Hi All
May I refer you to Mike's comment above?
Can somebody remind me please when we can expect to see this book...?
Thank you!
Very rare occurance....
Michele's office needs to be seen to be believed at the moment. She has so much material that she is having to wade through, people to interview, things to cross check etc etc. It is not a quick job! It's even slower when you have other business to deal with as well.
Lots must happen before the book is finished so you will all have to be patient i'm afraid.
I'm nearly at the end of my "Session" research which has been fascinating. Next up - I've got to listen to as many of Matt's recordings I can lay my hands on! It's a hard job but somebody has to do it!!
I'm sure Michele will keep you posted about her progress in the future.
Keep well
Richard
Lots must happen before the book is finished so you will all have to be patient i'm afraid.
I'm nearly at the end of my "Session" research which has been fascinating. Next up - I've got to listen to as many of Matt's recordings I can lay my hands on! It's a hard job but somebody has to do it!!
I'm sure Michele will keep you posted about her progress in the future.
Keep well
Richard
Thanks Richard for this information, the book sounds very exciting, I really cannot wait! 
Whilst you may be around, can I ask you another question please?
Have you/did you ever hear an album (by any artist) recorded for the quadrophinic systems that were around in the 70's?
If so, could you give me an evaluation of i) how they worked & ii) were they any good!?
Did the system split instruments precisely and place them in any one of the four speakers?
Thank you!
Whilst you may be around, can I ask you another question please?
Have you/did you ever hear an album (by any artist) recorded for the quadrophinic systems that were around in the 70's?
If so, could you give me an evaluation of i) how they worked & ii) were they any good!?
Did the system split instruments precisely and place them in any one of the four speakers?
Thank you!
Not totally off topic - Matt related info at bottom of post!
Quadrophonic is an odd format because the sound was actually encoded into a stereo groove and decoded by an amplifier (In much the same way that FM radio is a single signal decoded into stereo by the use od a "Carrier Signal" - all very technically complicated)
No albums were as far as i'm aware specifically Recorded in Quadraphonic. This was a basically the mixing stage of a recording - much the same as doing a stereo mix of something but in 4 speakers recorded to a 4 track tape.
Each speaker would have it's own signal so it was possible for instruments to be placed into particular places - but the main idea was to make the performance seem like it was all around you - in pretty much the same way surround sound is today.
I don't know how well it actually worked - although i have been told it was very good - as i have never actually heard an original quad record on an original quad system. However it never caught on because people would need to buy completely new and quite expensive equipment and most having only just upgraded to stereo this was not something that was welcome!
It's similar to the problems with HD-DVD/Blue ray and SACD/DVD audio. High Definition Audio discs don't appear to have caught on at all - and is it any wonder when people seem happy with lower quality MP3 files! Time will tell if HD tv catches on!
Just to put this back on topic, a couple of days ago I discovered a tape hidden in the EMI archives where they had mixed a track by Matt into an experimental format that was an early version of surround sound but working with delays and eq to create an "effect" although none of matt's recordings were ever mixed in Quad.
Hope this helps
Richard
Quadrophonic is an odd format because the sound was actually encoded into a stereo groove and decoded by an amplifier (In much the same way that FM radio is a single signal decoded into stereo by the use od a "Carrier Signal" - all very technically complicated)
No albums were as far as i'm aware specifically Recorded in Quadraphonic. This was a basically the mixing stage of a recording - much the same as doing a stereo mix of something but in 4 speakers recorded to a 4 track tape.
Each speaker would have it's own signal so it was possible for instruments to be placed into particular places - but the main idea was to make the performance seem like it was all around you - in pretty much the same way surround sound is today.
I don't know how well it actually worked - although i have been told it was very good - as i have never actually heard an original quad record on an original quad system. However it never caught on because people would need to buy completely new and quite expensive equipment and most having only just upgraded to stereo this was not something that was welcome!
It's similar to the problems with HD-DVD/Blue ray and SACD/DVD audio. High Definition Audio discs don't appear to have caught on at all - and is it any wonder when people seem happy with lower quality MP3 files! Time will tell if HD tv catches on!
Just to put this back on topic, a couple of days ago I discovered a tape hidden in the EMI archives where they had mixed a track by Matt into an experimental format that was an early version of surround sound but working with delays and eq to create an "effect" although none of matt's recordings were ever mixed in Quad.
Hope this helps
Richard
Richard
Many, many thanks for this info, gosh how I would love to spend an evening down the pub with you picking your brains!
I think I've got the handle on Quadrophonic sound, thank you, it reminds me of the Dolby Stereo system on film & video etc where the two channels of of sound are encloded then uncoded with the surround information.
I also heard that Quadrophonic was pretty impressive.
Wow, how wonderful to of found the experimental track of Matt's!
Please, you must tell us more!
When was it recorded? Do you know?
Can you remember what song it was?
I don't suppose you actually played the recording did you?
Would you have to have special equipment to play it back correctly?
Do you know the name of the 'experimental' system, and if so, were there any releases using the system?
Can I ask if you own a record player at home?
You don't seem to be too fond of 'compressed digital' music, what is your favoured method of listening to music?
Thanks you!
Many, many thanks for this info, gosh how I would love to spend an evening down the pub with you picking your brains!
I think I've got the handle on Quadrophonic sound, thank you, it reminds me of the Dolby Stereo system on film & video etc where the two channels of of sound are encloded then uncoded with the surround information.
I also heard that Quadrophonic was pretty impressive.
Wow, how wonderful to of found the experimental track of Matt's!
Please, you must tell us more!
When was it recorded? Do you know?
Can you remember what song it was?
I don't suppose you actually played the recording did you?
Would you have to have special equipment to play it back correctly?
Do you know the name of the 'experimental' system, and if so, were there any releases using the system?
Can I ask if you own a record player at home?
You don't seem to be too fond of 'compressed digital' music, what is your favoured method of listening to music?
Thanks you!
The track was actually "Around the world" - but don't get excited it's just the same as the released version - just a different mix.
The mix would have been made in a different way so that it would sound best on an "Ambiphonic" system. This was a technique where the stereo was taken and processed in different ways via the use of phase and EQ to give a surround effect so there is nothing particulalr exciting about it.
My guess is that the multitrack was in the controll room at the time of the experiment so it was one that was used.
You would have needed a special system to get the effect but otherwise it would sound pretty much the same as any other stereo mix - just mixed so it was sympathetic to the processing. As far as I know there were no releases made specifically for this system - but it's a sort of Fake surround so in theory more or less anything stereo could be used - making this experiment kind of pointless!
Unfortunatly i can't say how different this is because i haven't heard it. Much as i'd like to we can't afford the studio time for me to go and listen to all these tapes. EMI will help to a certain extent but I have got to rely on paperwork and tape boxes the majority of the time.
(If there's a secret Millionaire Monro fan out there who would be willing to pay for this however i'm sure we could come to some arrangement!)
But seriously it has been quite a tough job getting all the info together, and whilst there are still some unanswered questions having spoken to the Archivist at EMI recently we are lucky to have what we do!
Yes I do have a record player at home - infact you probably have a couple of tracks in your collection transfered to CD by it!
Oh dear, now you've got me started I am not wild about MP3's as a whole simply because as an engineer and producer i spend a lot of time getting the right sound and an MP3 takes what it thinks the ear can't hear and strips it out. The standard bit rate for an MP3 is 128kb This compresses the music by around 11 to 1 (so about 10 % of it's original size) which must mean you are losing 90% of the recorded information. Whilst it's a convinient system and I do think ipods/mp3 players are a brilliant idea the present encoding systems leave a lot to be desired - I won't consider listening to anything encoded at less than 192K. This could be a long technical and boring answer so i won't go on any further, i'm not a vinyl bore or a completely purist audiophile I just want to listen to good music in the best quality possible - otherwise what's the point of cleaning it up. End of rant!
All the best
Richard
The mix would have been made in a different way so that it would sound best on an "Ambiphonic" system. This was a technique where the stereo was taken and processed in different ways via the use of phase and EQ to give a surround effect so there is nothing particulalr exciting about it.
My guess is that the multitrack was in the controll room at the time of the experiment so it was one that was used.
You would have needed a special system to get the effect but otherwise it would sound pretty much the same as any other stereo mix - just mixed so it was sympathetic to the processing. As far as I know there were no releases made specifically for this system - but it's a sort of Fake surround so in theory more or less anything stereo could be used - making this experiment kind of pointless!
Unfortunatly i can't say how different this is because i haven't heard it. Much as i'd like to we can't afford the studio time for me to go and listen to all these tapes. EMI will help to a certain extent but I have got to rely on paperwork and tape boxes the majority of the time.
(If there's a secret Millionaire Monro fan out there who would be willing to pay for this however i'm sure we could come to some arrangement!)
But seriously it has been quite a tough job getting all the info together, and whilst there are still some unanswered questions having spoken to the Archivist at EMI recently we are lucky to have what we do!
Yes I do have a record player at home - infact you probably have a couple of tracks in your collection transfered to CD by it!
Oh dear, now you've got me started I am not wild about MP3's as a whole simply because as an engineer and producer i spend a lot of time getting the right sound and an MP3 takes what it thinks the ear can't hear and strips it out. The standard bit rate for an MP3 is 128kb This compresses the music by around 11 to 1 (so about 10 % of it's original size) which must mean you are losing 90% of the recorded information. Whilst it's a convinient system and I do think ipods/mp3 players are a brilliant idea the present encoding systems leave a lot to be desired - I won't consider listening to anything encoded at less than 192K. This could be a long technical and boring answer so i won't go on any further, i'm not a vinyl bore or a completely purist audiophile I just want to listen to good music in the best quality possible - otherwise what's the point of cleaning it up. End of rant!
All the best
Richard
-
michduncg
- Posts: 1332
- Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:03 pm
- Location: Oxon, UK (Originally from Yorkshire)
Hi Richard/Gray
First of all Gray, thanks for reviving the thread on the book, I had lost track of it!
All this talk of different music formats takes me back to the 70s in Saudi Arabia. The hi-fi stores out there were amazing, and the size of some the expats systems were enormous - tuner,amp,graphic equalisers, echo chambers, open reel tapes, tape decks (some with auto change systems that physically turned the tape over at the end of each side!), record decks. I remember hearing Dolby demostrated by my Dad on his new TEAC tape deck for the 1st time and it was amazing. I do remember some of our neighbours talking about quadrophonic, but never heard t I don't think.
Thanks for giving us an insight into your fascinating world Richard. It must be amazing to dig up the occasional gem in the archives (although all of Matts recordings were of course brilliant!)
First of all Gray, thanks for reviving the thread on the book, I had lost track of it!
All this talk of different music formats takes me back to the 70s in Saudi Arabia. The hi-fi stores out there were amazing, and the size of some the expats systems were enormous - tuner,amp,graphic equalisers, echo chambers, open reel tapes, tape decks (some with auto change systems that physically turned the tape over at the end of each side!), record decks. I remember hearing Dolby demostrated by my Dad on his new TEAC tape deck for the 1st time and it was amazing. I do remember some of our neighbours talking about quadrophonic, but never heard t I don't think.
Thanks for giving us an insight into your fascinating world Richard. It must be amazing to dig up the occasional gem in the archives (although all of Matts recordings were of course brilliant!)
Michael
Here I go again, I hear those trumpets blow again.......
Here I go again, I hear those trumpets blow again.......
Hi Richard/Mike
Mike, thanks for the info on the equipment back in the 70's, especiaqlly the tpe deck that turned round the cassette!
Many thanks for your postings, Richard, it is enormously interesting to me to read them, thanks for filling in the details.
I agree with you regarding 'digital music', I do own an i-pod, but only use it when I am on the move - it isn't my favoured form of music listening.
It is very important to me to know that I am 'hearing' as much of the music as possible - if that makes sense!
That being said, there is a BIG nostalgia factor with me regarding older formats of music reproduction and I am sure, absolutely positive, there is an extra bit of warmth wrapped up in a decent vinyl recording
Mike, thanks for the info on the equipment back in the 70's, especiaqlly the tpe deck that turned round the cassette!
Many thanks for your postings, Richard, it is enormously interesting to me to read them, thanks for filling in the details.
I agree with you regarding 'digital music', I do own an i-pod, but only use it when I am on the move - it isn't my favoured form of music listening.
It is very important to me to know that I am 'hearing' as much of the music as possible - if that makes sense!
That being said, there is a BIG nostalgia factor with me regarding older formats of music reproduction and I am sure, absolutely positive, there is an extra bit of warmth wrapped up in a decent vinyl recording
I have another question for Richard please (if you are out there!?:))
Does an artist have any input regarding the mixing of a track?
I've been listening very closely to 'If There Ever Is A Next Time' lately and cannot help but notice the very deliberate placement in the right and left channels of the instruments.
Obviously this can be applicable to any song, by any artist, but I would like to know if Matt had any input into the mixing of a recording?
Thank you!
Gray
Does an artist have any input regarding the mixing of a track?
I've been listening very closely to 'If There Ever Is A Next Time' lately and cannot help but notice the very deliberate placement in the right and left channels of the instruments.
Obviously this can be applicable to any song, by any artist, but I would like to know if Matt had any input into the mixing of a recording?
Thank you!
Gray
It depends on the artist and the producer.
Back in the 60's artists (Until the Beatles started taking an interest) didn't have much control. Artists like Matt were not really interested in that side of things anyway. They wanted to put down the best performance they could and would leave the technical side of things to the producers.
As for the placement of instruments. It's all down to the way the song was recorded. I don't have my notes with me at the moment but in 1970 the usual recording format was 8 track So when recording it was not unusual to put certain key instruments on their own tracks
You would put Drums on their own track Bass & Piano sometimes had their own tracks but would often be mixed together to one track.
The next track would probably be guitars (If several were used all would be mixed together)
Strings normally had two tracks for stereo purposes and then horns and woodwind would often be split across another two. Leaving one track for Matt's vocal which was usually recorded live with the orchestra
This does limit you to where you can place things in the stereo mix.
Strings would of course be panned Left and Right, Bass & Drums (And whatever was mixed into the same tracks) panned center along with the vocals. Leaving just the brass woodwind and guitars available for any other stereo placement.
Hope this helps!
Richard
Back in the 60's artists (Until the Beatles started taking an interest) didn't have much control. Artists like Matt were not really interested in that side of things anyway. They wanted to put down the best performance they could and would leave the technical side of things to the producers.
As for the placement of instruments. It's all down to the way the song was recorded. I don't have my notes with me at the moment but in 1970 the usual recording format was 8 track So when recording it was not unusual to put certain key instruments on their own tracks
You would put Drums on their own track Bass & Piano sometimes had their own tracks but would often be mixed together to one track.
The next track would probably be guitars (If several were used all would be mixed together)
Strings normally had two tracks for stereo purposes and then horns and woodwind would often be split across another two. Leaving one track for Matt's vocal which was usually recorded live with the orchestra
This does limit you to where you can place things in the stereo mix.
Strings would of course be panned Left and Right, Bass & Drums (And whatever was mixed into the same tracks) panned center along with the vocals. Leaving just the brass woodwind and guitars available for any other stereo placement.
Hope this helps!
Richard
Richard
Thank you for this, it is very interesting to me to learn of how much an input an artist has regarding the arrangement and recording of a song.
With Matt in mind, there must of been an enormous amount of trust with the people he worked with to go along with their intuition for the feel of a song.
I often think of the writer of a song and how they feel to hear the very different arrangements and representations of their 'child' as different artists tackle it.
Or maybe they are just happy to see the royalties roll in!
One point you mentioned that I was going to ask is at what point in the recording process does Matt get involved, thank you for explaining that Matt's track was recorded seperately but by singing along to the whole orchestra.
Very interesting, Richard, thanks again for sharing your knowledge.
Gray
Thank you for this, it is very interesting to me to learn of how much an input an artist has regarding the arrangement and recording of a song.
With Matt in mind, there must of been an enormous amount of trust with the people he worked with to go along with their intuition for the feel of a song.
I often think of the writer of a song and how they feel to hear the very different arrangements and representations of their 'child' as different artists tackle it.
Or maybe they are just happy to see the royalties roll in!
One point you mentioned that I was going to ask is at what point in the recording process does Matt get involved, thank you for explaining that Matt's track was recorded seperately but by singing along to the whole orchestra.
Very interesting, Richard, thanks again for sharing your knowledge.
Gray
Funny you should say that Marian.......Although i've got just as much work to do on my sections as Michele has on hers!
Anyway just to clarify. Matt 95% of the time sung live with the Orchestra, there are occasions where the vocals were added later - but this was not the norm. His vocals were kept separate on their own track for later mixing (from 4 track onwards anyway).
Trust is one thing - however If Matt didin't like an arangement I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be used.
Unlike Ella Fitzgerald who trusted her recording Managers so much that she recorded some really awful stuff in her early days.
Richard
Anyway just to clarify. Matt 95% of the time sung live with the Orchestra, there are occasions where the vocals were added later - but this was not the norm. His vocals were kept separate on their own track for later mixing (from 4 track onwards anyway).
Trust is one thing - however If Matt didin't like an arangement I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be used.
Unlike Ella Fitzgerald who trusted her recording Managers so much that she recorded some really awful stuff in her early days.
Richard