DM's Beatles forums
A part of DM's Beatles site
Meet people from all over the World
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Why so long on 4 track?  (Read 3588 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

mclen57

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 196
Why so long on 4 track?
« on: July 04, 2005, 06:08:50 PM »
This is something that always puzzled me. It seems that the bulk of the Beatles output was recorded on 4 track. It wasn't 'til Abbey Road that they did a full 8 track recording. During the White album sessions, they had to go Trident studios to do 8 track. During these years other artists like Jimi, Who and Moody Blues were doing 8 & 12 track recordings. In fact, while the Beatles were recording Abbey Road in 8 track, Frank Zappa was recording Hot Rats in 16 track!

Was EMI just being cheap? I don't see how. They had the hottest recording act on the planet! Was this the reason George Martin eventually left EMI and formed his own AIR studios? Kind of boggles my head

What say you?
Logged
Henry the Horse
Sheet Music Plus Homepage

lennring

  • One And One Is Two
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 36
Re: Why so long on 4 track?
« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2005, 06:14:49 PM »
yeh that is weird that their like one of the biggest recording acts, and yet they only get to use 4 track, but think about it the early days(1962), they only had 2 track! :P
Logged
lalelalelal.....beatles rule! john lennon-1980

"double fantasy"

The End

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 8216
  • Turn off your mind, relax and float down stream...
    • The End
Re: Why so long on 4 track?
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2005, 06:24:14 PM »
EMI actually had an 8 track desk around July 1968 but apparently their technicians took forever to install it! A lot of other London studios, including Olympic and Trident, already had 8 track so a few of their songs around the 67-68 era were demoed or recorded there including Baby You're A Rich Man at Olympic and Hey Jude and Dear Prudence at Trident.
Logged

lennring

  • One And One Is Two
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 36
Re: Why so long on 4 track?
« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2005, 06:30:24 PM »
cool, cool but i cant think why they would need 8 track for baby youre a rich man?
Logged
lalelalelal.....beatles rule! john lennon-1980

"double fantasy"

mclen57

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 196
Re: Why so long on 4 track?
« Reply #4 on: July 04, 2005, 07:34:55 PM »
Can't imagine how Pepper would've sounded if they had 8 or 16 track facilities at their disposal.
Logged
Henry the Horse

An Apple Beatle

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5635
  • Be yourself, no matter what they say.
    • The studio
Re: Why so long on 4 track?
« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2005, 08:06:02 PM »
Quote from: lennring
cool, cool but i cant think why they would need 8 track for baby youre a rich man?

A lot of sweeping backing vocals, piano, bass, drums, lead vocals, Indian flute soundy type thing. lol Overdubbed percussion perhaps. Might be worth digging in the all-links Beatles thread for some exact info.
Logged
http://www.4sitemusic.com
USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION ON THIS FORUM! CLICK HERE!

  • Guest
Re: Why so long on 4 track?
« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2005, 08:11:55 PM »
i wonder what  instruuments a 2-track would have
Logged

mclen57

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 196
Re: Why so long on 4 track?
« Reply #7 on: July 04, 2005, 09:29:00 PM »
Quote from: An_Apple_Beatle

A lot of sweeping backing vocals, piano, bass, drums, lead vocals, Indian flute soundy type thing. lol Overdubbed percussion perhaps. Might be worth digging in the all-links Beatles thread for some exact info.

A good source is Mark Lewisohn's Beatles recording sessions book. Haven't read it in a good while, but it's loaded with info.

Logged
Henry the Horse

mclen57

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 196
Re: Why so long on 4 track?
« Reply #8 on: July 04, 2005, 09:45:16 PM »
It seems I remember reading that when they recorded Pepper, they used several 4 track units and compressed it into one 4 track master. If that's so, then it could be possible to completely reconstuct the entire recordings into a new 16, 32 track master. This could give the recordings some new dimensioning in the sound. I'm not a engineer by profession but I've worked in one and got a rough idea on how multi-track recordings work. Of course there's an integrity thing to just keep it the way they originally did it. Just a thought.
Logged
Henry the Horse

The End

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 8216
  • Turn off your mind, relax and float down stream...
    • The End
Re: Why so long on 4 track?
« Reply #9 on: July 05, 2005, 01:54:31 AM »
Quote from: mclen57
it could be possible to completely reconstuct the entire recordings into a new 16, 32 track master. This could give the recordings some new dimensioning in the sound.

To make more room for over-dubbing they would often bounce 4 tracks down to 2 thus feeing up an additional 2 tracks. If they still have ALL the original tracks (pre AND post bounce) then it IS definitely feasible a new mix could be made.

Dear EMI,

I'm free free all next weekend if you require someone to check through all the tapes - and I don't cost much!!! ;D
Logged

mclen57

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 196
Re: Why so long on 4 track?
« Reply #10 on: July 05, 2005, 02:32:58 AM »
Quote from: The_End

To make more room for over-dubbing they would often bounce 4 tracks down to 2 thus feeing up an additional 2 tracks. If they still have ALL the original tracks (pre AND post bounce) then it IS definitely feasible a new mix could be made.

Dear EMI,

I'm free free all next weekend if you require someone to check through all the tapes - and I don't cost much!!! ;D

Me included too! A 5.1 mix off of that would certainly be interesting! WOW! :o


Logged
Henry the Horse

Bobber

  • Guest
Re: Why so long on 4 track?
« Reply #11 on: July 05, 2005, 08:11:28 AM »
Quote from: The_End

To make more room for over-dubbing they would often bounce 4 tracks down to 2 thus feeing up an additional 2 tracks. If they still have ALL the original tracks (pre AND post bounce) then it IS definitely feasible a new mix could be made.


I wonder if it's really possible to rebounce. Once 4 tracks are bounced down to one or two, it can't be undone IMO. Only if all the original tapes are saved: then all the single tracks could be written onto a new track in a 32 or 64 track digital machine.
Logged

mclen57

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 196
Re: Why so long on 4 track?
« Reply #12 on: July 05, 2005, 02:43:47 PM »
Quote from: Bobber

I wonder if it's really possible to rebounce. Once 4 tracks are bounced down to one or two, it can't be undone IMO. Only if all the original tapes are saved: then all the single tracks could be written onto a new track in a 32 or 64 track digital machine.

The biggest problem with this would probably be Mr Kite because of the random looping done. There's a good chance those 1 foot sections of tape they hurled in the air have been discarded. Not to mention putting them in the same sequence again. It would be quite a chore unless those loops were isolated onto one track on the current master.

Logged
Henry the Horse

The End

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 8216
  • Turn off your mind, relax and float down stream...
    • The End
Re: Why so long on 4 track?
« Reply #13 on: July 06, 2005, 12:38:27 PM »
Quote from: Bobber
I wonder if it's really possible to rebounce. Once 4 tracks are bounced down to one or two, it can't be undone IMO. Only if all the original tapes are saved: then all the single tracks could be written onto a new track in a 32 or 64 track digital machine.

It would be possible in the following scenario:

It's 1967!!!
FOUR TRACK ONE - Tape 1
contains 4 recorded tracks
copy those 4 tracks to 2 of the tracks on
|
FOUR TRACK TWO - Tape 2
now contains 2 recorded tracks
the 'spare' 2 tracks are later recorded

Now it's 2005!
You return to Tape 1 and copy those 4 tracks onto 4 individual tracks of a digi-multi-tracker. You then get Tape 2 and copy those 2 'spare' tracks to the digi-multi-tracker - and hey presto, you now have 6 individual tracks to play with.

Of course, if back in 1967, those 4 tracks were mixed down to just one track on Tape 2, you would then have 7 tracks to play with!!

Easy huh?! ;D
Logged

The End

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 8216
  • Turn off your mind, relax and float down stream...
    • The End
Re: Why so long on 4 track?
« Reply #14 on: July 06, 2005, 12:39:59 PM »
Quote from: mclen57
The biggest problem with this would probably be Mr Kite because of the random looping done. There's a good chance those 1 foot sections of tape they hurled in the air have been discarded. Not to mention putting them in the same sequence again. It would be quite a chore unless those loops were isolated onto one track on the current master.

That's a good point - for example, the effects used on I Am The Walrus and Tomorrow Never Knows were fed 'live' into the mix so it would be impossible to isolate the effects from the music. But with 'standard' recordings, as long as the original tapes exist from each 'bounce', it would definitely be possible to isolate and re-mix each track.

I know this IS possible because I have performed this task with MY old 4 track recordings - assembling all of the pre-bounce tracks across 16 tracks and then re-mixing them.
Logged

Bobber

  • Guest
Re: Why so long on 4 track?
« Reply #15 on: July 06, 2005, 12:41:21 PM »
Very easy. But it's assumed that two tapes were used and tape 1 is saved. If you've got just tape 2...
Logged

mclen57

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 196
Re: Why so long on 4 track?
« Reply #16 on: July 06, 2005, 01:46:32 PM »
All in all, I think the Beatles were somewhat shafted by EMI. They should've been upgraded to 8 track as early as Rubber Soul or even Help maybe. Having to go to Trident and Olympic on their own dime pretty much sucks. It's no wonder George Martin left EMI. I'm sure he was getting frustrated with the corporate BS. One of the few books I haven't read is Martin's All You Need Is Ears. Anybody out there read it?
Logged
Henry the Horse

An Apple Beatle

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5635
  • Be yourself, no matter what they say.
    • The studio
Re: Why so long on 4 track?
« Reply #17 on: July 07, 2005, 10:45:07 AM »
^ NO but sure sounds good. I'll have to investigate. ;)
Logged
http://www.4sitemusic.com
USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION ON THIS FORUM! CLICK HERE!

The End

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 8216
  • Turn off your mind, relax and float down stream...
    • The End
Re: Why so long on 4 track?
« Reply #18 on: July 07, 2005, 01:09:58 PM »
Quote from: Bobber
Very easy. But it's assumed that two tapes were used and tape 1 is saved. If you've got just tape 2...

Yeah, absolutely - and knowing EMI, they probably wiped most of the other takes!
Logged

mclen57

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 196
Re: Why so long on 4 track?
« Reply #19 on: July 07, 2005, 01:29:36 PM »
Quote from: The_End

Yeah, absolutely - and knowing EMI, they probably wiped most of the other takes!

Wouldn't surprise me any. The powers to be at EMI don't appear to be very competent.

BTW End, I'm sorry and p*ssed-off about the terrorists blasts that just occured in London. Hope you and your family are safe.

Logged
Henry the Horse
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »
 

Page created in 0.121 seconds with 73 queries.