Recording Studio Control Room 1959

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

musika

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
361
Location
Oberlin, Ohio USA
Visiting the jazz conservatory at the local college and saw this photo on the wall from one of their archive collections...  thought it was interesting.  Three track recorder and not a lot of external rack equipment.  Pictured is Phil Ramone, Billy Eckstein, Billy Byers, Quincy Jones, and Harry Lookofsky in an unknown studio in NYC 1959.
 

Attachments

  • NYC Studio 1959.png
    NYC Studio 1959.png
    665.7 KB · Views: 254
musika said:
Visiting the jazz conservatory at the local college and saw this photo on the wall from one of their archive collections...  thought it was interesting.  Three track recorder and not a lot of external rack equipment.  Pictured is Phil Ramone, Billy Eckstein, Billy Byers, Quincy Jones, and Harry Lookofsky in an unknown studio in NYC 1959.
Isnt'it a young Elton John standing?  :-[    ;D
 
Might look like him but that shot is early 60's .  Not Elton he came to states in the early 70's.  Plus  I don't ever remember young Quincy Jones working with Elton In 1962-64.  Elton started with some English mate, John Baldry or something like that. That would be in 1968 or there about.  I might be wrong but I don't think so.
 
musika said:
Visiting the jazz conservatory at the local college and saw this photo on the wall from one of their archive collections...  thought it was interesting.  Three track recorder and not a lot of external rack equipment.

That was how it was done in those days and for quite a while after. Possibly a 12 input board. Musicians all in the same room together record the backing track possibly in stereo. Vocals added to 3rd track as an overdub. Possibly Fairchild limiters on each track. Simple bass/treble EQ on each channel if you were lucky.

Cheers

Ian
 
Clearly operations back then were much simpler than today's typical setup.  I tend to try and limit the equipment in my personal studio just because I feel like less is more  (also driven by what I can afford as well).  But, I wonder though what they thought about their current state of technology back then?  Were they more concerned about the music? Less distractions?
 
musika said:
Clearly operations back then were much simpler than today's typical setup.  I tend to try and limit the equipment in my personal studio just because I feel like less is more  (also driven by what I can afford as well).  But, I wonder though what they thought about their current state of technology back then?  Were they more concerned about the music? Less distractions?
Although I was too young in 1959, I think the general paradigm hasn't changed much since the first days of sound recording; the workflow is constrained by the technological limitations of the day. SE's want more tracks, more channels, non-spill mics, noiseless preamps, compressors with impossible attack time and no pumping. Indeed when you have only 1 track, getting the music right consistently was paramount.
My memories of the 70's and 80's are that everybody was eager to see digital recording happening; the general feeling was certainly not of being in a Golden Age, although in some ways, it has proved to be one (particularly for musicians).
Having worked on the most temperamental Neve console that ever existed and been confronted everyday with the limitations of tape I'm content with the possibilities offered by digital recording.
I know not everybody agrees with me, but when I see the interest in recording with old techniques (tape, single-mic'd drums, vinyl), it makes me feel like we're on the way to rediscover oil-lamp lighting.
 
It was on the cusp of change. In the late 50s they were basically recording a performance. The great thing about this new fangled tape stuff was you could do umpteen takes and pick the best. You could even edit two takes together sometimes. In the US, three tracks was common, lifted I believe from the film industry where you had one track for dialog, one for music and one for FX .In the UK two tracks was the norm because they used the same gear they used for recording an orchestra in stereo. Artists and song writers were mostly different people. By the end of the 60s most of that had changed. 8 tracks were common, and although recording a performance was still common, 8 tracks meant mix decisions could be delayed and mistakes corrected. Although there were still singers and songwriters, there we many artists writing their own material. The recording process had itself become a tool in the hands of the musicians rather than just a means of capturing sound.

Cheers

Ian
 
By the end of the 60s most of that had changed. 8 tracks were common, and although recording a performance was still common, 8 tracks meant mix decisions could be delayed and mistakes corrected.

...  parts from Rolling Stone's article on George Harrison "10 Things You Didn't Know George Harrison Did"

George Harrison named the Traveling Wilburys after a mistake in the studio.

The supergroup to end all supergroups had a serendipitous beginning, so it's fitting that they're named after Harrison's slang term for an accident. The word "Wilbury" was invented while he was working on 1987's Cloud Nine with Jeff Lynne as co-producer. When confronted with recording errors caused by faulty equipment, Harrison would assure Lynne, "We'll bury 'em in the mix." The line was eventually shortened to "Wilbury," a catch-all descriptor for minor performance mistakes and imperfections.

When pushed to name their new group, Harrison suggested "the Trembling Wilburys." Another member, alternately reported as Lynne or Dylan, suggested "Traveling" might be a better fit.


 
abbey road d enfer said:
I know not everybody agrees with me, but when I see the interest in recording with old techniques (tape, single-mic'd drums, vinyl), it makes me feel like we're on the way to rediscover oil-lamp lighting.

Couldn't agree more with your post!



 
musika said:
Clearly operations back then were much simpler than today's typical setup.  I tend to try and limit the equipment in my personal studio just because I feel like less is more  (also driven by what I can afford as well).

So you limit your equipment, you limit your tools, that only means that when you need a tool so solve a problem, make/help the music sound better, or just take things to a new direction you don't have tools to do that, and then you limit the music and the quality you could help achieve.

musika said:
But, I wonder though what they thought about their current state of technology back then?

They complained a lot, they wanted better equipment, they felt limited, they wanted more options and tools

musika said:
Were they more concerned about the music?

They were concerned for sure about the music, but so are people nowadays. I dont know any professional in a commercial studio that it's not sincerely concerned about the music

musika said:
Less distractions?

There's much less Drugs and alcohol in the studios nowadays than in the 70s, 80s and 90s, and that was a huge distraction
Also the budgets are tighter so people can't afford to spend a long time in the studio like in the past, so normally when they are able to be in a studio they spend the time working



 
I think people forget about talent and vibe.

Today's equipment has such incredible abilities that almost anything can be fixed in the mix. You don't even have to sing in tune anymore. In my view, a band/artist who cannot play/sing a song from start to finish without making a mistake is lacking in talent.

Ask any musician in their 70s and they will say they miss the vibe of playing together in the same room. Today's drive for insane levels of separation means musicians rarely play together and the special feeling of everyone playing at the same time is lost. Most of today's recordings sound sterile. Keith Richards says recording technology peaked at 8 tracks and I agree with him.

Cheers

Ian
 
This gets to a place where a solo guitar and vocal performance trumps recording .  I think of a really good piano player on an old upright playing beautifully.  Somehow you just hear great music and not all the out of tune notes. 
I've spent a lot of money on recording gear and software in the last few years and feel performances  trumps all Except the song itself. 
 
Ya nothing like a b3 and a great voice. 
I do agree with Woops that music is driven by technology and has a great influence on the direction.  God knows there are artists generating a great deal of money with modern technology.  My daughter is into the computer generated music with a DAW and plug-ins.  She puts together a track on her IPhone that surprises me with how far it's come. 
It's just I'm a product of a different era.  I remember riding in my moms car in 67  listening to AM radio and "Purple Haze " came on and everything was different after that.  I knew after buying that 1st album that the studio was important for creating music.  When I saw Jimi 6 months later,  I was mesmerized how good he was live in those early concerts.  Later in 69 I was disappointed in how the drugs and tour fatigue had hurt him.
 
ruffrecords said:
Today's equipment has such incredible abilities that almost anything can be fixed in the mix. You don't even have to sing in tune anymore. In my view, a band/artist who cannot play/sing a song from start to finish without making a mistake is lacking in talent.

Nice that someone that lacks singing talent can still compose, make music and express their creativity nowadays.

It amazes me nowadays how many good artists, bands and amazing music get released everyday, it's just an amazing time and era to be a music listener.
To me the Present is the Peak in terms of sound quality and music talent diversity, but hey I didn't stop listening to new music in 79, 89 or 99.
I still listen to artists everyday that amaze me how good the songs are and how creative can music still be.








 
Back
Top