Mellotronists

My understanding from reading an article contemporaneous to the album 
(possibly in Rolling Stone) is that they used the multitrack recorder 
almost as a fader-controlled Mellotron, with many tracks (if memory 
serves, something on the order of 48 tracks just relegated to this) 
each one containing one sustained vocal note, and that during 
production, they just "played the faders" to bring in and fade out 
specific pitches to build the harmonic structure of the song.

I'd sure like either confirmation or supported contradiction on this. 
Listening to it with smarter ears now that I'm older and have been 
doing this for a while seems to confirm the likelihood of my ancient 
recollection, but it would be nice to have that authenticated.

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "jonesalley" <jonesalley@...>
To: <Mellotronists@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 6:09 AM
Subject: [Mellotronists] 10cc


> My understanding from reading an article contemporaneous to the album 
> (possibly in Rolling Stone) is that they used the multitrack recorder 
> almost as a fader-controlled Mellotron, with many tracks (if memory 
> serves, something on the order of 48 tracks just relegated to this) 
> each one containing one sustained vocal note, and that during 
> production, they just "played the faders" to bring in and fade out 
> specific pitches to build the harmonic structure of the song.
> 
> I'd sure like either confirmation or supported contradiction on this. 
> Listening to it with smarter ears now that I'm older and have been 
> doing this for a while seems to confirm the likelihood of my ancient 
> recollection, but it would be nice to have that authenticated.

That's what I've heard, too. *Definitely* not a Mellotron, anyway!

Andy T.

I heard it on the radio about a month or so ago. The DJ said that they
had totaled over one hundred and twenty voices on that tune through
multi tracking. If he was right, they must have had 3 or 4 people
tracked at a time per note (or fader) or I would think the recording
would be pretty noisy to do that much bouncing down. I did not listen to
it again since this thread but I think there was some singing in unison?
Each individual note sounds awfully full.(If the DJ was right and Andy
T. remembers 48 tracks- 3 voices per note or fader?) 

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Thompson [mailto:andy.thompson@...] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 2:00 AM
To: Mellotronists@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Mellotronists] 10cc



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "jonesalley" <jonesalley@...>
To: <Mellotronists@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 6:09 AM
Subject: [Mellotronists] 10cc


> My understanding from reading an article contemporaneous to the album
> (possibly in Rolling Stone) is that they used the multitrack recorder 
> almost as a fader-controlled Mellotron, with many tracks (if memory 
> serves, something on the order of 48 tracks just relegated to this) 
> each one containing one sustained vocal note, and that during 
> production, they just "played the faders" to bring in and fade out 
> specific pitches to build the harmonic structure of the song.
> 
> I'd sure like either confirmation or supported contradiction on this.
> Listening to it with smarter ears now that I'm older and have been 
> doing this for a while seems to confirm the likelihood of my ancient 
> recollection, but it would be nice to have that authenticated.

That's what I've heard, too. *Definitely* not a Mellotron, anyway!

Andy T.





 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 


-----------------------------------------
This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not the intended recipient, delete this message. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosing, copying, distributing, or taking any action based on this message is strictly prohibited.

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Brundage, Jim" <JPB@...>
To: "Andy Thompson" <andy.thompson@...>;
<Mellotronists@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 3:30 PM
Subject: RE: [Mellotronists] 10cc


I heard it on the radio about a month or so ago. The DJ said that they
had totaled over one hundred and twenty voices on that tune through
multi tracking. If he was right, they must have had 3 or 4 people
tracked at a time per note (or fader) or I would think the recording
would be pretty noisy to do that much bouncing down. I did not listen to
it again since this thread but I think there was some singing in unison?
Each individual note sounds awfully full.(If the DJ was right and Andy
T. remembers 48 tracks- 3 voices per note or fader?)

Jon remembers the 48 tracks - I heard 24, or I think I did. Is 1975 a bit
early to be hooking up two 24-track machines? Were there any 48-track desks?
*Loads* of reverb on it, of course, making it all sound bigger.

Andy T.

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Andy Thompson wrote:

> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Brundage, Jim" <JPB@...>
> To: "Andy Thompson" <andy.thompson@...>;
> <Mellotronists@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 3:30 PM
> Subject: RE: [Mellotronists] 10cc
> 
> Jon remembers the 48 tracks - I heard 24, or I think I did. Is 1975 a bit
> early to be hooking up two 24-track machines? Were there any 48-track desks?
> *Loads* of reverb on it, of course, making it all sound bigger.


i used to think it was all done via a fairlight, as it has the
same sort of odd quality that fairlight "voices" had... but my
ears were not so sophisticated, and i attributed anything that
i could not easily explain to one of those $100k+ tools...
it's really amazing what people can accomplish just with imagination
and by pushing current technology to the extremes... aaah, innovation!

back then a lot of audio engineering was of the "rube goldberg"
type - lots of custom-built little black boxes, hand built consoles,
hybrid consoles made from various modules from different companies...
an engineer knew a lot more electrical engineering back then.

there were likely a few cutting-edge studios with 2 24-track
machines locked together via tach-pulses and little black
boxes - i don't think smpte was even that common back then.
a 48-channel desk was certainly available some places.
a couple years later the 3M 32 track digital was born, and
the digital fomat wars following shortly thereafter.

[when sony introduced the pcm 3348, capable of adding 24 more
tracks to an existing 24-track digital master, things changed
greatly - including recording budgets!!]


> Andy T.


...jeff

[we have dual studer 24-track machines and a 56 input ssl 9000j
here at our studio, but protools has been the recording format
of choice for a couple years now. acts bring a couple firewire
drives instead of 2-inch tape stock... and the half-inch 2-track
has been collecting dust for as long as i can remember...]

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Jeff Coulter" <jeffc@...>
To: <Mellotronists@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Mellotronists] 10cc



> > Jon remembers the 48 tracks - I heard 24, or I think I did. Is 1975 a
bit
> > early to be hooking up two 24-track machines? Were there any 48-track
desks?
> > *Loads* of reverb on it, of course, making it all sound bigger.
>
>
> i used to think it was all done via a fairlight, as it has the
> same sort of odd quality that fairlight "voices" had... but my
> ears were not so sophisticated, and i attributed anything that
> i could not easily explain to one of those $100k+ tools...
> it's really amazing what people can accomplish just with imagination
> and by pushing current technology to the extremes... aaah, innovation!

This was at least five years *before* the Fairlight, though!

> there were likely a few cutting-edge studios with 2 24-track
> machines locked together via tach-pulses and little black
> boxes - i don't think smpte was even that common back then.
> a 48-channel desk was certainly available some places.
> a couple years later the 3M 32 track digital was born, and
> the digital fomat wars following shortly thereafter.

Again - that sounds like the mid-'80s to me.

> [we have dual studer 24-track machines and a 56 input ssl 9000j
> here at our studio, but protools has been the recording format
> of choice for a couple years now. acts bring a couple firewire
> drives instead of 2-inch tape stock... and the half-inch 2-track
> has been collecting dust for as long as i can remember...]

My brother's studio still use theirs fairly regularly, sometimes to 'warm
up' drums and vocals before putting them into ProTools.

Andy T.

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Andy Thompson wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jeff Coulter" <jeffc@...>
> To: <Mellotronists@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 4:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [Mellotronists] 10cc
> 
> > i used to think it was all done via a fairlight, as it has the
> > same sort of odd quality that fairlight "voices" had... but my
> > ears were not so sophisticated, and i attributed anything that
> > i could not easily explain to one of those $100k+ tools...
> > it's really amazing what people can accomplish just with imagination
> > and by pushing current technology to the extremes... aaah, innovation!
> 
> This was at least five years *before* the Fairlight, though!


DOH!
as previously stated - lots of chemicals back then.

i had a chance to buy a fairlight from a studio here in philly.
$2500 for the whole system [don't recall exact model]
i just didn't have the $$ at the time... a few weeks later i
missed out on a ppg waveterm also...


> > there were likely a few cutting-edge studios with 2 24-track
> > machines locked together via tach-pulses and little black
> > boxes - i don't think smpte was even that common back then.
> > a 48-channel desk was certainly available some places.
> > a couple years later the 3M 32 track digital was born, and
> > the digital fomat wars following shortly thereafter.
> 
> Again - that sounds like the mid-'80s to me.


IIRC, the 3M 32 track digital was available ~1977.


> > [we have dual studer 24-track machines and a 56 input ssl 9000j
> > here at our studio, but protools has been the recording format
> > of choice for a couple years now. acts bring a couple firewire
> > drives instead of 2-inch tape stock... and the half-inch 2-track
> > has been collecting dust for as long as i can remember...]
> 
> My brother's studio still use theirs fairly regularly, sometimes to 'warm
> up' drums and vocals before putting them into ProTools.
> 
> Andy T.


that's about the only use here too.
sometimes people bring their old 2" reels in and do
transfers for remixing or archival purposes.

i produced a record a couple years ago at studio 4 a few
miles away, and i insisted on using tape [it was a band
featuring all "real" instruments: guitar, vox, bass, drums
and cello]. the old neve console combined with tape worked
exactly as well as i thought it would [with the help of
some VERY nice outboard gear, including a fairchild].
everyone was pleased with the final result.
[and having it mixed by phil nicolo helped!]