Beatles recorded Sgt Pepper using a 4-track machines. If they didn't bounce how many tracks would they have used?

easyrider

easyrider

New member
I've always wondered how many tracks The Beatles would have used to get the same result without bouncing?

Beatles recorded Sgt Pepper using a 4-track machines. So focus is on that Album,

If they didn't bounce how many tracks would they have used to get the same result?

I don't mean splitting the drum mics into tracks..I mean the same recording process ( recording the basic Rhythm track to 3 tracks the bouncing etc... just removing the bounce down part..

A rough estimation would do...
 
As long as a piece of string. If they had had 16 tracks they would have used them all. 24 tracks the same. Had they had the near infinite tracks in a DAW based system we might never have had Peppers!

Dave.
 
ecc83 said:
As long as a piece of string. If they had had 16 tracks they would have used them all. 24 tracks the same. Had they had the near infinite tracks in a DAW based system we might never have had Peppers!

Dave.
Click to expand...

I‘m not looking at what they would have done If they had the tracks…I’m asking about how many tracks roughly would they have needed to get the same results in Pepper without the bounce downs.
 
The problem with your question is, they didn't but four tracks. Therefore they recorded that way. Now there are people who have studied the Beetles and know much more than me. but here is what I know.

Ringo used one track, and it was mic'ed and mixed down. the band played live. The orchestra pieces were live. I am not sure how they did the vocals. I would say, based on a guess, they would have used maybe 8 tracks.

Now based on what Dave stated, if they started with infinite tracks option, very difficult to say.
 
If you use sources like The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions, you could probably track things. I was looking at the Day In The Life segment and it appears there were at least 3 points where they mixed down to add more. There are references like "tape reductions of Take 6 to 7", and "Edit pieces - Take 8 - 11". It took almost a month to record A Day In the Life, starting on Jan 19 and mixing on Feb 23. There's an image of a track sheet in the book, but I don't know that I can decipher what they actually had mean.

For sure, you're not going to do it with a single 4 track cassette Portastudio!
 
DM60 said:
The problem with your question is, they didn't but four tracks.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you mean?

DM60 said:
Therefore they recorded that way. Now there are people who have studied the Beetles and know much more than me. but here is what I know.

Ringo used one track, and it was mic'ed and mixed down. the band played live. The orchestra pieces were live. I am not sure how they did the vocals. I would say, based on a guess, they would have used maybe 8 tracks.

Now based on what Dave stated, if they started with infinite tracks option, very difficult to say.
Click to expand...
They recorded basic rhythm tracks on 3 tracks and these were bounced down to the 4th track leaving tracks 1-3 free for more overdubbing….I know they used at least two 4 track tape machines…

They would have used well more than 8 tracks…
 
TalismanRich said:
If you use sources like The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions, you could probably track things. I was looking at the Day In The Life segment and it appears there were at least 3 points where they mixed down to add more.
Click to expand...
So that must be at least 12 tracks then having at least 6 free for more overdubs….18 tracks…so possible around 30 tracks

TalismanRich said:
There are references like "tape reductions of Take 6 to 7", and "Edit pieces - Take 8 - 11". It took almost a month to record A Day In the Life, starting on Jan 19 and mixing on Feb 23. There's an image of a track sheet in the book, but I don't know that I can decipher what they actually had mean.

For sure, you're not going to do it with a single 4 track cassette Portastudio!
Click to expand...
Indeed!
 
Talisman seems to be the only one who really understood the question.

I get it. With all the bouncing and overdubs, how many tracks did they REALLY use? It's a cool question and might be impossible to answer. But it was definitely NOT just 4 tracks, or even 8.
 
I'm thinking it's more like a dozen or so individual recorded tracks. Some would be multiple instruments mixed and laid down in real time. The orchestra section of ADITL was most likely done on a single track. It appears that Paul's middle section might have been recorded separately and probably spliced or punched into the mix. Even having something as simple as a Zoom R24 or Tascam DP24 would have made the recording process much easier.

A PDF copy is available via Archive.ORG. https://archive.org/download/the-beatles-recording-sessions/The Beatles Recording Sessions.pdf

I have the actual book, but its not the type of book that you would sit back on a weekend and read, like a John Grisham novel.
 
easyrider said:
I've always wondered how many tracks The Beatles would have used to get the same result without bouncing?

Beatles recorded Sgt Pepper using a 4-track machines. So focus is on that Album,

If they didn't bounce how many tracks would they have used to get the same result?

I don't mean splitting the drum mics into tracks..I mean the same recording process ( recording the basic Rhythm track to 3 tracks the bouncing etc... just removing the bounce down part..

A rough estimation would do...
Click to expand...
16 Tracks by my estimation - but if they had 16 tracks they would of recorded 36 tracks.
 
I'm sure I've seen the whole album documented in a book that one of our studio partners had - he was very into getting to know The Beatle's recording methods. I don't think it was the book that Rich mentioned as the one I'm thinking of concentrated on Sgt Pepper.
 
easyrider said:
I‘m not looking at what they would have done If they had the tracks…I’m asking about how many tracks roughly would they have needed to get the same results in Pepper without the bounce downs.
Click to expand...
It is virtually impossible to say although an engineer with access to the tapes would be able to work it out.
Just looking at what Mark Lewisohn records in "The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions" on "Strawberry Fields Forever" alone {and this is the song that started the Pepper sessions}, shows a number of 4-track tapes getting filled and bounced/reduction mixed then more overdubbing and then more bouncing. Some of the songs could have been done on 24 tracks, some on 16. Some, like "Fixing a hole" look like they could have been done on 8. None could have been done on 4 tracks.
But there's a certain misnomer to the second part of your quote ~ they couldn't have gotten the same results even if they'd had unlimited separate tracks and didn't have to bounce down. The album sounds the way it does precisely because of the creativity the engineering and production staff had to use in utilizing 4 tracks.
 
Let me dig out my Complete Beatles book. I think I can figure out how many bounces equals tracks
 
easyrider said:
I’m not sure what you mean?


They recorded basic rhythm tracks on 3 tracks and these were bounced down to the 4th track leaving tracks 1-3 free for more overdubbing….I know they used at least two 4 track tape machines…

They would have used well more than 8 tracks…
Click to expand...
To clarify and type a bit better (aka cohesive).

First, I have a man crush on George Martin. I think he is the reason the Beatles were even the Beatles. He took them to a level they could not have achieved on their own. (My opinion) He was as much an engineer as he was a musician. He knew the equipment. When the Beatles recorded, their sessions were planned, rehearsed, and very well thought out. George Martin knew they only had a 4 track. Bouncing wasn't just done because they could. There were downsides to bouncing.

From the question posed, one track would have been used for more than one reason. While maybe 8 was a low count, if done strategically, which I think George Martin would have done, I don't think it was a high track count, but a very well planned recording optimizing the process of recording.

In summary, they would not have approached the recording session as if they had unlimited tracks. They didn't, they had 4, and with some creativity, they could push that concept, but in the end, the final recording had to fit on 4 and that was known when the recording session started.

It was a mind set and the question posed was based on "our" concept of recording and less about "their" concept of recording.

Probably in my attempt to clarify, I have made it more confusing. But I tried :)
 
For sure, George Martin shaped the Beatles sound, just as Brian Epstein shaped their look and image. John and Paul wrote the songs. It was a full team effort. Remove any piece and you don't get "The Beatles".

Producers really are responsible for the sound of lots of artists. Berry Gordy, Holland Doland Holland and Norm Whitfeild set the tone for the Motown groups, Phil Specter did the same with his "wall of sound", Mutt Lange did that for Def Leppard and Shania Twain and a host of others. Eddie Kramer teamed up with Jimi Hendrix, and produced a lot of Kiss albums.

That's something that is missing with home recording. When I'm sitting in my basement, there's nobody to bounce ideas off, or make suggestions that might not have occurred to me. I have to record something and listen to it after the fact. There's nobody on the other side of the glass going "wait a minute... that just doesn't cut it!".
 
TalismanRich said:
That's something that is missing with home recording. When I'm sitting in my basement, there's nobody to bounce ideas off, or make suggestions that might not have occurred to me. I have to record something and listen to it after the fact. There's nobody on the other side of the glass going "wait a minute... that just doesn't cut it!".
Click to expand...
I agree with you on that. I am trying to create and get out of my own head to see what I am not seeing. Very difficult to do flying solo.
 
TalismanRich said:
That's something that is missing with home recording. When I'm sitting in my basement, there's nobody to bounce ideas off, or make suggestions that might not have occurred to me. I have to record something and listen to it after the fact. There's nobody on the other side of the glass going "wait a minute... that just doesn't cut it!".
Click to expand...
But then again, that produces a different mentality and makes for music every bit as arresting. Think of all the artists and groups that have had all kinds of wars with each other, many of whom won't even talk to former collaborators any more because of their ideas being scotched by others. I'd say it works both ways.
DM60 said:
I am trying to create and get out of my own head to see what I am not seeing. Very difficult to do flying solo
Click to expand...
I love collaborating and I love not collaborating. But any way one slices and dices it, collaboration is always a compromise unless you adore the result. When you write a song and you want it to go a particular way, if your bandmate doesn't want to play a part the way you want it played, then thus begins a war of attrition ! The very Beatles that this thread is about are a great example of that.
 
While that's true that conflicts arise, there's also the fact that people have different strengths. If you can check the ego at the door, there's a better chance of having magic happen. Lennon/McCartney and Elton John/Bernie Taupin are prime examples. Its the old adage "there's no I in TEAM".
 
grimtraveller said:
I love collaborating and I love not collaborating. But any way one slices and dices it, collaboration is always a compromise unless you adore the result. When you write a song and you want it to go a particular way, if your bandmate doesn't want to play a part the way you want it played, then thus begins a war of attrition ! The very Beatles that this thread is about are a great example of that.
Click to expand...
All of my bands operated in freestyle. No one told another what or how to play, we were all free to write our own parts to other's songs. Whomever had a new song, they would announce that fact and play it on guitar, then the rest would jump in. Sometimes it got quite sloppy as we were all figuring out how to play what we were improvising - all of us at the same time. Eventually each of us would lock in and it would gel.

This, for me anyway, was an ok situation, except one of our guitar players kept playing leads that were more suited to Jazz than Rock. He was the strongest songwriter in our group so I took the good with the not so good.
 
To throw out a number I'd say roughly 20 tracks. I believe the limitations were the charm. Unfortunately the two main guys that could clarify that have left us. George Martin and Geoff Emerick. I feel Martin gets too much credit in the recording process after Emerick came on. It was Emerick's knowledge of those machines and sonically that shaped both Revolver and Pepper. Just my opinion. If he wasn't working for EMI's cash cow, he would have been fired for his mic placements alone. Not to mention those techniques being used by countless other bands until the larger number of tracks became available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top