On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:15:11 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

I worked on the studio recording of the Bernard Shaw's
"Pygmalion" (My Fair Lady) with the London theatre cast,
Alec McGowan, Diana Rigg, Bob Hoskins, It was recorded
in just the way you describe. This was the only
sensible way to do it:-)


In some circles there's an assumption that "norma"l recording
procedure is to track everyone separately. I think it's "normal" to
play the music and put some microphones in front of it. Generation
thing, I suppose :-)

In article ,
Laurence Payne NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote:
I worked on the studio recording of the Bernard Shaw's
"Pygmalion" (My Fair Lady) with the London theatre cast,
Alec McGowan, Diana Rigg, Bob Hoskins, It was recorded
in just the way you describe. This was the only
sensible way to do it:-)


In some circles there's an assumption that "norma"l recording
procedure is to track everyone separately. I think it's "normal" to
play the music and put some microphones in front of it. Generation
thing, I suppose :-)

Any musical of that type should be able to be recorded in a simple way.
After all, they are intended to be watched live

--
*Acupuncture is a jab well done*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Laurence Payne NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote:

In some circles there's an assumption that "norma"l recording
procedure is to track everyone separately. I think it's "normal" to
play the music and put some microphones in front of it. Generation
thing, I suppose :-)

Any musical of that type should be able to be recorded in a simple way.
After all, they are intended to be watched live


There is nothing *simple* about it, as you would know
if you had ever tried to balance a 60 piece orchestra, soloists
and opera choir on a crossed pair with outriggers.

Iain

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Laurence Payne NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote:

In some circles there's an assumption that "norma"l recording
procedure is to track everyone separately. I think it's "normal" to
play the music and put some microphones in front of it. Generation
thing, I suppose :-)

Any musical of that type should be able to be recorded in a simple way.
After all, they are intended to be watched live


There is nothing *simple* about it, as you would know
if you had ever tried to balance a 60 piece orchestra, soloists
and opera choir on a crossed pair with outriggers.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

When West Side Story was first produced there would have been little in
the way of sound reinforcement in the venue - probably limited to just
lead vocals. Everything else would be heard 'live' by the audience.

So everything from the line up of the orchestra to the arrangements of the
score revolve around this. If you start out with an inherently decently
balanced subject recording becomes somewhat easier.
Of course once you go to screening off the orch into sections etc for
recording you can make one violin dominate open brass. The accountant's
dream.

--
*Don't byte off more than you can view *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Laurence Payne NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote:

In some circles there's an assumption that "norma"l recording
procedure is to track everyone separately. I think it's "normal" to
play the music and put some microphones in front of it. Generation
thing, I suppose :-)

Any musical of that type should be able to be recorded in a simple way.
After all, they are intended to be watched live


There is nothing *simple* about it, as you would know
if you had ever tried to balance a 60 piece orchestra, soloists
and opera choir on a crossed pair with outriggers.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No. I am speaking from years of experience recording
music in straight stereo and multimic/multritrack
formats.

When West Side Story was first produced there would have been little in
the way of sound reinforcement in the venue - probably limited to just
lead vocals. Everything else would be heard 'live' by the audience.

You seem to be confusing live sound with studio recording, and
conveniently forgetting the visual reference which props up poor
sound. One sees/hears this daily on TV. It is a well-known
phenomenon.

I used to be quite an avid fan of the Michael Parkinson Show, and
was particularly interested by the Laurie Holloway arrangements for
the band. I used to ask one of my pals at broadcast to make a DAT
for me, and looked forward to picking up the Saturday night show
audio recording the following Monday. Sad to say, I was usually
disappointed just hearing the band, (the playing was sometimes not
as good as it could have been, and the balance left much to be
desired) though with picture, the whole audiovisual performance
seemed to work well.

The BBC are better at concept recordings than most, but with the
exception of the Henry Wood concerts, even they don't manage to
shine as often as they would probably like to. We all understand
the pressures of budget, and that sound has always been the poor
relation to picture.


So everything from the line up of the orchestra to the arrangements of the
score revolve around this. If you start out with an inherently decently
balanced subject recording becomes somewhat easier.


Of course once you go to screening off the orch into sections etc for
recording you can make one violin dominate open brass.

Yes. I have seen the plastic screens on TV around the drums,
and the mics clipped to the music stands for the tiny string
sections:-((

My point was about being able to use different treatments for
various sections of the orchestra. Take a careful look at say
a Mike Westbrook or Kenny Clarke score, and perhaps you
will start to understand what is required, and why such material
can be played with only moderate success in concert. The detail is
usually only heard in a studio recording. Countless examples
come to mind, but one, in a Francy Boland score, with a piccolo
figure against four trumpets, four trombones and fives saxes
playing full bore, against a driving rhythm section should give
you an idea what you need to be able to achieve.



Regards
Iain

On Jan 10, 7:19*pm, Laurence Payne NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com
wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:15:11 +0200, "Iain Churches"

wrote:
I worked on the studio recording of the Bernard Shaw's
"Pygmalion" *(My Fair Lady) *with the London theatre cast,
Alec McGowan, Diana Rigg, Bob Hoskins, It was recorded
in just the way you describe. *This was the only
sensible way to do it:-)

In some circles there's an assumption that "norma"l recording
procedure is to track everyone separately. *I think it's "normal" to
play the music and put some microphones in front of it. * Generation
thing, I suppose :-)

Wasn't the Beatles' Sergeant Pepper, at the time thought to be
innovative, recorded on a four-track machine? Some of the rockers down
the road here probably weren't even born before four-track machines
became obsolete. They'd think playing the music and putting some mikes
in front of it an abrogation of their right of free expression of
their lowest common denonimator lack of taste.

The poorest years of the Berliner were those after Karajan got an
unhealthy, taste-threatening dose of technynerdfreak disease.

Andre Jute
If only history would repeat itself...

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
On Jan 10, 7:19 pm, Laurence Payne NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com
wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:15:11 +0200, "Iain Churches"

wrote:
I worked on the studio recording of the Bernard Shaw's
"Pygmalion" (My Fair Lady) with the London theatre cast,
Alec McGowan, Diana Rigg, Bob Hoskins, It was recorded
in just the way you describe. This was the only
sensible way to do it:-)

In some circles there's an assumption that "norma"l recording
procedure is to track everyone separately. I think it's "normal" to
play the music and put some microphones in front of it. Generation
thing, I suppose :-)

Wasn't the Beatles' Sergeant Pepper, at the time thought to be
innovative, recorded on a four-track machine?

Yes indeed. Or rather a pair of them. Studer J37's - four tracks
on 1" with tube amps:-)

The technique, was to record on four tracks, and then to bounce
(submix) these four to two tracks of the second machine while adding
more mics. This way, you carefully build up the complete song.
It required considerable skill and forward planning. There are no
levels of "undo", and no possibility to "fix it in the mix"

Regards to all

Iain
May God protect you from his followers.

"Laurence Payne" NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:15:11 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

I worked on the studio recording of the Bernard Shaw's
"Pygmalion" (My Fair Lady) with the London theatre cast,
Alec McGowan, Diana Rigg, Bob Hoskins, It was recorded
in just the way you describe. This was the only
sensible way to do it:-)


In some circles there's an assumption that "norma"l recording
procedure is to track everyone separately. I think it's "normal" to
play the music and put some microphones in front of it. Generation
thing, I suppose :-)

Indeed. Much depends on the genre. Even to this day the
record-buying public have very little idea of how records are
actually made. Not a lot has changed since the bright young
journalist from Cosmopolitan asked me in the late 70's:
"How many albums do you make in a day?"
This was during a Ginger Baker project that
had been going on round the clock for some ten weeks.

You can record multi-microphone without multi-track.
This requires balancing say twenty mics to straight stereo with
no possibility afterwards to "fix it in the mix". Such skill
is now rare. Light music was invariably recorded this way.

Classical music is usually recorded straight stereo with a
pair or tree of three to five mics. This too is a lot more
difficult than it sounds.

Multitrack evolved very quickly. The Ampex 4 track
allowed one to record a backing track over two,
and keep a pair for vocals. By modern standards,
where the digital DAW can have an almost infinite number of
virtual tracks, this may sound pretty basic. But remember
that one of the greatest pop recordings of all time, "Sgt Pepper"
was recorded on a Studer J37 (four tracks on 1") with sub
mixes bounced from machine to machine while adding new
material. Much of the early Moody Blues material, in some
ways even more complex was also made in this way.

By the mid sixties, 8 track on 1" was common. What a
quantum leap! One could now put the Bass and Bass
drum on separate tracks!

As technology progressed, LTC (longitudinal time code)
allowed us to lock two or more machines together,
so one could make 30 track extravaganzas:-)
Whether or not this was a good or bad thing is open
to debate.

By the early eighties, we had reached the stage where
drum tracks for pop recordings (not rock) were put down
one track at a time, to a click track. Doof, doof, doof
for 3 mins (that was the bass drum) Then the snare,
um, WHACK, um, WHACK, etc etc. Then the hi hat,
um TISH, um TISH, then the three toms, DING,
BING, BONG, then the overheads cyms, CRASH,
ZWISH. You get the idea? Nine tracks in
all of just drums with 100% separation, in rock-solid time
but totally lacking in feel:-( It took the greater part of a
very tedious morning to put down a three minute drum track.

Backing tracks, including backing vocals, and even
instrumental solos were recorded without anyone of
the performers having actually heard vocal line!

Many's the time I have heard a producer say to a pretty
young thing who should really have been working as a
fast-food waitress: "Do your best, luv. Don't worry
too much about the pitch and the timing. We can fix all that"

But it's still a great business :-)

Iain

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
As technology progressed, LTC (longitudinal time code)
allowed us to lock two or more machines together,
so one could make 30 track extravaganzas:-)
Whether or not this was a good or bad thing is open
to debate.

SMPTE code - to give it its correct name - wasn't the first method of
locking machines together. Other codes which allowed chase lock - albeit
to a more limited extent - were around before it. And of course film
transports had been doing this for many a year before it was managed for
capstan driven devices.

Nor was SMPTE code the perfect answer to locking machines - they didn't
remain phase coherent. But then neither did any analogue multi-track
across its own tracks anyway. ;-)

--
*If tennis elbow is painful, imagine suffering with tennis balls *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
As technology progressed, LTC (longitudinal time code)
allowed us to lock two or more machines together,
so one could make 30 track extravaganzas:-)
Whether or not this was a good or bad thing is open
to debate.

SMPTE code - to give it its correct name - wasn't the first method of
locking machines together. Other codes which allowed chase lock - albeit
to a more limited extent - were around before it. And of course film
transports had been doing this for many a year before it was managed for
capstan driven devices.

Nor was SMPTE code the perfect answer to locking machines - they didn't
remain phase coherent. But then neither did any analogue multi-track
across its own tracks anyway. ;-)

Time code on analogue audio recorders is generally referred
to as LTC, to distinguish it from VITC (also SMPTE)

Anything that required track to track phase coherency is recorded
as a pair on adjacent inner tracks, (strings for example on tracks11+12)
The phase between track 1 (Bass drum) and track 23 (lead vocal)
is of little or no consequence:-)

No cigar, Dave!

Regards
Iain