![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.255.209.123
In Reply to: RE: I'll be happy to respond to your hit and run post posted by b.l.zeebub on August 26, 2014 at 07:22:51
what did he do with them?
Follow Ups:
Use them I suppose.
Sir George does not strike as a man who spends his own money on 72ch of what likely was the most expensive console available when he only needs 16.Either way the lists of credits for George Martin and his various AIR recording facilities is way to long to post here but it does include 3 McCartney albums and the Live And Let Die soundtrack as well as the Yellow Submarine soundtrack.
Edits: 08/26/14
the reason for having so many tracks is to "patch" problems after the fact. :)
" It would probably have been easier today, but it probably wouldn't have turned out as well . I think the discipline of 4-track in 1967 made us do things - certainly made me do things - that you wouldn't do today. And it made The Beatles perform better. They had to perform. They had to be good in order to concentrate on small tracks at a time.
There wasn't the luxury of saying, well, we can patch that later. We couldn't do that; we had to work things to a conclusion as we went along. Particularly when you're mixing down from one 4-track to another, you solidify everything that has gone before. You couldn't go back, otherwise you'd destroy everything that you were doing. That discipline, and that forward-thinking, I think was part of the success of Sgt Pepper.
Having to do that worked out very much in our favour. It sounds as though we chose to do that, but of course we didn't. We used only the tools that were available, and that's all that was available. I think if I'd had 72 tracks, or whatever, in those days, I would have used them. But I'm not sorry that I didn't!"
Martin on production
I do not disagree and I'm a firm believer that technical restrictions are frequently a good thing as it does force the artists to perform better in the studio.
As it happens the recordings I enjoy most were made at times when technical limitations did abound. The SQ may not be all there but the emotions are and usually in staggering amounts when compared to what came later in the wake of the technical overkill.
For example Steely Dan are frequently mentioned as the benchmark for SQ and they used every studio trick available including the first use of a digital sampler to clean up the drum timing (12bit, 12.5khz no less!).
However all their output leaves me emotionally completely cold compared to a cheap 16tr recording like The Specials for example. Or Otis Redding or Sam&Dave or Booker T etc.
The reason for 60 channels, or 72 channels, or whatever number, isn't because they use them all the time, it's because they MIGHT need them, and because having more channels available gives you a marketing edge over the studio across town that only has 36 channels. Especially in film production, you can burn through channels in a hurry. And when you've got a 20 or 40 piece orchestra, and effects tracks, and dialogue tracks, and both raw and processed tracks, and, and, ...
:)
I know but the problem is that the temptation to use more channels/outboard gear/editing than absolutely necessary there for all to see, right in the middle of the control room.
Which incidentally is my main gripe with digital recording/production.
IMO the sound quality is no problem at all (even cheap digital gear easily outperforms a top-of-the-range Studer) but the ability to quick and easily fiddle with things which should not be fiddled with like pitch and timing corrections added to an unlimited track count.
Also makes for lazy artists who insist on fixing things 'in the mix' rather than in their performance.
nt
.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: