Hi Aaron:
What they were doing in Hollywood, from the early days, was recording different aspects of the final
soundtrack on different bits of film and then mixing together from motor-sync'd playback to a final
sound master. There were crude mixing consoles from early in the electronic recording days, too. One
specific example I was told about, and I'll ask the guy for the film title because I don't remember
it, was the final music was mixed from three optical elements, one made from each microphone, with
each microphone focused on a different musician or group of musicians. This would be very similar to
live-in-the-studio multi-tracking. They were also able to pre-record music tracks very early, so a
singer on film would be singing against a playback. And lip-sync'ing and indeed orchestra
play-sync'ing were developed early on, too. By the early 1930's, Western Electric (and probably
others) had developed amplifier and mixer-network systems allowing for mixing many different sound
elements into a final soundtrack. Also, the whole idea of "stem" mixes came out of Hollywood, a way
to reduce many elements to a few logically organized stems for final mixdown. By the 1940s, the
major studios' sound departments had big 3-person consoles for final mixing (dialog, music, sound
effects). Those guys were aces, too. Think of the mono soundtracks for some of the big musical
pictures, that's a very complex sound universe to fit into one channel.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Levinson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Recording Innovations
>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
>>
>
|