How involved were the Beatles in mixing/mastering their songs?

[magiccarpetride]

Conventional wisdom teaches that Beatles mono records (at least their records up to and including the White Album) are the ones to listen to because that's the way the Beatles wanted us to hear them. In support of that theory, we are given evidence that the four Beatles were attending the mixing and the mastering of their songs in mono, after which they'd leave the studio. The stereo mixes were subsequently left to some junior sound engineers to cobble up.

But is that really how the mixing/mastering of the Beatles material happened? We can assume, with high degree of probability, that at least after the boys completed recording their first LP, "Please Please Me", they had absolutely no say in how should their recorded material be mixed and mastered. They were just given 13 hours to rush through 14 songs, and that was it. So claiming that mono version of that record is how the Beatles themselves wanted us to hear them is a definite stretch.

What about their next album then ("With the Beatles")? Were they given more leeway to hang around and do a bit of good old mixing/mastering after they recorded all 14 songs for that album? I honestly doubt it. EMI was a very structured organization, with carefully divided professional roles. Sound mixing and mastering was the jurisdiction of the sound engineers, period.

I'd venture out to guess that similar arrangements applied to many of their subsequent records. "A Hard Day's Night", "Beatles For Sale", "Help", all those records were done in a pretty traditional, conservative fashion. The musicians (even the star musicians) get some studio time to move in and record their material, then they leave, go on a tour, while the 'grownups' roll up their sleeves and mix, master and package the merchandise.

The Beatles explained how by the time they started recording "Rubber Soul" in the fall of 1965, they were given more rope by the EMI bosses (on account of their phenomenal financial success), so they were emboldened to start experimenting in the studio. Still, they were on the clock, rushing to cobble up the next release in time for the Christmas season. So I'd think that little time was left for them to pour over the minutia after they've recorded their song, deliberating on how to mix and master the material. They were still heavily relying on the paid professional help.

I've read how the Beatles (in particular John and Paul) have been complaining to EMI staff regarding how polite and wimpy their songs sound compared to the material they've been hearing coming out of Motown and Stax. Their complaints were falling on deaf ears, because EMI was an extremely risk averse organization, and instead of letting the full blown bass be mastered on the records they were releasing, they were in favour of attenuating the bass. That was done to avoid any possibility of the stylus on lousy turntables skipping, and causing people to return the records and ask for their money back.

Obviously, John and Paul didn't have sufficient clout to twist the EMI execs' arms and force them to boost the bass on their records, the way Motown/Stax were doing on their records. Knowing this, it invalidates the conventional wisdom statement which claims that mono mixes were the final product, presenting the sound the way the Beatles themselves wanted us to hear. Not even close, because the Beatles did not want us to hear their records with such weak, wimpy bass.

It is therefore not so easy/simple to claim which version of the Beatles material is the intended version. It wasn't before the Beatles reached their final stage, while producing "Abbey Road", that they managed to gain full control over their output. It was only on "Abbey Road" that they finally managed to get the full blown bass to get engraved into the grooves of their records. And the gorgeous, super warm, super deep and muscular bass on "Come Together", "Something", "Here Comes The Sun" and all other songs on that album finally showcases the sound they wanted to have from the beginning, but were not allowed by the bosses to pursue.

Anyway, that's my theory, without a doubt full of holes. Discuss...

[struth]

they were mastered for 60's music players and the like. a lot of stereo swings etc too. that doesnt cut it today for the majority. doesnt sound good on cans/earbud or a hifi tbh.
Thats why the likes of the Sgt pepper recent remaster from the boss was such a success. mastered for todays equipment

[Barry]

Certainly the Beatles, like any other pop group of the '60s, would have had no say in the mixing/mastering of their songs. They wouldn't even have had any say in the choice of cover artwork, nor of the choice of, and order of, the tracks on the record. This was the era of the "hit single", so the recording company would withold a track from an LP, so it could be issued only on a 45rpm single - and those would have been mixed to sound good when played on the typical Dansette record player of the time.

However by the time of Sgt. Pepper, which was a sort of 'concept album', as well as being a recording which the Beatles hadabsolutely no intention of playing live, I can well imagine that they did have quite a bit of say/input into how the overall 'sound' should be.

Interestingly, I have recently been adding the stereo remastered versions to my old mono recordings. With the exception of Sgt. Pepper, I can't say the new versions of the earlier releases ('Please Please Me', 'With the Beatles', 'Beatles for Sale', 'Hard Days Night', 'Help', 'Rubber Soul' and 'Revolver') sound any better than my original mono copies; apart from having less background noise and freedom from the odd click, tick and pop, acquired over forty five years of use.

[magiccarpetride]

Certainly the Beatles, like any other pop group of the '60s, would have had no say in the mixing/mastering of their songs. They wouldn't even have had any say in the choice of cover artwork, nor of the choice of, and order of, the tracks on the record. This was the era of the "hit single", so the recording company would withold a track from an LP, so it could be issued only on a 45rpm single - and those would have been mixed to sound good when played on the typical Dansette record player of the time.

However by the time of Sgt. Pepper, which was a sort of 'concept album', as well as being a recording which the Beatles hadabsolutely no intention of playing live, I can well imagine that they did have quite a bit of say/input into how the overall 'sound' should be.

Interestingly, I have recently been adding the stereo remastered versions to my old mono recordings. With the exception of Sgt. Pepper, I can't say the new versions of the earlier releases ('Please Please Me', 'With the Beatles', 'Beatles for Sale', 'Hard Days Night', 'Help', 'Rubber Soul' and 'Revolver') sound any better than my original mono copies; apart from having less background noise and freedom from the odd click, tick and pop, acquired over forty five years of use.

Interesting. I'm bringing this topic up in order to examine the validity of the conventional wisdom that the Beatles actually wanted us to hear them in mono format. But I'm not convinced that's the case, because, like you said, they had little or no say in how should the final product sound.

A propos different mastering, I did an experiment over the weekend: went back and compared my crusty old Beatles CDs from 1988 with the shiny new 2009 stereo remasters. Guess what? The old, much maligned 1988 CDs kick ass on the 2009 remasters! Yes, I was shocked to discover that.

I can't believe that back in 2009 I was so over the moon with the new stereo remasters. Now when I listen to them, I just want to push the stop button -- they sound so boomy and obnoxious.

Meanwhile the old 'primitive' 1988 CDs sound just about right. Go figure...

[Mr Kipling]

Hard to imagine any artist in the '60s having any input to mastering, I would have thought. As for mixing...

Originally, this was done by George Martin, of course, who at some point became known as "the fifth Beatle".

The group was always wanting to try something new. Wanting to record sounds that had never been reordered before - and they did, with the help of George Martin, Geoff Emerick and others like Ken Townsend who invented artificial double tracking on Revolver. Sampling was used on Yellow Submarine, which had never been done before. I Feel Fine had the first use of guitar feedback on it. Backwards guitar. Reverse vocals, drums. Close miking of instruments, which had never been done before. Direct feed into the console which no one other than Joe Meek had done, in the UK.

So, if they wanted to be in control of what they were creating, I'm pretty sure they would want to have input into what the final item would sound like. They did take acetates and play them. So if they weren't happy I'm sure they would have a change made. They also considered stereo as just a gimmick and never took it seriously, for some time.

Why do you think the 2009 remasters came about? Being cynical, you might say, in part, to milk the buying public. For many years previously people were wondering why the the official '87 releases sounded wanting compared to bootleg copies that were available. I got the Ultra Rare Tracks Vol 1. It was interesting to hear Paul's bass so clearly. People were asking why the official issues were in mono and not stereo, like the bootlegs.

I wasn't a fan of the official releases. I got the first 3 titles and left it at that. I've just tried With The Beatles, the original, 2009 mono, 2009 stereo and the 2014 American version.

I still find listening to both the original and 2009 remastered mono versions disappointing to listen to. I just hear compression and a lack of space. Much prefer the stereo version. And the US one, which has both mono and stereo mixes. Still only about £7.50 from Amazon, last time I looked.

Sent from my CUBOT_NOTE_S using Tapatalk

[The Black Adder]

I'm sure they went through several mixes from Revolver on-wards before bumping it down.

Towards the end, George Martin fell out of favor with Lennon after he told him that he didn't want his crap on the next LP... That being either Abbey Road or Let It Be I think. Lennon had lots of sycophantic friends and a few nutters telling him what was best. George Martin was very hurt from how he treated him.

[Mr Kipling]

Here's a cheap one for you to try, Alex:

http://ebay.co.uk/itm/262844736735

Sent from my CUBOT_NOTE_S using Tapatalk