Hi Paul,
I'm Glad I'm Not Young Anymore is exactly the kind of sloppy production i'm talking about. Over the course of those albums there are a number of imperfections that should never have made it to disk.
Ah, Singing in the Rain. Interestingly even though this is from an album from 1972 it was actually recorded in 1965 (and released in the US in 1966). Unfortunately the 4 track tape from the session does not survive, so Matt is forever locked together with the swing band!
I don't mind that arrangement personally but horses for courses.
However, even if it did exist, i'm afraid it would be unlikely to be done and therefore the same goes for the 70's recordings (all of which do exist on multitrack) simply because of cost. Arrangers, studio fees and musicians do not come cheap and this would not be cost effective, much as we would like it to be so.
Richard
Ask Richard!!!
I have to be perfectly honest and say I don't know for sure. I would think he did - I can't see he would have got very far without it, but I will ask Michele for a definitive answer.
You must remember that my knowledge of Matt is limited to his recording work and what I have discovered during my research as well as general technical and recording questions. I cannot answer personal questions about him as I unfortunately never met him. It is really Michele's place to answer such things - although she may want to leave a lot for the book!
Richard
You must remember that my knowledge of Matt is limited to his recording work and what I have discovered during my research as well as general technical and recording questions. I cannot answer personal questions about him as I unfortunately never met him. It is really Michele's place to answer such things - although she may want to leave a lot for the book!
Richard
Do record company still have the position of an A & R man or woman? Heaven knows, they need them. I'm not too impressed with some of the latest 'talent' on the scene. I think the artists particularly need advice on how to perform and talk to the press.Well in a way they do, otherwise they wouldn't find any new talent, but they aren't really like the old A&R men. As for perfomance coaching and talking to the press i don't think record companies get involved.
Talent doesn't really matter these days - record companies seem far more interested in image than talent it seems. Thats not to say there aren't some talented people out there, but there is an awful lot of what I would call 'disposable' artists
It's money that matters!
Talent doesn't really matter these days - record companies seem far more interested in image than talent it seems. Thats not to say there aren't some talented people out there, but there is an awful lot of what I would call 'disposable' artists
It's money that matters!
Last edited by Rmoore on Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sorry for the delay in answering this one - but it's taken a while!
Warning this post may contain information that may bore the average reader!
Orchestral recordings.
This probably requires a book, let alone an article on the website.
Let’s start with a little history lesson. Recording orchestras has evolved over the years, starting with acoustic recordings using one sound horn attached directly to the cutting lathe, then with the advent of electrical recordings in 1926 one single microphone. This stayed very much the same right through to the early 1940’s when more microphones and mixers started to be used. However the emphasis was always on capturing the sound you would hear if you stood directly in front of the orchestra (which was where the microphones were placed) so the balance heard was controlled directly by the conductor rather than the engineer.
In the late 1950’s Stereo recordings were becoming more popular and the engineers would still use the minimum number of microphones necessary, often just a stereo pair (two identical microphones placed a short distance apart) for recording orchestras.
It was popular recording that changed the way orchestras were recorded. These were still live, even though by the late 50’s most US studios used three track tape recorders (this was usually used to keep the vocal or solo instrument separate from the backing allowing for more flexibility later). The problem was that strings had to share studio space with swing bands, electric rhythm guitars and drum kits. So engineers started to put microphones on separate sections, i.e. Strings, Woodwind, Brass, Drums, Bass etc...
This was the era of valves and these give the recordings a particularly warm characteristic too that is sometimes lacking in the transistor (let alone digital) age. But that was an advantage due to the lack of control that mixing consoles had in those days. Volume and some basic tone controls were all that was available – If a desk had 8 channels it was enormous. This was why there was no such thing as a sound engineer in those days, they were ‘Balance Engineers’. The quality for the sound was very much down to microphone placements, as much as the mixing itself.
All of Matt’s early recordings were direct Mono or Stereo by the way. Three track was rarely used in the UK. All were balanced live – the engineers were fantastic!
The coming of 4 track onwards gave engineers that chance to separate things more (although for Matt’s style of music overdubbing was rarely used) and a typical multitrack in the early 60’s for Matt would be Sometimes:
1. Strings
2. Brass
3. Vocals
4. Rhythm section (or sometimes not use at all and the rhythm section lumped in with the brass)
But more often:
1. Stereo orchestra
2. Stereo orchestra
3. Vocals
4. Rhythm Section
The orchestra was still being mixed more or less live.
By the time 8 track was the norm it was like this
1. Drums and Bass
2. Piano
3. Guitar
4. Brass & Woodwind
5. Stereo Strings
6. Stereo Strings
7. Vocals
The eighth tracks varied a lot. This could be for backing vocals, solo instruments, alternate vocals or as a separate track for woodwind. Sometimes this track wouldn’t be used at all and would later be used by Matt to add a Spanish vocal. Mixing desks now had many more inputs and flexibility but several microphones would still be mixed together live to each track.
16 track varied a lot depending on the arrangement but this is the sort of thing
1. Kick drum
2. Rest the drum kit
3. Bass
4. Piano
5. Guitars
6. Brass
7. Brass
8. Woodwind
9. Woodwind
10. Cellos
11. Violas
12. Violins 1
13. Violins 2
14. Vocals
15 & 16 could be more or less anything from percussion to more vocal tracks. Whilst some mixing was one live, most microphones were sent directly to tape
By the time 24 track came along most parts of the orchestra were separated completely and there isn’t really a set formula (other than always starting with drums and bass.) nearly every microphone would have its own track
One thing that has remained constant though was not to over mic an orchestra (ie use too many microphones) as this takes away the natural sound. In the 1970’s an experiment was carried out where they close miked every instrument in an orchestra. The engineers found it almost impossible to recreate the natural sound of the orchestra.
Now back to your original question. Is the sound artificially changed?
Not as such. Eq (or equalisation – in laymans terms treble and bass, although this simplifies things a bit too much) is used to make as natural sound as possible not alter it. The idea is that eq helps all the separate sounds blend nicely.
How tricky is it? Very and not something an in experienced engineer should attempt and expect to get right – some of my early attempts (not professional recordings I hasten to add) are quite shocking!
There are so many different ways of doing it too, I prefer a minimalistic approach, but it still depends so much on the type of music being recorded, the arrangement, the size and make up of the orchestra, the studio, the microphones available etc etc. A lot of preparation is needed to get the right sound and it still depends a lot on microphone placement.
Mixing is a lot easier if the orchestra is recorded well and a complete pain in the backside if it isn’t!
Phew that’s a long one!
Warning this post may contain information that may bore the average reader!
Orchestral recordings.
This probably requires a book, let alone an article on the website.
Let’s start with a little history lesson. Recording orchestras has evolved over the years, starting with acoustic recordings using one sound horn attached directly to the cutting lathe, then with the advent of electrical recordings in 1926 one single microphone. This stayed very much the same right through to the early 1940’s when more microphones and mixers started to be used. However the emphasis was always on capturing the sound you would hear if you stood directly in front of the orchestra (which was where the microphones were placed) so the balance heard was controlled directly by the conductor rather than the engineer.
In the late 1950’s Stereo recordings were becoming more popular and the engineers would still use the minimum number of microphones necessary, often just a stereo pair (two identical microphones placed a short distance apart) for recording orchestras.
It was popular recording that changed the way orchestras were recorded. These were still live, even though by the late 50’s most US studios used three track tape recorders (this was usually used to keep the vocal or solo instrument separate from the backing allowing for more flexibility later). The problem was that strings had to share studio space with swing bands, electric rhythm guitars and drum kits. So engineers started to put microphones on separate sections, i.e. Strings, Woodwind, Brass, Drums, Bass etc...
This was the era of valves and these give the recordings a particularly warm characteristic too that is sometimes lacking in the transistor (let alone digital) age. But that was an advantage due to the lack of control that mixing consoles had in those days. Volume and some basic tone controls were all that was available – If a desk had 8 channels it was enormous. This was why there was no such thing as a sound engineer in those days, they were ‘Balance Engineers’. The quality for the sound was very much down to microphone placements, as much as the mixing itself.
All of Matt’s early recordings were direct Mono or Stereo by the way. Three track was rarely used in the UK. All were balanced live – the engineers were fantastic!
The coming of 4 track onwards gave engineers that chance to separate things more (although for Matt’s style of music overdubbing was rarely used) and a typical multitrack in the early 60’s for Matt would be Sometimes:
1. Strings
2. Brass
3. Vocals
4. Rhythm section (or sometimes not use at all and the rhythm section lumped in with the brass)
But more often:
1. Stereo orchestra
2. Stereo orchestra
3. Vocals
4. Rhythm Section
The orchestra was still being mixed more or less live.
By the time 8 track was the norm it was like this
1. Drums and Bass
2. Piano
3. Guitar
4. Brass & Woodwind
5. Stereo Strings
6. Stereo Strings
7. Vocals
The eighth tracks varied a lot. This could be for backing vocals, solo instruments, alternate vocals or as a separate track for woodwind. Sometimes this track wouldn’t be used at all and would later be used by Matt to add a Spanish vocal. Mixing desks now had many more inputs and flexibility but several microphones would still be mixed together live to each track.
16 track varied a lot depending on the arrangement but this is the sort of thing
1. Kick drum
2. Rest the drum kit
3. Bass
4. Piano
5. Guitars
6. Brass
7. Brass
8. Woodwind
9. Woodwind
10. Cellos
11. Violas
12. Violins 1
13. Violins 2
14. Vocals
15 & 16 could be more or less anything from percussion to more vocal tracks. Whilst some mixing was one live, most microphones were sent directly to tape
By the time 24 track came along most parts of the orchestra were separated completely and there isn’t really a set formula (other than always starting with drums and bass.) nearly every microphone would have its own track
One thing that has remained constant though was not to over mic an orchestra (ie use too many microphones) as this takes away the natural sound. In the 1970’s an experiment was carried out where they close miked every instrument in an orchestra. The engineers found it almost impossible to recreate the natural sound of the orchestra.
Now back to your original question. Is the sound artificially changed?
Not as such. Eq (or equalisation – in laymans terms treble and bass, although this simplifies things a bit too much) is used to make as natural sound as possible not alter it. The idea is that eq helps all the separate sounds blend nicely.
How tricky is it? Very and not something an in experienced engineer should attempt and expect to get right – some of my early attempts (not professional recordings I hasten to add) are quite shocking!
There are so many different ways of doing it too, I prefer a minimalistic approach, but it still depends so much on the type of music being recorded, the arrangement, the size and make up of the orchestra, the studio, the microphones available etc etc. A lot of preparation is needed to get the right sound and it still depends a lot on microphone placement.
Mixing is a lot easier if the orchestra is recorded well and a complete pain in the backside if it isn’t!
Phew that’s a long one!
Last edited by Rmoore on Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Richard
This is fantastic.
Many, many thanks for taking the time.
You answered one of my lost standing queries where you explain the sound of early orchestral recordings was dependant on the conductor.
It will take me some time to absorb all of this information, but I wanted to say thanks.
PS - I had no idea 'Singing In The Rain' was recorded in 1965!
PPS - Matt couldn't read a note of music. Absolutely incredible. What a God-given talent he had.
This is fantastic.
Many, many thanks for taking the time.
You answered one of my lost standing queries where you explain the sound of early orchestral recordings was dependant on the conductor.
It will take me some time to absorb all of this information, but I wanted to say thanks.
PS - I had no idea 'Singing In The Rain' was recorded in 1965!
PPS - Matt couldn't read a note of music. Absolutely incredible. What a God-given talent he had.
reading music
Hi-I had posted a question on the 'just wondering' heading whether Matt could read music.Just read the answer from Richard and Michele.As you have all said,how amazing was that.Sandra.
I've found a recording that I believe Matt Monro disliked more than any of us: Leaving On A Jet Plane. He sounds positively bored with the arrangement. There's an annoying instrument throughout the choruses. Any idea what that instrument is, Richard or anyone?
I don't know why his producers didn't have him record Michel Legrand songs during the 1970s period, rather than the pop songs of the day. Perhaps he recorded a few, but I don't recall any.
I don't know why his producers didn't have him record Michel Legrand songs during the 1970s period, rather than the pop songs of the day. Perhaps he recorded a few, but I don't recall any.
Might watch it to see what there opinion is, although I already have my own!
MP3, OK but have to be high bit rate but at the end of the day still cannot compare to CD. There are lots of lossless codecs (In other words file formats that give you the identical quality of the CD in compressed form) like Windows Media Lossless, Apple Lossless, APE and FLAC which are great. Ok so the files you download will be bigger but there will be no loss of quality. It's sad that very few online stores offer this yet.
Vinyl - Fabulous, but too prone to distortion especially on lower quality decks and of course prone to damage and wear. I know Audiophiles like this best but they are a fussy breed and it's fine if you can spend £20000 on a stereo but......
CD - is perhaps not as warm a sound, but for general consumer is the best bet because discs sound good on the biggest selection of players. It's a pity that high resolution systems such as DVD Audio did not catch on.
Richard
MP3, OK but have to be high bit rate but at the end of the day still cannot compare to CD. There are lots of lossless codecs (In other words file formats that give you the identical quality of the CD in compressed form) like Windows Media Lossless, Apple Lossless, APE and FLAC which are great. Ok so the files you download will be bigger but there will be no loss of quality. It's sad that very few online stores offer this yet.
Vinyl - Fabulous, but too prone to distortion especially on lower quality decks and of course prone to damage and wear. I know Audiophiles like this best but they are a fussy breed and it's fine if you can spend £20000 on a stereo but......
CD - is perhaps not as warm a sound, but for general consumer is the best bet because discs sound good on the biggest selection of players. It's a pity that high resolution systems such as DVD Audio did not catch on.
Richard