Intrada Soundtrack Forum

Sorry, Bruce, but I have heard the 1/2" masters and had a two-track mix made from them by Bruce Botnick way back in 1986. I was also present at Capitol when Bruce and Jerry were creating our album master and had ample opportunity to talk about the recording and whether we wanted to create totally different masters for each of the LP, cassette and then-new CD formats. We left that decision up to them because they were the artists who knew what they wanted, we were just happy to be involved. FACT: Botnick made the three-channel mixes for the FILM, with little input from Goldsmith, and they were never intended for subsequent stereo albums. Whatever you choose to do with the 1/2" analog film masters is your privilege. It is not the choice Goldsmith or Botnick made, however.

You've been tossing shots across my bow now for some time: whining about our release date on Bound For Glory, our release of Up being the same as the download, even the vernacular of my own personal capsules on our website for goodness sakes! Recently you jumped on my comments regarding audio processing viewpoints especially with regards to On The Waterfront.

And Dressed To Kill? You brought that one up in your comments about reverb some time ago, even though you failed to take into consideration that the reverb you so cherished was NOT in fact Donaggio's engineering decision but one made by the mixer in the small A&R Recording Studios in New York where the unusually located recording sessions took place. That is, in fact, why the low brass disappeared in the final two-track mix much to Donaggio's disappointment, and a major reason we opted to locate and remix from the 2" 24-track masters. It was our creative decision and I will stand by it. You toss your opinions around like they were facts. But we have been working with these people for many years. In fact, did you speak to Pino regarding his "sound"? We did. And if you want to to hear his sound, try Mysteries Of The Black Jungle, The Barbarians (where we first spoke to him about that very topic), Don't Look Now, Der Mann Nebenen, and on and on. I can provide you with his contact info if you don't have it. Or you can agree with me that our differing opinions on his "sound" and noise reduction and reverb and everything else creative should simply remain differences in opinion. No more, no less.

The road you speak of is one you have been trying to goad me down for years. I personally just grew weary of it and fired back. Feel free to voice your opinions and criticize my efforts here to preserve and present to the public all this wonderful music. But if you just want to lob missiles at what we are doing here, I will take up the gauntlet... starting with Poltergeist II. I stand by the facts as I presented them.
--Doug

Take out the battle shots and this is actually a pretty interesting discussion that I'm enjoying. For what it's worth.

this is GREAT STUFF! Doug and Bruce, imparting their individual knowledge... AND being civil about it! Hats off to you both!!!

_________________
I-love-Goldsmith, yes-I-do...
I-love-Ber-nard-Herr-mann-too! EVERYBODY SING!!!

Ahhh, after a good night's sleep I can come back and try to point out a couple of things. I have heard the three-channel mixes and could have worked with them before. I chose not to because:

History: In the olden days, stereo record albums were made from three channel recordings because that was the technology of the time. When Elmer Bernstein went in and re-recorded his score album for The Carpetbaggers or Hawaii or whatever, the engineer recorded onto three channels with the balancing designed to be mixed down to the two track stereo listening experience. Three into two. It worked fine.

Fast forward: In the Poltergeist II era, and continuing today, the masters began at the sessions in 24-track formats, or 32-tracks, and today even 48 tracks. Two track stereo mixes were made from these, either "live" using the multi-track board set-ups, or completely re-mixed down into two tracks with the intent of listening in stereo or for producing albums and whatnot. BUT this is where Mr. Kimmel and I disagree. Unless we are re-writing history, the three channel mixes on Poltergeist II were made from the same Sony 3324 format masters (24-tracks) that the two-track stereo mixes were made from but were specifically mixed with the center channel balanced to be sent to the dubbers to integrate into the dialog and sound effects of the Dolby film prints. Folding those three channels down into two was never intended and the results are different than the actual two track mixes made for listening. While you can, of course, get satisfying results making a stereo mix from modern three channel film mixes - and many CDs today come from those 1/2" three channel film mixes because they often are the best elements available - the imaging of the orchestra will not be the same as that created from true stereo mixes. One can make a wonderful case for going back to those 24-track sources and creating an all-new true stereo mix for today's CDs, and it is sometimes really nice when those elements still exist (as they did for us when we issued Rosenman's Lord Of The Rings) but that is not what we are discussing here.

Yes, the violas and woodwinds are in the proper position of the orchestra, of course. But the imaging for the film mixes is different and is designed solely to be balanced with the other sound elements of the Dolby prints. It can not simply be folded down into two-track stereo and yield optimal imaging for stereo. And there is no reason it needs to because the true stereo mixes were specifically made for that purpose. Each mix has a purpose and they are not identical, nor should they be. The fact that the violas are still present in the left-center of the orchestra in both mixes does not mean they will sound identical in both the two channel stereo mixes and the three channel film mixes because they were not engineered for the same purpose.

I suppose one will hear what they hear and where some people may hear the overtones of a set of chimes, another person may not even be able to distinguish between the chimes or the orchestra bells. It makes no difference. We hear what we hear. In this specific case, I guess Mr. Kimmel hears what he needs to hear from the film mixes and I will never convince him otherwise because those mixes are quite valid and satisfying. They just aren't mixed to be folded down further into two because that was never their reason for being.

I think it is fine for us to disagree about creative differences because that is what artists typically disagree on. But if it is just about our ears, I am pretty happy with mine. And if it is about the history of this project, while Goldsmith is sadly not here to discuss it, Bruce Botnick is readily available today. And I was there at Digital Magnetics, too. I did not see you there, however.

So, again, I will enjoy this new presentation because I enjoy new takes on all things Goldsmith and I do support the efforts of everyone involved.
--Doug

You gotta love free speech.
What's wrong with owning all versions of this wonderful score?
I'm just glad that these releases get to spin in collectors homes at all, rather than locked away in a dark vault somewhere .
I have respect for all labels that go through the gruelling process to produce these great scores.
After all they do say that variety is the spice of life,
Plus if every label produced the exact same product then the market would be boring.
Nothing wrong with a little competition, I'm just happy that each year my collection grows a little bigger with scores i thought wouldn't be possible, for that i thank you all.

I think I can live with most of Bruce's explanation because when we get down to comparing what our ears are hearing, I will stay with mine and he should stay with his. I would not dismiss one's ability to hear overtones and similar sonic items as quickly as Bruce does since those overtones are an absolute necessity in the reproduction of music even though many listeners do not realize they are hearing them. I admit having sat in the trumpet section of an orchestra for several years helped me take notice.

So all is probably peaceful save one thing factual, not creative or opinion in nature. The suggestion that the two track stereo mixes may have come from the three channel mixes can be disposed of since it is not only untrue but can be confirmed by reading the "technical note" Bruce Botnick attached to the back packaging of our original LP and the inside packaging of our CD. That text states - in admittedly clunky language designed to emphasize the word digital as often as possible - the source of our mixes was in fact the actual 3324 format twenty-four channel digital masters. (And for what we were billed by Digital Magnetics back then, it ought to be!) No two track mixes have ever been made from the three channel mixes that I know of until now. But I am certainly up for a new Poltergeist II experience. I find the opening cue ("The Power") to be one of Goldsmith's most powerful thematic cues ever, especially as it introduces not just one but both new themes associated with Craig T. Nelson's character, which is much more involved in this second chapter than the first one.

I think we are mostly in the same camp with regards to analog "warmth" over digital sampling rates and reproduction of same. That sadly is the nature of the digital beast, which admittedly today has sorted out most of the artifacts well enough to be quite listenable.

All this said, I will stick with my memory of the events that happened back at the Capitol Records building in February of 1986 where Digital Magnetics was then housed... and I will stick with my first-hand knowledge of the comments being made by Goldsmith and Botnick with regards to all of the mixes. Anything newly done today, without benefit of those artists, just becomes Bruce's creative liberty.

However, if Bruce performs some of his wizardry on this version, I'm all for it.
--Doug

man, I'm so stoked for this album now.

I love all this tech-talk from you Doug. I really do ! I always read your tech-talk column in all the Intrada booklets and I always treasure those precious informations you're giving us and often comes back to it when i have any doubt regarding the original source of a given score or the story behind the transfer on CD.

Everything you are saying makes perfect sense to me : three channels mix for the movie (to make a proper mix in the center with dialogues) and two channels mix for a stereo album. Two different mixing works made from the same 24 tracks master.
As an amateur movie mixer myself (often doing 5.1 DTS mix) I wonder how can you properly downgrade the 3 tracks mix to a stereo mix, since the center channel which is in mono can't be split in two different parts. Unless using a software to separate some frenquencies from others (degrading the sound of the whole), if I had no choice but to downmix the 3 channels elements, I'd just have to equally balance the center channel with the right and left channel or choose to balance it in priority on the left or on the right channel. The result would be a very approximative placement of the center channel instruments, of course ! And it certainly wouldn't be what the composer had intended for his album since it was designed for the movie with dialogues and sound effects.

I'll stick to the digital master because it comes from the original 24 tracks elements and has been approved by Jerry and Bruce Botnick as the official stereo album mix. Just my opinion based on all this discussion and my own mixing logic.

Excellent and insightful discussion. Yesterday I listened to the Varese release, which as far as I could hear sounded pretty darn good, alas, I was driving an open convertible, which is not a suited listening place to accurately judge such things.

Ordered!