The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Recording sessions in the 60's/70's
Old 4 weeks ago
  #31
Lives for gear
 
doorknocker's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoodle View Post
Never heard of a band punch-in but abba's sos is the entire basic trk band playing twice with itself.
I think The Clash did a similar thing on some tracks on 'London Calling' like 'Train in Vain'. Everything doubled including vocals L and R.



It's a variation of what Phil Spector did in the 60s when he had triple guitars, double drums, electric and upright bass, etc All playing live on the tracking dates in a modestly sized room so that the sound would 'overload'.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #32
Lives for gear
 
JayTee4303's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
On a DAW, hey, why not. With tape I wouldn't do it if I had to punch back out. It'd leave a hole.
Got a feeling "punch recording" needs defined here.

Back in ancient times, you old fossils weighed the risks of re-recording a passage onto the original capture track(s), i.e. punching in... yes?

DAWs today, and if I'm not mistaken, multi-tracks later, borrowed that term for timecode designated ins and outs, conceivably on the original track, but with 24 available, and later, X times 24 more, why take the chance...(kinda your point)...

...leading to today's comms flap.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #33
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayTee4303 View Post
Back in ancient times, you old fossils weighed the risks of re-recording a passage onto the original capture track(s), i.e. punching in... yes?
And the ancient times is what this thread is about. Tape and all. Or at least it was.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #34
Lives for gear
 
JayTee4303's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
And the ancient times is what this thread is about. Tape and all. Or at least it was.
Agreed, but I think the question asked may refer to punching in on a new tape track.

Or not.

That's why I suggest defining the term. Big implications in one instance, essentially none in the other.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #35
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayTee4303 View Post
Agreed, but I think the question asked may refer to punching in on a new tape track.
The term "punching in," to me, means punching in on the same track. Tape or DAW, either way.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #36
Gear Nut
 

I remember an interview with Ringo Starr and he said that in the early years recording in the studio was the same as doing a live gig.
And when you look to the sessions at Motown with Phil Spector then you'll see that a lot of the instruments were recorded in one take because he needed a wall of sound and so there were multiple instruments like 3 piano's, 4 or 5 guitars in one take.
But the early beginnings of multitracking were done in the fifties, Les Paul was one of the innovators to record one instrument on a track and bounces his guitar and the voice of Mary Ford several times with the next takes.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #37
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoodle View Post
This thread has already been done many times. Many guys say building tracks out one thing at a time was rare.

And to that, I always reply WRONG!

When I describe bazillions of hit/non-hit records built that way, the "rare" guys can only retort "yeah, well those records sound bad & you wouldn't find me doing that".

Which is a non-answer from those guys.

Search out the other threads.

I started doing it heavily by 1962. Even more heavily in 63 after observing how "Out of Limits" was built out one thing....and bounce....at a time...from a click. I won't even get into Joe meek's approach.

Bazillions of hits (and my stuff) built that way from then on. You get to 1965 and it was rampant....and cool sounding with the guys who were getting good with bouncing.... Imo.

You get to 67 with stuff like Spooky.....Him or Me what's it gonna be.....and fifty bazillion more tracks.....building one thing at a time was in full swing all over the country and world.

Except for these guys with their noses in the air saying "didn't happen".

Man oh man....lemme tell you about doing each drum one at a time on "Summer In the City"...

And then.....we all got synchronized machines later (except the snooty, "didn't happen" guys)

Never heard of a band punch-in but abba's sos is the entire basic trk band playing twice with itself.
Very interesting, can you please make a longer list of tracks recorded that way? And, if you don't mind, can I ask you who are you and what's your background? Thank you
Old 3 weeks ago
  #38
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prodba View Post
Some "silly" people right here; watch the comments/conversation between 3.49 and 3.56.
https://vimeo.com/116524232



Record head, sel-sync?
I suppose you've heard about this thing called Protools?
Clearly not the case in this video, but you can also record a stereo track on this thing, or any multitrack machine, for that matter.



They're using a click, whole orchestra punching in and everyone's got headphones;......SURPRISE!?!


This fiilm scoring session (hence the use of a click) is one video I could find with behind the scene comments about, the not so uncommon practise of, punching in THE WHOLE ORCHESTRA.
In this instance, they're using a click, multiple microphones and all musicians are wearing headphones, which is not always the case.

Just because YOU don't know about certain practises, doesn't necessarily make it a "silly notion".

Regards.
This is all well, and good, but your video is 40+ YEARS after the thread is about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
On a DAW, hey, why not. With tape I wouldn't do it if I had to punch back out. It'd leave a hole.
Any time I did a full band punch on tape, it was from the punch point out to the end. There may have been one or two times, using a click, and having a good space, that's I'd consider a punch out. I've heard of guys who would splice a piece of leader at the out point, so that they wouldn't screw up the later section, and then re assemble the tape.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #39
Lives for gear
 
Lance Lawson's Avatar
 

As track counts increased adding parts peacemeal increased as well. Overdubbing and adding parts is nothing new. Buddy Holly was overdubbing in the 1950's.n Also certain genres of music never did rely on overdubbing. Most Jazz is/was done live in the studio and why not the players were generally the best there were so the need to cut, paste punch in was minimal. Early rock and roll and pop was considered second class music for tone deaf kids was by and large cranked out as expediently as possible and much of it shows now.

I'm not sure when 3 track mastering machines arrived but sometime in the early 60's seems likely. But early self contained rock bands like The Beatles and Stones recorded live until the advent of 4 track mastering decks. Perhaps the Beach Boys were the first group to use the studio to craft a cleaner nicer sounding record. It is well known that Beach Boys recorded instrumentals first (most of the band didn't actually play on the records BTW) Vocals were added last. This said in most cases basic tracks continue to be recorded live together as musicians playing live together still makes for a better feeling track. The major difference is each and every instrument and component can now have it's own track that later gets mixed down until perfect blends and balances are achieved. The later 70's saw track layering reach the pinnacle of multitrack tape recording. It even found it's way into pop culture TV. I remember an episode of some cop show where Rick Nelson played himself. There is a segment where Nelson takes phone call from the studio and he tells his engineer to edit the first half his first vocal with the second half of his second vocal. There was quite a buzz that musicians could now record without ever even seeing the other players on a track.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #40
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

And there were people doing things with overdubbing that took some real imagination. Or maybe the drugs? I dunno, I'm guessing both. The results at times astonishing, to this day.

There is a ton to learn about overdubbing in this video.

Old 3 weeks ago
  #41
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiozzo View Post
Very interesting, can you please make a longer list of tracks recorded that way? And, if you don't mind, can I ask you who are you and what's your background? Thank you
Todd Rundgren - something/anything?
Paul McCartney - McCartney
Stevie wonder - music of my mind / innervisions era
Probably a few prince albums
Old 3 weeks ago
  #42
Lives for gear
 
skybluerental's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by adampaulson1217 View Post
Todd Rundgren - something/anything?
Paul McCartney - McCartney
Stevie wonder - music of my mind / innervisions era
Probably a few prince albums
Lenny Kravitz "Let Love Rule"
Old 3 weeks ago
  #43
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvertone View Post
In the mid to late 60’s and 70’s most engineers still liked to cut the rhythm section together, then overdub lead parts and vocals.

With the advent of 8, then 16, then 24 track by the 80’s it was common to build tracks up from the individual instruments, usually starting with drums played to a click track. By the mid 80’s drum machines and MIDI instruments became the click track.

I have punched the whole group in more than once back in the day... still do kids... even using Pro Tools! Why wouldn’t you if you were cutting everyone together? You’d have to or the bleed into the other microphones wouldn’t sound the same. This was not uncommon for the sessions I played on or recorded. Nothing to get excited about just part of being an audio engineer.
Maybe often an overseen fact but I think this is an important one.
Cutting the rhythm section in one take is not only time and money saving but I think when bands in earlier days did sessions in one take there were always little timing differences, small percentages of the bpm.
If a band played together they become a sort of one organism and when one is going milliseconds off timing the rest will do the same because they feel it.
Also there are little fluctuations in volume between the bandmembers and they fill up the space between them.
I think this gives a bit of magic because everybody is connected while now in modern times everything is quantized and it simply doesn't have that live feeling anymore.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #44
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by trick fall View Post
Haha, hey they're my favorite band. I probably just have a chip on my shoulder because it always seemed like the classic rock crowd looked down on Blondie.
I don't think anyone's looking down on Blondie in 2019....that IS Classic Rock!

And some of the best songwriting you'll find anywhere.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #45
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
The OP's question was about the 60's and 70's. Then your comment was about the recording of classical music, presumably also in the 60's and 70's if you were staying on topic. As for that Vimeo thing, a classical recording and a film scoring session were and still are very different things with very different protocols.
No, my first comment was on topic; my going off topic was in answer of your questioning of my comment.
This same technique that I, unfortunately, could only prove with an indeed much recent video, was used since the existence of any multitrack machine (my first experience with it was in the 70's).
And since one key feature of any multitrack machine is the sel-sync capability, I didn't understand why you were mentioning it; hence my sincere question "what for?".

In your response to this, I realised that you apparently thought that I was talking about punching in on a "master recorder or 2-track", or something.
But then you felt the need to categorise my comments as a "silly notion".

Also in your above post, if you had not quoted the two sentences of mine, out of their context and included the next one, it would be clear that I'm stating that the same thing that can be done with Protools, can also be done with ANY MULTITRACK MACHINE.

And "that vimeo thing", as you choose to name it, though not from the 60/70's, uses the same technique that I was talking about and was applied in that era also; I just couldn't find footage from those years, where they're clearly mentioning punching in.
Same goes for the fact that it is a film scoring session; it's just to illustrate THE TECHNIQUE that I was talking about, which is the same, regardless of the "protocol".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumsound View Post
This is all well, and good, but your video is 40+ YEARS after the thread is about.
Very true, but that was just as proof that the technique that I had mentioned was not "silly" as was claimed by some other poster.
And since there is no foolage of this technique discussed behind the scenes of a recording session from the 60/70's, I used a recent one.
Apart from employing Protools, it's the same technique that was used, at least from the 70's, when I first experienced it.

I hope that this clarifies how my foolish attempt to contribute by sharing MY EXPERIENCE may have lead to "off-topicness".

Regards.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #46
Gear Addict
 

Pretty sure Les Paul was building tracks up one by one from the very beginning of overdubs/multitrack/sound on sound in the late 40s early 50s. So by the 60s it wasn't out of the ordinary. So it depends on the recording.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #47
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skybluerental View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by adampaulson1217 View Post
Todd Rundgren - something/anything?
Paul McCartney - McCartney
Stevie wonder - music of my mind / innervisions era
Probably a few prince albums
Lenny Kravitz "Let Love Rule"
I don't think kravitz/prince were doing that 1960-1979. Prince maybe in 78.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #48
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
The term "punching in," to me, means punching in on the same track. Tape or DAW, either way.
That would be the understanding of most people...a new track would be an overdub.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #49
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoodle View Post
I don't think kravitz/prince were doing that 1960-1979. Prince maybe in 78.
Prince “for you” was ‘78, think he did it all himself
Old 3 weeks ago
  #50
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tymish View Post
Pretty sure Les Paul was building tracks up one by one from the very beginning of overdubs/multitrack/sound on sound in the late 40s early 50s. So by the 60s it wasn't out of the ordinary. So it depends on the recording.
Sound on sound is an interesting topic. There were numerous tape machines being brought back from japan by enlisted guys circa 1959-1961 that had the feature and of course Les P and bing crosby thought it was the best invention discovered from screwing around with wwii machines.

I remember a number of roberts brand machines that promoted the feature (aside from all the zillions of sony models circa 1960).

Sound on sound was useful for doing the Les/Mary oh-wow tv performances, but of course, you had to be completely sure of what you were gonna do on the upcoming pass cuz there was absolutely no undo. This was the primary reason so many of us moved to bouncing between twin machines. The appearance of 3-track was still unusable for the "build-out" tracking approach....hence twin machines became king. Jan berry was getting good at it before the car wreck....doing a bit of spector on the basic and then massive bounce-outs.

Sound on sound though. Doomed to be unusable.
The occasional purposeful re-feed to create infinite echo was sometimes s one-trick pony....maybe at halloween or at the end of Cowsills "hair", but otherwise, the doomed feature.

Yet still very cool that sound-on-sound mag adopted it as their brand name.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #51
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvertone View Post
In the mid to late 60’s and 70’s most engineers still liked to cut the rhythm section together, then overdub lead parts and vocals.
I still make records like this and many reggae records are still cut like this in Jamaica. Lay down all the rhythm tracks for all the songs and then overdub everything else.

Quote:
I have punched the whole group in more than once back in the day... still do kids... even using Pro Tools! Why wouldn’t you if you were cutting everyone together? You’d have to or the bleed into the other microphones wouldn’t sound the same. This was not uncommon for the sessions I played on or recorded. Nothing to get excited about just part of being an audio engineer.
this is very easy to do on a DAW, no fear of missing your mark going in or coming out, but with analog tape on a 60s or 70s machine, when you punch in you stay in to the end or things can get very tricky...
Old 3 weeks ago
  #52
Lives for gear
 
skybluerental's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoodle View Post
I don't think kravitz/prince were doing that 1960-1979. Prince maybe in 78.
Let Love Rule was all recorded and mixed using a 24 track tape deck and a console.

That's about as mid 1970's as it gets in terms of process.

Lenny played almost everything on that record.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #53
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skybluerental View Post
Let Love Rule was all recorded and mixed using a 24 track tape deck and a console.

That's about as mid 1970's as it gets in terms of process.

Lenny played almost everything on that record.
I believe the thread is aimed at the calendar 1960-1979. If Lenny was recording on a console and 24trk when he was 12, that would be cool information to read. And hey, maybe he was.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #54
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skybluerental View Post
Let Love Rule was all recorded and mixed using a 24 track tape deck and a console.

That's about as mid 1970's as it gets in terms of process.

Lenny played almost everything on that record.
I remember mid seventies Steely Dan recorded Katy Lied on a 48 track tape deck.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #55
Lives for gear
 
Sigma's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by willem1958 View Post
I remember mid seventies Steely Dan recorded Katy Lied on a 48 track tape deck.
wasn't that the song that had DBX noise reduction decoding issues
Old 3 weeks ago
  #56
Lives for gear
 
andychamp's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigma View Post
wasn't that the song that had DBX noise reduction decoding issues
The whole album, IIRC.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #57
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigma View Post
wasn't that the song that had DBX noise reduction decoding issues
I don't know about special issues of that song.
All I know is that the album was recorded on a 48 track deck.
There were some words written about the recording technique on the back of the record sleeve.
As far as I remeber it was an Ampex but it's so many years back I had vinyl in my house that I could be wrong about it.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #58
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigma View Post
wasn't that the song that had DBX noise reduction decoding issues
Something like that. I think it’s their weakest album, sonically, which is still better than most else. Great songs, though. I swear I hear phasing issues in the high frequencies, especially the cymbals in some places. Wonder if that’s an effect of the noise reduction issues.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #59
Lives for gear
 
Sigma's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by adampaulson1217 View Post
Something like that. I think it’s their weakest album, sonically, which is still better than most else. Great songs, though. I swear I hear phasing issues in the high frequencies, especially the cymbals in some places. Wonder if that’s an effect of the noise reduction issues.
Dolby was a frequency band emphasis/de emphasis

DBX, i believe, was a gain only process
Old 3 weeks ago
  #60
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigma View Post
Dolby was a frequency band emphasis/de emphasis

DBX, i believe, was a gain only process
There was pre emphasis / de emphasis in DBX. Hi shelf starting around 1K I think.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
RueyBang / Rap + Hip Hop Engineering and Production
13
Almost Human / High End
87
ONDRAY / Low End Theory
2
walth / Q + A with Russell Elevado
1
saikit_2003 / High End
16

Forum Jump
Forum Jump