Motown, from basic band tracks to finished product

[westgrandboulevard]

Can some of the infinitely more knowledgeable people here help me out with some things that have just buzzed in my mind re: the actual logical process of recording at Motown, please?!

Is my understanding correct that, in the early days of Motown, the recordings were made with all players and vocalists present....with the possible exception of strings, which were added later, and maybe elsewhere?

Then the process evolved into the Funk Brothers putting down band tracks, so that when the artists went into Hitsville studios to record, they would put their vocals over the pre-recorded band tracks.

I'm assuming they would have heard the instruments through headphones, or over a loudspeaker? What did they hear? Was it just a basic rhythm track, with piano[[ or organ), drum and guitars?

If a vocal group could not record together, would the rest of the act [[and also any additional background vocals) only ever add their vocals when the lead vocal had been recorded, and could then be followed through the headphones?

Am I right in thinking that additional instrumentation such as the horns and strings [[and any other overdubs) were then added to the mix, but would that have been only after a vocal recording had been added to the rhythm track?

If a Motown act then went into the studio and recorded their vocal to the same track that had already been recorded by another act, what did they hear? The same basic rhythm track as the first act, or one with any instrumentation added to that date?

Finally, I once read that the rhythm tracks were 'much longer' than the released versions, and then edited.... but I'm unsure whether that's true, and if it applied to the finished versions with vocals added.

If that's true, presumably neither the original band tracks for every vocal recording and/or 'much longer' versions were ever retained in the vaults? The additional versions that have surfaced in recent years are usually not significantly longer than the original, released recordings.

[uptight]

In the early days of the Hitsville Studio, I am unsure whether the singers would sing live with the band. There was a three-track system where music was on one, vocals on the other, and maybe a combination on the third track.

In a professional recording like at Hitsville, it is important you isolate the separate elements as much as possible. Special sound absorbant baffles or booths can be used to separate the drummer from the other musicians, for example. Separate rooms can be effective, too. This way the engineers have more control over each element going into each channel of the sound board, and especially with a multiple-track tape system. Hitsville graduated to an 8-track machine in 1964, I believe.

When a musician is dubbing their voice or instrument, they are often adding it alongside the pre-recorded tracks on the same tape. The multi-track tape deck is designed to playback some tracks and record on remaining tracks simultaneously. Now for any new singer adding their vocal rendition, hopefully it is on a duplicate tape so that the original stays safe.

As you may have seen in photographs or film clips, the singers wear headphones to hear the music while recording their vocals. A blaring loudspeaker anywhere near their microphone could ruin the vocal recording. Remember the engineers need everything isolated as much possible for later mixdown instead of elements bleeding into each other's tracks. It's all about controlling the levels to yield the best mix.

I'm pretty sure the producer can add extra instrumentation any time they want -- before the vocals are added or afterward.

As you have concluded, many of the tracks are not much longer than the released record. The musicians played for a few more seconds and the music sort of fell apart quickly. Within the time slot the producers have scheduled and a certain amount of tunes to record, they develop an efficient system "crankin' 'em out." Oftentimes the producer would press the intercom button and yell to the musicians, "Okay, next..!" No special endings to be written for the tunes, thus we have the "fadeout."

There are many variables in each of these steps. And there are lots more details about recording processes others will add or clarify. But I hope I gave you some basic idea in a nutshell. Hopefully engineers like Ralph or Russ will chime in and grace us with their knowledge. They were there!

[westgrandboulevard]

uptight

That is an excellent response, and most helpful.

Some of it I had surmised, but much I had not.

It must all have been a million miles from how recordings are made today - I suppose??!

Thanks again!

[uptight]

The principles are pretty much the same, even with digital technology.

[westgrandboulevard]

uptight

....but the finished result is generally nowhere so great...!!

As you say, hope Ralph and/or Russ will give some input, when they've time.

[theboyfromxtown]

The Velvelettes were one of the groups that performed live in the studio in 1963 with the band but then later to a pre-recorded track. It's noticeable in the development of THAT MOTOWN SOUND. The Hitsville Studio had an edge over other record companies as they had whiz-kids like Mike McLean at the forefront of recording technology.

Tapes were also at a premium and would be routinely [[let me take a breath now...) OVER-WRITTEN and used again.

[westgrandboulevard]

theboyfromxtown

I've heard similar remarks passed about the BBC!

You can understand how the cost of the tapes would have to be considered at Motown.

And, as has been quoted, they thought that what they were creating was disposable..and wouldn't be remembered 50 years later....

[robb_k]

Too bad Mike McLean isn't a regular hear anymore! He could tell us everything that was done while he was there. Too bad we lost those old threads from SDF Old Forum, in which he explained the answers to all these questions. We also lost all those great old threads on record mastering with Ron Murphy explaining the process.

[ralpht]

there isn't much I can add to this good discussion. Chris, you have covered this very well. Thanks.

[uptight]

Omigosh, thanks Ralph!

[soulster]

Can some of the infinitely more knowledgeable people here help me out with some things that have just buzzed in my mind re: the actual logical process of recording at Motown, please?!

Is my understanding correct that, in the early days of Motown, the recordings were made with all players and vocalists present....with the possible exception of strings, which were added later, and maybe elsewhere?

This is true for the earliest recordings. But, Motown was among the first to go to eight-track in 1965.

Then the process evolved into the Funk Brothers putting down band tracks, so that when the artists went into Hitsville studios to record, they would put their vocals over the pre-recorded band tracks.

Correct.

I'm assuming they would have heard the instruments through headphones, or over a loudspeaker? What did they hear? Was it just a basic rhythm track, with piano[[ or organ), drum and guitars?

Headphones were used, of course. If they weren't, you'd get feedback and leakage.

If a vocal group could not record together, would the rest of the act [[and also any additional background vocals) only ever add their vocals when the lead vocal had been recorded, and could then be followed through the headphones?

This can be done either way, before or after.

Am I right in thinking that additional instrumentation such as the horns and strings [[and any other overdubs) were then added to the mix, but would that have been only after a vocal recording had been added to the rhythm track?

They call that "sweetning", and it can be added at any point after the basic tracks are done.

If a Motown act then went into the studio and recorded their vocal to the same track that had already been recorded by another act, what did they hear? The same basic rhythm track as the first act, or one with any instrumentation added to that date?

The engineer can put whatever tracks they want or need to to get the job done. If an artist had previously recorded vocals, they were very likely erased if they weren't bounced to another track/tape. The thing to remember about about the recording process is that there are no rules. At Motown, each producer had his own way of working. At Motown, they were very thrifty, as Berry Gordy was into saving money. And, most studios have guidelines. They don't have to be strictly followed, though.

Finally, I once read that the rhythm tracks were 'much longer' than the released versions, and then edited.... but I'm unsure whether that's true, and if it applied to the finished versions with vocals added.

That is true. Ever listen to The Supremes #1 CD? But, again, in recording, there are no rules. You do what you have to do to get the final product.

If that's true, presumably neither the original band tracks for every vocal recording and/or 'much longer' versions were ever retained in the vaults? The additional versions that have surfaced in recent years are usually not significantly longer than the original, released recordings.

I said there are no rules to recording, but in most cases in most studios is that everything is saved, but not everything gets released.


BTW, to give you some insight to how complicated some of those recordings were, here's some comments from Harry Weinger on the recording of "My Girl", which was done in late 1964:

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

The principles are pretty much the same, even with digital technology.

Except that today half of the hassle can be fixed/created in Pro-Tools. It's cheaper.

[westgrandboulevard]

soulster

All I can think of to say in response is 'WOW!'

Now that's what I call a response....many,many thanks, and how very,very interesting it is.

My interpretation from what you say is that the whole process was indeed flexible..and if it seemed they were limited in options, they found a way to get the desired result.

You'd have initially thought that, being a small record company, their resources would not be as great as the larger labels...but it seems that the engineers at Motown were as innovative as their larger competitors, if not more so. They certainly got 'that sound'. Proof that all the talent at Motown was not in front of the microphone.

I guess the incoming cash flow from the earlier hits, and the will to keep going one better, proved the spur to success.

And I'd never before heard of 'Conax'.....

Thanks again Soulster...!!!

[ralpht]

Going along with the Thread subject, brother Russ sent me this video of the recording session of Frank Sinatra's "It Was A Very Good Year". Three track, vocals and instruments, playing as one. Watch the expressions on Sinatra's face as he sings the song and then listens to the playback. This video blew me away.

http://youtu.be/qjJuxMHvwr8

[bradburger]

One thing to bare in mind is that Studio A , and indeed the recording techniques used, were most advanced for it's time.

Here's a few words from Bob Olhsson about Studio A that he posted on the old SD forum a while back.

Posted By Bob Olhsson on Saturday, March 30, 2002 - 06:23 am:


Everybody I know from Motown who went on to work at a lot of different studios around the world considers studio A to be among the very finest small studios ever built acoustically.

This was partly by chance in that it was unusually quiet provided nothing is going by in the alley. It was also partly by design because Mike had design assistance from the engineers at RCA who were pressing more Motown records than their own for a few years. It was a typical late '50s RCA design intended to blend the sounds of instruments rather than to isolate them which became fashionable during the late '60s.

The thing that was great about studio A was that what the musicians heard as they played related very well to what we wound up with on tape. We couldn't get the same kind of complex rhythm section blends at Golden World using the same players and engineers.

It was also the first studio in the world capable of punching in parts rather than having to splice tape and the first capable of eight track overdubbing. We were also the first to have automated mixing and a multiple effects send console architecture. The first tri-amped eq'd monitors were at studio A. The list is endless but most of modern multitrack recording was invented at Motown by Brian Holland and Mike McLean. It was the most advanced recording studio in the world between 1963 and 1970 only most of us didn't realize that until we left! I got an inkling when I visited EMI Studios at Abbey Road in 1969 and found it to be less sophisticated in some ways.

John Windt, our shop foreman went on to build A&M studios [[including Bernie Grundman's mastering room) and numerous others in LA.

The thing about Motown is that very few individuals ever saw everything. Larry Miles and I were the only two people who held every recording engineering position in the company and to this day I suspect we are among a very few to have seen how a lot of it fitted together. I only found out a month ago that Berry Gordy owned an interest in two pressing plants here in Nashville and that one of them still has an apartment for the Motown artists to stay in because the better hotels wouldn't allow black patronage during the early '60s.

We recently visited Sun Studios in Memphis. It is very similar in many ways and fortunately it is still being used for recording. A part of me screams every time I think of Studio A being only a museum today.

Cheers

Paul

[MIKEW-UK]

I read this interview with Bob Olhsson a couple of weeks ago..it covers a lot of ground , from the recording process, the equipment, the people, the advent of digital recording process and the subsequent loss of some of the magic....
http://web.archive.org/web/200803211.../olmo/olmo.php

it is slow to load, takes about twenty seconds....

[westgrandboulevard]

bradburger/paul

Very, very interesting words from Bob Ohlsson. A fascinating account.

I don't recall reading any of that before, so many, many thanks for the opportunity!

[theboyfromxtown]

Roger

There's a wonderful article from Rob Dennis who was also an engineer during 1965 and 1966 and he reckons it was during his time that Motown excelled in the best sellers chart. Cant find the link now but it will be in the SDF archives

[bradburger]

Interesting Xtown should mention Bob Dennis as I've just been going through my files and found this article by him [[from the Recording institute of Detroit website) about the system chief engineer Lawrence Horn devised for getting the most out of their 3 track recordings.

[[Note the error about Lawrence Horn mixing every Motown release from 64 -67 though).

MOTOWN ENGINEERING SERIES No. 1

By ROBERT DENNIS


The Motown Heritage Of Pre-Mastering The Multitrack

In a way you could accurately state that Lawrence T. Horn, Motown's Chief Recording Engineer mixed every Motown release between 1964 and 1967. Lawrence did this remarkable feat by implementing a recording "system" for Motown and by ingenious management of a staff of engineers. His claim to fame came from his system developed for 3-track recording in 1964:

1. Any staff engineer would record a basic session on three tracks. The engineer was strictly forbidden from using any eq, compression, or any other type of signal processing.
2. Lawrence Horn would mix together the three tracks into one track. To do this, he would play the multitrack master on a playback machine and record onto track one of the 3 track master recorder. Lawrence would use all of the processing gear to make this mix. He was basically doing a "final" mix of the rhythm track. This procedure made a "B" reel that could further be recorded on.
3. Any Staff engineer would cut the horns onto tracks 2 & 3 of the B reel. Brass instruments would be on one track and woodwinds would be recorded on the other track. Again the engineer wouldn't be allowed any signal processing.
4. Lawrence Horn would take the B reel and mix the horns with signal processing onto track 2 of a new 3 track tape, making a C reel to allow further recording. Track 1 [[final rhythm) would be copied to the new C reel at the same time.
5. A more experienced engineer would record the strings onto track 3 of the C reel. This job wouldn't be given to the greenest engineer on staff.
6. Lawrence horn would mix the stings and horns onto track 2 of a new, D reel, using, of course any signal processing he deemed necessary. Track 1 would again be copied to the new D reel at the same time.
7. Any staff engineer would record background vocals onto track 3 of the D reel without any signal processing.
8. A more experienced engineer would bounce the background vocals and add lead vocals, using signal processing to a new E reel on track 3.

The E-Reel had all of the final "mixed" elements and was the final multitrack reel used for mix down. All staff engineers would be invited to mix the production off of this reel and submit their mixes to the Quality Control Department. Quality Control would pick the best mix. Engineers would "compete" for the mix that was chosen for release.
Since Lawrence Horn did the transferring & mixing to make the multitrack, he actually did most of the mixing on the released version. Since he was good at mixing, he often would be the engineer that won the mixing competition.

It would be interesting to know just how ridgedly they stuck to this system and whether different producers or engineers worked differently to what Lawrence Horn devised. [[It would seem that 'My Girl' didn't quite follow this system).

Cheers

Paul

[robb_k]

Thanks to Soulster [[and Bob Ohlsson) for this great insight into Motown's process. It's pretty much what I would have guessed, and I assume that different producers varied from it, in part, here or there as their needs dictated.

[vcq]

Awesome, awesome thread, guys. I love reading up on all the technical wizardry and hope to visit the Snakepit for myself in the near future [[I grew up in western Michigan but have never visited Hitsville USA). One thing that always struck me about early recordings was how organic they sounded. I was born in 1980, and practically all musicians now "phone in" their performances on duets, etc., and there's no live band [[drum pads, anyone?). Call me crazy, but you can HEAR the difference...the chemistry just isn't there for the most part. That, and Autotune will be the death of the "music" industry. Oh, for the day when singers could actually sing AND play instruments!

[soulster]

Wow! That's crazy! This means that the basic tracks are five generations down from the final mono and stereo mixes!

I would also think that the strings and horns would be completed after the vocals were completed, which is often the case in recording.

Motown is known for using tons and tons of processing [[Compressors and EQ, limiters), and processing the processing. It's why no kind of modern-day remix can exactly recapture the sound and feel of the original hits.

[soulster]

Awesome, awesome thread, guys. I love reading up on all the technical wizardry...

This is the kind of stuff I like to discuss, this, and audiophile sound. This is what made Motown Motown.

[ralpht]

Soulster,
That is not quite accurate regarding the over-use of Compression and EQ. Actually, quite the contrary, at least from my observations the years I spent there. I know Russ was extremely conservative in the use of these devices.

[chestersong]

Soulster,
That is not quite accurate regarding the over-use of Compression and EQ. Actually, quite the contrary, at least from my observations the years I spent there. I know Russ was extremely conservative in the use of these devices.

oh my, yes. quite to the contrary. perhaps in the CD years but DEFINITELY NOT in the classic period recording years.
those sounds cannot be captured because of atmosphere; NOT because of technology.
and "atmosphere" is a most general term for what went on in "that" house!!
it was a stroke of genious that nobody realized at the time.

[westgrandboulevard]

MIKEW-UK

Great Bob Olhsson interview. Many thanks for posting the link!


theboyfromxtown / bradburger


Excellent information on/from Rob/Bob Dennis. Keep the input coming!

[westgrandboulevard]

vcq / chestersong

Couldn't agree more with you both!

Motown records may have been manufactured by machinery but, to me, they sound handmade, handcrafted.

I liked what Junior Walker said about Hitsville Studio A.

He said something on the lines of "I think it was the wood in that place, the wood..."

[soulster]

Soulster,
That is not quite accurate regarding the over-use of Compression and EQ. Actually, quite the contrary, at least from my observations the years I spent there. I know Russ was extremely conservative in the use of these devices.

I have read comments of many remastering engineers who worked on the classic Motown singles from the 60s. They say much EQ was used. By lots of EQ, it seems that they meant the cumulative EQing because of the mixing phases.

According to Robert Denis' notes above, it seems that the recording guys were not allowed to use processing, but the mixing guys were. That makes sense because trying to mix processed tracks makes things more difficult.

I have studied Russ's work, the stuff I know about, anyway, because Motown didn't always list the engineers and "remixers" in the liner notes, but he was indeed very easy on the processing. Maybe a bit on drums or vocals in places.

Jr. Walker was one of the few artists who insisted on being recorded "live" in the studio with the whole band present be4cause that's what he was comfortable with.

[RossHolloway]

I have read comments of many remastering engineers who worked on the classic Motown singles from the 60s. They say much EQ was used. By lots of EQ, it seems that they meant the cumulative EQing because of the mixing phases.

According to Robert Denis' notes above, it seems that the recording guys were not allowed to use processing, but the mixing guys were. That makes sense because trying to mix processed tracks makes things more difficult.

I have studied Russ's work, the stuff I know about, anyway, because Motown didn't always list the engineers and "remixers" in the liner notes, but he was indeed very easy on the processing. Maybe a bit on drums or vocals in places.

Jr. Walker was one of the few artists who insisted on being recorded "live" in the studio with the whole band present be4cause that's what he was comfortable with.

Werent the Funk Brothers used on most Jr. Walkers studio recordings and not the All Stars? Someone correct me if I'm mistaken.

[ralpht]

Yes, Ross.

[ralpht]

Soulster,
The problem with the over-use of signal processors was they would add "hiss" to the track. The more used, the more hiss. I know Russ liked to compress the bass just a tad to keep it solid in the track and maybe a tad of EQ here and there, but that would be about it.

I wrote a chapter in "Russ Terrana's Motown" regarding how Russ dealt with an engineer he was beginning to use at times that plugged in every piece of outboard gear the studio had to offer, before he even listened to the track. He was also after Russ' job. Needless to say, he was history very quickly.

[soulster]

Werent the Funk Brothers used on most Jr. Walkers studio recordings and not the All Stars? Someone correct me if I'm mistaken.

Yes, it's true, but my point is that he preferred to record "live".

[soulster]

I wrote a chapter in "Russ Terrana's Motown" regarding how Russ dealt with an engineer he was beginning to use at times that plugged in every piece of outboard gear the studio had to offer, before he even listened to the track. He was also after Russ' job. Needless to say, he was history very quickly.

And rightfully so! It's like I tell newbies: do no damage. Once you start processing things that don't need it, you've ruined your sound. If you feel like you have to use a lot of processing, you need to do a better mix, or re-record. These newbies have the wrongheaded idea that you have to compress *something*. I get questions from these guys who are trying to mix and master their own stuff, and the very first thing they want to know is "what do I compress first"? Where in the hell did they get that?

[ralpht]

Yeah, Soulster. You ought to hear Russ rant about some of these newbie engineers. You've pretty much covered it.

[soulster]

Yeah, Soulster. You ought to hear Russ rant about some of these newbie engineers. You've pretty much covered it.

They all want that big, fat sound they hear on the latest CD from so-and-so, but then, that latest CD may not be selling so well. I wonder why. Over-compression wears the listener down.

[chidrummer]

Cool thread. After seeing it, I can't say enough about how much [B/]That Room [/B]studio A effected the sound of most of the classic Motown records. That was a great line in the Olhsson article about the studio being ultra quiet as long as there was no traffic in the alley.

The submixing that Harry was describing is a lost art these days. With so many tracks available in both analog and digital formats, does anyone submix these days? Doing that also made you consider the final mix early on since once you moved several tracks down to one, that was it; those levels were done. That seems really scary nowdays since so many of those decisions [[levels, EQ, placement on the sound stage, etc.) are left until very late in the process. Do we make better records leaving those decisions to the end? I'm not so sure.

[soulster]

Pre-mixing also made the process move along much quicker, too. Back in those days, they had to pay more attention to the clock. They didn't fret for days over the sound of a single note, or make literally hundreds of mixes for one lousy song.

[westgrandboulevard]

soulster & chidrummer

Am really enjoying the technical information, and thanks for all of it!

Could one or both of you clarify the different stages of mixing, please?

For example, what is the difference between pre-mixing, and sub-mixing?

[tamla617]

bump......

[westgrandboulevard]

and bump.....

[soulster]

soulster & chidrummer

Am really enjoying the technical information, and thanks for all of it!

Could one or both of you clarify the different stages of mixing, please?

For example, what is the difference between pre-mixing, and sub-mixing?

Pre-mixing in the 60s was necessary because there were a limited number of tracks to work with if you wanted to add more than three elements and wanted more flexibility. Just for an example: say you had three-tracks. You recorded drums and bass on one track, and maybe something else, like a rhythm guitar on a second, with the third blank. The engineer would then mix the three instruments together and place them on the third. Then, then the first two would be wiped and have, say vocals, dubbed onto the first track, and something else on the second. Then, all that would get mixed onto another tape machine in either mono or stereo. There are so many variations and ways to do this that it gets crazy, as with Motown and the Beatles.

Today, with 128+ tracks available, especially with digital, the possibilities are endless! There is really no need for pre-mixing anymore. Today, a song is recorded, and then mixed once the recording is done. Sometimes, the mastering engineer is asked to mix using stems, so the mastering person is doing sub-mixing.

Anyway, you get the idea, but it gets crazy! To make it crazier, as late as the early 80s, the regular mixing was called "remixing" do differentiate from the "pre-mixing" of old. So, the terms were different. Today, it would just be called "mixing".

[chidrummer]

Yeah, what he said.

The terms may have been regional [[pre-mixed, submixed, bounced down), but they all refer to the same process. It's important to note again that you didn't want to do too much of this because every time you did it you lost some fidelity of the original signal and added some element of noise. That's something today's engineers don't have to give a single thought to.

[soulster]

I forgot to add that pre-mixing was also when an engineer comes in and pretty much mixes the recording even before recording. That means knowing how and where to set up the mics and setting up the EQ in advance. The recording is pretty much mixed already. Then, all the engineer or mixer has to do later on is tweak it. Most of the old vets know how to do this. One person who can do this is Roy Halee, who has engineered countless artists including Simon & Garfunkel and Rufus and Chaka Khan.

[soulster]

It's important to note again that you didn't want to do too much of this because every time you did it you lost some fidelity of the original signal and added some element of noise. That's something today's engineers don't have to give a single thought to.

Engineers in the tape days always had to worry about hiss and generations of bouncing bringing down the sound quality, even the amount of times the tape is run over the heads.

Steve Hoffman, in order to reduce the chances of tape damage, makes a 1:1 copy of the master, gets his moves down on the copy, then plays the master on the final transfer to the converter.

[westgrandboulevard]

soulster, chidrummer

OK...think I got all that...though maybe, might need to read it through again....!

Thanks!!

[ralpht]

Westgrand,
Look at it this way. you are recording all your rhythm on a four track recorder. All the tracks are being used to get your drums, bass, piano and guitars. No room left for vocals.

Now you run those tracks through the mixing board and get a balance you think you can live with and that mix is transferred to the first track of the SECOND four track recorder. Once successfully transferred, you now have three open tracks to do your vocals or whatever.

This trick can be performed more than once, but you need to bear in mind that each time you do this you are creating what is known as a "generation" and a certain amount of sound quality is sacrificed.

[westgrandboulevard]

ralpht

That's just great, thanks! Between you, soulster and chidrummer [[and the other guys) I'm getting there in my understanding. Much of it I thought I knew, but there's a whole lot I didn't...

Sounds just like in a home situation, when we'd tape from a vinyl disc, then tape from that tape, something in the sound quality was lost. I always noticed it off the higher frequencies, both to my ears, and off the signals showing on the box. [[sorry, there's probably a technical term, but it's not coming to mind!). Didn't realise it also happened on superior recording tape.

Were there different grades of tape used for recording? Which one[[s) were used at Motown?

OK, so....the producer plays until he/she then gets a final mix on a track that they really like.

I guess no-one ever intentionally produced 'filler' - ? They all saw their work as worthy of a single release - at least, the new compositions, maybe not the covers - ?

So, the producer goes to the Quality Control Meeting..and did they have to make appointments?

Did they just go along with a demo tape of the finished product [[horns, strings, background vocals and all...), get it played for critique, and take it from there?

If BG said 'press it' , what then was the process, to get the track out on the street?

It must have taken a very considerable amount of co-ordination to keep all this product up in the air..and also out, on the airwaves...

[westgrandboulevard]

bump......anybody - ?

[ralpht]

Yes there was a specific tape for recording, which I also used at Tera Shirma. the problem is, too many years to remember the product number of the Scotch brand tape we were using. Maybe one of the forum engineers can chime in and remind me.When A song passed QC, the master tape would go back to the disc cutter who would prepare the acetate that would be sent to the record plant for pressing.
More than likely, the presented song at the QC meeting was as completed as possible in the eyes of the producer. Any changes that were likely to take place would have been suggested by Harry Balk or Billie Jean Brown to the producer prior to the QC meeting.

[westgrandboulevard]

ralpht

That's great, thanks!

So, Quality Control meetings were held only to select tracks for release as singles?

[ralpht]

Yes. Other than that, Billie Jean had a sound system in her office that she would use to review what was taking place in the studios, and maybe make a few suggestions.