Re: [ARSCLIST] Not using headphones

[Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The best way to record large ensembles, jazz and pop, was perfected in the 50's and early 60's. It 
was partly a product of the limited mixing consoles of the time, balanced by the availability of 
large, good-sounding recording studios. And it was partly the product of a generation of really 
skilled engineers, almost all of whom are passed now.

This method, you'd have a big band in the studio. The studio itself was large -- like Radio 
Recorders, Fine Sound, Columbia, RCA at Webster Hall, Universal in Chicago, etc. So the band 
couldn't overload the space it was in. The room was also live as in reverberant, but in a way the 
engineer understood and could use to maximal value. All of these places -- and others -- had live 
echo chambers too (Webster Hall might not have but they might have been able to patch into RCA 
Studios' chamber -- I'm just not sure), so there was some magic added to the mix. The mixer would 
have at most 10-12 inputs, usually fewer. You'd use one mic on drums (usually something like an RCA 
77 suspended over them -- and modern engineers should note that you sure hear everything Buddy Rich 
is doing on those old Verve records without "needing" a dozen drum mics). One mic on piano, also 
usually a ribbon or a good dynamic but sometimes a U-47. It would be hung close-in because piano in 
this setting is not akin to piano being played solo by a classical artist. Bass also gets its own 
mic because it needs it. As with all popular music, the rhythm is thus emphasized in the recording. 
The horn sections get something like 1 or 2 ribbon mics for brass and 1 or 2 condensers for reeds 
(why? brass, muted brass in particular, has percussive elements that can easily overload a 
sensitive, high-output condenser mic like a U-47). There's a solo mic in front. The soloist walks up 
to it and blows. THe engineer knows to bring it up as the soloist approaches, so it's seamless. If 
there's a vocalist (like Joe Williams with the Count Basie band), he's facing the band with a 
directional mic in front of him (dead side to band), maybe with a baffle behind him to prevent 
reflections off the wall. If he's got a big voice and the band is smaller, he might just be at the 
solo mic.

Bleed in is not an issue in this setup because the room is well-designed, the engineer knows where 
to place the band in the room and there just aren't that many mics. Bleed is in fact the glue that 
makes it so coherent and encompassing. Think of all the artificial methods used today to glue 
together isolated tracks in a mix. This methodology continued into the stereo era, but I personally 
think the height of perfection was mid-50's when those mono jazz records sounded so fantastic. As 
consoles got bigger, studios got smaller or got chopped into isolated areas for rock. Why? Many rock 
"bands" couldn't actually play together or needed studio musician enhancement to sound decent. 
Overdubbing became common, in fact very few vocals were cut live in the rock era. Some bands 
definitely used these new techniques to stretch beyond what a handful of musicians could pull off at 
once, live. But the spontaneaty (sp?) was lost in many cases, and the music got more mechanical and 
cold. Then, as time went on, the talent level seems to have fallen. I can't put my finger on why --  
Bob O. has many good theories. There are still some truly great musicians in the country and 
bluegrass genres, for instance. But why the center-of-mainstream popular music is so devoid, I guess 
reflects on our culture at this time and place.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Shoshani" <mshoshani@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 12:55 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Not using headphones


> On Saturday 26 August 2006 23.00, steven c wrote:
> > Far as I'm concerned (and I'm a musician as well) the only way to
> > record is "live off the floor" (separate tracks allowed, but NO isolation
> > of players!) which allows interaction between/among the players (a
> > vital part of the band's "sound!").
> >
> > Using separate and isolated tracks for each musician not only
> > disallows any interaction...it also drags out recording sessions,
> > as the players inevitably react with "Wait a minute! Let me cut
> > another attempt...I think I can play it better!).
> >
> > Keep in mind that most of the classic 78-era recordings were
> > made using a single mike, with no isolation of players...
>
> Take a good look at pictures of EMI studio recordings of, say, the Joe Loss
> orchestra in the 1970s. Trombones are situated back of the trumpets on a
> riser; trombones have one mic, the trumpets have another mic. The reeds are
> separated by some distance and have their own section mic. The drum set is
> between them and looks to have a single Coles 4038 above it. Very minimal
> microphones, and they are set at a proper distance from each section, so as
> to get the ensemble sound.
>
> Thing is this: as always, the more open mics you have the more 'noise' gets
> recorded. If you have a 20 piece band and every instrument has its own mic
> plus a few more for the drums...room noise, etc, will be magnified
> exponentially.
>
> Were I to record a similar ensemble, I might (MIGHT) seriously consider stereo
> mic'ing the brass, reeds, and drums with M-S arrangements (so that should the
> stereo be a failure, I would still have a workable mono recording!), plus an
> M-S overhead for the drums and a separate mic for the bass drum, as well as
> one each for bass, guitar, and piano.
>
> I still cringe at the memory of an LP I once had in the 70s, of the Glenn
> Miller Orch directed by Buddy deFranco. Everything was close-miked and
> absolutely flat and dead; worse, the brass instruments seemed to be played at
> mezzo-piano...if that is a term. No "muscle" to it at all, as though someone
> feared that playing at a proper loudness would blow their microphones.
>
> Michael Shoshani
> Chicago