Hello Tom,

I agree with your overall accolades to the sound effects and mixing guys (probably not too many ladies then).  In the process of restoring and remastering 540 half-hour Mutual Network radio Family Theater broadcasts, one of my last major projects, I was amazed, in addition, with the fact that the composer/conductor, Harry Zimmerman, produced live scores for each and most all of the shows.   Sometimes, I would hear a music cue (still live) that he'd used before, since I'm sure that he kept a music library, but to have done a show every week from 1947 through to the '60s without any hiatus, blew/blows my mind.

Rod Stephens

--- On Wed, 6/24/09, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Recording Innovations
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 5:14 PM
> The same can be said for the
> radio-drama sound guys of that era. Material like the Lux
> Radio Theatre and the Mercury Theatre on the Air/Campbell
> Playhouse often had complex SFX sequences and music as well
> as multi-voiced dialog. Sterling's The Radio Manual lays out
> CBS's custom mixing board for one of their large radio
> studios, circa early 1940's. It was quite impressive. The
> amazing thing about the radio guys is that this happened
> live over the air in many cases, so not only did the sound
> elements need to go off at the right time and flawlessly,
> the mix needed to be spot-on as well.
> 
> -- Tom Fine
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aaron Levinson" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 7:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Recording Innovations
> 
> 
> > Hi Tom!
> > 
> > Agreed. The daunting task accomplished by those
> pioneering film mixers was (and is) really incredible. I
> marvel at how well they were achieve to such a nuanced
> balance without the aid of our modern tool kit. And when one
> considers the frequency response limitations imposed by the
> optical track it is even more amazing!
> > 
> > AA
> > 
> > 
> > Tom Fine wrote:
> >> 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
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> > 
>