"I Want to Be Wanted" by Brenda Lee has backup singers that I've always heard clearly, except on KTUC. The violins are also supposed to be clear, but both the singers and the violins sound like they're in a closet. Brenda I can hear clearly, and the drums seem more prominent than usual. I can also hear bass and piano. I wonder what they're doing wrong?
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Backup singers nearly missing
- Thread starter vchimpanzee
- Start date
Sounds like only one channel of the (likely artificial) stereo of the recording is going out over both channels of the broadcast. A station up this way that used to run an oldies format had a similar problem with "I Saw Her Again" by the Mamas and the Papas. Mama Cass' lead vocal was nearly inaudible, but the harmony vocals from the other members of the group were loud and clear.
The lead vocal in that song is by Denny Doherty. He's in the left channel. The harmonies are in the right. This is what you get with pre-pan pot stereo. You hear in on a lot of records during this time.
Great topic, probably discussed here in detail before and perhaps again surprising soon.
Hits are mixed and engineered to fit the era, audience and delivery method, from source to audience ear.
If you are interested in sound and mixes of a hit from early eras you should consider:
What version?
a. Original recorded version (on the medium widely heard by the audience that made it a hit), or something else such as catering to today's audience, even if some of the oldsters think it does not sound right.
b. Mono single version, could be more than one mono mix out there.
c. Stereo album version.
d. Re-recording or re-mix by original artist or re-recorded with a replacement lead vocalist in the group.
e. Subsequent re-mixes and remastering.
f. Regional preference for one particular version.
Cliche, well-known example-
Motown 60's singles were designed to win in a mono sound comparison on the radio, record player and jukebox. The Internet says that during mix comparison shootouts Berry Gordy did not listen to tapes, he played acetates on a record player.
Compared to the all-important single version, album and later compilation stereo versions frequently sounded lame. Many who heard Motown hits on stereo FM have never heard the powerful and kicking sound of the original mono version. On the singles, engineering talent specific processing could have been added in the disc mastering stage, that sound is not on the studio multi-track work tape or the studio mixdown. For the most part, the mastering guys are gone or not talking. In the Motown arena Hitsville USA compilations are pretty well sourced with original mono versions. Other compilations are simply horrendous, and they have been heard on FM stations by millions.
Here's an exercise- pick one 60s hit and listen to every single version found on You Tube. Then go to the other pay streamers and see what they have. If you have them, listen to original vinyl or CD version. Now... determine what you would play?
Note- You Tube poster WABCRADIO77 runs everything through a single band limiter. He has the best sourcing of original hits, but you have to remember he has a limiter on it.
My view:
I think if a radio person is going to play old music, recording and mix curation is important. However, time and money involved in this must be work within the business plan. Truth is, most of the audience does not know what it really sounded like, but they do know how it makes them feel.
Radio people are different, I am annoyed if I don't hear what I believe is the correct version. For example, if I were to play "Rainy Days and Mondays" by the Carpenters. I would use the version without the replacement ending present on later versions. No disrespect to Richard Carpenter, he is blessed with awesome talent, but they nailed it on the single.
Hits are mixed and engineered to fit the era, audience and delivery method, from source to audience ear.
If you are interested in sound and mixes of a hit from early eras you should consider:
What version?
a. Original recorded version (on the medium widely heard by the audience that made it a hit), or something else such as catering to today's audience, even if some of the oldsters think it does not sound right.
b. Mono single version, could be more than one mono mix out there.
c. Stereo album version.
d. Re-recording or re-mix by original artist or re-recorded with a replacement lead vocalist in the group.
e. Subsequent re-mixes and remastering.
f. Regional preference for one particular version.
Cliche, well-known example-
Motown 60's singles were designed to win in a mono sound comparison on the radio, record player and jukebox. The Internet says that during mix comparison shootouts Berry Gordy did not listen to tapes, he played acetates on a record player.
Compared to the all-important single version, album and later compilation stereo versions frequently sounded lame. Many who heard Motown hits on stereo FM have never heard the powerful and kicking sound of the original mono version. On the singles, engineering talent specific processing could have been added in the disc mastering stage, that sound is not on the studio multi-track work tape or the studio mixdown. For the most part, the mastering guys are gone or not talking. In the Motown arena Hitsville USA compilations are pretty well sourced with original mono versions. Other compilations are simply horrendous, and they have been heard on FM stations by millions.
Here's an exercise- pick one 60s hit and listen to every single version found on You Tube. Then go to the other pay streamers and see what they have. If you have them, listen to original vinyl or CD version. Now... determine what you would play?
Note- You Tube poster WABCRADIO77 runs everything through a single band limiter. He has the best sourcing of original hits, but you have to remember he has a limiter on it.
My view:
I think if a radio person is going to play old music, recording and mix curation is important. However, time and money involved in this must be work within the business plan. Truth is, most of the audience does not know what it really sounded like, but they do know how it makes them feel.
Radio people are different, I am annoyed if I don't hear what I believe is the correct version. For example, if I were to play "Rainy Days and Mondays" by the Carpenters. I would use the version without the replacement ending present on later versions. No disrespect to Richard Carpenter, he is blessed with awesome talent, but they nailed it on the single.
Last edited:
I caught a KHJ aircheck from 1969, unscoped in its original form, not ("restored"). "Do You Love Me" by the Contours was a "golden" but it sounded just a little different from the verson heard in movies and on oldies radio. Turns out KHJ had the original 45 with a different take than we hear today.
gr8oldies- I'd say the recent version had audio work to spread out the mono track and polish the EQ.
compared to this (not sure if this is the actual new version, but the difference is clear)
If you had a choice of versions
Which one would you choose?
compared to this (not sure if this is the actual new version, but the difference is clear)
If you had a choice of versions
Which one would you choose?
Last edited:
Probably go with the mono version. Thanks!
Re: what the OP noticed: sounds like the AM or FM was being fed with one channel missing. I've heard that before, even on an AM rocker that used to make it here in Seattle from Spokane. They were feeding the AM with just one of the stereo channels. Could be inadvertent.
Being that I used to work at a company that provided music for radio stations, the programmers were well aware of some of the recordings that had all vocals on one side, all the instruments on the other. Often they would instruct us to mono them, especially if the stations (at that time) were AMers, because they didn't want there to be a chance that the resulting broadcast would put out one channel only. Apparently in the 1990s there were some stations that were set up that way, during the tape automation era -- they called it "upper mono". I don't remember the specifics as to why it was done, perhaps some of the engineering types here could answer that.
Being that I used to work at a company that provided music for radio stations, the programmers were well aware of some of the recordings that had all vocals on one side, all the instruments on the other. Often they would instruct us to mono them, especially if the stations (at that time) were AMers, because they didn't want there to be a chance that the resulting broadcast would put out one channel only. Apparently in the 1990s there were some stations that were set up that way, during the tape automation era -- they called it "upper mono". I don't remember the specifics as to why it was done, perhaps some of the engineering types here could answer that.
"Suspicious Minds" isn't supposed to fade THAT much and then come back.
The Beatles' "Strawberry Fields Forever" does that, too, but it's on the instrumental fade. I'm not sure if the Isley Brothers' "Shout" was recorded with a fade -- in the "a little bit softer now" lines -- or the effect was produced by having the Isleys sing and the musicians play at a lower volume.
I always thought the fade ending was the product of writer's block by the songwriters. They couldn't come up with a cold ending to the song they liked or that the artists or producers liked, so it was just "Screw this, just repeat the chorus and fade it out." I'm sure all of us have been to concerts at which artists perform live those songs that faded out in recorded form. My experience is that the cold endings to those songs were pretty much the same, lacking any creativity or complexity. The band just stops playing after three or four chords end the song. I've even heard the hackneyed "shave and a haircut, two bits" seven-note phrase used.
It seemed like it was more common in the 60s and 70s. You don’t hear much of it now.
Now we have more seamless tracks from one song to the next in an album.
Except unless the artist was also the writer, the songwriter isn't in the studio when the song is recorded. The writer's version usually ends cold. The fade is created in the studio by the musicians and the producer, typically to get the song to end by a certain time. The musicians get on a roll, and continue on a riff. The problem a fade creates is how does the artist perform it live? I think that's why you hear it less. There's less reason to fade for time reasons, and more of a reason to have a song end cold.
So was the fade a product of the 45’?
Depends on the song, but in some cases it was for radio. The longer the song, the harder it was to get played.
Now it's less of a consideration. The fade works better when you have a live DJ. Not as well when songs run into each other.
Remastered albums, do they leave the fade in if they can get to the master tapes.
I guess "depends" but usually it's going to be the version most known. There are the Motown "Stripped Mixes" which will go to the end but strip out several parts of the song.
- Status