Tape Editing (the eagles)

SteveM

SteveM

New member
I've been reading Don Felder's book about the Eagles and at one point he goes into how the Eagles would track. They used MCI 24 track machines and mixers. The band would fill up about 3 reels, 2" tape of the song they were working on, all recorded to a click track, then the engineer would run through all the tracks finding the best drum parts in all the takes and cut them out of the takes until they had a complete drum track they were happy with. They would use that as the basic track and record all the other parts over. Don Felder said the tape was cut up so much it looked like a Zebra as it was spinning on the reels. Sometimes it would fall apart and they'd have to re-splice it. :D

Has anyone ever done editing like that? It seems like it would be difficult to do but I guess the tape moves pretty fast and you're dealing with just a fraction of a second and have some play room. How accurate do you have to be when splicing?
 
I do a lot of manual editing on the pieces I work on. I wouldn't dare, though, to edit the multitrack master quite like that because of the issue of the splices falling apart, and because I typically squeeze every last bit of life from a reel of tape before it gets thrown out.

I do a TON of editing on 1/4" tape, though. I have a system for reusing 1/4" tape and I "grade" the tape based on how much it's been used or spliced. Really critical bounces and mixes are done on fresh tape and as the tape gets used more it is reserved for echo duty before it's eventually thrown out. So, if I'm recording something that I know will require a bunch of editing, I'll record it on the 2T first, edit it, and then fly it over to the multitrack. This doesn't work for everything of course, but I'm apprehensive about editing the multitrack master and I avoid it if I can.

I also don't have a studio budget like the Eagles did, though :)
 
I wonder if they actually transferred the edited drums to another 2 inch tape and then track. That's not what he said in the book but I'm surprised they didn't.

I just thought when I read this it was kind of it interesting , and surprising.
 
Though people on both sides of the debate have jumped on me for saying this, for me, digital recording essentially does {quicker, easier, more conveniently and risklessly with that priceless 'undo' button} what had been done in analog {because that's all there was} for years. Don Felder's comments bear this out. None of us could tell that the drum tracks of the Eagles' songs were built up of 30+ tracks all cut up and spliced together. With a DAW it would take a fraction of the time ~ but it's essentially the same action. Rather like how a microwave can heat up your food in seconds but it's essentially no different to what a cooker would do ~ only quicker, easier and more convenient.....
 
When people ask how do you get your music into the computor for editing, i always
wonder; what editing?
If you can't play or sing the part through from beginning to end, try another few takes.
If you still can't create a great performance, you need to practice more.
Just not a fan of abusing the blade like eagles example.
I don't even like excessive punching.
When frank Sinatra would record live in the studio with a large orchestra, they didn't need
To edit.
You mean to tell me a five piece rock band playing 4 chord pop songs can't even
Play a simple scratch track to get a useable drum track to use as an overdub bed?
However I do like radical splicing as an intentional effect for that old school avant
Gard art vibe.
And of course if you are recording contemporary electronic genres, it's ALL about the editing and
Processing. Might as well just do that ITB from the start.
 
Last edited:
I used to do a lot of editing on 1/4" tape when I was doing theatre and radio production. I recall having short and long strips of tape draped everywhere, and multiple reels with longer sections waiting to be spliced together.
I actually enjoyed the splicing part of the process, getting everything together and keeping it in time. The big boys did it too........look up the editing story on Edgar Winters "Frankenstein". One of the band guys saw the final edited tape running thru the machine, and there were so many splices he said..." that looks like Frankenstein", and thus the name of the song, so the story goes....
 
grimtraveller said:
Though people on both sides of the debate have jumped on me for saying this, for me, digital recording essentially does {quicker, easier, more conveniently and risklessly with that priceless 'undo' button} what had been done in analog {because that's all there was} for years. Don Felder's comments bear this out. None of us could tell that the drum tracks of the Eagles' songs were built up of 30+ tracks all cut up and spliced together. With a DAW it would take a fraction of the time ~ but it's essentially the same action. Rather like how a microwave can heat up your food in seconds but it's essentially no different to what a cooker would do ~ only quicker, easier and more convenient.....
Click to expand...

Although I love recording in analog and the process that goes along with it, I'll be the first to admit that, when it comes to editing, digital wins hands down. It's not even a contest.

I remember seeing some video that pitted some analog diehard dude against a digital diehard dude, and they were going back and forth about sound quality and other issues, blah blah blah. Then the subject of editing came up, and they showed the digital guy demonstrate the insertion of an extra chorus in a song with the click of a few buttons. Then they showed the analog guy with his RTR saying, "Yeah, in analog it's basically the same thing. You just cut the tape here and splice the new part in."

LOL. Like I said, I'm a total analog guy, but come on! That's laughable. I'm not saying editing on tape isn't fun as hell, but to imply that it's as quick or easy as editing with digital is just like sticking your head in the sand.

I record all of my "for fun" stuff on tape, but when I'm working on the clock for money (I don't have a commercial studio, but I record a lot of guitar and stuff for instructional books and other things), it's digital all the way. You just can't beat the speed and versatility of it.
 
zorf said:
When people ask how do you get your music into the computor for editing, i always
wonder; what editing?
If you can't play or sing the part through from beginning to end, try another few takes.
If you still can't create a great performance, you need to practice more.
Just not a fan of abusing the blade like eagles example.
I don't even like excessive punching.
When frank Sinatra would record live in the studio with a large orchestra, they didn't need
To edit.
You mean to tell me a five piece rock band playing 4 chord pop songs can't even
Play a simple scratch track to get a useable drum track to use as an overdub bed?
However I do like radical splicing as an intentional effect for that old school avant
Gard art vibe.
And of course if you are recording contemporary electronic genres, it's ALL about the editing and
Processing. Might as well just do that ITB from the start.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right about that; it was a different time back then for sure. It's truly awesome to think of the talent that existed back then to do what they did. I'm not saying that some bands/artists don't have that kind of talent today, but I'd say they're certainly in the minority now, unfortunately.
 
zorf said:
When people ask how do you get your music into the computor for editing, i always
wonder; what editing?
If you can't play or sing the part through from beginning to end, try another few takes.
If you still can't create a great performance, you need to practice more.
Just not a fan of abusing the blade like eagles example.
I don't even like excessive punching.
When frank Sinatra would record live in the studio with a large orchestra, they didn't need
To edit.
You mean to tell me a five piece rock band playing 4 chord pop songs can't even
Play a simple scratch track to get a useable drum track to use as an overdub bed?
Click to expand...
For me, this rather misses the point.
Up until the advent of sound on sound recording in the late 40s, everything had to be recorded in one go. It's all there was. But the very fact that Les Paul and others looked at ways of multitracking tells you something very important about the recording medium that purists are rather quick to ignore/forget/not even think about. Firstly, it tells you that as a progressive creation, human beings and our imagination can't be chained for long. Secondly, it tells you that the idea of totally live recording, orchestra and all, only occupies a tiny fraction of time in the history of sound recording. That in the 1940s people were thinking to themselves "I've got these great ideas but this medium is too limiting. I wish there was a way I could do this, at my own leisure, play these multiple parts in the way I want it done......" is pretty incredible.
If Frank Sinatra was recording today, I'd be willing to bet that he would multitrack.
The moment sound on sound recording began and morphed into multitracking, live recording as the only way to go, the standard practice, was on the slide. It's not that bands couldn't play live in the studio. They always could for the most part. But taking immense care over each stage of the process of getting a finished listenable product out to a buyer/listener was inevitable. And in the analog days, alot of razor blading took place. And I'm glad it did. Because you've ended up with great songs that simply would not have been that way had they been recorded in one go.
 
zorf said:
If you can't play or sing the part through from beginning to end, try another few takes.
If you still can't create a great performance, you need to practice more.
Click to expand...

No kidding. I mean, seriously, if people can't get good tone from a rock and a hollow log, unaltered from how they found them in the forest, then they aren't "true" musicians. These fancy "musical instruments" that seem to be the current fad will never replace real music made the natural way.
 
when, six bars into the song, Don Henley stopped the players with a wave of his hand. He turned around to drummer Scott F. Crago and said, "I think you need to go back and listen to this song one more time."
Click to expand...

source: Scott F Crago Drummer for The Eagles

;)

**************
editing is fun,
let me unleash imagination and have some of that fun....
hmmmmmmmmmm, let's see, how about this:
from the linked above "source", edited by me to perfection:
I must have blown that song, but I need to do "what the boss said" -I need to go back and listen to the record one more time. Right? Well, I went back and ... said:
"hey, Don, why don't you get yourself a brand spankin' new f****ng drum machine?
See, You guys."
And left. No regrets ever since.
Click to expand...

:drunk:
 
They could have just as well used a drum machine on Lying Eyes. :D But I don't have a problem with that process at all. I see it as you are working out the parts spontaneously while recording them. Then you objectively get to listen to playback. If you like what you hear on multiple recordings might as well just patch them together to make the recording. Otherwise you have to learn all the parts and then execute them as well as you did when you were being free on tape the first time... or you can do a new take every time.... either way. The Beatles did this too. One of the early songs, I can't remember which, was a different take for each part of the song.
 
grimtraveller said:
For me, this rather misses the point.
Up until the advent of sound on sound recording in the late 40s, everything had to be recorded in one go. It's all there was. But the very fact that Les Paul and others looked at ways of multitracking tells you something very important about the recording medium that purists are rather quick to ignore/forget/not even think about. Firstly, it tells you that as a progressive creation, human beings and our imagination can't be chained for long. Secondly, it tells you that the idea of totally live recording, orchestra and all, only occupies a tiny fraction of time in the history of sound recording. That in the 1940s people were thinking to themselves "I've got these great ideas but this medium is too limiting. I wish there was a way I could do this, at my own leisure, play these multiple parts in the way I want it done......" is pretty incredible.
If Frank Sinatra was recording today, I'd be willing to bet that he would multitrack.
The moment sound on sound recording began and morphed into multitracking, live recording as the only way to go, the standard practice, was on the slide. It's not that bands couldn't play live in the studio. They always could for the most part. But taking immense care over each stage of the process of getting a finished listenable product out to a buyer/listener was inevitable. And in the analog days, alot of razor blading took place. And I'm glad it did. Because you've ended up with great songs that simply would not have been that way had they been recorded in one go.
Click to expand...

well, the point here for me is that so many artists from earlier eras with one room and limited mics and one track COULD nail it in one take. Its not a matter of what would they use if they could, its a matter of the abilities of the artists. I've said this before or words to the effect that I really enjoy multitracking, particularly as a home recordist. Multitracking simply has opened new possibilities, but to suggest that multitracking would make Frank Sinatra better or that it would have benefitted the process, well, that just seems obtuse to me. There is a canyon between an ensemble tracking live in the studio to mono master or halftrack or 3-track vs. multitracking it...apples and oranges process-wise and the former demands much more from the talent from the artists to the engineers because it happens NOW...nothing to fix later in the mix (which is one of the chief bastards of the mutitracking phenomenon). Multitracking opened all sorts of possibilities and it also alleviated the need for the artist(s) to be able to nail it, and frankly I think it has dumbed things down. I'm so glad the technology exists but it has led to such atrocities as multitracking a drumkit one drum per track on separate takes. Come on...its the difference between "we can isolate this" and "we MUST isolate this to make it perfect".

I'm not trying to insinuate one methodology is "better", I just feel that the ways of old require something more and something real at the time of capture, and that there is a intimacy in that result for the listener. Same thing with going to a stage production vs. nabbing something on Netflix or whatever...

[duck]
 
It's not that I don't get that multitracking and all the other tools of the modern studio
Free you from having to perform in a single take, and that the studio itself is an instrument, that
Allows you to do creative things that would otherwise be possible
I'm totally cool with that.
it's that the eagles couldn't even get a drum track down to use as an overdub bed even while
Playing to a click track!
I mean the drum parts on an eagle song? Seriously?
Maybe they had the razor blades out for a giant white mountain of powder on the console and thought
It would be fun to slice up the recording tape.
 
zorf said:
...I mean the drum parts on an eagle song? Seriously?
....
Click to expand...
huh huh
that's exactly what my post#14 was about ;)

funny
How about a slogan for the "bend" or a book-title for another book written maybe by "the boss" ;) himself : "The Eagles: Sophisticated Approach to making Sophisticated Records" :D
 
grimtraveller said:
...............................
If Frank Sinatra was recording today, I'd be willing to bet that he would multitrack.
The moment sound on sound recording began and morphed into multitracking, live recording as the only way to go, the standard practice, was on the slide. It's not that bands couldn't play live in the studio. They always could for the most part. But taking immense care over each stage of the process of getting a finished listenable product out to a buyer/listener was inevitable. And in the analog days, alot of razor blading took place. And I'm glad it did. Because you've ended up with great songs that simply would not have been that way had they been recorded in one go.
Click to expand...

Multi-tracking was in full swing when Sinatra did the "LA is My Lady" album. The word is that the orchestra played entirely together in the same room and that he sang with them.
 
sweetbeats said:
but to suggest that multitracking would make Frank Sinatra better or that it would have benefitted the process, well, that just seems obtuse to me.
Click to expand...
I suggested neither. My argument has never been that multitracking makes things or artists "better" or that it by necessity "benefits the process". For some it does. For others it doesn't.
No, what I'm saying is that multitracking and it's attendant consequences have been part of a long progression and to keep hearking back to some kind of wondrous yesteryear when "everything was nailed in one take" ignores the fact that at the very time all this was going on, there were many looking into getting away from that and hence, progress. And it wasn't because artists couldn't do it all in one go either.There have been aspects of multitracking that have been tried and not really returned to and it has brought about different ways of thinking and going about recording. For instance, a number of early Beatle records were different takes edited together. I don't have a problem with the whole "do it live with everyone there and nail it in one take" philosophy. I have a problem with the implication that anything other than this is by default an inferior way of achieving the same result.
I don't dispute the suspicion that it has dumbed things down to a large extent, I'd agree with that but equally, that is not the fault of the medium.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top