By Ralph (209.240.222.130 - 209.240.222.130) on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 01:57 pm:

Continued from Mike Mclean 3...

By M.McLeanTech (65.59.24.117 - 65.59.24.117) on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 05:43 pm:

NOTICE

THIS THREAD "MIKE MCLEAN 4" IS A CONTINUATION OF A DISCUSSION THAT STARTED AT THE TOP OF THE THREAD "TECHNICAL DISCUSSION WITH MIKE MCLEAN"

AFTER THAT THREAD WAS CLOSED, THE DISCUSSION CONTINUED IN "MIKE MCLEAN 2" AND "MIKE MCLEAN 3" UNTIL THOSE THREADS WERE CLOSED.

THE DISCUSSION NOW CONTINUES IN THE PRESENT THREAD "MIKE MCLEAN 4"

By M.McLeanTech (65.59.24.117 - 65.59.24.117) on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 05:46 pm:

Dear Eli,

Thank you for your letter of April 30, 2002 - 5:13 PM. I am sorry that it has taken me so long to answer. There is no doubt that you have asked some fine questions.

Regarding the history of the use of noise reduction at Motown:

When the Dolby A-301 "A type" noise reduction system came to market in 1967, I went wild over it. Motown had never had any noise reduction, and I, having become as jaded as a nurse on battlefield duty (regarding the low "fidelity" of the Motown sound) lusted and dreamed about upgrading our system to include Dolby A.

In spite of the huge profits, the Detroit operation was not ready for such an esoteric item. Berry had issued the policy from California: We must get up to date with 16 track. This was an expensive investment. There was no money for Dolby.

Around 1971, Guy Costa, who was in charge of the "MOWEST" studios in California, installed some Dolby A in those studios. At that stage of the game, my interest in the California product was not sufficient to result in enough product evaluation to form an opinion regarding the influance of this installation on Motown's recorded sound.

As far as I know: Previous to 1972, when I left Motown, this MOWEST installation was the only use of noise reduction at Motown. There is a possibility that some Dolby was installed in Detroit after 1972. Ralph Terrana might know about that.

Regarding the history of the Motown artificial reverberation generators (echo chambers):

When I arrived at Motown, in January 1961, Pop Gordy already had converted the attic of the 2648 West Grand Blvd. (HITSVILLE U.S.A.) building into an echo chamber. (Berry Gordy Senior [Berry Junior's father] who was a building contractor: Whenever any construction was needed at Motown, Pop had men who would arrive and go to work.)

This installation was rather rudimentary. The attic was lined with 1/2 inch sheet rock and plastered. The floor joists were covered with plywood and a thin layer (about 1 inch thick) of cement was poured over the plywood. The shape of the chamber was exactly like a traditional large tent that would be used to go camping. The walls at each end of the chamber were, like such a tent, perpendicular to the floor and parallel to each other. The angle of the ceiling surfaces did not extend, unbroken, all the way to the floor. Instead, again like the tent, there were low parallel walls (perpendicular to the floor) about two feet high that connected the ceiling surfaces to the floor surface. The volume (size) of the chamber was about 65% as much as could have been achieved if a maximum effort was made to utilize the entire attic.

Regarding the transducers: I remember that when I arrived, the microphone was a single RCA 44BX. It seems to me that the loudspeaker was some kind of 8 inch full range (metal foil center dome) driver mounted in a little bookshelf cabinet. I experimented with idealistic transducers and send/receive electronics many times over the years. Here are three highlights:

1. At Hitsville, we installed three very different types of speakers in the chamber. One was a high quality "bookshelf," another was reflex trumpet, like would be installed on a swimming pool bathhouse, and the third was an array of Bozak tweeters with a Bozak mid-range. We then installed a panel in the control room with off/on switches and speaker level Mallory rotary variable "L" pads, to allow the engineer to select any combination of speakers, with any level of each. For the record: It seems to me that this was installed in the second acoustic chamber, that we installed in the 2652 West Grand Blvd. house.(see below.)

2. When we rebuilt the DAF (Davison Avenue Facility, also know as "Golden World"), we installed 1/2 of a BOSE 901 stereo speaker system, along with a pair of brand new NEUMANN KM-86 microphones placed head to head to form a 90 degree coincident pair of velocity (figure-8) transducers. This provided a true "intensity" stereo pickup. The send and receive electronics were top notch: A McIntosh MC-2100 105 Watt amplifier for send, and a pair of Altec 470A professional microphone preamps for receive.

3. In 1979, while I worked at TODD-AO in Hollywood, I redid their acoustic chamber. I built a special electronics package that included band pass filtering and equalization of both the send and receive channels. In addition, the modulation feeding the power amplifier (it clipped at 60 Watts) input was limited by a partially asymmetrical soft clipper that began a gradual action at 2 Watts output. This provided superb protection for the loudspeaker, combined with a "friendly," "vacuum tube" type of distortion quality. My boss, the legendary Fred Hynes, (look him up on www.google.com) selected the transducers. The speaker was an 8 inch JBL "Studio Monitor" bookshelf, and the unidirectional ribbon microphone was an exotic RCA KU-3A (MI-10001-C), which has a legendary reputation in Hollywood.

The bottom line of all this is that it seems to make an ASTONISHINGLY SMALL DIFFERENCE IN THE RESULTS, with an acoustic echo chamber, no matter what transducers and electronics are used.

Regarding EMT: In late 1961, Berry got hot to purchase an EMT 140 steel plate reverb unit. We had one in service by the end of that year. This unit had a big knob on top that allowed adjustment of the reverberation time over a range of about one to five seconds. This was achieved by swinging a large (the steel plate was roughly 4 by 8 feet) sound absorption damper plate into positions near or far from the steel plate. An optional motor drive unit, with remote control and remote reverb time indicator meter, was an option. Motown did not order this option originally, but it was added a couple of years later.

Before we got the remote control, it seems to me that we set the knob at about two seconds. The mixers normally did not have access to this adjustment: They just took the EMT as it came, like it was an acoustic chamber. After we got the remote control, I imagine that many settings were used. I have no particular idea what the favorite one was, but I would guess that it was on the short side, as you indicate (2 - 2.5 seconds.)

As far as the 100-millisecond pre-delay is concerned: During the twelve years that I was at Motown, we never purchased any digital electronic delay units. Such units were still in their infancy, and very expensive. However, the spacing between the record and play magnetic heads on a professional tape recorder was about 1.5 inchs, which results in a delay of 100 milliseconds at a tape speed of 15 I.P.S. I commend you for your accurate knowledge of the numbers.

I suppose that some mixers kept a tape machine running to provide such a delay, but I don't particularly remember noticing extensive use of this practice. Lawrence T. Horn could provide some answers about this. I wonder if he can be contacted at his present home in the Maryland slammer.

Come to think of it, I still am in contact with Calvin Harris, the mixer who worked at Motown in the mid 1960's, and who has worked for many years with the Commodores and Lionel Ritchie. I will ask him and let you know.

We built a second acoustic echo chamber in the attic of the house to the right of the Hitsville building (2652 West Grand Blvd.) I was all spaced out on an idealistic desire to "do it right" this time. I read up on chamber construction. We poured a 1.5 inch thick cement floor and worked with the trowel until it was very smooth. We built up sheet rock for the upper surfaces 1.5 inchs thick and plastered it in an identical, super smooth manner. We applied varnish to all the internal surfaces of the chamber. We made sure that there were absolutely no parallel surfaces. We took great pains to use up every last bit of volume in the attic to make the chamber as large as possible.

The bottom line is that the resulting chamber, which had a smooth, natural quality, with a somewhat longer reverb time, was not as popular as the original chamber in the Hitsville attic. The Hitsville chamber had a distinctive and strong individuality to its sound quality, with flutter echos from the parallel walls, and a rather short reverb time. I have run into several expert people who hold the opinion that the original "funky" chamber that Pop Gordy's men built before I arrived, was, more then anything else outside of the music itself , the heart and soul of the "Motown Sound."

What I want to know is: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did the Motown music, because it contained the sound of that chamber, cause the chamber to become so highly esteemed? Or did the chamber, with its unique accidental "goose that laid the golden egg" sound quality, cause the "Motown Sound" to become a legend? This is a question that has no answer.

All I know is that I wouldn't want to try to improve the sound of the London Philharmonic Orchestra by adding some Hitsville reverb.

Thanks again, Eli, for your great questions. I appreciate your interest.

Mike McLean

By M.McLeanTech (63.212.140.167 - 63.212.140.167) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 05:16 am:

Dear Carl,

Thank you for your kind (I need kindness, to ease the loss of friends because of my big mouth) letter of May 1, 2002 - 08:18 AM. It sure is great to have a few friends, on the forum, that have an inkling of where I am coming from.

You state that I made a big success of bringing your perception into focus about volume meters and volume measurement in general. You make no remarks about this subject. You only ask for use of my text.

Before you publish (to your young people: I use the work publish not to try to invoke a feeling of millions of copies and legal action: Hell! I don't care if you publish my letter to your young people: do as you please) some text on this subject, I would hope that you and I could have further comments, back and forth, in the interest of further development of our focus on volume measurement. I must say that writing that "lecture" for you awoke in me a new sense of focus about this subject. I want more! I could get more if you would respond with further comments on the subject. Are you actually interested enough to conduct some tests where you create your own input gain / meter sensitivity / speaker volume, calibrated setup with which you feel comfortable? Do you care enough to make some remarks about the specific areas that were cleared up by my "lecture?"

I dream of a situation where we, through discussion, develop a much better tutorial on the subject of volume measurement. I am the fuzzy professor. You are the thrilled student. Can't we talk, so we can refine this tutorial to the point where we both have a full, hands on, understanding of this stuff, like I now have about putting a clutch in a Toyota truck? (Oh! The things I've been through, the places I've been!)

Your comment about the young people asking their parents to play Motown records was a Lulu! There is only one thing that I can say, about playing Motown records, that has anything to do with volume measurement. If you connect the terminals on the back of a proper VU meter to a common 1.5 Volt flashlight cell, it will, without damage, drive the pointer to the pin. This is the story of my volume measurement experience at Motown. Burned out speakers. Pinned VU meters. Overload distortion. Fear of hearing damage. The lust for sensational impact, instead of a critical listening situation, was overwhelming at Motown. While recording and mastering, the attitude toward critical monitoring of volume was silly. It was as if a company manufactured motor vehicles, for the purpose of transporting citizens from place to place, at considerable expense. This expense, by being kept to a minimum, could have been spent on education for themselves or their children. In the face of this, these companies were competing to offer cars that had silly things like fins, vinyl tops, and (nowadays) spoilers!

I think we should all go back to the basics. Drive a truck and send the savings to save the starving children. Perhaps we should send portable CD players, along with Motown CD's, to these people. The magic spark of this "art" might inspire them to revolt over their "government" and set up a high minded government.

In the mean time, I will assume that a starving person, if he can hear Beethoven, will be more impressed by "Money" sung by Barrett Strong. Hah! How I lust for idealism. The bottom line is that we only live for about a century, if we are lucky. We all do everything on the basis of getting the most kicks we can, during this period. Mortality is the most basic limiting factor, when it comes to excellence. I have no time for Beethoven, he said, as he freaked over the Beatles.

The economic system is based on the emotions of the people. The emotions of the people are a choice between great art, and the latest hokum on the radio. Andrew Carnage spent a huge amount of his steel fortune on libraries for every city in the USA. What did Tin Pan Alley do? Under the guidance of Irving Berlin, they presented us with Kate Smith, and "God Bless America."

So much for popular music: I submit that Beethoven is better then Kate Smith, simply because if you can't hear the difference, you are a moron.

I don't consider myself elite. I just think that anyone with common sense would question the value of a musical artwork based on a constant, predominant, pounding of a rhythm. Is shock all we have left? Our President recently invited the fellow that sucked the "F" word past the "Tonight Show" censors, to the White House, and honored him.

Where does this rebellion against artistic quality end? When art museums have people standing on their head, on marble pedestals, excreting waste products from their open crotch, as the "art lovers" behold?

I like the best of popular music. I ask: Why do the members of this forum act like they are in pursuit of the Holy Grail? Give me a break! Motown was bubble gum, not serious and great art.

I will answer the question: The members of this forum are much more involved in nostalgia, and rose colored glasses, then they know.

Regarding your second paragraph: This is a huge collection of questions about video about which I have absolutely no expert, or, for that matter, any knowledge. Just because I have learned about volume measurement, it does not mean that I have beautiful answers to all questions.

Long ago I learned that the first step toward knowledge is to identify that knowledge which you do not have.

You are honored to be the first to learn about my new policy (in addition to answering letters in the order received): From now on, I am going to sign my letters as (J) or (H). I refer you to Robert Louis Stevenson. I am not sure if I can spell it correctly, but I will try: "Dr. Jeckel and Mr. Hyde.

With deep respect,

Mike McLean (H)

By MikeTech (63.212.132.175 - 63.212.132.175) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 06:11 am:

Dear Soulboy,

I have some great stories about the Funk Brothers. It will take a lot of time to type them up.

When it is your turn again, I promise you that I will tell some wonderful stories.

Thanks again for your support.

Mike McLean

By M.McLeanTech (63.212.139.154 - 63.212.139.154) on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 07:19 am:

Dear Carl,

Thank you for your letter of May 01, 2002 - 8:54 AM.

START PASTE IN

Mike - as for your cd compilation, when is it in the shops??

END PASTE IN

The Motown CD compilation is only for personal friends. I doubt that I have made 24 burns in the last three years. I never charge for them: I copy only to give individual gifts to Pals.

If you can instruct me on how to send you a copy, I will be glad to oblige. I see that you offer your web address. I will send you more information.

I only offer a free CD F.O.B. Burbank, California, USA. Any additional costs for shipping must be paid in advance. I will accept no profit or loss from these attempts to become friends. I must be convinced that shipping a burned CD is not a serious violation of international customs laws.

Mike McLean

By Carl Dixon London (195.153.219.170 - 195.153.219.170) on Monday, May 13, 2002 - 07:44 pm:

Hi Mike

I have been away on vacation. I have some catching up to do with the forum. It seems to grow and grow. I will drop you a line shortly. I noticed you used the term F.O.B. Burbank,above! Don't mention the international shipping business, otherwise I will never shut up as I worked in that for about 15 years of my working life until I saw some light and moved into television.

Cheers

Carl

By M.McLeanTech (63.208.247.76 - 63.208.247.76) on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 05:48 pm:

Dear Ritchie,

Thank you for your letter of May 01, 2002 - 12:28 PM. Your thought about the "pioneering" of eight-track brings to mind some thoughts. Let me try to put the situation into perspective:

1. In 1963, when we started the project of building the eight-track, one-inch tape recorder, the stereophonic LP record had only been on the market for five years. Stereo was still regarded, by the mass market, as a novelty. The average person would ask for an album at a record store, and the clerk would ask "Hi-Fi or Stereo?" The average person cared so little about sound quality that they could be fooled into thinking that "high fidelity" meant monophonic.

2. At that time, monophonic AM radio was utterly predominant for automobile sound systems. We called them "car radios" back then. Eight track cartridge, and the Philips audio cassette, were still in the future. The youth market, out in their cars to get away from Mom and Pop, was the primary target for Motown.

3. At that time, the major record companies had mixers on staff with highly developed skills. The separation provided by three, or four tracks on 1/2 inch tape was more then sufficient to allow final "touch up" of a mix that was done right in the first place. If you listen to some of the recordings made in the 1950's, at Capitol Records, of Frank Sinatra for example, it is clear that the status quo was capable of doing a fine job.

4. At that time, the introduction (to the "pop" recording scene) of Dolby "A" noise reduction was five years in the future. There was a noise reduction system on the market (the EMT "NOISEX"), and I conducted tests (in 1963) on one provided to Motown for evaluation. The NOISEX was similar in concept and performance to the dBx system that came much later: a single-band constant-slope "compander." I have never liked this approach because of the noise modulation problems. At any rate, the NOISEX was much too expensive for Motown to seriously consider at that time. The bottom line: tape hiss to overload ("signal to noise ratio") of a recording channel was a major concern. To keep the background quiet, the recording level had to be kept as high as possible. However: Not too high, or distortion and print-through problems (a high level recording on one layer of tape in the roll printing a goast like low level copy on the next layer of tape in the roll) would bite you. Setting recording levels was an art.

5. If the recording level is kept constant, each time the number of channels is doubled there is a 3 dB increase in the tape hiss. This is assuming that the magnetic playback preamp is not adding a significant additional contribution. Vacuum tube preamps did, as a matter of fact, have problems with noise as the track width (and head output voltage) dropped down. Here is a table to show the picture:

Full track mono 1/4 inch: 0.250 inch wide. Rated signal to noise 60 dB. 60 dB overall.

Two track 1/4 inch: Approx. 0.070 inch wide. S/N 55 dB PER CHANNEL: 52 dB overall.

Four track 1/2 inch: Exactly 0.070 inch wide. 49 dB overall.

Eight track 1 inch: Exactly 0.070 inch wide. 46 dB overall.

Sixteen track 2 inch: Exactly 0.070 inch wide. 43 dB overall.

When these basic facts were reviewed by the elegant mixers at the major record companies, they wretched and turned away in horror, like Dracula in the presence of the cross of Jesus. "Steam" (tape hiss) was a nasty problem, and anything that would make it worse was to be avoided. The word "pioneering" has a glamorous implication. It's the rose colored glasses effect. The fact is that the actual situation is best expressed by the saying: "Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread."

The big problem at Motown was the fact that we DID NOT have highly skilled mixers who could "get it right" at the original session. We needed the freedom to experiment with the mixing so we could learn, while at the same time getting out a good product. We were too inexperienced to know that it could not be done. Berry wanted the very best mix possible, because he knew that the customer ultimately paid for the sound in the grooves. To use an analogy that draws upon Hollywood: The music was the woman, but the mix was the hair, makeup, and wardrobe. You needed both to create a star.

The lure of multi-track was the vast freedom to experiment with the mix in hope of improving it, and the reduction of the risk that a session would be blown by a poor mix. These positive factors caused us to overlook some of the negative factors. Fortunately, providence came to our rescue as follows:

A. Motown music was all at one volume level: As loud as possible, all the time. Thus, print-through associated with high recording levels was not a problem. The loud music masked the print-through.

B. The distortion associated with very high recording levels was greatly reduced by the separation of the music into many channels. Intermodulation distortion is caused by one musical element (example: the bass guitar) effecting another element (example: the vocal group) when they interact in the presence of the non-linear transfer function associated with an overloaded recording channel. When the musical elements are kept separate, this type of distortion is greatly reduced. This allowed a much higher recording level then would otherwise be possible, which, in turn, recovered a fair amount of the lost signal to noise ratio described in point 5 above.

C. The reality of the market place for Motown product was such that fairly high levels of distortion were acceptable.

All of this adds up to this: Motown had a big problem with mixing skill. We lusted for multi-track as a solution to this problem. We "rushed in where fools fear to tread," and got lucky because the traditional serious problems were not relevant to the nature of the Motown product.

Regarding "�Les Paul's original multi-track in the early fifties was something of a home-made affair.�:

The original pioneering "multi-track" recording that Les did was not multiple tracks side by side on one piece of magnetic tape. He would work with two Ampex model 300 full track mono 1/4 inch recorders. A musical part would be recorded. Then it would be played back and mixed with a second musical part played live. The resulting two musical parts would be recorded on the second machine. The new tape with two parts was then played back and mixed with a third musical part played live. The resulting three musical parts would be recorded on the second machine. The process was repeated until all the musical parts had been recorded. The end product was a mono 1/4 inch tape.

This approach required meticulous care at every step to assure an optimum mix, and to maintain the best possible recording level. I imagine that Les and his wife Mary Ford spent many an hour experimenting with everything to get it all just right.

The first Ampex machines with in line multi-track heads and "Sel-Sync" (Selective Synchronization: the ability to play back with a record head) did not come on the market until about five years after the original pioneering work by Les and Mary.

These first generation multi-track machines used record heads with large gaps. A large gap makes the head work better for recording because it reduces the amount of electrical drive current to the head required for a given magnetic flux at the gap. Since the recording takes place at the edge of the gap where the tape exits the gap, the large gap has no degrading effect on the recorded frequency response.

The playback takes place ACROSS THE GAP. Accordingly, as the gap is made larger, the high frequencies (short wave lengths that approach the size of the head gap) will be degraded by cancellation effects. Those large gap record heads in the first generation Ampex multi-track recorders caused the sync to have very dull "AM radio quality" rolled off high frequency response. Ping-pong was out of the question. It was not until the mid-sixties that recorders were redesigned to provide the short gap recording heads, with excellent inter-channel magnetic shielding, that were required to make ping-pong a reality.

Regarding Jerry Wexler and Atlantic: I only knew Phil Ihile (Atlantic's technical engineer) personally. I never visited their studios, or met Tom Dowd, although I did talk with him on the telephone a few times. I find your remarks about the Atlantic scene very interesting.

Perhaps there is some way that I can give you a copy of my Motown CD. I am discussing this with Carl at the moment. I will get back to you.

Cheers,

Mike McLean (J)

By Carl Dixon London (195.153.219.170 - 195.153.219.170) on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 07:35 pm:

Mike

I have nearly caught up with messages on the forum. I think I have been reading for about 3 hours already. I have read through your reply to my posting from the 1st May and need to digest it and comment from the privacy of my home as I am at work at present and keep getting interupted!

Just briefly though, I have just read an article in a television magazine here about Dolby unveiling a new 'volume tool'. They claim the LM100 loudness meter is the first stand alone product capable of measuring the subjective loudness of programming, in contrast to traditional tools such as the VU or Peak Programme Meter. I may scan it and send you a copy.

Cheers

Carl

By Ritchie (62.254.0.6 - 62.254.0.6) on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 07:40 pm:

Mike,

Thank you once again for your informative reply. My information (erroneous at it now appears) regarding Les Paul's original set-up was based on an interview I once read or heard, and I cannot now recall exactly where or when. however, your description of the tape-to-tape dubbing method seems to make more sense historically than a Heath Robinson-style home-grown machine. I seem to remember it was Jerry Wexler's comments, but perhaps he

Incidentally, I wonder if you are aware of a delightful record by Sidney Bechet, cut in April 1941. The tune was "The Sheik Of Araby", and the instruments featured were clarinet, soprano and tenor sax, piano, bass and drums. All these were played by Bechet himself, in what must have been a very early experiment in overdubbing. The record has a strange and eery sound, due in part no doubt, to the loss of quality inevitable in copying and re-copying each recording.

You questioned my use of the word "pioneering". I would still stand by that, even taking your 'fools rush in..' comment into account. Your statement "we lusted for multitrack" certainly indicates a willingness to to take a step into the unknown, in order to advance your capabilities.

You siad:
"The lure of multi-track was the vast freedom to experiment with the mix in hope of improving it"

I can see that it was a means to an end - tighter control over the individual elements in pursuit of a better final product. Even so, whether or not there was any "pioneering spirit" abroad, you still managed to push the technical boundaries forward - distortion and print-through notwithstanding. (You didn't need to explain the latter to me - I was taught from day one always to store masters "tail-out" to minimise the effect of this.) I suspect that Harry has no major complaints with the quality of the master tapes you left behind, the digitally-distilled products of which we are still enjoying today.

To acknowledge your final point, I would be delighted to add a copy of your compilation to my archives, and look forward to hearing from you in due course.

By john lester (213.1.136.87 - 213.1.136.87) on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 08:23 pm:

Ritchie

I have Sheik Of Araby......by Winifred Attwell!!

By Ritchie (62.254.0.6 - 62.254.0.6) on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 08:27 pm:

John -

Winifred Attwell? You do surprise me....

You mean you haven't got a version by the Velvelettes? ;o)

By Ian W (213.122.140.76 - 213.122.140.76) on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 09:52 pm:

Then there's the Contours' Sheik Sherry!

By Ritchie (62.254.0.6 - 62.254.0.6) on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 10:03 pm:

Ian..

Maybe there's a version by Bedouin Starr.

By john lester (213.122.195.223 - 213.122.195.223) on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 10:11 pm:

stop it you two!!!

LOLOL

By Ian W (213.1.183.124 - 213.1.183.124) on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 10:25 pm:

I won't mention Cairolyn Crawford then!

By Ian W (213.1.183.124 - 213.1.183.124) on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 10:29 pm:

Or any Dates to be lined up?

By Ritchie (62.254.0.6 - 62.254.0.6) on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 10:30 pm:

Produced by Nile Rodgers?

By Ian W (213.1.183.124 - 213.1.183.124) on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 10:33 pm:

Covered by Sandy Wynns or Dune Conquest?

The latter would make a good movie title!

By Ritchie (62.254.0.6 - 62.254.0.6) on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 10:44 pm:

Or Frankie Valli-of-the-Kings?

By john lester (213.122.203.234 - 213.122.203.234) on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 06:42 am:

RALPH

YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IN CONTROL HERE!!!

CAN YOU BASH THEIR HEADS TOGETHER PLEASE BEFORE WE GO MAD!

LOL

By M.McLeanTech (64.236.243.243 - 64.236.243.243) on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 07:20 am:

Just look at the mess you kids have made of this thread!

The first time the professor takes a little break and goes out, he comes back to the laboratory and finds a teen aged party going on!

Naaaaa! Just kidding. Where's the brews?

Little Mikie

By john lester (213.122.203.234 - 213.122.203.234) on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 07:23 am:

Mike...that's it, you tell 'em... LOLOLOLOL

Where's that Ralph...he's never around when you need him...RALPH...put those ladies down and come here! LOL

By Ritchie (62.254.0.6 - 62.254.0.6) on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 07:33 am:

OK...

I must not make bad puns in class
I must not make bad puns in class
I must not make bad puns in class
I must not make bad puns in class
I must not make bad puns in class
I must not make bad puns in class
I must not make bad puns in class
I must not make bad puns in class
I must not make bad puns in class
I must not make bad puns in class

By john lester (213.122.203.234 - 213.122.203.234) on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 07:44 am:

Ralph - be easy on Ritchie......lol

and I feel a "Mike McLean 5" coming soon!

By M.McLeanTech (64.156.158.104 - 64.156.158.104) on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 08:25 am:

John,

If you take a laxative, that "Mike McLean 5" may arrive a little sooner.

Mikie (H)

By john lester (213.1.136.80 - 213.1.136.80) on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 12:38 pm:

Mike...Funny you should say that, people have been telling me for years that I don't need a laxative, cos what comes out my mouth does that quite well....wonder what they mean!!

LOL

By Ralph (209.240.222.130 - 209.240.222.130) on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 01:26 pm:

WHAT THE HELL HAS BEEN GOING ON HERE???
It's beginning to look like I should never leave this forum. OK listen up you chuckleheads...I've got Katie coming over to visit later today and I don't want to be disturbed. Try and stay on topic here alright?....Frankie Valli of the kings.....geeeesh

By Bob Olhsson (68.53.120.100 - 68.53.120.100) on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 04:45 pm:

In defense of the Motown mixing staff's skills, comparing recordings where many musical elements are overdubbed to recordings that are done with everybody performing live is comparing apples to oranges. During the mid-1960s Motown was doing a dramatically greater amount of overdubbing than anybody else I'm aware of. Anytime you are making an incomplete recording, everybody has to guess about what the right arrangement and the right mix for the final product will be.

I've had the good fortune to spend many hours in conversations with a number of the folks who have produced and engineered classic pop recordings of the 1950s and '60s. To the person they will credit the arrangers, the musicians and the fact that everything was being recorded at the same time and hence could be adjusted in front of the mikes to make the recording sound wonderful. This simply isn't what we were usually doing in Detroit. Occasionally it did happen and Orson Lewis's fabulous mono string, horn and percussion mix on "Just My Imagination" is a perfect example of the effect a different production procedure can have on the results.

A number of producers who had worked in the finest facilities in the world came through our studios during the early 1970s. They were consistently stunned by the skills of Motown's staff mixers such as Russ Terrana and Ken Sands. I share Mikes embarrassment about the audio quality of many of our records however the fact is that they were remarkably well engineered considering how they were produced. The kind of attention to detail those recordings benefitted from was entirely made possible by the remarkable recording facility that Mike built.

By M.McLeanTech (63.209.94.79 - 63.209.94.79) on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 05:33 pm:

Bob Olhsson,

I want to make it very clear that my remarks about mixing staff skills were relative to 1963, when we started building the eight track recorder. Not nine years later when the likes of Russ Terrana or Ken Sands were doing a fine job.

Otherwise, I appreciate your insights. Let us not forget that all that "low fidelity" made a lot of money. Berry laughed all the way to the bank!

Mikie (J)

By john lester (213.122.195.14 - 213.122.195.14) on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 06:01 pm:

and the likes of me never had a penny to my name...but now it's my turn to laugh..cos I have the stuff and if I were to buy it again, it would cost the earth.

By Ralph (209.240.222.130 - 209.240.222.130) on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 06:57 pm:

OK...time to close this one down....Please continue on MIKE MCLEAN 5.

By Eli (170.115.179.118 - 170.115.179.118) on Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 05:31 pm:

Hi Mike,
Thanks for your reply on my echo chamber query.
I respect your original approach. It is quite amusing and stimulating as I have a simolar personaliyy at times.

Can you send me a copy of the afforementioned cd at:

Bobby Eli
5428 Woodcrest ave.
Philadelphia 19131

Thanks