a recording is made in two tracks only, the problem remains the same. Either the two tracks were recorded as hard-panned as described above, in which case it would just be a re-release of those tracks with the instruments panned as recorded; or they were recorded in a variable-pan stereo soundfield, in which case, just like with mono, there'd really be no way to "re-pan" the instruments hard left and right.

Now, if, however, the original tracking was multitracked (4 tracks or more), then originally mixed down to a mono mix, and then later on re-mixed down to hard-pan two channel, then yeah, that I could see, and could see as getting Sir George pissed off perhaps. Maybe that's what you are thinking of? But they'd have to be originally tracked in more than just two tracks for that to happen.

G.

 

[andyhix]

I have nothing to add other than that song - Down on Me - is on my very short list of go-to songs to play on a jukebox. Great tune.

 

[punkin]

Thanks everyone! Great stuff to think about, consume or otherwise cawjitate on.

 

[Ironklad Audio]

there's some old black sabbath stuff that was mixed like that...don't remember if it was on the the self-titled album or paranoid - maybe both, but i remember there being tracks where bass/drums came from one side, and the rythym guitars came from the other, with ozzy's vocals down the middle

i guess it was just more popular to do things like that back in the day

of course, there's some queens of the stone age tracks that are similarly mixed on one of their 1st two albums as well...

 

[chessrock]

I will never claim to be an expert on Beatles production; with the possible exception of "Paperback Writer" - which for some inexplicable rhythmic reason manages to hold my interest - I got tired of all other things Beatles after the 7 trillionth listen and 3 billionth tribute

That must have been right about the time you started getting in to the bee-bop and the shoo-wap.

.

 

[baker_]

"I Want You Back" by the Jackson 5 is also mixed in a similar w ay. I love that song; it's a guilty pleasure.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

That must have been right about the time you started getting in to the bee-bop and the shoo-wap.

Just about anything but the Beatles . It's like "Stairway to Heaven" except in the form of a whole group. Just how many times can one listen to it before it turns from pleasure into sheer torture? Kind of like my posts in these forums .

Be-bop, though, is something I was never able to get into. Doesn't get under my skin. I can appreciate the musicianship involved, but you'll never find me snapping my fingers to Ornette Coleman.

G.