McCartney and old time needle jumping (??)

[So Low Bass]

I’ve been focusing on Paul McCartney’s Beatle work lately and am developing a theory about the limits of recording in the 60’s… in particular, disc cutting. I’d really like to hear from some people who know their stuff about techniques in those days. I know little or less!

My theory/question: Before Paperback, is it POSSIBLE that Paul was told by the engineers at EMI (NOT George Martin) not to play on the “E” string because it would make a record player needle jump? It is true that Paul rarely plays below “A” before Paperback. (With Paperback came a new cutting technique…right??.) I’m thinking in particular of Taxman, in key of D. Paul plays the pattern for the D and C chords, but doesn’t drop to the low G on the G chord. It’s picky, but a natural musician like Paul had a reason. Was he, and his contemporaries- at EMI- forced to chose notes based on this. Why not in the USA. My God!! Listen to the Steppenwolf of that period!!!!

We go from there to the big, juicy, fat E string stuff like Dear Prudence, Abbey Road. etc..

[synaesthesia]

It is reasonable to make the assumption, although you have to concede first of all that they recorded to tape. They also used limiting and compression electronically.

It is also true that disc cutters would variably change the EQ, and this explains also the reason why some pressings are more valuable than others; and why there is a sonic difference. Very often for economic reasons, a pressing originating from a country would be pressed from a 2 track master tape, from which copies are often made to be sent overseas to make pressings in that overseas location as opposed to shipping crates of Vinyl. EQ is often applied at the pressing stage, and was quite often done in rooms of less than stellar acoustic conditions. The EQ on cutting lathes were not as sophisticated, I recall a JVC lathe that effectively only had universal Bass and treble controls for adjusting for RIAA curves.

The Beatles early UK Parlophone pressings had a particular sound and the US Capitol recordings had an echo applied to the recording for whatever reason....

At the end of the day, there were several possible stages of post tracking tape EQ, such as at master tapes stage, mastering, pressing lathes, RIAA etc. I would conclude that the initial assumption is not one that has any foundation.

Now, with direct to disc, such as the old sheffield lab recordings, that's a different thing altogether. As far as I recall the Beatles did not do any direct to disc recordings.

All the above is from memory, my last vinyl record was purchased in the early 80s.

[So Low Bass]

That's really great stuff... a bit rich for my vocab but I think I follow you. Why DID Steppenwolf, Motown... American stuff sound so much richer at that point. Hootchie Kootchie Man never made my needle jump, but made my heart race!!

[synaesthesia]

Bass would typically be re-EQed as you hear it on Vinyl. The RIAA curves were one set of curves and though effectively there were several curve 'standards' across the world, they did the same things in manufacturing nd playback: one of which was to minimise the issues at point of cutting by attenuating bass electronically, and re-EQing the bass back at the point of playback. You can imagine that this is less than perfect, but it certainly added to the flavour or the sound that you got from Vinyl. In many ways I miss 12" vinyl.

FWIW read this just for info you might be interested in:
http://www.soundstage.com/synergize/synergize081999.htm

[So Low Bass]

So, back to my question:

Did 1960s EMI engineers limit bass players low notes, and why was the contemporary American bass sound so much more advanced on disc?

[mccartneyman]

I began recording in a three-track tape studio in 1965 in Pennsylvania, -- it was actually in a guy's basement, between the dryer and the washing machine -- and our bass (taken direct or with a mirophone on a 15" speaker) routinely sounded better than that on British recordings. This was anAmpex machine and it produced quality good enough to cut records for local bands. No restrictions on what string to play.

I have to think that it was the British engineers and what they were used to. Remember that when The Beatles got to EMI, EMI was very much a "laboratory" atmosphere where experimenting was frowned upon. George Martin did not have experience with rock bands prior to taking on the Beatles -- nor did many other engineers or producers. McCartney complained about the bass sound, which was when someone came up with the idea of using a speaker as a "microphone" placed in front of Paul's cabinet. This and the Rickenbacker made the difference in "Paperback Writer."

If you listen to Joe Meek recordings from that era -- like "Telstar" and "Have I the Right to Hold You" -- you'll hear a completely different bass sound than that on the Beatles records. Some other British contemporaries of the Beatles had better bass sounds -- The Animals, Zombies and Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders come to mind. I know Chas Chandler of the Animals used a hollowbody, as did many other bands at that time. I know the bassist from the DC5 -- forget his name -- used a Fender, but I don't recall his sound being better or worse than the previously mentioned bands. Over here, Beach Boys and Byrds bass sounded better overall that the Beatles till "Paperback Writer," but they were using Fender basses.

So I'm back to guessing that British recording techniques were different -- maybe because there were few big British rock stars as opposed to having Buddy Holly, Bill Haley, Elvis, Chuck Berry, the Everly Brothers and many more in America. So by the time the Beatles hit the studio for the first time, American engineers had a lot more experience with rock bass.

All this is speculation. What you need to do is find a 70-something American engineeer and a 70-something British engineer who were both recording rock in the '60s and let them slug it out.

[Festus]

Could it possbily be that McCartney's Hofner bass was/is a load of rubbish?

[DeluxeRed]

Originally Posted by Festus

Could it possbily be that McCartney's Hofner bass was/is a load of rubbish?

I was wondering that, too, and maybe the Vox amps of the time? It also seems to just be a stylistic thing with him, not playing low or open.

[mccartneyman]

Originally Posted by Festus

Could it possbily be that McCartney's Hofner bass was/is a load of rubbish?

Versus what was available other than Fender and Gibson, the Hofner was about equal, I'd say, to the other hollowbodies of its time. Play a Vox, or a Framus, from that era -- one that hasn't been set up and tweaked -- and you'll see. And the Hofner doesn't sound that bad -- listen to the "A Hard Day's Night" British LP. The new remasters bring the bass to life and give a truer picture of what it actually sounded like in the studio.

Also remember that they were mixing mono for crappy record players and car radios. On a 4" car radio speaker from the 1960s, those records sounded great. Even today's Chinese Hofner Icons don't sound horrible if set up properly. And listen to any of McCartney's LPs beginning with "Flowers in the Dirt," when he started using the Hofner again after it had been reworked by Mandolin Brothers. "Chaos and Creation..." or "memory Almost Full" -- it's all Hofner (except for Brain ray's EB-3) with today's technology.

I still think most of the difference in bass sound until the Rickenbacker and different recording techniques appeared can be attributed to the differences between engineers and the rock recording styles in England and the States.

[So Low Bass]

Great stuff, but I'm aiming at the actual disc. Once the musician played onto the tape, the tape had to be converted to disc. Is this the step that made for the British VS. USA bass sound, and did bass actually make a needle jump?? I never had the problem, though I have gotten some sort of feedback when I really cranked classical records.

[mccartneyman]

I have heard the bit about "needle jumping out of the groove." Never seen it, but I've never seen mastering. There must have been some technique, however, for American producers to get more bass into a recording that didn't kick the needle out of the groove. I found this in an interview with Steve Hoffman:

" An important feature of good vinyl mastering is that there are rules for mastering; you cannot go crazy and add too much treble or the needle will jump right out of the groove, and you cannot add too much bass or the needle will jump out of the groove and the record will be over in three minutes. So engineers (even the deaf ones) have to follow the rules and most LPs sound good."

Interview here: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/dhintervi...trotimes07.htm

[So Low Bass]

Excellent article...thanks. I like his thoughts about analog vs. digital. I know nothing about mastering. It was a huge world for sure.

One thought: EMI came from a classical history where American companies (that recorded "Rock") started from sctatch.

[mccartneyman]

Originally Posted by So Low Bass

Excellent article...thanks. I like his thoughts about analog vs. digital. I know nothing about mastering. It was a huge world for sure.

One thought: EMI came from a classical history where American companies (that recorded "Rock") started from sctatch.

American companies had plenty of experience in jazz, pop, classical, as did the British engineers. But rock and soul broke first in America, which is why I think by the time The Beatles got to the studio, Americans had more practice. Lonnie Donegan started the skiffle craze in England in 1956 with "Rock Island Line," and Cliff Richard and the Shadows were big, but I don't think the studios had seen anything like the power club rock The Beatles brought in. Their covers of Motown songs like "Money," "You've Really Got A Hold on Me" and "Please Mr. Postman" show what the British bands were listening to, and I actually prefer The Beatles versions of those tunes over the originals just for the sheer energy they carry.

NPR had a nice feature a bout a month ago on the difference between how recordings are mastered now as opposed to the 1980s -- basically, everything is leveled out so that loud passages no longer seem loud, thus losing their intended effect. They use McCartney's "Figure of Eight" As an example. Here's a link to the NPR story discussing why louder is not necessarily better.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...58&sc=fb&cc=fp

[john turner]

Originally Posted by synaesthesia

Bass would typically be re-EQed as you hear it on Vinyl. The RIAA curves were one set of curves and though effectively there were several curve 'standards' across the world, they did the same things in manufacturing nd playback: one of which was to minimise the issues at point of cutting by attenuating bass electronically, and re-EQing the bass back at the point of playback. You can imagine that this is less than perfect, but it certainly added to the flavour or the sound that you got from Vinyl. In many ways I miss 12" vinyl.

FWIW read this just for info you might be interested in:
http://www.soundstage.com/synergize/synergize081999.htm

this. when we got our first cd mixed by neil kernon 8 yrs ago he told us of how some cassettes and even early cds of bands he had produced/mixed/engineered (some queen, hall and oates, lots of others during the 70's and 80's) were pressed mistakenly using the album masters vs. the appropriate masters that were not eq'ed for vinyl. he said it affected his repuation among some artists as being not very bass friendly heh.

[mccartneyman]

I've just spent the afternoon listening to and playing along with the Beatles LPs through Revolver, and I've come to the conclusion that, although McCartney could probably have played the low E on his Hofner right from the get go, he chose not to. And I think he chose not to long before The Beatles got to the studio.

Perhaps it was because bass amps of the era -- at least the ones The Beatles used -- didn't have guts enough to produce a low E. Based on what I've read in Andy Babiuk's "Beatles Gear," Paul used anything from a 15 watt to 50 watt guitar amp head and a combination of speaker cabs. By the time they hit the studio, he was using a homemade "coffin cab" that could produce low frequencies, but I have the feeling that the amp, driven to its max, probably distorted lower notes.

So, did Paul purposely avoid them? Perhaps. Or perhaps, being a converted guitarist, he simply didn't subscribe to the "first five frets" theory that so many bassists of that era clung to. He liked to play high, the Hofner had enough punch in that range to sound good, so he played there.

Either way, I think it was a conscious choice and a style thing, not so much the limitations and rules of the British recording process, that made him play high. Even when he could have played something root-5, like a D on the A string followed by the the open A, he often chose to play the A an octave above. But listen to "Please Please Me," "With the Beatles" and "Beatles for Sale" -- the bass sounds great, deep and punchy, even if he's not playing lower than A a lot. In fact, you don't hear Paul play a whole lot on the E string until "I'm Happy Just to Dance with You," when he doubled the "before this dance is through ..." line on bass. Even by "Rubber Soul" and "Revolver," with the Rickenbacker, he still plays high -- even on a Motownish "Got To Get You Into My Life," which he could easily have played an octave lower.

That's my theory. Probably a combination of things made him develop his style, and when they hit the studio, George Martin may have said, "It sounds good, why try to force Paul to play lower?"

Whatever the reason, I'm glad Paul plays the way he plays.

[So Low Bass]

Originally Posted by mccartneyman

I've just spent the afternoon listening to and playing along with the Beatles LPs through Revolver

That brings up another whole issue about Beatle recordings: How many times did you have to retune your bass?

[Howlin' Hanson]

Originally Posted by mccartneyman

and I've come to the conclusion that, although McCartney could probably have played the low E on his Hofner right from the get go, he chose not to.

And that's my choice as well. Go ahead, call me crazy, tell me I'm not getting everything I can out of my basses, tell me I'm making things harder for myself, but....

I have never particularly cared for the sound of the open notes. They sound (to me) uncontrolled, a bit flabby. And I just like having a finger on a string each time I pluck or pick.

Or maybe I am uncoordinated. Yep, that's it.

And as for Sir Paul, I'm sure coordination isn't a problem that affects him.

[nysbob]

There was one British record I can recall that was notorious for making the needle jump - the end of the Stone's Paint it Black in the bolero section where Bill is zooping octaves. It was cut pretty hot for the time.

[mccartneyman]

Originally Posted by So Low Bass

That brings up another whole issue about Beatle recordings: How many times did you have to retune your bass?

Good point. Although I tuned with a tuner, it was never quite where it should be to be perfectly in tune with the recordings. But that happens even on modern recordings. The actual recordings themselves were pretty consistent. I believe The Beatles tuned to whatever was handy -- the studio piano if it was used on the track. But otherwise, I imagine they had one of the old Conn Strobotuners. I can't believe that studio that recorded classical music had no tuner of any kind. An orchestra tunes to the oboe, but the oboe has to tune to something first. My first band recorded and we tuned to our Vox organ. All my bands had some kind of keyboard until electronic tuners became available.

[So Low Bass]

I'm demo vidding 9 Beatle tunes tomorrow: Dear Prudence, Taxman, She Said, Day Tripper, Dr. Robert, Oh! Darling, Rain, Here Comes the Sun, and Because. The tuning is really the hardest thing about the project. I don't want to equalize the pitches because people might want to play along. Each tune has a different "a". The difference between "Rain" and "Here Comes the Sun" is darn near a half step.

Yes, Abbey Road was a pro place. I am certain that they employed at least one full time piano tuner. Picture all of the pianos, organs, and orchestral instruments (no way professional string players were going to tune to an "A" 456 for "Hear Comes the Sun") in the Beatles recordings and you can come up with only one conclusion: They always played at the same "A", it was the tape machines that varied.

For home... a nice variable speed turntable does the trick!