 |
 |
|
Phil Spector soon hijacked the format and used it to overdub multiple times, recording basic tracks on two tracks, balancing them and recording to the third track (known as bouncing) and recording further overdubs on the now empty two tracks. Though this process is degenerative to the sound quality, Spector used it as a key element in his "Wall Of Sound".
Just to intercede here, there was, of course, the inevitable exception to this stately progress through the track numbers. In the late 50s Atlantic Records had a custom-made 8 track (I have heard that there was a second in Detroit). It is reported that Leiber and Stoller's response was 'what do we do with the other six'? True or not, this gives an insight into the development of the technology versus the producers' need to use it.
In the days of 1 track, records were cut live out of necessity. Sure there were the exceptions such as the guitar genius and recording pioneer Les Paul, who overdubbed from acetate to acetate - playing along with what he had recorded and recording the combined performances to a second acetate, then taking this and repeating the process to a third etc etc. It is rumoured that the process would sometimes exceed 30 "bounces". He also played the discs at varying speeds during the transfers. But in general the whole ensemble: rhythm section, horns, strings, backing vocals, lead singer etc were balanced straight to the final medium, be it acetate or tape. Which meant that the finished record was in essence made as soon as the last note was played. As the number of tracks available increased, this changed, as did the way records were made. Indeed the very nature of those records soon altered.
Simultaneously with the development of multi-tracking the number of inputs (& outputs) on the mixing desk increased. However with both 3 and even 4 track many of the studios still operated as they had with 1 and 2 track machines. Essentially the group still played live but was balanced across the three or four tracks with several instruments combined on one. The vocals and maybe even the horns were sometimes added later on a track that was deliberately left spare after the basic band track had been recorded. This was then mixed down (re-balanced) on to a 2 track tape. This added an extra generation of tape transfer and when this happens there is a reduction of sound quality.
Up to and, to an extent, including 4 track, records were in essence a representation of a performance. From an engineering standpoint multi-track provided certain advantages in terms of choice, but essentially the crucial part of the balancing was done in the first stage of recording, i.e. the band was balanced to the tape. Of course there are exceptions to the idea of the record as a document of a performance, from Phil Spector's Wall of Sound to say the wildly processed sounds of Gary U.S. Bonds. But even when two 3 or 4 track machines were used to overdub and bounce, the end result was more often than not in essence a live performance. The advent of 8 track brought about a change. Many records became the "stuff of imagination" rather than the documenting of a performance. The possibilities increased enormously of overdubbing extra instruments and vocals to produce sounds that would be next to impossible to create live, even in the studio.
I have to put in a word here for the incredible performances of Spike Jones and the City Slickers, who managed to commit incredibly complex musical mayhem to tape as a live performance without the aid of overdubs or multi-tracking.
8 track, unlike four, allowed eight first generation recordings to be made without having to resort to "bouncing down" from tape to tape - essentially a degenerative process. Given that engineers still had the skills required to balance the basic band track to two tracks this left six to play with. It was at the end of the 60s that 8 track became prevalent and guitar overdubs and stacked harmony vocals went suitably over the top.
In the US there were short-lived 10 and 12 track systems, but the next major development was to 16 track. It was at this point that the idea of recording even the basic band track live almost disappeared. Increasingly instruments were recorded separately, to the point where drum tracks were being recorded without the rest of the band playing. Records were being constructed like buildings and any hint of the ensemble performance was lost. Even if other musicians were involved in basic backing tracks they would tend to re-record their parts later. 24 track followed and when the technology was developed to "slave" two machines together the possibilities were endless, as indeed were the indulgences created by the excessive number of tracks available. Digital multi-tracking added whole new possibilities and now in the world of Pro Tools and a virtual infinity of tracks, it's hard to see how anyone ever finishes a record when there is always so much more that could be done. But hey we are a reissue company so that no longer concerns us. Though we do find it useful for remixing lost masters, and truth to tell the new technology allows edits and other changes that could not have been imagined when most of the record we issue were made.
Regardless of whether mixed from 46 track multi-track or first generation tape recorded directly to mono it is the final one or two-track master that we want in order to bring the best sound possible to our sharp-eared listeners. Occasionally the master itself will be damaged through bad handling or storage. But contrary to the view that analogue tape degenerates of its own accord, it is a remarkably resilient medium on which to store audio. Let us hope that digital recordings prove to be as enduring after they have been around for 40 years.
Digital tape has changed the rules to a large extent, in that a copy is not degenerated, except in the most technical sense, and, provided that the transfer from analogue is made with due care, attention and expertise, the digital copy should be the equal of the analogue original. The advent of digital recording has been a real boon to us. It enables a large number of analogue tapes to be stored on a small cassette-like tape without sound impairment, and at a negligible cost in tape stock. We were in the front line of digital recording back in the early 80s when Sony introduced the PCM F1 system. This was a low cost digital recorder that used Betamax videotape transport combined with a custom digital converter. Intended by Sony as a high-end domestic system that used the same tape machine to record both video and digital audio, it was reasonably portable and so allowed us to travel to the USA and make digital copies without loss in quality. With the advent of CD we were able to go to our stock of digital copies and immediately produce fantastic sounding discs directly from the masters. An early review of our Dion "Best Of" suggested that we had set the standard for the quality of audio that listeners should demand. We think that we continue to achieve that.
|
 |