How was music "mixed" back then?

[Amy Jeanne]

We all know that in today's music each instrument and each vocal is all recorded separately, then "cleaned up" and mixed all together to give us the final product.

How did, say, Fred Van Epps go about recording his music? Did he have to strum that banjo continuously all in one take until everyone and everything made a perfect recording? Did this method last into the 20s when electrical recording came in?

The big bands -- did they record all in one take or did they "mix"? When did "mixing" come into recording? Where were all the microphones? On very old recordings (like Fred Van Epps, for example) I notice that one instrument will be in the forefront and the others in the background. Did they record through a horn? When did "cleaning up" the music come in?

I think of these questions every time I pass the old RCA recording studios in Camden and now I'm finally asking!

 

[LizzieMaine]

It was all one take -- and then another take -- and then another take 'till they got it right. In the acoustic days, you'd have someone actually in the studio with Mr. Van Epps as he played and sang, gesturing for him to move closer to or further away from the recording horn -- and that's what it was, a very large horn -- to get the best sound levels. But what went in is what came out.

Electrical recording was a bit more sophisticated -- there were technical manuals that showed the best placement of microphones for different types of orchestras, and you'd have an engineer in the booth controlling levels to get the best quality. But the recording itself was done in the whole.

Sound mixing from different source recordings was actually an innovation of the Vitaphone era. The techs at Warner Bros. figured out an elaborate system for using mechanical meters to count the revolutions on a recording disc, so they could pinpoint exact sections for dubbing onto a new, final disc. You could have eight or nine different segments mixed together into one final recording this way -- the only trouble was, it sounded noticably muddier than a straight, all-in-one-take recording. If you've noticed the sound on 1930-31 Vitaphone films isn't as crisp as those from 1927-29, this is why.

Modern sound mixing, though, had to wait until the tape era, from the late forties/early fifties onward. Even then, jazz and big-band recordings were made all-in-one-take. There was some experimentation with manipulation of tape to create special effects -- listen to Les Paul and Mary Ford records from the early fifties for good examples of this -- but for the most part that kind of stuff had to wait till the rock era to be accepted.

 

[Amy Jeanne]

Very intersting stuff. Thanks!

I was always curious about this because I have CDs that will have several different "takes" of a single song.

Everytime I pass that old RCA building I think of what went on in there and wonder if the new apartment residents appreciate or even know what the historical importance is. Now I have a newfound respect knowing most of the recordings were done in one take.

 

[Chas]

Acoustical recording: no mixing required.

Electrical recording: still, no mixing required.

 

[JimWagner]

As someone who has both played in bands being recorded and done some recording I much prefer the minimalist approach to miking and mixing a band. A properly placed stereo pair in a good hall recording a single take gives a much more natural recording (to me) than close miking each instrument, doing take after take and then mixing it all down.

The second approach seems too sterile somehow to me.

 

[scottyrocks]

I have a CD set called 'The Carl Stalling Project.' Its 4 CDs of Warner Brothers cartoon music. The first cut is four takes of a 15 second musical passage for a cartoon. They all sound pretty identical, but in between each one you can hear Stalling making a comment or two about what needs to be changed and they do it again. Finally, on the fourth take, they get it, and he happily says so. 'Thats a wrap!'

In each take, it was the entire orchestra (band?) playing, and it all had to line up perfectly or it wasnt right. Great stuff.

 

[vitanola]

Here's an example of direct recording (no electronics). Note that many many "takes" were often necessary to secure a satisfactory record, particularly with large groups. Recording in those days was known to be exhausting!

Here's an example of direct recording (no electronics). Note that many many "takes" were often necessary to secure a satisfactory record, particularly with large groups. Recording in those days was known to be exhausting!

[YOUTUBE]ScRFpEmgoDk[/YOUTUBE]

And electric recording:

[YOUTUBE]4FseSwvUNPA[/YOUTUBE]

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Acoustical recording: no mixing required.

Electrical recording: still, no mixing required.

Everytime I pass that old RCA building I think of what went on in there and wonder if the new apartment residents appreciate or even know what the historical importance is. Now I have a newfound respect knowing most of the recordings were done in one take.

The recording studio in the 1925 photos was actually located in Bldg. 15 -- at that time the Administration Bldg. of the Victor complex -- which is catty-corner from The Victor Apartments, the former Victor Bldg. 17. Victor also acquired an old church building on Fifth Street which was turned into recording studios. Fats Waller, among others, made many of his recordings there, playing the original organ from the church. The session leader seen in the pics is Rosario Bourdon, Victor's musical director before Nat Shilkret who joined Victor in 1926.

As a tribute to the quality of musicianship back then, it's worth noting that it was not unusual for the studio musicians, who were often hired for the gig on that very day, to be handed the music just minutes before the recording session began and would often record the song in one take without even the benefit of rehearsal.

 

[Chas]

Sight reading! No worries for a professional.

The fact that whether or not you get to eat or pay rent based upon your skills can be a great teacher and motivator.

 

[Miss Neecerie]

I recorded several times in studios with concert and jazz bands as late as 1988 or so and we did multiple takes til we got it right, etc.

Obviously electrical so they could shift the balance etc....but the music all still had to be there at the same time...

 

[Rundquist]

You pretty much had to record everything in a single take until multi track machines came out. Before that, they could pre-mix a record (use a board to mix the instruments) but it had to be done before the actual recording. Once it was on the two track stereo tape, that was pretty much it. Some of the 50's RCA stereo recording are incredible to listen to, even today. In fact they sound better than new recordings.

 

[Peacoat]

Interesting discussion. I went to a recording studio (RCA Studio B in Nashville) the first time in 1964. The musicians were all there as a band, and everyone was recorded together. If someone screwed up, or if the producer decided he wanted to try something different, everyone had to do it all over again, and again--for hours. It was truly exhausting.

The next time I was at a studio was in the mid 70s at Woodland Sound, also in Nashville when Jimmy Buffet was recording his, I think, third album (he would record at different studios for each album, and they all run together). By that time the process had evolved tremendously. First Jimmy would lay down the scratch vocals and maybe he would accompany himself on guitar. Perhaps the rhythm section also laid down a track. It's been so long ago I don't remember for sure. The band members weren't there for that portion.

Then the band members would come in. Everyone would lay down an individual track, listening to what had already been done on the headphones so there would be no bleed through. After all the parts had been completed, Jimmy would do the final vocals on a separate track (everybody was on a separate track). Then everything would be sent off for mixing under the watchful eye of Buffet.

As a side note, although Jimmy Buffet has a reputation for being a fun party type guy, when he goes into the studio, he is strictly a professional with an eye and an ear for exacting detail. He expects the band members to conduct themselves similarly. That's not to say he doesn't have fun, because he does, but it is his job to record and produce (he is his own producer) a record, and he takes his job very seriously. Just a little aside for you Parrot Heads out there.

 

[davidraphael]

I have a CD set called 'The Carl Stalling Project.' Its 4 CDs of Warner Brothers cartoon music.

The Carl Stalling Project is brilliant! I've been listening to it for years and never get bored.


Another good recording that highlights the recording process is the Miles Davis' Kind of Blue session. You can hear Teo (the producer), Miles and the other musicians making comments between takes. The sessions that I have are actually not available commercially, as far as I am aware...

 

[vitanola]

Here is a "Hollywood" version of an acoustic recording session, circa 1901. Only slightly exaggerated!

Note the way that the Recording Engineer "rides the gain" to prevent overcutting. A rather dangerous technique, particularly if the artist is in the flush of youth and vigor! (Ernestine Schumann-Heink once knocked an engineer flat.) Note, too, the way that the volume of the orchestra was controlled!

[YOUTUBE]cqnATSWX6I[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-cqnATSWX6I?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-cqnATSWX6I?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cqnATSWX6I

I wonder why I can't seem to post YouTube videos directly anymore?

 

[iancandler]

Multi tracking didn't come in until very late in the day, before that people like les paul had messed around with sound on sound, ie playing back the track through a desk, playing an overdub live with the combined sound of both recording on a second tape machine.
In fact when I was young back in the 1970's this was still how those of us who didn't have access to a studio still recorded, I did my first using two cassette recorders later moving on to the old akai 4000 reel to reel machines.
These 4 track machines could record onto on section of the tape while playing back the previous track thus making it easier, but you still had to mix down to a separate machine and audio quality suffered a lot from the bouncing.