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 >