LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  September 2008

ARSCLIST September 2008

Subject:

Les Paul (was: New online publication: Manual of analogue audio restoration techniques, by Peter Copeland)

From:

Michael Biel <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:26:14 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (157 lines)

Yesterday I had a chance to look thru the bio of Les Paul by Mary Alice
Shaughnessy. Starting on page 138 she discusses how in the mid-40s he
put a playback head on his disc cutter to achieve a 1/10 second delay
echo. This evolved into using the disc cutter and this playback head to
do at first single-disc overdubs, and by 1947 (perhaps using bouncing
tracks between two discs) "Lover" and "Brazil" were achieved on disc.

After the auto accident, Bing Crosby had given Les a gift of a single
Ampex (pg. 167), but the narrative seems to indicate he continued to do
his overdubbed records on disc. Page 180 and 181 describes how he knew
he could use two Ampexes the way he did his disc overdubs by bouncing
from one machine to another, but that he could not afford to buy a
second Ampex. "Although he had succeeded in producing remarkably clean
overdubs with his custom made disc cutter, he knew he could overdub on
tape with even greater fidelity,. All he had to do was strum along with
a guitar solo he cut on one Ampex and simultaneously record both parts
on a second Ampex. Unfortunately, there was no way he could afford
another tape machine."

The narrative continues with him discussing the problem with Jack Mullin
after taping a Crosby show, and the two of them coming up with adding a
preview play head, the PERP machine referred to by Peter Hammer.
However, exactly as I had indicated a couple of days ago, this single
machine system created a problem. The book states "But the modified
Ampex had one distinct drawback. If Les made a mistake in, say, the
twelfth overdub, he'd have to record the first eleven all over again.
In other words, one small mistake could cost a day's work. With the
disk-to-disk recording method, he could simply go back to the last good
disk and redo the part. But he felt the advantages of overdubbing on
his customized tape recorder outweighed the disadvantages, even if it
put him and Mary under far greater pressure. 'It made us real pros,' he
later boasted."

The book doesn't say which records were recorded this way or how long he
use it, but it is obvious that it did not take too long before he would
be easily able to afford a second Ampex, and perhaps more! He started
dragging this machine around with him on tours, making it seem likely he
had more machines installed safely at home. This is summarized on page
229. "During the 1940s he had built his own disk cutting lathe to
create miraculously crisp overdubbed instrumentals. By 1950 he had
figured out how to cut even cleaner multigenerational recordings on tape
with a single modified Ampex. Later he used two off-the-shelf Ampexes
to achieve the same effect, bounding sound from machine to machine" The
narrative then states that he came up with the idea of a multi-track
recorder in 1954 and that after Westrex rejected his request, Ampex
built his 300-8 in the summer of 1957. I had no idea that this came
about this late since Ampex and other companies had been making two and
three track machines for years. Sel-Sync seems to be the hold-up, but I
would need to take some time to pull out the catalogs to see how early
this shows up.

The Les Paulveriser is discussed on page 231 as coming in 1956 but no
details are given other than saying it was "a remote control gadget for
his guitar that would allow him to manipulate the taped accompaniment he
used during performances." I've seen him use it to close the act by
creating overdubs on stage. The film "The Wizard of Wakeshw" shows him
doing it. He plays one part, and then when it comes around again he
plays a second part. Then when the overdubbed pair comes around again
he plays a third part and so forth. This is only about four bars long,
less than ten seconds. After laying down maybe 5 or six parts he does
not stop it after the next play and uses it as a backing track to play
an entire song for a minute or two. At this point I don't think he is
recording anymore, just playing the loop. It is said that this is a
"black box" that nobody knows how it works, but a tape loop on the PERP
would work as would the PER cart machine I used to use for talk show
delays. Now a simple device controlling some bucket-brigade recording
chips would work.

Noting that Capitol had done some fake Duophonics of his early stuff, I
once asked him if he would consider doing real stereo remixes of his old
mono overdubs going back to the disc days using the separated
sub-masters. "Why should I?" he said. "I can record them all over
again if I want to." (I didn't bring up that Mary was no longer with
us.) I wonder if he has given anybody permission to go thru his master
archive and document the techniques used for each specific master:
Disc-to-Disc, PERP, tape-to-tape, or 8-track.

As for stereo, part of the appeal of "The New Sound" was having all
these guitars and voices coming from a single point. I have likened it
to whether you wanted a four-handed guitarist or two two-handed
guitarists. You do a stereo spread for the latter and keep the two
tracks together if the former. One of my techniques when setting up a
mix of a lead and a harmony is to pan them out until they separate into
two voices and then pan them slightly together till they rejoin but are
not exactly on top of each other. That maintains the ringing blend of
the harmony but widens and fattens it just a bit so you can sense the
dual sources which can clarify it as well. Two guitars together in mono
can sometimes have one note blurring with the note from the other
guitar. If they are just slightly separated you hear two notes rather
than one in this case, but they are still very close together. On the
other hand, if you want to have dueling guitars, they have to be
completely separated. In the case of stereo mixing a Les Paul overdub,
if you have some of his parts answering each other from a distance but
have other parts close to each other to be ringing together in harmony,
this could make a stereo version more interesting than hearing
everything on top of each other. The occasional duel will be a good
contrast. I haven't listened to his Columbia and London stereo work in
decades to see if this is how those were mixed.

Mike Biel [log in to unmask]


Richard L. Hess wrote:
> At 05:49 AM 2008-09-15, Michael Biel wrote:
>> I agree that it is a good thing to have this published, but it is
>> even more unfortunate that Peter is no longer with us because there
>> are many, many factual and historical errors and omissions.
> ...
>> He has completely misunderstood how Les Paul created his overdubbing
>> on page 287 when he talks about a mono tape recorder with the heads
>> in the PER arrangement instead of the usual ERP. That machine was
>> used for a time delay that was of the length of the tape loop.
>
> Hello, Mike,
>
> There seems to be a real bit of confusion on this one, as I have heard
> the same story that is in Copeland's Manual.
>
> I asked my friend Don Ososke (ex Ampex) to look into this as I did not
> have time. Don agreed to and discussed it with our mutual friend Peter
> Hammar, the founder/curator of the Ampex Museum (portions of which
> are now at Stanford). Pete was actually the one who introduced me to
> Don. Anyway, Don reports:
>
>> Peter Hammar interviewed Les Paul at Les's house many long years ago.
>> Paul showed Hammar the full-track Ampex 300 with an additional
>> "preview head" mounted about 1.5 inches to the left of the head
>> assembly that Paul used for "sound over sound" recordings. Paul said
>> that he first recorded a "click track" so that he and Mary Ford could
>> stay in precise synchronization. He then recorded the various parts,
>> saving the most important parts for last due to the quality losses
>> caused by re-recording the old parts each time he added a new part.
>> Sometimes, for very complex and fast moving guitar parts, he would
>> record at half speed while playing the guitar parts one octave lower.
>> Paul said that by the time he recorded the last part, the click track
>> had faded away due to the re-recording losses. THEREFORE, the head
>> configuration was...PERP (although the "normal" play head was not
>> needed while recording multiple parts).
>>
>> Hammar did not mention Paul discussing the time delay "echo effect"
>> that was the length of the tape loop, although some of the Les Paul /
>> Mary Ford recordings exhibit this effect. Could Paul have made a
>> final re-recording to add the time delay?
>>
>> Hammar confirmed that the erase head was used.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
> Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask]
> Aurora, Ontario, Canada (905) 713 6733 1-877-TAPE-FIX
> Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager