...and the Funk Brothers?

It amazes me that they only had that one piano and all those famous dudes had to share it.

McCartney trifecta in play.

AverageAmericanGuy: It amazes me that they only had that one piano and all those famous dudes had to share it.

They were recording in a converted garage at the back of a house. Conditions were primitive and the studio was tiny. As opposed to the Beatles, who had a state-of-the-art facility with a studio (Studio A, AKA, the big room) which was large enough to record a symphony orchestra.

Fireproof: McCartney trifecta in play.


/shakes over-caffeinated fist

Dwight_Yeast: AverageAmericanGuy: It amazes me that they only had that one piano and all those famous dudes had to share it.

They were recording in a converted garage at the back of a house. Conditions were primitive and the studio was tiny. As opposed to the Beatles, who had a state-of-the-art facility with a studio (Studio A, AKA, the big room) which was large enough to record a symphony orchestra.

Abbey Road was hardly state-of-the-art, which was a huge factor in The Beatles' (and George Martin's) ingenuity. In fact, they didn't record on 8 tracks until 1968.

CSB: I'm in the video in TFA.

KwameKilstrawberry: Abbey Road was hardly state-of-the-art, which was a huge factor in The Beatles' (and George Martin's) ingenuity. In fact, they didn't record on 8 tracks until 1968.

I'll humor you:

Abbey Road was indeed state of the art for most of the Beatles career, but technology accelerated faster than EMI's ability to deal with it, which led to lag before things were installed. In the case of both 4 and 8 track machines, Abbey Road had them well before the Beatles were allowed to use them. Tape machines were delivered and expected to be tested for months by the engineers before they were installed at the studio.

The Beatles' first recording on 8-track was "Hey Jude" which was cut in July of 1968 at Trident Studios (Ziggy Stardust was later recorded there and the cover shows the alley the studio was located in) which had the first 8-track machines installed in the UK, which had been delivered and installed shortly before the Beatles showed up (they recorded there solely because they wanted to try out the new machines).

While I agree that the Beatles pushed the bounds of possibility on their recordings for most of their career, they were not technologically limited by Abbey Road until the second half of 1968, and by the time they came back to record the Abbey Road album, the studio had newly-installed 16-track machines.

Dwight_Yeast: KwameKilstrawberry: Abbey Road was hardly state-of-the-art, which was a huge factor in The Beatles' (and George Martin's) ingenuity. In fact, they didn't record on 8 tracks until 1968.

I'll humor you:

Abbey Road was indeed state of the art for most of the Beatles career, but technology accelerated faster than EMI's ability to deal with it, which led to lag before things were installed. In the case of both 4 and 8 track machines, Abbey Road had them well before the Beatles were allowed to use them.Tape machines were delivered and expected to be tested for months by the engineers before they were installed at the studio.

The Beatles' first recording on 8-track was "Hey Jude" which was cut in July of 1968 at Trident Studios (Ziggy Stardust was later recorded there and the cover shows the alley the studio was located in) which had the first 8-track machines installed in the UK, which had been delivered and installed shortly before the Beatles showed up (they recorded there solely because they wanted to try out the new machines).

While I agree that the Beatles pushed the bounds of possibility on their recordings for most of their career, they were not technologically limited by Abbey Road until the second half of 1968, and by the time they came back to record the Abbey Road album, the studio had newly-installed 16-track machines.


What good is SOTA equipment if it isn't in use? Paul's biography, "Many Years From Now", mentions the studios' archaic equipment, as does this George Martin interview (new window).

Digger: If you could go back in time with some modern piece of recording equipment or computer technology to re-do a recording in the fifties and sixties at Abbey Road, what would you take with you?

Sir George: I wouldn't! Part of what we did and the fun we had at Abbey Road was exactly because we did not have the equipment to do what we wanted. Multitrack recording and Pro-tools are fantastic to work with (I could not have worked on LOVE without them), but I enjoyed pushing the envelope with the archaic equipment that we had.

Abbey Road's outdatedness was also a big reason why Magic Alex enjoyed favor with the Fab Four, as he promised them the SOTA facilities that EMI couldn't deliver. In all The Beatles stuff I've ever absorbed over the last 35 years, I've never heard Abbey Road referred to as SOTA while The Beatles recorded there - until late in their career, as you mention in the "Hey Jude" cite.

That mind-blowing, middle period of "Rubber Soul", "Revolver" and "Sgt. Pepper" was all recorded on pretty old equipment.

Did you see Stevie Wonder's new piano?

No?

Neither did he.

KwameKilstrawberry: te.

That mind-blowing, middle period of "Rubber Soul", "Revolver" and "Sgt. Pepper" was all recorded on pretty old equipment.

No. Between 1965 and 1967 you would not have found any studio on the planet using anything other than 4-track machines. There was nothing "outdated" about Abbey Road at that point in time. The problem was that what the Beatles (and Brian Wilson in LA) were trying to do at that time was well in advance of technology. The Beatles dealt with the technological limitations by "bouncing down" tracks to clear space on the tape. Wilson dealt with it by cutting all the instruments live (leaving tracks open for layers of vocals) which is why Beach Boys sessions in the same era went on interminably.

Well he is the walrus

Dwight_Yeast: No. Between 1965 and 1967 you would not have found any studio on the planet using anything other than 4-track machines

Except in America (new window)

However, recorders with four or more tracks were restricted mainly to American recording studios until the mid-to-late Sixties, mainly because of import restrictions and the high cost of the technology.

Admittedly, I am not an audiophile so much as I'm a Beatles fan, and multi-tracking aside; however, I have read many comments over the years about Abbey Road's equipment: mics, speakers, soundboards, widgets and whatchamacallits - even the fact that the engineers were upstairs - being archaic and EMI being notoriously stingy. And this point was always used to illustrate the creativity and workarounds of George Martin and Geoff Emerick.

So, no, I've never heard of Abbey Road as being regarded SOTA until late in The Beatles career.

RIP Detroit

You were once a great city (new window)

/ Lived in Bloomfield Hills for a while
// Moved long ago to Chicago
/// Diverse economy = resilient economy

KwameKilstrawberry: Dwight_Yeast: No. Between 1965 and 1967 you would not have found any studio on the planet using anything other than 4-track machines

Except in America (new window)

However, recorders with four or more tracks were restricted mainly to American recording studios until the mid-to-late Sixties, mainly because of import restrictions and the high cost of the technology.

Admittedly, I am not an audiophile so much as I'm a Beatles fan, and multi-tracking aside; however, I have read many comments over the years about Abbey Road's equipment: mics, speakers, soundboards, widgets and whatchamacallits - even the fact that the engineers were upstairs - being archaic and EMI being notoriously stingy. And this point was always used to illustrate the creativity and workarounds of George Martin and Geoff Emerick.

So, no, I've never heard of Abbey Road as being regarded SOTA until late in The Beatles career.

Geoff Emerick talks about this a lot too. What SOTA things were available at AR was off limits to the Beatles for years. In the end it's very simple. They did Tomorrow Never Knows... On 4-track. Damn. That's all you need to say.

Very cool! It should cost him marginally less than the divorce from the nasty biatch.

Latvian Orthodox. Why not? What do I care?

Oops. Wrong thread.

CigaretteSmokingMan: Oops. Wrong thread.

It's ok. I'm so drunk it made sense.

Dwight_Yeast: KwameKilstrawberry: te.

That mind-blowing, middle period of "Rubber Soul", "Revolver" and "Sgt. Pepper" was all recorded on pretty old equipment.

No. Between 1965 and 1967 you would not have found any studio on the planet using anything other than 4-track machines. There was nothing "outdated" about Abbey Road at that point in time. The problem was that what the Beatles (and Brian Wilson in LA) were trying to do at that time was well in advance of technology. The Beatles dealt with the technological limitations by "bouncing down" tracks to clear space on the tape. Wilson dealt with it by cutting all the instruments live (leaving tracks open for layers of vocals) which is why Beach Boys sessions in the same era went on interminably.


No, it's true, all the Beatles' albums were recorded on equipment that is at least 40 years old.

Waxing_Chewbacca: CigaretteSmokingMan: Oops. Wrong thread.

It's ok. I'm so drunk it made sense.

Same here dude. At first I was thinking "why the fark is George Costanza here" but somehow the alcohol made it fit somehow.

Somehow.

Back in 2003, just after the US invaded Iraq, Paul McCartney was asked whether he supported the invasion.

His answer was "I don't know yet; I'll have to get back to you later."