I agree that Les Paul takes undue credit for many things but what Tom 
describes as multi-track recording in Hollywood is not strictly speaking 
correct. To me multi-tracking means being able to change separate levels 
AFTER the process, what he is describing is more like sound-on-sound as 
opposed to multi-tracking as we commonly understand it today. The same 
is true of Mike Biel's assertion adding a sound or a voice to an already 
existing recording, this involves a generational loss whereas with 
multi-tracking and overdubbing as we employ it today it does not. But 
sound-on-sound, stereo and a bunch of other so-called modern techniques 
clearly had their unique antecedents which should be accorded their due. 
I nevertheless stand by my basic assertion that the reason for so many 
alternate takes was the recording process of the 78 era. I am well aware 
that some exceptions do exist and I apologize for not duly noting them.

AA


Tom Fine wrote:
> While the general gist of what Aaron said is true (MOST sessions were 
> done live and MOST for-profit record labels did not want to pay for 
> elaborate overdub or punch-in stuff if it was avoidable), Mike is 
> right about Les Paul inventing very little, by any reasonable 
> definition of inventing. However, Paul is indeed a superb musician 
> with an innovative mind. I wish he wouldn't "take credit" for so many 
> other people's hard work, since he's done plenty that he can 
> legitimately take credit for.
>
> Anyway, Mike, how did Edison do "overdubbing"? Did he use some sort of 
> acoustic mixing system or just play a cylinder into the room at the 
> same time live sound was being made, with the horn picking up both?
>
> As for multi-tracking, just about as soon as electronic-optical 
> recording hit Hollywood, people were figuring out how to mix 
> sprocket-synchronized sounds. There were multiple sound elements to 
> some very early optical-sound pictures. At least that was told to me 
> by a restoration guy who has done some very high-profile films.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Biel" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 12:59 PM
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Recording Innovations (was: take numbers on 
> emerson records)
>
>
> From: Aaron Levinson <[log in to unmask]>
>> I for one am not at all surprised by numerous alternate
>> takes in the 78 era, it makes perfect sense. Anyone that
>> makes records, and Tom will back me up on this, knows that
>> even in the era of multi-tracking takes can have a very
>> different feel if not outright errors. Everything was
>> live pre-Les Paul so no "punching" was possible.
>
> I wish people would stop giving Les Paul more credit than he is due.  He
> was not the first to do overdubbing, he was not the first to do
> multi-tracking, and punch-in editing was not one of his things in the
> early years.  He is an extraordinarily talented musician with a
> fantastically innovative mind, but his knack is to adapt new technology
> and expand on past techniques.
>
> It is not true that everything was live before Les Paul.  Even Edison
> did overdubbing on tinfoil!!!!!!!  I am not kidding.  This is the
> absolute, well documented, truth.  Just this weekend Dave Weiner showed
> a film at the Jazz Bash that showed a violinist playing a trio with
> himself in the 1930s -- both sound and picture.  Voice over-dubbing was
> common.  Adding instrumental tracks was common.  Editing in and out of
> music -- punch-ins -- was common.  I challenge you to show me anything
> Les Paul did that had not been done before.  And you have to realize
> that by the late 1930s even many 78s by companies beyond Edison and
> Pathe (who had done it back to the turn of the century) were dubs, not
> recorded direct-to-disc.
>
>> The players wanted it to be right and at that time the only way
>> to insure that was to play it again Sam.  AA
>
> It was not the ONLY way, it was just the usual way.  I have been playing
> records for sixty years and have been researching the technology of
> recording for fifty, and one thing I have learned is to never think that
> something had never been done before.  I am still constantly surprised
> by discoveries of earlier technologies.  All too often when a statement
> is made "This is the first time . . ." it really should have been a
> question "Was this the first time . . . ?"
>
> Mike Biel
>