| |
In September 2002, noted Bob Dylan historian
Roger Ford interviewed Sundazed's Bob Irwin about the upcoming mono
edition of Bob Dylan's Blonde On Blonde.
Here is that interview.....
RF:
For the new Sundazed release of the
album, were you able to cut directly fom the original 1966 mono master
tapes, or did you have to create a cleaned-up copy for any reason and
cut from that?
BI: No - cut entirely from the original analogs, no clean up
necessary, just ever-so-slight eq applied to maybe two or three cuts.
Everything else was a straight analog cut.
RF:
Was there a "Do Not Use"
tape for the mono mix, or would Columbia back in 1966 just have cut
straight from the mono mixdown master without producing an adjusted
cutting master? The latter is what you seem to imply in your interview
in Stereophile magazine.
BI: No adjusted cutting master was originally created. The final
mono mix downs were reel-assembled to create the cutting master, ie,
a first-generation tape.
RF:
So "reel-assembled" means they actually cut the required
mixes out of the reels of alternate mixes for each song, and spliced
these together into a new master reel?
BI: Yes.
RF: When you researched the available tapes,
did you find more than one set of mono masters? The reason I ask is
that when the album was originally released, European countries got
a very different mono mix from the US release. The European mix sounds
less polished - one or two edits of vocal and guitar slips are missed,
for example.
BI: There were actually three (partial) sets of mono masters
created for the album before the official release. Very confusing, very
difficult to sort out. At first glance, it would just appear to be a
slight EQ difference between mixes, but eventually a very subtle change
in the mix itself would become apparent... a guitar raised a half db
or so from the previous mix, or a very slight level tweak in the keyboards,
etc..
RF: So the official release was made from
the fourth (and only complete) set of mono masters?
BI: Only side three went to the fourth version.
RF: In connection with this, do you know anything about how Columbia
allocated matrix numbers back then? I've noticed that all released mono
copies of Blonde On Blonde appear to have matrix numbers in the
pattern
- XLP113761-2a
- XLP113762-3a
- XLP113763-4a
- XLP113764-2a
where the a on the end is some alphabetic character in the range A-J.
BI: This shows that side one went to a second version, side two
went to a third version, three went to a fourth, etc.. In each case,
there was at least one song per side that was remixed. Obviously, the
third side was worked long and hard! Earlier mixes had Bob's guitar
level down on some tracks, keyboard levels up, etc.. Perhaps some of
these earlier versions are what made it to the U.K. pressing... Sometimes
these numeric indications are not clear on the tape boxes themselves.
That letter on the end of the matrix number is the lacquer-cutting info,
"A" being the first cutting, then generational-cycling through
the letter "J". Then they would start over again with double-letters
such as "AA", "AB", etc..

RF:
The fact that the third side of the mono Blonde on Blonde got
up to a -4 suffix by the time of release would fit with your finding
three previous generations of master. I suspect CBS in Europe got sent
a copy of the -1 tapes.
BI: Exactly.
RF: Presumably there was a separate master
reel for each side of the album?
BI: Yes, on the final side masters - there are four final tapes
(all earlier versions are intact as well). But not necessarily sequenced
on the mix reels, because the album's sequence wasn't determined until
at least the first round of mixing was completed. So, songs were out
of order on the original mix reels. I can't remember if there were any
sequence changes after the "dash 1" reels were assembled.
RF: You said in your interview with Stereophile
magazine that for each song on the album there was a reel (or maybe
more than one) of alternate mixes, from which they picked the best to
pull out to the master. Would this have applied to mono mixes as well
as stereo? Would the mono mixes have been kept on separate reels from
the stereo?
BI: Yes, but from what I can remember, not as many reels as the
stereos. There were more mono revisions, but less tape generated, because
they were working toward a very deliberate end result. That end result
changed a few times, but there was clear vision throughout the mono
mixing. I can let you know, without a doubt, the mono mix was the one
that was considered most important to everyone associated with the album
at the time. The final mono mix is much, much more complicated and deliberate
than the stereo. It would be nearly impossible to replicate!
RF:
Was it more complicated because in mono it was much harder to avoid
instruments getting "buried" in the mix, whereas in a stereo
mix they'd be audible anyhow because of the stereo separation? Maybe
that's putting it over-simply, but is that the essential point?
BI: I think it was not so much an issue of things getting buried,
but the desire to make things more pronounced, other things less pronounced.
A remix to bring up more of the guitar-figure on "I Want You",
then yet another remix to bring that track up even more is one set of
revisions that stand out. Another thing that I remember is them tweaking
the snare drum sound on "Absolutely Sweet Marie" to get a
more high-end "snap" out of it. It was comparatively dull
on the multi's. LOTS of those type of changes and revisions.

RF: I realise that the primary target of your researches would
have been the mono masters, but did you
come across anything that might have shed light on a weird fact in the
history of Blonde On Blonde: that the original stereo mix disappeared
after a couple of years, replaced by pressings cut from clearly remixed
masters? It's generally been assumed that this remixing was done as
some sort of later artistic revision (the original stereo mix certainly
had some peculiar features). But what you said in the interview suggests
another possible explanation - that the original tapes just got worn
out. Is it possible the original masters could really have been worn
out in just a couple of years, and they maybe then pulled out the next-best
mixes from the 1966 multiple-mix reels for each song, to make a set
of second-generation masters? It just seems funny that this didn't happen
with Bringing It All Back Home or Highway 61 Revisited
- all LP pressings of those albums seem to have the same mono or stereo
mixes.
BI: Hmmm... Was the original Blonde album remixed within just
a couple of years of release? If so, I wasn't aware of that. If that
was indeed the case, then I would bet that it was due to artistic revision.
The original stereo masters, to the best of my knowledge, were around
for many, many years...not worn out until the mid or late 70's, in fact.
RF: Did you find any documentation with the Blonde on Blonde
tapes regarding who produced the original mono and stereo mixes, and
when and where?
BI: Much of the mixing took place in Nashville - I don't really
know exactly how much input Bob Johnston had in the mixes, but clearly
Dylan was involved, and I would strongly suspect that most changes came
from directly him. In my experience, I don't believe it could have been
anyone other than Bob that would have been concerned about, or dealt
with, the minutiae of the slight mix revisions... What I'm saying is
that, these subtle tweaks and improvements were clearly artistic in
nature - not the type of thing an A&R guy would suggest...
RF:
Yes, Al Kooper has confirmed that they did some mixing in Nashville,
while he was still around following the recording sessions. However,
I've also heard it said that some mixing work was done a bit later in
Los Angeles, just before Dylan went off on his big tour. It would be
interesting to see if your documentation confirms this, but maybe you
just don't have this much detail.
BI:
I think the original mixing was done in Nashville, the revisions were
done in LA. The original Nashville mixes (most unused, except for "Rainy
Day Women" and maybe one or two others) were done to 'Audiotape'
reels, the LA mix sessions to 'Scotch' brand.
RF: Were the
stereo mixes all done in LA? I imagine the original Nashville mixes
were mono, or am I wrong there?
BI: I think that's right. Original mono's in Nashville, stereo's
done in LA.
RF:
Getting back to the question of the vinyl matrix numbers, would each
of Columbia's mastering rooms have had their own series of numbers?
Is there any way of telling them apart? I heard that back then they
had three mastering facilities, in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco,
and each would have had a set of tape masters to cut from. If the final
mixing was done in LA than maybe it was only the LA lacquers that were
cut from the original masters, and the other facilities worked from
copy tapes.
BI: Traditionally, New York would get the masters, LA would get
a copy. I've never seen the situation where San Francisco received or
held masters, until later years, when original mixdowns were left at
that facility, such as certain Sly Stone masters from the later albums,
etc.. With Dylan, etc., all masters went to New York.
RF: Finally, do you think that in 1966
the mono release of Blonde On Blonde would still have been the
primary, mass-market format, with the stereo more of a specialist product?
From listening to the original US mono and stereo releases I'd agree
with you that more artistic care was taken over the mono mix. They certainly
sound as though they were mixed by different people altogether.
BI: You are absolutely correct. As I said above, there was an
unbelievable amount of care and attention given to the mono mixes. The
stereo mixes were much more straightforward. It was a great learning
lesson on just how much information could be carefully tweaked and expertly
coaxed out of a four-track recording to create a wonderful mono mix.
Blonde
On Blonde has appeared in many different mono and stereo mixes over
the years, and Dylan historian Roger Ford has made a detailed study
of these see his Electric
Dylan web site.
- Purchase
your copy of Sundazed's double 180 gram vinyl LP set of Bob Dylan's
Blonde On Blonde.
- Further
information on Bob
Irwin's production work may be found on the All
Music Guide website.
|
|