11 Moore Dockwray

twentieth-century music
http://journals.cambridge.org/TCM
Additional services for twentieth-century music:
Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here
The Establishment of the Virtual Performance Space in

Rock
ALLAN F. MOORE and RUTH DOCKWRAY
twentieth-century music / Volume 5 / Issue 02 / September 2008, pp 219 - 241

DOI: 10.1017/S1478572209990065, Published online: 05 February 2010
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1478572209990065
How to cite this article:

ALLAN F. MOORE and RUTH DOCKWRAY (2008). The Establishment of the Virtual Performance
Space in Rock. twentieth-century music, 5, pp 219-241 doi:10.1017/S1478572209990065
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/TCM, IP address: 134.176.233.165 on 16 Jun 2015

twentieth-century music 5/2, 219–241 © Cambridge University Press, 2010
doi:10.1017/S1478572209990065
The Establishment of the Virtual Performance Space in Rock
ALLAN F. MOORE and RUTH DOCKWRAY
Abstract
Analysis of the spatial elements of popular music recordings can be made by way of the ‘sound-box’, a concept that
acknowledges the way sound sources are perceived to exist in four dimensions: laterality, register, prominence, and
temporal continuity. By late 1972 producers working across a range of styles and in different geographical locations
had adopted a normative positioning of sound sources across these dimensions. In 1965 no such norm existed. This
article contextualizes the notion of the sound-box within academic discourse on popular music and explores the
methodology employed by a research project that addressed the gradual coming-into-existence of the norm, which
the project defined as the diagonal mix. A taxonomy of types of mix is offered, and a chronology of the adoption of
the diagonal mix in rock is presented.
In recent years music analysis has begun to shift its focus from the score to performance. One
notable outcome of this change of perspective has been a rise in the study of recordings,
illustrated in the work of the CHARM project in the United Kingdom.1 In popular musicol-
ogy, the recording has long been recognized as a more important source of musical infor-
mation than any visual representation, though the actual information scholars have extracted
from it has, in the main, been exactly what is obtainable from a visual representation, namely
information about lyrics, melody, instrumentation, harmony, and rhythm. It has frequently
seemed as if the artefact itself, to which so many listeners give their primary attention, has
become transparent, merely a means of transmission for these hallowed categories of infor-
mation. This article emanates from a twelve-month project funded by the UK Arts and
Humanities Research Council (AHRC). One of the project’s aims was to develop a degree of
precision in musicological discussion of the recorded artefact, particularly that aspect ident-
ified by the ‘sound-box’,2 to begin to enable this aspect of recorded song to be discussed with
the same degree of analytical engagement normally reserved for those other domains. The
project was an exercise in the empirical music analysis of a large range of material, searching
for similarities and differences. The heuristic model we employed, that of the sound-box,
assumes that sound sources are perceived in four dimensions: laterality, register, prominence,
and temporal continuity. By late 1972 producers working across a range of styles and in
different geographical locations had adopted a normative positioning of sound sources across
these dimensions. In 1965 no such norm existed. The key purpose of this article is to
investigate and, as far as possible, explain the process by which this norm was consolidated.
1 The Centre for the Historical Analysis of Recorded Music was based at Royal Holloway, University of London from
2004 to 2009 and run in partnership with King’s College, London, and Sheffield University.
2 See Moore, Rock: the Primary Text, 105–10.
219
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 16 Jun 2015 IP address: 134.176.233.165
220 Moore and Dockwray The Establishment of the Virtual Performance Space in Rock
Although the sound-box has not been a central issue for popular musicology, other writers
have addressed it in various ways. Both Theodore Gracyk and Albin Zak discuss the laterality
and prominence dimensions of the sound-box (i.e. stereo placement and degree of fore-
grounding) from an aesthetic stance.3 Zak looks in some detail at spatial elements and the
stereophonic aspect of tracks, making a key distinction between tracks that present a static
stereo image and tracks whose image changes over their duration. He refers to the ‘conven-
tional stereo mix of a rock band’ as being the re-creation of the live set-up, namely the visual
image created in front of a live audience, an issue we address below.4 Much as this rock mix
convention might seem a natural corollary of the transition to stereo mixing, Zak’s assump-
tion that such a mix – an attempted replication of the live set-up – enjoyed normative status
is hard to support, since it accounts neither for early mixes nor for the process by which such
a norm might have been adopted across a range of genres. Gracyk, on the other hand,
emphasizes the concept of the ‘virtual performance’ and observes that the sounds exist as
they do only in recorded form.5 Rock tracks in particular are viewed no longer as ‘records’ of
a live performance, but rather as a specific shaping of ‘sonic events, mixed to produce an
experience’.6 Both Zak and Gracyk confirm that records ultimately go beyond the portrayal
of realism and must be considered distinctive artefacts with, as Mark Katz comments, ‘a
musical space unique to the work, one with no physical counterpart’.7 Doyle develops the
concept of such a space at some length but, because of his historical focus, does not consider
stereo placement.8 The notion that early stereo mixes (in particular those triangular in
configuration) are representative of a ‘live’ performance set-up is arbitrary, as we shall argue
below. Although records have historically been considered ‘byproducts of performances’,9
performances tended to develop – to be constructed and perfected – in the studio rather than
on the stage. Paradoxically, whereas stereo was initially ‘linked to notions of “realism”’10 in
terms of musical reproduction, popular music records have used the stereo illusion and
imaging to create surreal performances, performances that exist only on the record.
For Richard Middleton, the sound-box is the space within which gestures – by which he
means ‘kinetic patterns, cognitive maps and affective moments’ – occur.11 This perceived
space created by modern recording techniques can have a dramatic effect on the way in which
a listener participates in the overall experience of the recorded, virtual performance. The
significance of the sound-box in terms of the sense of physical placement has ‘enormous
potential on the power and types of gestural resonance’; Middleton refers to the listener’s
involvement as that of ‘a gestural subject, who is assimilated into the textural space, as a
participating actor’. This notion could be further applied to the act of listening over
3 Gracyk, Rhythm and Noise; Zak, The Poetics of Rock.
4 Zak, The Poetics of Rock, 145.
5 Gracyk, Rhythm and Noise, 38.
6 Morton, Off the Record, 43.
7 Katz, Capturing Sound, 42.
8 Doyle, Echo and Reverb.
9 Gracyk, Rhythm and Noise, 39.
10 Morton, Off the Record, 42.
11 Middleton, ‘Popular Music Analysis and Musicology’, 178.

Moore and Dockwray The Establishment of the Virtual Performance Space in Rock 221
headphones as opposed to loudspeakers, in that the former offer the ‘blended textural space
for assimilation, or mastery, by the detached listener-subject’.12 Comparison of the two
means of playback is significant, and will be addressed below: ‘Headphone listening [. . .]
isolat[es] the listener in a private acoustic space’,13 a space within which various types of
textural spaces can occur.14
Other writers on the aesthetics of popular song recordings focus on the collaborative
approach taken to production and mixing. The period from 1966 to 1972 witnessed not just
a technological change, but a change in social processes and approaches, a development of
the collaborative aspect of production in which the roles of musicians, producers, and
engineers began to become more flexible.15 It is clear that the collaborative nature of the
recording process influenced the creative practice of recording and mixing, changing pre-
vious conventions of popular song recording and production. These ‘auteurs of the phono-
graphic arts’16 greatly influenced the change of situation whereby the recorded artefact could
no longer be assumed to be a reproduction of a live performance, but became something that
captured a virtual performance. The historical development of the recorded paradigm as the
primary work, as in the case of rock and pop, where there is ‘no comparable space where the
music originates’,17 is an issue subject to increasing exploration. Although the literature
provides some evidence regarding shifting recording practices, the reasons behind decisions
concerning sonic placement, and the eventual adoption of a normative mix, remain little
explored; writing that focuses on the positioning of sound sources within individual tracks is
more prevalent.18
There is, of course, much literature that addresses the sonic stage from an audio engineer-
ing perspective. One example is William Moylan’s discussion of stereo imaging, which
describes the space created within the sound-box as ‘the perception of the spatial character-
istics of a sound’. This in turn creates the perception ‘of the physical location of a sound
source in an environment’.19 Although the perceived location of a sound on the vertical plane
(i.e. determined by the frequency of the fundamental) is briefly touched upon as one of the
ways in which a listener can perceive the spatial relationships of sound reproduction, vertical
placement is one component of stereo imaging that does not receive as much attention in
such literature as considerations of depth (‘prominence’) and lateral placement. Indeed,
aspects of the perceived performance environment and issues of the perception of ‘space
12 Middleton, ‘Popular Music Analysis and Musicology’, 179.

13 Schafer, ‘The Music of the Environment’, 35.
14 The distance between this mode of approach and that taken by listeners in everyday situations must be acknowledged.
As an exercise in comparative analysis, it was necessary to develop a normative means of approach to all tracks, even
though 1) a majority of listeners may not listen in this way, and 2) listeners may adopt different approaches to
listening to different genres. However, it was not our purpose to investigate the activities of listeners, but to investigate
the properties of that to which listeners give attention.
15 See Kealy, ‘From Craft to Art’, 3–29, also ‘Conventions and the Production of the Popular Music Aesthetic’, 100–15.
16 Hamilton, ‘The Art of Recording’, 353.
17 Chanan, Repeated Takes, 146.
18 See, for instance, Hodgson, ‘Outline for a Theory of Recording Practice’.
19 Moylan, Understanding and Crafting the Mix, 23.

within space’ are also considered with reference to the ‘artistic elements [. . .] shaped for
artistic purposes and used to create musical ideas’.20 The majority of the technical literature
that deals with specific aspects of sound production and stereo imaging necessarily maintains
an engineer’s or sound recordist’s perspective on stereo mixing. In this discipline, as
Moylan’s writing implies, the arrangement of sound is based on three components: lateral
placement (controlled by panning devices), depth or prominence (the way in which volume
and reverb can control the perceived distance of sounds in relation to other sounds and from
the listener), and time. ‘Vertical’ placement is generally not considered, particularly in audio
engineering terms, since lateral placement is measurable (controlled by pan pots), whereas
vertical placement is not. However, producers and engineers do accept that sounds may be
perceived to occupy space on a vertical plane. Beatles’ producer George Martin mentions the
vertical aspect of mixing, describing the panning of instruments as sounding ‘as though it
were travelling up, and overhead. It was like listening to a rainbow of music arching over
me.’21 Robin Millar alluded to the vertical placement of sounds when he commented on his
production of Sade’s ‘Sweetest Taboo’, describing the overall mix as ‘feeling high’, referring
to the frequency content of the sounds, in particular of the percussion, and the fact that these
sounds perceptually occupy the upper zones of the sound-box.22 David Gibson’s The Art of
Mixing provides not only a producer’s perspective on various stereo mixes (differentiated
according to genre, style, etc.), but also visual demonstrations of the sonic layout of generi-
cally typical recordings.23 While Gibson is one of few producers who explicitly refer to the
perceived vertical placement of a sound, production norms are his main focus and there is no
reference to the establishment of a normative layout. As in so much technical literature, it is
regarded simply as a given.
While technical literature and recording manuals deal with the conventions of producing
‘good’ mixes, journalistic literature focuses on topics such as the type of equipment em-
ployed by producers and engineers, how they set up microphones, and how much (and what
types of) reverb they add.24 As with the rest of the literature surveyed here, the development
of a normative mix and reasons for its adoption are simply not an issue.
Methodology
The study that provided the data for this article did not adopt the highly scientific approach
of audio engineers with regard to sound localization and perception. A large sample of 1000
tracks was selected for analysis. Fourteen per cent of these were chosen from the UK and US
singles charts, using a method of random sampling, in order to gather ten tracks from the
same month of the year in each year from 1966 to 1972. The remaining tracks were drawn
from singles and albums of both popular and cult status, together with a small number of
20 Moylan, Understanding and Crafting the Mix, 54, 59.

21 Martin, With a Little Help from My Friends, 75.
22 This comment was made at the Breaking Records Masterclass, Thames Valley University, 15 March 2007.
23 Gibson, The Art of Mixing.
24 See, for instance, Droney, Mix Masters; Massey, Behind the Glass; and Buskin, Inside Tracks.

other European tracks and a limited number of songs produced in 1965.25 Our sample
contained no purely instrumental tracks, since the position of the lead voice within the
sound-box is crucial to our understanding. Consideration in this article is restricted to tracks
understood generically as rock, i.e. to music whose aesthetic is conditioned by the audience’s
desired assumption of authorial control vested in the performer(s). Where possible, the
original stereo vinyl version was used, though gaining access to an original stereo vinyl of all
tracks proved impossible. Therefore, because a primary aim was to analyse a very large
sample of material, digitized recordings of the vinyl and CD reissues of the original stereo
vinyl were used where necessary.26 Given that the focus of this study was on the apparent
location of sound sources within recorded song, aural analysis of the tracks was necessarily
the analytical method chosen. Because our work was undertaken in conditions that comply
with recommended audio engineering set-up guidelines, which detail the degree of angle of
the loudspeaker and other factors in relation to the listener,27 the analysis took place over
headphones and over loudspeakers.
Twenty-five per cent of tracks (randomly chosen) from the years 1966–72 were subjected
to both loudspeaker and headphone analysis, while the remaining tracks were analysed only
over headphones. Our loudspeaker set-ups had different configurations, relating to both
contemporary and historical set-ups. Whilst the two methods – loudspeakers and head-
phones – provided subtly different results, headphone analysis was chosen as the main
method of analysis for three reasons. First, the perception of both the location of sources and
the overall image width of tracks is subject to change in different listening conditions as a
result of the physical attributes of the playback environment. As Moylan points out, ‘the
loudspeakers themselves are placed in, and interact with, a playback environment – such as
a living room’ and, more importantly, ‘the playback environment is nearly always quite
unrelated to the spaces on the recording’.28 The perceived spatial placement of sounds can
change significantly according to the listening set-up, with loudspeakers often producing a
centralized stereo image during playback with blended (as opposed to localized) sounds.
Headphones remove the environmental influence on the spatial characteristics of sounds
during playback, and provide greater consistency in listening conditions. Second, the stereo
image created over headphones appears to be clearer in terms of directing a listener’s
‘attention to different zones of interior space’,29 rendering sound localization and the
transcription of sonic placement more precise during aural analysis. Finally, the ‘in-the-
head’ effect produced during headphone listening is very different from the image created in
front of the listener during playback over loudspeakers. Steve Jones comments that ‘with
25 The full list of the tracks transcribed is available at <http://www.allanfmoore.org.uk/soundboxlist.xls>.

26 We began by comparing original vinyl and CD remasterings of the same tracks where we could access both. Although
there were perceptible differences in a minority of cases, these were insufficient to affect the general conclusions we
draw from our entire sample. Indeed, one reason for the size of the sample was to minimize the effect of such
differences in individual cases.
27 International Communications Union, Geneva, ITU-R Recommendation BS.775-1.
29 Eisenberg, The Recording Angel, 53.

headphones, the feeling is one of immediate intimacy, of music from inside one’s head’, and
this is particularly appropriate when considering the sonic motion, or panning, in songs
from artists such as Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, and the Beatles.30 As artists such as these
themselves began experiencing their music through headphones during recording sessions,
effects such as panning are perhaps most usefully experienced through this medium, result-
ing in what Jones calls ‘headphone music’.31
Although it is important to acknowledge the listening conditions of the mid to late 1960s,
it was beyond the scope of this research to attempt to speculate on the significance of stereo
placement at the time. Rather, we considered its significance for ways in which listeners
experience the sound-box today, and its consequences for recent and future sound-box
usage. The methodology reflects ways of experiencing music that have arisen more recently;
hence it acknowledges the contemporary importance of listening over headphones using
portable digital devices, such as mp3 players and iPods. Back in the late 1960s listening
conditions varied from cabinet-style record players to stereo system separates, the latter
owned predominantly by audiophiles.32 In many instances stereo effects were lost on all but
the best quality playback equipment (particularly if a stereo record was played using a mono
pick-up). The real impact of the stereophonic effects could be experienced only when
listening over headphones.
The aural analysis of a track, the recorded artefact, is fundamental to the investigation of
the sound-box. As with all analysis, its communication is facilitated by a form of notation.
Taking into consideration the fact that aural analysis draws upon the link between auditory
and visual perception, we developed a template that visually represented the heuristic
sound-box, enabling the consistent and economical transcription of sound-source place-
ment in each track. As this is an analytical investigation, the template allows for consistency
in terms of the graphic representation of sound-source placement, and provides a standard
sound-box within which the varying degrees of stereo width can be measured relative to each
other (as will be found in the figures below). In certain instances, the stereo image of some
songs will appear to go beyond the fixed sound-box template, an observation illustrated by
the placement of instruments beyond the visual boundaries.
The visual framework of the sound-box allows the various sound sources to be plotted,
showing their positioning in relation both to other sound sources and to the entire stereo
field, and facilitating comparisons of different sound-box configurations. Although the
layout of the mix might alter significantly during the course of an individual song, we
decided, rather than create multiple transcriptions that show these changes, to produce a
cumulative visual representation of the sonic events occurring throughout the song’s dura-
tion.33 This would, of course, be unsatisfactory for the discussion of subtle details of
individual tracks, but it is adequate to our purpose here, allowing us to develop a taxonomy
of different types of mix. Our visual approach can be regarded as a variation on the visual
30 Jones, Rock Formation, 159.

31 Jones, Rock Formation, 160–61.
32 Crabbe, Hi-Fi in the Home.
33 Accordingly, we developed a sound-box for each of the 1,000 tracks that formed our sample.

guide used by Gibson, as opposed to the illustrations used by Moylan, for example, which
deal only with depth and lateral placement.34 Gibson’s sound-box visuals consist of simple
circular shapes that plot the perceived placement of the sound source. Each circle in his
diagrams represents the point source of a sound, ‘a phantom image that occupies a focused,
precise point in the sound stage’.35 Where sounds are difficult to locate accurately, larger
circles are used to indicate spread images – ‘a phantom image that [. . .] has a [. . .] size that
extends between two audible boundaries’.36 While we also adopted this general method for
the initial transcriptions of our aural analyses, the final visuals employ simplified represen-
tations of the specific sound source. These transcriptions of the sonic placement, and their
subsequent three-dimensional rendering, can best be considered a way of guiding the ear in
much the same way as conventional chord notation. Neither is definitive or completely
accurate, but both reveal key analytical detail which informs subsequent commentary. The
main aim of the transcriptions is to demonstrate the development of the normative mix
from an aesthetic point of view, and in terms of the technological changes concurrent with
trends in sound-source stereo placement.
Two further points warrant attention before we address the details of individual tracks.
Our decision to privilege headphone listening places us, as listeners, within the virtual space
set up by a recording, analogous to being placed at the ‘sweet spot’ within a loudspeaker
array. This is thus an idealized position, in that, when actually situated in front of loudspeak-
ers, one can change one’s listening position at will. However, such an idealized position is
necessary in order for comparisons to be made. The same consistency could have been
achieved by, for example, assuming a listening position in front of the right speaker, but since
we are interested in ‘the properties of that to which listeners give attention’, it is surely
preferable to choose the optimal stereophonic perspective. In addition, the template for our
diagrammatic representation treats the space occupied by each track as being of the same size
as all the others. What we have represented here is the relative positions of sound sources,
again in order to enable comparisons within and between sound-boxes. The actual width of
the stereo field, and the spread of registers employed, differs from track to track. With the
exception of general observations – of the order of ‘triangular’ mixes tending to operate with
a wide stereo field and ‘cluster’37 mixes operating with a narrow field – we have not explored
this level of difference.
The three spatial dimensions of the sound-box are conventionally understood to operate
asymmetrically, and our approach to these dimensions does require comment. Human
binaurality affords perception of the lateral dimension, a dimension which thus takes on the
appearance of being ‘natural’, of being readily experienced in the world beyond listening to
music. As David Huron notes: ‘the perception of auditory location [is influenced by] [. . .]
the relative time difference between pressure fluctuations in the left and right ears [and]
34 Gibson, for instance, in The Art of Mixing, and Moylan, Understanding and Crafting the Mix, 180–81.
37 These terms are defined and discussed below.

[. . .] the relative difference in magnitude or amplitude of these signals’.38 The prominence

dimension is a factor of both relative dynamic level and degree of distortion. The common-
est component of such distortion is the degree of reverberation employed. However, our
perception of prominence is less ‘natural’ than that of laterality. Whereas sounds are
objectively present in the output from one speaker or another, they are not objectively more
(or less) distant than each other: they originate in the same plane, and we make inferences
as to their distance by interpreting the dynamic level and degree of distortion. This
dimension, then, requires a degree of interpretation not necessary for laterality. When we
come to the third dimension, it operates differently again. In Huron’s words, ‘azimuth
perception appears to be innate, whereas elevation perception appears to be learned’.39
This latter position has been questioned by very recent research which argues that ‘our
cognitive system maps pitch onto a mental representation of space’,40 and that this is more
than simply a cultural analogy that can be found in a variety of languages. The experiments
reported by Rusconi and her colleagues dealt with the apparent misdirection of decades of
earlier studies, where respondents had generally been asked to estimate the spatial height of
pitches, thereby prejudging the conclusion.41 Peter Doyle is typical of writers who state that
‘to call shorter wavelength, higher frequency sounds “high” is mostly convention’.42 It
appears that simple convention may play less of a part than we hitherto supposed. But in
any case, for the purpose of this article, it seems that the differences in the ways these three
dimensions are perceived are not of particular importance since, on the evidence of both
our own work and that of Gibson,43 it is clear that they can be perceived: the resultant
details are available to all listeners familiar with recorded listening practices.
Taxonomy of Mixes
The transcriptions resulting from our aural analyses highlight several well-defined sound-
box configurations. These categories and sub-categories can be found in Table 1. The
taxonomy comprises four main mix types: triangular, clustered, diagonal, and dynamic.
Each specific mix is constructed in terms of the relative placement of three key elements: lead
vocals, bass guitar, and drum kit (most specifically the snare, because of its timbral and
metrical prominence). Each section of the table shows the main mix type together with its
subdivisions, which detail the range of sound-source arrangements according to the three
key elements. The triangular mix, for example, utilizes either centred or panned vocals, in
addition to the various drum and bass placements identified in the following row of the table.
One possibility indicated in the table is therefore that of a triangular mix comprising centred
vocals (right half of table) with the bass and drums panned on opposite sides (leftmost
38 Huron, Sweet Anticipation, 103.

39 Huron, Sweet Anticipation, 104.
40 Rusconi and others, ‘Spatial Representation of Pitch Height’, 113.
41 We are very grateful to Nicola Dibben for bringing this area of research to our attention.
42 Doyle, Echo and Reverb, 27.
43 Gibson, The Art of Mixing.

Taxonomy of mixes
Table 1
Table 2 Frequency percentages of mixes in the years 1966–72
per cent of tracks

Clustered Triangular Diagonal Dynamic Anomalies
1966 35 60 0 0 5
1967 33 36 8 19 4
1968 14 44 15 19 8
1969 13 27 39 12 9
1970 5 11 64 7 13
1971 2 8.5 57 13 19.5
1972 2 11 78 0 9
column, under ‘Vocals centred’). The clustered mix is shown to have three subdivisions: the
first two describe the clustering of sound sources within the sound-box as either centred or
off-centre, while the third identifies tracks in which an isolated sound source, such as the lead
vocals, is set off from a main cluster.
Table 2 summarizes data that demonstrate the gradual adoption of one of these categories,
the ‘diagonal mix’, over the course of our period. As Table 2 shows, the early tracks were
predominantly triangular in configuration, accounting for sixty per cent of our 1966 sample.
As Table 1 notes, the triangular relationship between the vocals, snare, and bass can be
observed in a variety of configurations creating a number of triangular subcategories,
ranging from panned vocals to centrally placed vocals with panned drums. The early
triangular configurations from 1966 and 1967 demonstrate extreme panning of the three key
elements and, in many cases, clear separation between left and right channels creating a
sparse central zone. Although this article is concerned with exemplifying these mixes by rock
examples, similar points arise with other styles and genres in our sample.
The example in Figure 1 shows the triangular configuration of the bass, snare, and vocals
in the Lovin’ Spoonful’s ‘Summer in the City’. The drums and bass are clearly panned in
opposite channels, with the vocals placed centrally. Additional sound sources, such as an
acoustic guitar and backing vocals, can also be heard in the right channel with the organ and
bass, but have been omitted from the diagram for clarity.
Mixes where elements are largely separated, with extreme panning of the sound sources,
create a wide stereo image. In contrast, the clustered mix describes a narrow stereo image
created by the central placement of sound sources within the sound-box. The example in
Figure 2 shows the clustered configuration of the sound sources in Creedence Clearwater
Revival’s ‘Bad Moon Rising’.
The main difference between clustered and triangular mixes can be explained in terms of
the overall width of the group or ‘ensemble’ of sound sources, the ‘macro scene element’.44
The macro width, a term used by audio engineers to describe spatial attributes of a virtual
44 Rumsey, ‘Spatial Quality Evaluation for Reproduced Sound’, 657.

Figure 1 Lovin’ Spoonful, ‘Summer in the City’: triangular mix.
Figure 2 Creedence Clearwater Revival, ‘Bad Moon Rising’: clustered mix.
image, or reproduced ‘scene’, differs from the overall dimensions of the perceived environ-
ment within which it is contained. Therefore, if we consider the overall sound-box to be a
constant, fixed framework, then the varying widths of the scene element from track to track
become apparent. The individual source widths, or ‘micro attributes’, tend to be more
localized in triangular mixes, and occupy more space in the sound-box, creating a wider
macro scene element. The term ‘clustered mix’ describes the centralized clustering of the
instruments, which results in a narrow stereo width within the sound-box. Variations and
subcategories of the clustered mix include those where the cluster appears to favour a
particular side, for example in Donovan’s ‘Mellow Yellow’ (see Figure 3). In this example, it

Figure 3 Donovan, ‘Mellow Yellow’: off-centre clustered mix.
is likely that the off-centre placement of the cluster was not a conscious aesthetic decision,
but is simply the result of the level of the signal being higher in the left channel than in the
right. This creates an off-centre image favouring the left side. A similar off-centre result can
be heard in the stereo mix of Manfred Mann’s ‘Mighty Quinn’. To differentiate itself from the
mono version, the stereo mix presents a wider image, with the main cluster of instruments
placed on the right-hand side of the sound-box. The left-hand side is sparse, creating an
unbalanced stereo image within the sound-box. In some cases, it is difficult to distinguish a
mono track from a two-channel track where the producer has placed the sonic elements in
the centre of the sound-box. Nevertheless, a central mix does not indicate a mono produc-
tion, but rather one where the producer has concentrated on providing a balanced stereo
image, placing the aesthetic focus on the blending of sounds, as opposed to the separation
that had been favoured by many of the early stereo mixes.
The ‘dynamic mix’ describes tracks where there is some level of movement within the
sound-box. These include sounds that are repositioned at points in a track (at this early stage in
stereo’s history there would usually be only one such repositioning in the course of a track) and
sound sources that move laterally and/or gain or lose prominence. Dynamic mixes reinforce the
notion of the virtual performance space. Certainly, the in-the-head effect achieved through
headphone listening enhances sonic movement to the point where sounds appear to move
through the listener. Taking the example of Led Zeppelin’s ‘Whole Lotta Love’, the repeated
guitar glissando, first heard at 0′37″, and the movement of Robert Plant’s vocal line from 4′58″ to
the end of the track demonstrate the manipulation of sound sources within the sound-box. This
is exemplified in Figure 4, the arrow signifying the movement of the guitar across the sound-box.
The dynamic movement in The Hollies’ ‘King Midas in Reverse’ is slightly different, in
that the vocals, from being panned fully right in the first verse at 0′11″ (Figure 5) move to a
central position at 1′09″ (Figure 6). Later in the track, at 1′50″, the backing vocals can be

Figure 4 Led Zeppelin, ‘Whole Lotta Love’: dynamic mix.
Figure 5 The Hollies, ‘King Midas in Reverse’ (at 0′11″).
heard panned fully left. Both these examples illustrate the unique status of the recorded
paradigm and capture the ways in which technological capabilities can function in a creative
role to enhance the meanings of songs.
The final mix in our taxonomy is the ‘diagonal’ mix, which becomes the normative layout,
or paradigm, for subsequent record production. This mix depicts the arrangement of the
vocals, bass, and drums (in particular the snare) on a very slightly inclined diagonal line, with

Figure 6 The Hollies, ‘King Midas in Reverse’ (at 1′09″).
Figure 7 Uriah Heep, ‘Easy Livin’’: diagonal mix.
other instruments placed to either side. The example of Uriah Heep’s ‘Easy Livin’’ sound-
box arrangement in Figure 7 shows this normative configuration, with the vocals and bass
creating a slight diagonal; neither of these key sound sources is placed exactly at the centre, an
effect far more noticeable through headphones than over loudspeakers.
Other tracks display mixes where the vocals and bass appear to be centralized, creating a
perpendicular rather than a diagonal alignment between vocals, snare, and bass. Examples of

this configuration include Neil Young’s ‘Alabama’, the Rolling Stones’ ‘Brown Sugar’, and
Led Zeppelin’s ‘Rock and Roll’. Studio recording handbooks frequently specify this layout as
one in which ‘typically the bass, snare, kick drum, and vocals go to centre; keyboards and
guitars can be panned left and right’.45 This ‘accepted wisdom’ of stereo mixing is detailed in
publications such as Sound on Sound,46 though it is not referred to in terms such as ‘diagonal’
or ‘normative’. Whether the normative mix reveals a predominantly diagonal or perpendicu-
lar alignment between the vocals, snare, and bass, the overall result is one of balance. The
producer creates a stereo image that is balanced across the sound-box, with the main
components in the centre and the remaining sound sources balanced either side of the snare.
Chronological changes
From the sound-box transcriptions a clear pattern emerges across the years of our survey,
showing a growing tendency for producers to mix tracks according to the normative
(diagonal) configuration. The decline of the earlier, markedly separated mixes can arguably
be linked to the development of studio technology.
The predominant sound-box configurations in 1966 are the triangular and clustered
mixes, in particular triangular mixes that emphasize the difference between left and right
channels. The triangular and clustered mixes account for respectively sixty per cent and
thirty-five per cent of the tracks from 1966. Variations of sound placement within the
triangular configuration are notable, signifying uncertainty in stereo’s early years and a lack
of convention in the practice of stereo mixing. The diversity of sonic placement may seem
confusing, yet the majority of tracks from 1966 and 1967 consist of triangular mixes, with
off-centre vocals either panned independently or together with other sound sources. The
Hollies’ ‘Bus Stop’ comprises vocals panned right with drums and bass panned left. A similar
configuration, albeit in reverse, with vocals (and other sound sources) panned left and the
drums and bass panned right, is exemplified in ‘Pretty Flamingo’ by Manfred Mann (Figure
8). The specific placement of sound sources differentiates both between the left and right
channels and between the vocals and backing instruments, revealing areas of sparseness.
Whilst the effect of a stereo image is made more obvious by the panning of the acoustic guitar
to the far right and the panning of the backing vocals to the far left, the centre-right area
remains sparse. The vocals are nevertheless fairly prominent, despite the off-centre place-
ment.
For most people working in the industry until well into the late 1960s, stereo mixes of
albums were considered to be a minor addition to the established and popular mono version.
Mono was considered to be the only significant format, a notion supported by the fact that
most pop music was played back on mono equipment in the home. Moreover, ‘radio was the
desired outlet for any popular music of the day’, and therefore a substantial amount of music
was experienced in mono. The mono transmission influenced many producers who ‘feared
45 Bartlett and Bartlett, Practical Recording Techniques, 289.

46 See, for instance, White, ‘Wide Angle’.

Figure 8 Manfred Mann, ‘Pretty Flamingo’.
the resulting changes in sound if a stereo record were played on a mono station’.47 Despite
this, producers adapted to the gradual importance of stereo, an adaption which can be
examined through the various sound-box configurations. Kehew and Ryan’s Recording the
Beatles offers a comprehensive insight into the recording process of the Beatles’ albums,
providing key details such as the instrument/track allocation and the placement of tracks in
the stereo field. For the Beatles, stereo mixing was certainly treated as an afterthought, with
no active participation from the musicians. Producer George Martin and engineer Geoff
Emerick took responsibility for producing the stereo versions without the input of the
band.48 Sound-box transcriptions of the Beatles, especially of the albums from 1966 and
1967, have nevertheless revealed certain distinctive patterns of sonic placement. The sonic
arrangement in the tracks ‘I’m Only Sleeping’, ‘Yellow Submarine’, ‘I Want to Tell You’,
‘And Your Bird Can Sing’, and ‘Doctor Robert’ display similar sound-box configurations:
drums are panned left with vocals panned right. Although the bass is often placed with the
vocals, the example in Figure 9 shows the bass and drums panned left, with the vocals panned
right. The resulting mixes on Revolver can, to some extent, be explained by the mixing
conventions established by Emerick, which developed from the repeated use of a particular
panning configuration. Tracks 1 and 2, containing the drums (and in many cases the bass),
‘were pulled not quite to the centre of the spread, while tracks 3 and 4 (which held vocals and
other instruments) were panned hard right’.49 Exceptions to this sonic arrangement include
‘Tomorrow Never Knows’, where the drums and bass appear to be centrally placed along
47 Kehew and Ryan, Recording The Beatles, 364.

48 Kehew and Ryan, Recording The Beatles, 429–30.

Figure 9 The Beatles, ‘I’m only Sleeping’.
with right-panned vocals, and ‘Eleanor Rigby’, an anomaly resulting from the absence of
drums and bass.
Martin’s approach to stereo placement considered the effect known as ‘centre build-up’,
which occurred when two channels were combined to form a mono output, namely when
stereo records were played on mono equipment.50 ‘My attempts on Rubber Soul were to find
a decent mono result from a stereo record. As you know, if you put something in the center,
it comes up 4dB louder in mono than it does in stereo’.51 This effect is reiterated in many
recording technique manuals, particularly when discussing centre build-up: ‘When you
monitor the mix in mono, you’ll likely hear center channel build-up. Instruments in the
center of the stereo stage will sound louder in mono than they did in stereo, so the mix
balance will change in mono’.52 The off-centre placement of sound sources to counteract the
build-up – and the fact that ‘the majority of record players were built into kind of sideboards,
where the speakers were about three feet apart and the stereo picture was a very near mono
one anyway’ – influenced the stereo placement of many mid-1960s tracks.53
The sound-box transcriptions from 1966 display a diversity of vocal placements, including
fully panned, off-centre, and centred. By 1968 the practice of placing vocals centrally was
established, and the majority of subsequent tracks display centrally placed vocals, regardless
of the panning and separation of other key sound sources, such as drums and bass. The
centralized vocals are mixed with either the drums and bass panned together or the two
50 Eargle, ‘Stereo/Mono Compatibility’, 278.

51 Kehew and Ryan, Recording The Beatles, 404. Note that the figure cited here by Martin is normally measured at 3dB,
not 4dB.
52 Bartlett and Bartlett, Practical Recording Techniques, 289.

Figure 10 Simon and Garfunkel, ‘Homeward Bound’.
panned in opposite channels: whichever variation of this triangular configuration is adopted

creates sparse central zones below the vocals, or a dense central zone in which other
instruments are placed centrally along with the vocals. This variation in triangular configu-
rations is exemplified in tracks such as Jack Bruce’s ‘Rope Ladder to the Moon’ and Simon
and Garfunkel’s ‘Homeward Bound’. Figure 10 illustrates the mix comprising centralized
vocals with drums and bass panned in opposite channels. Another important variation on
the triangular mix is that of centralized vocals with bass and drums panned in the same
channel. Examples of this type of configuration include the tracks ‘In the Wilderness’ by
Genesis, ‘Lazy Sunday’ by Small Faces, ‘Born to be Wild’ by Steppenwolf, and ‘This Will Be
Our Year’ by the Zombies. Although they demonstrate the triangular mix, the absence of
additional sound sources below the vocals (see Figure 10) reveals a sparse central zone,
emphasizing the vocals.
By 1969 the process of moving the bass to the centre is also largely complete, and the
configuration of bass and lead vocal in the centre, with the drums off centre forms the
primary triangular mix from the late 60s to the early 70s, as in Figure 11. Examples of this
kind of triangular mix include The Monkees’ ‘Valleri’, The Band’s ‘This Wheel’s on Fire’,
David Bowie’s ‘Man Who Sold the World’, Neil Young’s ‘Heart of Gold’, the Rolling Stones’
‘Street Fighting Man’, and Grand Funk Railroad’s ‘Please Don’t Worry’. As with the previous
variation in triangular mixes, there is a sparse central zone evident in around fifty per cent of
the tracks employing this type of triangular mix.
Zak puts the central placement of the bass down to its sonic function ‘as anchor of both
groove and chord changes’.54 However, it is clear that this was not always the case. As early
rock tracks demonstrate, the bass could often be heard panned to one side either with, or
54 Zak, The Poetics of Rock, 145.

Figure 11 Giles, Giles and Fripp, ‘Erudite Eyes’.
opposite, the drums: thus its function was not initially the primary determinant of its placing.
Indeed, the level of the bass guitar on stereo records has implications for the way a track is cut
to vinyl. It was important to ensure that the bass was not too prominent in a mix, as its
presence resulted in excessive movement of the stylus up and down, potentially causing it to
jump. ‘With stereo grooves, the signals are frequently asymmetrical, that is there is a vertical
component reaching a maximum in pure vertical motion of the stylus, representing equal
anti-phase signals’.55 Several measures and approaches to recording were taken to avoid this
problem. First, balancing the off-centre bass with the placement of other instruments in the
opposite channel reduced the likelihood of the stylus leaving the grooves; this approach is
more common in tracks before 1970. Second, the bass was placed centrally in the mix so that
it did not disrupt the grooves imprinted onto vinyl, and maintained everything in phase. It
seems likely that the central placement of the bass, along with the kick and snare drums, was
as much a result of technical factors as of aesthetic or creative judgement.
The formation of the diagonal or normative mix is signposted by the eventual central
placement of the drums. Early variations of this mix include the centrally placed drums and bass,
with two lead vocals panned to either side. Additionally, certain early clustered mixes could be
viewed as an early intimation of the diagonal mix, spreading in width to utilize more of the
sound-box. ‘Proud Mary’ by Creedence Clearwater Revival and ‘Gimme Shelter’ by the Rolling
Stones, both from 1969, are early examples. Although there are some instances of the full
diagonal mix dating from 1967–8, only by 1970 had it emerged as the predominant mix. Argent’s
1972 track ‘Hold Your Head Up’ (Figure 12) suitably represents it. The key elements (bass, snare,
and vocals) are aligned on a slight diagonal in the centre of the sound-box, with additional sound
sources placed on either side. The electric guitar is panned right, balanced by the organ, panned
55 Borwick, ‘Microphones’, 132.

Figure 12 Argent, ‘Hold Your Head Up’: diagonal mix.
left. The tambourine occupies the upper-left part of the sound-box and is equally balanced and
mirrored by the cymbals, which appear in the upper-right zone of the sound-box. The sound fills
the entire sound-box, and each sound source is clearly identifiable and distinguishable.
An insight into the extent to which the use of the sound-box is determined by technological
limitations on the one hand and aesthetic decisions on the other can be achieved by comparing
the way different producers mix and treat the same song, particularly when it involves an
established normative mix at this point in the development of stereo placement. A good
example is the Beatles’ ‘Let It Be’, which was mixed by both George Martin and Phil Spector.
The bass on Martin’s version is slightly off-centre and Harrison’s guitar solo is panned right,
whereas both are placed centrally in Spector’s version. Spector’s well-documented preference
for mono mixes is evident, even in his stereo versions, from the central placement and blending
of sound sources. One of the main advantages of stereo mixing is the opportunity to demarcate
important sound sources. The detachment of sounds from the main cluster of instruments
guides the listener to focus on particular events in the track, the overall effect being the
emphasis on musical meaning and intent through the experience of the performance.
The notion that early stereo mixes (in particular those triangular in configuration) are
representative of a ‘live’ performance set-up is arbitrary. In many cases the live performance
set-up does not reflect the track’s sonic arrangement, as can be seen in the Rolling Stones’ live
performance of ‘Honky Tonk Women’,56 where the drums are positioned off centre (to the
right of the stage, from the viewer’s perspective) and in front of the main performers. In
the original recording the drums are centralized, and Keith Richards’ guitar can be heard to
the centre-right zone of the sound-box, as opposed to the left placement shown in the
56 The Rolling Stones, ‘Honky Tonk Women’, Top of the Pops, BBC, 1969, <http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=
Tr5Ntd7JizM> (accessed 14 January 2009).

television version. Another example can be seen in Deep Purple’s televised performance of
‘Highway Star’.57 This version features a set-up that includes the keyboards panned to the far
left, centralized vocals, guitar panned to the far right, and bass placed centre-left in front of
the centralized drums. This triangular mix of the live set-up contrasts with the recorded
diagonal mix, which features centralized vocals, bass, and drums, with the guitar panned to
the far left and keyboards to the far right. Television performances often involve a live58
set-up that has been affected by constraints such as lighting and studio/stage dimensions,
aspects that may affect the arrangement of the performers on stage. However, these set-ups
are valid and worthy of consideration, as television performances were usually the means by
which viewers were able to associate the ‘live’ version with the original studio track recording.
Comparisons made between studio/television performances and live concert performances
of the same track also show differences between the set-ups. The spatial arrangement of the
performers in ‘Hey Joe’ by the Jimi Hendrix Experience at the Monterey Festival in 1967
differs from that of another live version of the same song on the BBC programme A
Happening for Lulu. Both these set-ups differ from the original recording,59 further substan-
tiating the arbitrariness of the relationship between the recording and the live set-up.
Conclusion
In this article we have endeavoured to develop a taxonomy of mix types through the crucial
period 1966–72. We have also proposed some possible answers to the question of why one
particular configuration had achieved dominance by the end of the period. It is, however, in
the nature of such exploratory work to be inconclusive. Proper ethnographic work would be
required to support, or to contradict, our tentative conclusions.60 It remains to be seen
whether recording practices outside the USA and the UK followed the same trajectory and, if
they did, whether or not it was over the same time-span. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the
triangular mix, particularly with the drum-kit in the right channel, remains an option
sometimes taken today, but as yet the significance of this is undecided. Indeed, the precise
significance of the different mix types we have unearthed here remains to be demonstrated.
That question underpins the follow-up research project, currently under way.
Discography
Argent. ‘Hold Your Head Up’. All Together Now. LP, Epic EPC 64962. 1972.
Band, The. ‘This Wheel’s on Fire’. Music from Big Pink (1968). CD, Capitol 7243 5 25390 2 4. Reissued 2000.
Beatles, The. Revolver. LP, Parlophone PCS 7009. 1966.
57 Deep Purple, ‘Highway Star’ (1972), Let it Rock, Classic Pictures DVD 6055X (2002).
58 Whilst often referred to as live performances, some television performances, such as early Top of the Pops (BBC)
programmes, were not ‘live’, but featured a performance which was mimed to a playback of the original recording.
59 Jimi Hendrix Experience, ‘Hey Joe’, Monterey Pop Festival 1967 <http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zeems8BzURY>
(accessed 14 January 2009); Jimi Hendrix Experience, ‘Hey Joe’, A Happening for Lulu, BBC, 1969 <http://
uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gv3cKLWQimE> (accessed 14 January 2009).
60 Although we had wanted to undertake some ethnographic work with those producers and engineers who are still
active, this activity had to be explicitly excluded from the successful grant bid which funded this project.

––––. ‘Let It Be’ (1970). Past Masters Vol. 2. CD, EMI BPM2. Reissued 1988.
––––. ‘Let It Be’. Let It Be. LP, Apple PCS 7096. 1970.
Bowie, David. ‘The Man Who Sold the World’. The Man Who Sold the World. LP, Mercury 6338 041. 1971.
Bruce, Jack. ‘Rope Ladder to the Moon’. Songs for a Tailor. LP, Polydor 583 058. 1969.
Creedence Clearwater Revival. ‘Bad Moon Rising’. Chronicles. LP, Fantasy FT 528. 1969.
––––. ‘Proud Mary’. Chronicles. LP, Fantasy FT 528. 1969.
Donovan. ‘Mellow Yellow’ (1967). Greatest Hits and More. LP, EMS 1333. Reissued 1988.
Genesis. ‘In the Wilderness’. From Genesis to Revelation. LP, Decca SKL 4990. 1969.
Giles, Giles and Fripp. ‘Erudite Eyes’. The Cheerful Insanity of Giles, Giles and Fripp. LP, Deram SML 1022. 1968.
Grand Funk Railroad. ‘Please Don’t Worry’. Grand Funk. LP, Capitol SKAO 406. 1969.
Hollies, The. ‘Bus Stop’ (1966). 20 Golden Greats. LP, EMI EMTV 11. Reissued 1978.
––––. ‘King Midas in Reverse’ (1967). The Essential Collection. CD, EMI 7243 857468 2 6. Reissued 1997.
Led Zeppelin. ‘Whole Lotta Love’. Led Zeppelin II. LP, Atlantic 588 198. 1969.
––––. ‘Rock and Roll’. Led Zeppelin IV. LP, Atlantic K 2401012. 1971.
Lovin’ Spoonful. ‘Summer in the City’. The Very Best of the Lovin’ Spoonful. LP, Buddha BDS 69001. 1966.
Manfred Mann. ‘Pretty Flamingo’ (1966). World of Mann: the Very Best of Manfred Mann & Manfred Mann’s Earth
Band. CD, Universal Music TV 983916-2. Reissued 2006.
––––. ‘Mighty Quinn’ (1968). World of Mann: the Very Best of Manfred Mann & Manfred Mann’s Earth Band. CD,
Universal Music TV 983916-2. Reissued 2006.
Monkees, The. ‘Valleri’ (1968). The Definitive Monkees. CD, Warner 8573 86692 2. Reissued 2001.
Pink Floyd. ‘Arnold Layne’. Relics. LP, Starline SRS 5071. 1967.
Rolling Stones. ‘Street Fighting Man’. Beggars Banquet. LP, Decca SKL 4955. 1968.
––––. ‘Gimme Shelter’. Let It Bleed. LP, Decca SKL 5025. 1969.
––––. ‘Brown Sugar’. Sticky Fingers. LP, Rolling Stones COC 59100. 1971.
Simon and Garfunkel. ‘Homeward Bound’ (1966). Tales from New York: the Very Best of Simon and Garfunkel. CD,
Columbia/Sony COL 496409 2. Reissued 1999.
Small Faces. ‘Lazy Sunday’. Odgens’ Nut Gone Flake. LP, Immediate IMSP 012. 1968.
Steppenwolf. ‘Born to be Wild’. Born to Be Wild. LP, Dunhill DS 50029. 1968.
Troggs, The. ‘Wild Thing’ (1966). Greatest Hits. CD, Polygram TV 522 739-2. Reissued 1994.
Uriah Heep. ‘Easy Livin’’. Demons and Wizards. LP, Bronze ILPS 9193. 1972.
Young, Neil. ‘Alabama’. Harvest. LP, Reprise K54005. 1972.
––––. ‘Heart of Gold’. Harvest. LP, Reprise K54005. 1972.
Zombies, The. ‘This Will Be Our Year’. Odessey and Oracle. LP, CBS SBPG 63280. 1968.
Bibliography
Bartlett, Bruce and Jenny Bartlett. Practical Recording Techniques, 3rd edn. London: Focal Press, 2002.
Borwick, John. ‘Microphones’, in Sound Recording Practice, ed. John Borwick, 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1994. 127–43
Buskin, Richard. Inside Tracks. New York: Spike, 1999.
Chanan, Michael. Repeated Takes: a Short History of Recording and its Effects on Music. London: Verso, 1995.
Crabbe, John. Hi-Fi in the Home. London: Blandford Press, 1968.
Doyle, Peter. Echo and Reverb: Fabricating Space in Popular Music Recording, 1900–1960. Middletown CT:
Wesleyan University Press, 2005.
Droney, Maureen. Mix Masters: Platinum Engineers Reveal Their Secrets for Success. Berklee, MA: Berklee Press,
2003.
Eargle, J. ‘Stereo/Mono Compatibility: a Survey of the Problems’. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society 17/3
(1969), 276–81.
Eisenberg, Evan. The Recording Angel: Music, Records and Culture from Aristotle to Zappa, 2nd edn. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2005.
Gambaccini, Paul, Tim Rice, and Jonathan Rice. Guinness Book of Top 40 Charts, 2nd edn. Enfield, Middlesex:
Guinness, 1996.
Gibson, David. The Art of Mixing, 2nd edn. Boston: Course Technology, 2005.
Gracyk, Theodore. Rhythm and Noise. London: I. B. Tauris, 1996.
Hamilton, Andy. ‘The Art of Recording and the Aesthetics of Perfection’. British Journal of Aesthetics 43/4 (2003),
345–62.

Hodgson, Jay. ‘Outline for a Theory of Recording Practice with Reference to the Mix for Pink Floyd’s “Speak to
Me” (1973)’. Journal on the Art of Record Production 1/1 (2007). <www.artofrecordproduction.com> (accessed
13 February 2007).
Huron, David. Sweet Anticipation: Music and the Psychology of Expectation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006.
International Communications Union, Geneva. ITU-R Recommendation BS.775-1: ‘Multi-Channel Stere-
ophonic Sound System with or without Accompanying Picture’ (1992–4).
Jones, Steve. Rock Formation: Music, Technology, and Mass Communication. London: Sage, 1992.
Katz, Mark. Capturing Sound: How Technology Has Changed Music. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004.
Kealy, Edward R. ‘From Craft to Art: The Case of Sound Mixers and Popular Music’. Sociology of Work and
Occupations 6/1 (1979), 3–29.
––––. ‘Conventions and the Production of the Popular Music Aesthetic’. Journal of Popular Culture 16/2 (1982),
100–15.
Kehew, Brian, and Kevin Ryan. Recording The Beatles. Houston, TX: Curve Bender, 2006.
Martin, George, with William Pearson. With a Little Help from My Friends. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1994.
Massey, Howard. Behind the Glass. San Francisco: Backbeat, 2000.
Middleton, Richard. ‘Popular Music Analysis and Musicology: Bridging the Gap’. Popular Music 12/2 (1993),
177–90.
Moore, Allan F. Rock: the Primary Text. Buckingham: Open University Press, 1993.
Morton, David. Off the Record. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2000.
Moylan, William. Understanding and Crafting the Mix, 2nd edn. Burlington, MA: Focal Press, 2007.
Rumsey, Francis. ‘Spatial Quality Evaluation for Reproduced Sound: Terminology, Meaning, and a Scene-Based
Paradigm’. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society 50/9 (2002), 651–66.
Rusconi, Elena, and others. ‘Spatial Representation of Pitch Height: the SMARC effect’. Cognition 99 (2006),
113–29.
Schafer, R. Murray. ‘The Music of the Environment’, in Audio Culture: Readings in Modern Music, ed. Christoph
Cox and Daniel Warner. London: Continuum, 2006. 29–39.
Whitburn, Joel. The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits, 8th edn. New York: Billboard, 2004.
White, Paul. ‘Wide Angle: Improving Your Stereo Mixing’. Sound on Sound 15/12 (2000). <http://
www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct00/articles/stereomix.htm> (accessed 9 January 2007).
Zak, Albin J. III. The Poetics of Rock: Cutting Tracks, Making Records. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001.

11 Moore Dockwray

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11 Moore Dockwray

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

11 Moore Dockwray

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

twentieth-century music

Additional services for twentieth-century music:

Email alerts: Click here

The Establishment of the Virtual Performance Space in

ALLAN F. MOORE and RUTH DOCKWRAY

twentieth-century music / Volume 5 / Issue 02 / September 2008, pp 219 - 241

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1478572209990065

How to cite this article:

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/TCM, IP address: 134.176.233.165 on 16 Jun 2015

The Establishment of the Virtual Performance Space in Rock

ALLAN F. MOORE and RUTH DOCKWRAY

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 16 Jun 2015 IP address: 134.176.233.165

12 Middleton, ‘Popular Music Analysis and Musicology’, 179.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 16 Jun 2015 IP address: 134.176.233.165

20 Moylan, Understanding and Crafting the Mix, 54, 59.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 16 Jun 2015 IP address: 134.176.233.165

25 The full list of the tracks transcribed is available at <http://www.allanfmoore.org.uk/soundboxlist.xls>.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 16 Jun 2015 IP address: 134.176.233.165

30 Jones, Rock Formation, 159.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 16 Jun 2015 IP address: 134.176.233.165

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 16 Jun 2015 IP address: 134.176.233.165

[. . .] the relative difference in magnitude or amplitude of these signals’.38 The prominence

38 Huron, Sweet Anticipation, 103.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 16 Jun 2015 IP address: 134.176.233.165

Table 2 Frequency percentages of mixes in the years 1966–72

per cent of tracks

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 16 Jun 2015 IP address: 134.176.233.165

Figure 1 Lovin’ Spoonful, ‘Summer in the City’: triangular mix.

Figure 2 Creedence Clearwater Revival, ‘Bad Moon Rising’: clustered mix.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 16 Jun 2015 IP address: 134.176.233.165

Figure 3 Donovan, ‘Mellow Yellow’: off-centre clustered mix.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 16 Jun 2015 IP address: 134.176.233.165

Figure 4 Led Zeppelin, ‘Whole Lotta Love’: dynamic mix.

Figure 5 The Hollies, ‘King Midas in Reverse’ (at 0′11″).

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 16 Jun 2015 IP address: 134.176.233.165

Figure 6 The Hollies, ‘King Midas in Reverse’ (at 1′09″).

Figure 7 Uriah Heep, ‘Easy Livin’’: diagonal mix.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 16 Jun 2015 IP address: 134.176.233.165

45 Bartlett and Bartlett, Practical Recording Techniques, 289.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 16 Jun 2015 IP address: 134.176.233.165

Figure 8 Manfred Mann, ‘Pretty Flamingo’.

47 Kehew and Ryan, Recording The Beatles, 364.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 16 Jun 2015 IP address: 134.176.233.165

Figure 9 The Beatles, ‘I’m only Sleeping’.

50 Eargle, ‘Stereo/Mono Compatibility’, 278.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 16 Jun 2015 IP address: 134.176.233.165

Figure 10 Simon and Garfunkel, ‘Homeward Bound’.

panned in opposite channels: whichever variation of this triangular configuration is adopted

54 Zak, The Poetics of Rock, 145.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 16 Jun 2015 IP address: 134.176.233.165

Figure 11 Giles, Giles and Fripp, ‘Erudite Eyes’.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 16 Jun 2015 IP address: 134.176.233.165

Figure 12 Argent, ‘Hold Your Head Up’: diagonal mix.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 16 Jun 2015 IP address: 134.176.233.165

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 16 Jun 2015 IP address: 134.176.233.165

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 16 Jun 2015 IP address: 134.176.233.165

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 16 Jun 2015 IP address: 134.176.233.165

You might also like