Ask Ralph : # 1 - How a track was mixed

**westgrandboulevard** · 07-13-2014, 11:30 AM

Ralph......

I have just realised I have yet to buy myself a copy of 'The Road Through Motown' so have now ordered one. I'm now looking forward to receiving it!

Looking back....and I expect the subject is covered in that very same book of yours, but...

I can understand that band tracks were completed at Hitsville or elsewhere.

Then, vocals, overdubs etc., would be added, again either at Hitsville, or elsewhere.

After that, I'm hazy.

What were the following steps which would take each track to the stage of being assessed at Quality Control meetings, please?

**soulster** · 07-13-2014, 11:54 AM

I'm not Ralph, but every recording has a different history. Generally, there are no "steps" of a formula to create a mixed recording. Every producer had their own way of working. I can say that, in the case of Motown in the 60s, usually the basic tracks [[drums, bass, guitars, piano, perhaps) are usually done first.

But, to give you an idea of how some of those sessions may have went down, years ago, Harry Weinger posted how "My Girl" was put together. It's very complicated. I'll repost it here for your enjoyment:

Warning: If you do not wish to read about of the great mysteries from Hitsville USA, skip this. But I know you're in this forum to hear those very same stories from deep in the Motown archive.

Here is what is in the vault, and what seems to match the session log:

1. Smokey Robinson and Ronnie White with engineer Harold Taylor record the backing track at Hitsville in the Snakepit on a three-track reel, September 1964:
track 1 > empty
track 2 > two guitars and horns
track 3 > bass, drums, piano

[My understanding is that a reference copy of this reel is what Smokey & Ronnie White brought to NY and played for the Temptations backstage at the Apollo Theatre, to teach them the tune, a few weeks later.]

Smokey returns with the Temptations to the studio in November. TWO straight copies of the backing track three-track are made on November 10, 1964. On ONE of the copies the Temps record the lead vocal, fingersnaps [[possibly Paul) and background vocals, all on the one empty track.

A second overdub recording is made to the other copy of the backing track. The Temps record only their background harmony vocals - it's a low harmony. We figured that out by listening carefully to the isolated harmony vocal track: you can hear headphone bleed of the lead vocal and original backgrounds.

At some point the master is transferred over again and the vocal tracks are combined. Or this harmony track is not used in the final mix. It's hard to tell but perhaps with this info we can put another ear to it. Then...

There is a fourth three-track: on this one, the strings appear, overdubbed to the guitar and horns track. I have put queries to my engineer friends to see how exactly this was accomplished. But there was a lot of bumping up and pre-mixing - and a buildup of noise and some magic. The final stereo LP master on which this track appears notes on the tape box that they made heavy use of 'Conax' processing, an early form of noise reduction and compression used by the RCA production plant.

It may be there is a missing link somewhere, or lost to the ages. But what is reported here is what we have heard.

Whew.

Harry Weinger
"HW"
motownvault@umusic.com

**westgrandboulevard** · 07-13-2014, 12:20 PM

Well, that's great, soulster. Thank you.

I shall now read it thoroughly...and I'll just keep reading it until it sinks in...LOL

**ralpht** · 07-13-2014, 01:32 PM

Soulster,
Thank you for posting that. The reality is there is no hard and fast rule to mixing. On Tera Shirma Youtube check out the two videos Russ and I did a while back on his approach to mixing. But like I say, every producer has their own way of doing things.
The best I can tell you is, mixing is an art, not a science, so we all have our creative approach to mixing a song. What may work for some may not for others.

**ralpht** · 07-13-2014, 01:44 PM

Regarding Harry's post on mixing. This is very old stuff. He is discussing how things were handled with just a three track. Same could be said for 4m track recording. Even 8track recording offered some limitations. Once we got to 16 and then 24 track capabilities, track bouncing was no longer a necessity and all individual recorded tracks remained as they were recorded and not bounced and combined with something else to open up a needed track.

**ralpht** · 07-13-2014, 01:50 PM

This video explains a lot. The camera died at the end so we did a mixing part 2. I'll post that also.

http://youtu.be/jqwAy4iK7i0

Part 2 http://youtu.be/A9uiouUw2PY

**soulster** · 07-13-2014, 08:15 PM

And, I believe "My Girl" was done right before Motown went to eight-track. They skipped four-track. Four our British members, The U.K. didn't use three-track, which was standard in the U.S. in the early 60s.

The main goal of three-track was to enable the ability to create better mono mixes. But, it required more bouncing if one wanted flexibility, as we see above in "My Girl". Also, there was no SMPTE back then, so one couldn't just slap on the four tapes and sync them like you could in the 70s and afterward.

Another interesting to point out is that, while four or eight-track boards were available as far back as the late 50s, few labels had them or used them or used them for whatever reason. Tom Dowd at Atlantic is credited for building their 8-track in the late 50s, and they used it. I'm not sure if people like Mike McClean at Motown were were working on the same things at that time.

I just wanted to add that the example above was not exclusive to that song, or Motown. Tons of work goes into recording and mixing one song. And, the example above flies in the face of those why say that the song is more important than the mix. The mix is everything, and can make or break a record. Non-audiophiles and non-pros may only respond to performance and lyrics, but if it weren't for the mix, no one would even listen!

**westgrandboulevard** · 07-15-2014, 11:47 AM

I remember that some of the earlier tracks had a degree of distortion in the sound.

Would that simply have been due to limitations in the recording process at the time?

**soulster** · 07-15-2014, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by westgrandboulevard

I remember that some of the earlier tracks had a degree of distortion in the sound.

Would that simply have been due to limitations in the recording process at the time?

Not only did the engineers deliberately over-saturate the tape on recording and mixing, the cutting engineer was asked to introduce distortion to get the record as hot as possible. Sometimes when you hear the music on CD, especially the remixes, that graininess is gone, and the sound just doesn't have the same impact as the 45s did. You might say that distortion was part of the Motown sound.

**westgrandboulevard** · 07-15-2014, 03:21 PM

Yes, I've noticed that the original 'Hitsville sound' on some of the remixed CDs has been muted or lost.

Would over-saturation apply to intros on the 45s? Standard from other labels , or most notably Motown?

The first drum blast of something like 'Nowhere To Run' seems more out there than when the emphasis has shifted to Martha Reeves' voice.....

**ralpht** · 07-15-2014, 06:16 PM

Soulster,
In reality, Motown had a stricter standard when it came to saturation. Especially low end frequencies, if you can believe that.

It was up to the disc cutting engineer to push the mix as far as possible without getting distortion. One very good disc engineer was Leonard Wisniewski. The guy knew his business.

**soulster** · 07-15-2014, 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by ralpht

Soulster,
In reality, Motown had a stricter standard when it came to saturation. Especially low end frequencies, if you can believe that.

It was up to the disc cutting engineer to push the mix as far as possible without getting distortion. One very good disc engineer was Leonard Wisniewski. The guy knew his business.

Interesting. I had always understood that the disc cutter was told to slightly distort the signal to make it hotter, even after pushing the levels as much as possible.

**ralpht** · 07-16-2014, 08:11 AM

Quite the opposite, Soulster.

**Ryon6** · 07-23-2014, 10:48 PM

Soulster, what do you mean by "get the record as hot as possible" or distort the signal to make it hotter". What does hot mean?

**soulster** · 07-24-2014, 03:45 AM

Originally Posted by Ryon6

Soulster, what do you mean by "get the record as hot as possible" or distort the signal to make it hotter". What does hot mean?

All recording tape has a saturation point, or a point where it distorts when the signal gets loud enough. A small amount of this harmonic distortion can sound pleasing, but will reduce the dynamic range. Raise the level enough and it sounds a bit nasty. But, it can also add a certain intensity to the sound. An Aural Exciter does the same thing without having to run the VU meters into the red. If you have ever recorded on a tape deck, you know what i'm talking about.