JPF Home Page Forums Musician Gear and Techniques Recording Studio and Gear Forum Recordings By Low Techies?

I am looking for a powerful band type sound with limited technology, although I don't want to avoid technology altogether.
Plugging an external hard drive through a USB port has helped a great deal. Less sound from the computer and crisper sounding recordings.
I like using .wav to record, and also to play by hand.
I record between 2 computers, and have updated to a VIA Audio sound card and use a standard Turtle Beach card on my secondary computer.
I like the tough, not too warm feel in a recording without the background noise.

Does anyone record with the same recording setup (with little technology), an enthusiest with it, and what tips can you share?

I like the lo fi acts like Pavement and early Beck through what they did with little technology.
And also acts like Iggy Pop and the Velvet Underground.
If I ever use sequencers, they would only be to add.

So I am seeking out play by hand type musicians that record on their own without all the recording gadgets.

Tips extremely appreciated!
More to be inventive and emotive with.

Not that this is related, but upon hearing sixties acts, I don't know why The Rascals were not every bit as big as The Beatles.

Matt

Kinda puzzled by what you mean. You refer to an external hard drive helping. An external hard drive is just a way of utilising more disc storage space, or am I misunderstanding your meaning. You give no mention of what equipment and software you use to record and mix with or what sounds or instruments etc you wish to record. You refer to recording between two computers. I am baffled as to exactly what you are doing. Could you please explain your meaning of "play by hand". I understand the non techie approach but when using even one computer never mind two you need some technology IE mixing, recording and editing facilities. Could you please provide a little bit more info?
I use my comp to record in what is considered a low tech way and would be more than happy to help.

I think I'm about as low-tech as you can get. I don't use a computer for recording at all.

I have a little Tascam 4-channel recorder which is digital--it records to a digital-camera type chip. Its li'l pea-brain can hold one song at a time. I record on it--usually just rhythm guitar, vocal, and lead guitar all separately, mix it on the Tascam, and dump it to the 'puter via a USB port (the computer treats the Tascam as a portable hard drive, which is fine by me).

I don't do anything to the mix on the computer except convert it to whatever speed *.mp3 file I want, and post it to Soundclick or MySpace. I can also dump it to a CD if I want (the 'puter has a CD-rewritable drive), too.

I, too, don't see where having an extra computer would help with recording unless y'all wanted additional storage space.

Joe

Back in the day.....
All of the songs on the myspace account was done way low tec. Yes I do miss the simplisity. A cheap iMac, and an even cheeper mixer pluged directly into the mac. Everything flowed freely.... But then again, I could never do what I can do now with what I've got now... It just takes me longer to do it (seems backwards don't it?)

A friend of mine 5 years ago tried to sell a mac to me for $50. I wish I would have taken him up on that.
I got mainly into the old tape decks with the Dolby sound.
Never did any recordings on computer yet.
I could do quite a few things with those tape decks sound wise.
Now with the software, no matter how expensive, people seem to be stuck with what they get.
And with all the glitches.

It does seem to take far longer just to do a simple tune.
If I don't want it to sound too generic, anyway.

Appreciate the thoughts!

Matt

A few tips in this case might not go wrong as I think you are approaching this from a very narrow point of view. In fact you are looking through the wrong end of the binoculars. I have been in music business for over forty years. Even back in the bad old days when technology was in its infancy bands used the best available technology. Recording was a nightmare. Everything had to be right first time or the whole thing done again. This crude gear (laughable now) was cursed because it was so expensive, difficult to obtain and use and the end results were, let's just say, disapointing. I would have given my right arm for any of the simplest gizmos and gadgets we take for granted today. As for a PC well thinking of what could have been done in the sixties with this technology is mind boggling. The time alone saved would be phenominal.
By using a tape recorder you are creating a very large rod for your own back and it is not doing you any favours. I have listened to your stuff (I will not do a full crit) suffice to say it needs a lot of work all round. The main problems are the poor recording quality, the naive, childish, simplistic, amateurish mistakes ARE GLARING on all instruments. If you want to be serious about recording music you have to use all options available to produce good quality music.
Here are some suggestions as to how to improve and make YOUR MUSIC much better and easier to produce. First dispense with the tape recorder. Mistakes are almost impossible to rectify and background noise and hiss will always be there. Second get a good recording/editing program so you can record straight onto your PC (I SUGGEST AUDACITY ITS FREE AND EASY YO USE)Just GOOGLE audacity to download it. READING BETWEEN THE LINES YOU MAY NEED SOME HELP AS I DO NOT THINK YOU REALLY KNOW MUCH ABOUT COMPUTERS. With Audacity you can record several tracks and edit each one individually. You can delete sections cut and paste and it has a full edit facility eg key change, tempo change, recording levels and fx etc etc etc. How much of this technology you use is up yo you. A low tech approach is admirable but if you cannot play all instruments well enough to do it to a reasonable standard in one take forget it. Music lessons might not be a bad idea.
Please do not take this the wrong way. I am not trying to slate or humiliate you I am trying to educate you and help you to do better things. There is potential but it needs help and guidance.
I am here to help and will in any way I can. Send Email or PM for any advice. JIM

Why weren't The Rascals anywhere near as big as The Beatles? Because they didn't have have anywhere near as many good songs. The Beatles were also pushing the limits, musically and in the studio, in their day. They and their support crew were real innovators.

Hey Andy good point.
Comparing the Rascals to the Beatles is like comparing a brass curtain ring to a 24 carat diamond ring.

I try to go from inside the computer as little as I can.
Because of the humming.
My VIA Audio sound card however is an internal sound card.
It has limited background noise since the hard drive is not from within the computer. And the hard drive sounds the most hiss free to begin with out of the cards I have used. I use Turtle Beach on my second computer.
Going via the USB port even has an effect in sound with the hard drive.
I have tried it both ways.
I have done everything by ear and have even hooked into different speakers.
There is the different acoustics I have noticed from within the computer itself.
Even though the hard drive just transfers the data I have noticed that the software "sounds" different between an external hard drive and the computers internal hard drive.
I use .wav on the USB hard drive attatched to the computer I record into.
Then I simply plug the USB hard drive into the computer I record from to move the sound file into that computer. Then I switch back and overdub.
I have used mainly the software to mix my sound.
I have on a couple of recordings used an electronic reverb unit.
I have an M-Audio sound card but hav'nt used it in a recording yet.
There is a whining sound when I try to overdub with it.
It just may be my method of recording, dooing something to the signal perhaps.

I'm trying to use the theory much like building a home stereo.
Build the sound my own way.
No sequencers or programs.
I have Audacity, but I only use it to practice.
I may use it at some point to add in a recording.
I want to hear the subtle changes in whatever I add regarding recordings.

By playing by hand I mean that I play a rythmn often straight out to it's conclusion (all the way through a 3 to 5 minute track).
I have however looped a rythmn I have created with .wav.
I am probably doing it more so now than I have before.
But it has to be something I play.
I don't like using programmed rythmns that the manufacturer supplied or anyone elses rythmns whatsoever. The only exception is what I stated about using that rythmn to add, since the rythmn would be changed altogether.

I think a lot of experimentation has stopped in music because of all the technology.
And I want my recordings to sound nice.
I just don't want to sound like everyone else.

For a club setting one time I used a PA (for singing, or more appropriately, screaming).
Did'nt get into the band thing.
I started out playing synths originally.
I felt too much of a sameness in everything I did.
I don't rule out technology.
I believe that there are certain ways of getting there to make ones unique self.

Currently, I don't have a mixing console.
I see the pictures of musicians with big rack mounts of mixing devices.
In time I may have something much like that.

Right now, I try to do everything external from the computer as much as I can by spare means to find out the subtle differences in sound.
So far it has been a reverb unit, an external hard drive, and whatever I can do to knock background noise out of my sound.
There is certain softwares that are better than others. Although I don't rely on software alone.
I want to train my ears first of all.

I use a second computer to record from.
I seldom record by tape anymore.
Though I have heard of certain musicians out there, most notably Sebedoah and Pavement that had all kinds of odd effects they would use with tape players.
There's a certain type of engineering and tomfoolery to go along with it.
And some of these acts can do that without the recording sounding like hell.
Some have a certain craving for recording by unconventional means.

And as far as The Beatles goes, I love them.

But The Rascals, Beach Boys and The Beatles had it in common to where they penned much of their own songs and played as a band.
Which was not very common back then.
I think a lot of good bands were left drifting because of that next big thing.

Of course with The Beach Boys it was Mike Love that kept them drifting (lawsuits over rights, blocked the release of SMILE).

The Beach Boys were the first genuine rock 'n' roll band.
Genuine to where they penned their own songs and played as a band instead of outside writers and backing musicians.
It was just mainly rockabilly before that.
And The Rascals had a hand in that too.

Some of The Rascals mid to late seventies output was getting very inventive.
I was'nt even born yet when they were out.
They were more of an R & B act I believe.

I would say that Chicago was a bit under appreciated. Especially with how they were critically dumped on.
I thought their early stuff rocked.
I like all their music because it's quality and unique.
Well produced bands like that oddly want me to use the pyramid approach to recording.
I want to be unique yet listenable.

But growing up with metal heads, it's always going to be Black Sabbath or Led Zeppelin that first really rocked.
They all did.

But I have been throwing on a lot of these sixties albums my mom had passed down.
She even had the Sun label Elvis recordings.
Unfortunately they were burnt in a fire.

I could go on and on about these bands I love, but this post is big enough.

Just one last thing, The Beach Boys still stand tall because what can you say - they're the BEACH BOYS.

Matt

Your comments re computers just do not make any sense. I have not the foggiest idea what you are talking about. Hiss (like you get on a tape recorder) is not produced by computer recordings, or sound cards, or hard drives. You must be doing something wrong and as for this wav you keep refferring to I suggest you find out what it IS EXACTLY as you obviously have no idea. Sorry to be so candid but watching your posts I think this low tech approach that you keep referring to is actually just a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of computer basics and recording and mixing techniques.

Well, it's probably something that can't be explained easily to someone that has not recorded in that way.
Yes, there is a latency even in recording software and the signal can be different depending on the hard drive or software.
There are strands of noise even that can come off as hiss.
I know most of the sound problems come from the mic.
But there are certain delicate things, whether that be the signal or whatever else I have noticed that can affect sound even with what's inside the computer.
I have had ways in certain .wav software from brands like Creative, Windat, to wavpad to test that.
Much like the graphic layouts of sound levels in sequencing software.
I also check in different speakers and headphones (use my ears).

I'm not looking for help with what I am doing.
My original post was asking if there was anyone that record in their own unconventional way and what they can share.

If I had to make a living off of it, of course I could not afford to be as unorthodox with it.

At this point, I can afford not to just go with a sequencer, cubase, or the nick nacks that go into a recording.

I have a bug for doing things in a certain way.
I guess it is a release from having a formal life with a job where I can't.

But if there was just a "right" way to do something, the music scene never would have evolved beyond clubs and Holiday Inn music, at least in my opinion.
It is after all, an art form.


But my topic was about people that explored the possibilities in recordings other than conventional means.

Matt

You talk about strands of noise and latency in hard drives and recording software. You must have very sensitive ears to pick up these tiny deviations. I dread to think what superfluous noises you will hear when using a tape recorder to record.

I have no ego to tarnish.
But I caught your line and forgot about it when you said I need a lot of work on my "stuff".
The entire net is not pro school and pro tools looking to get their song on a music channel.

I would have loved to hear your thoughts on my recordings in the mp3 threads I have posted.

You seem to miss the point that it would be ten times easier for me to get cheap sound software and easily talk myself up like I am the bees knees of recording.
I hear people that have pretty rough recordings that do that.

I don't get into square dance rythmns and I have a bad taste in my mouth with the know dall approach with recording from some experience.
I'm never going to come off like I swallowed a tech manual to prove myself.
Just from reading posts around the net for the last 3 years, I could sound like I have more knowledge than I do.

Even what is thought of as proper playing can be up for grabs.
This is not the only forum I have been to on the net.

I battled before I was on the net of whether I should take the easy route to be taken as a "serious musician" or just play and use my own approach.

If I am ever going to be good at anything with my punk attitude and lack of patience, it is doing something the long drawn out way.
No shortcuts.

There is nothing worse than realizing one day that without the gadgetry and image game, you really were poop at what you did.

Now I'm poop that wants to be less poop.

I'm not going to achieve that if I regurgitate poop from everywhere else.
Although I hav'nt abandoned the concept of integrating ideas.
Even high tech ideas.

I know you probably mean well, but I envy the little you had 40 years ago.

Matt

You have missed my point and intentions completely. Music is a pleasure and everybody wants different things. People can listen or contribute on any level from a laugh and fun hobby to serious pro. I will give advice to anybody who wants it. If they listen, or not, that is up to them. You asked me to comment on your mp3. Well I already did. I basically said that your stuff was poorly recorded, naive, played very badly like a complete novice, showed a lack of basic musical skills from someone who obviously had not a clue as to what they were doing. Very VERY harsh but true. I did however say that you had potential. To improve you needed a lot of help and guidance. I suggested BASIC training in PCs and perhaps some lessons in playing musical instruments. I am not trying to down you. I am trying to help and advise you. You say that you do not have an ego. We all have egos. Why post any music on Soundclick. Please do not hide behind terms like low tech or punk to hide a lack of knowledge, ability, or experience. That is just plain silly and lazy.
Learn, ask for help, take advice. Don't try shortcuts that do not work. Being a musician is a long and hard road. IT IS NOT EASY. We get and take rejection and are all the better for it.
I wish you luck and happiness with your music. JIM

You put in a post apparantly before I was just putting mine in.

That is kind of what I meant with what you said in your post about having the ear.
I basically became tone deaf and could'nt hear the subtleties in sound.

I can't rely on playing, since I lack physical coordination.
Just the few ways I have tried with Audacity and in a friends cubase program I hooked up in sounded bland and similiar.

I would like to do film music eventually and commercials.
I know it does'nt take gobbs of playing talent and there are people that pay up their nose to make it sound professional.

But I also think it takes someones unique approach to get noticed.
And I have spent good money on sound cards and computer equipment.
Hearing little bubbles and pops and kicking myself for not just doing it the way a lot of others would to be professional.

I tried not to get consumed in it to work on my playing and songwriting, but I do want to progress ahead.

Well, at least I have my day job and it was fun regardless.

Any suggestions on what I overlooked with the programs I mentioned (I know it has to be many) that can sound more organic, I would greatly appreciate that.
It's just that people that don't have all that equipment have to use whatever is at hand.
And it's pretty wild. Sometimes to the point of being sound and musical mastrabation.
But it sounds Pink Floydian at times.

I crave guidance, I just did'nt know if you knew for sure what my goals are.
I did'nt feel put down.
I was just stating I am on this plane with it, and I would appreciate all the feedback I can get.

I would like it if you had the time to post your thoughts here or where I have my songs on the net.

But I don't ask often because I don't like to impose.

Thanks for your concern!

Matt

One inportant thing I forgot to point out about having a USB hard drive:

If you record between 2 computers, which many probably don't, it is a lot better for copying purposes.
Each sound card offers something different with an instruments sound.
Now I can just copy my tracks to the computer where the sound card is best for whatever instrument.
A lot more economical and cleaner sounding than copying to disc.

I'm looking to get an expansion board. Nothing fancy, just something that will do the job. But I am still investigating.

I have been looking to better my playing and songwriting so much that I did'nt think much of the recording outside of buying a new sound card every now and then.
But much like my boredom playing the same simple type of music and then winging in different ideas, I did the same with recordings.

Old habits die hard.

But I think at least that might make my ear better than if I had the nice recording setup to begin with.

I rebel against conformity.
But I guess conformity is neccessary to a certain degree.

Matt

Matt, I hate to burst your bubble but with the exception of The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Kinks, The Who, etc.(all British Invasion by the way) every group in the 60s had studio musicians providing the music for recordings. Starting in the early 60s the bulk was recorded in LA. They were not rockers either. They were, with a handful of exceptions seasoned Jazz and Big Band musicians. After the first couple of Beach Boys albums Brian used exclusively studio musicians. There were about 350 of them but only about 50 in the inner circle. The music execs didn't want it known that the hits kids were so crazy about were primarily due to the experienced and talented musicians their parent's age,wore crew cuts and their drug of choice was the caffeine from endless cups of coffee drank during 12 to 16 hr days 7 days a week. These musicians could create on the spot and record an entire album in one or two sessions, a session lasting 3 hours. That is what separates The Beatles from everyone else. They played on their own records and before Beatlemania and the screaming kids made it so they couldn't hear one another or themselves on stage, they sounded just a good on stage as in the studio. That's why you'd go to a concert and wonder why it sounded so bad compared to the album. The Rascals? Great music, great song, enjoyable topnotch recordings. But they did not play a single note on their records.
As for some bands from that era, the producers would bring in studio musicians to record the tracks and create hire a group of singers to "be" the band. That wasn't just The Monkees either. So most of the music we grew up loving from that era was smoke and mirrors as far as the actual bands were concerned. The singers of Bands like The Beach Boys would come into the studio later to record the vocal parts over the rhythm sections already recorded and mixed. It was not until later, in the 70s that groups started recording their own stuff. It was tried in the late 60s but the bands were such poor musicians it didn't work as well as the fact that it took way too long to make an album, thus high expense. The studio musicians could do a much better record in one or two sessions.

Below is a pretty comprehensive list according to Carol Kaye, the most recorded bassist in history.

Drums: Hal Blaine, Earl Palmer, Sharkey Hall, Jesse Sailes, John Guerin, Paul Humphrey, Panama Francis, Shelly Manne, Alvin Stoller, Irv Cottler, Jim Keltner, Louis Bellson, Ed Thigpen, Jake Hanna, Ed Shaughnessey, Jeff Porcaro, Nick Ceroli, Harold Jones, Mel Lewis, Larry Bunker, James Gadson, Charley Blackwell, Ed Greene, Ron Tutt, Jack Sperling, Frankie Capp, Jackie Mills, Harvey Mason, Sol Gubin, Cubby O'Brien, Jim Gordon.

Percussion: Gene Estes, Gary Coleman, Emil Richards, Julius Wechter, Joe Porcaro, Lou Singer, Jerry Williams, Victor Feldman, Lauder, Milt Holland, Bobbye Hall, Jack Lord, Alan Estes, Kenny Watson, Jack Arnold, Frank Flynn, Tommy Vig, Dale Anderson, Jerry Steinholtz, Larry Bunker.

Guitar: Rene Hall, Howard Roberts, Bud Coleman, Tommy Tedesco, Barney Kessel, Tony Rizzi, Billy Strange, Glen Campbell, Allen Reuss, Bobby Gibbons, Bob Bain, Dennis Budimer, John Gray, Bill Pitman, Al Casey, Al Hendrikson, Irving Ashby, Mundell Lowe, Mike Anthony, Lou Morell, Al Viola, Ray Pohlman, Arthur Wright, Nick Bonney, Toots Thielemans, Don Peake, Charles Wright, James Burton, Dean Parks, Mitch Holder, Mike D'Asey, David Cohen, Jerry Cole, Charley Chiarenza, Neil LeVang, David T. Walker, Larry Carlton, John Collins, Jim Helms, Al Vescovo, Louie Shelton.

Keyboards: Don Randi, Leon Russell, Mike Melvoin, Arnold Ross, Larry Knechtal, Ray Johnson, Joe Sample, Clare Fischer, Larry Muhoberac, Pete Jolly, Lincoln Mayorga, Jimmy Jones, Gerald Wiggins, Mike Rubini, Don Abney, Mike Lang, Roger Kellaway, Billy Preston, Artie Butler, Clark Gassman, Russ Freeman, Dave Grusin, Mac Rabbennec, Gene Garf, Al DeLory, Gene Page, JoAnn Grauer, Pearl Kaufman, Paul Beaver (1st sysnthesizer), Jimmy Rowles.

Saxes: Plas Johnson, Bill Green, Steve Douglas, Jackie Kelso, Jim Horn, Jay Migliori, Gene Cipriano, Abe Most, Willie Schwartz, Marshall Royal, Bob Hardaway, John Klemmer, Bud Shank, Paul Horn, Tony Ortega, Buddy Collette, Ted Nash, Bob Cooper, Ronnie Lang, John Bambridge, Pete Crisleib, Tom Scott, John Lowe, Julie Jacobs, Babe Rushton, Dick Houlgate, Harry Klee, Bill Holman, Harold Batiste, Chuck Gentry, Justin Gordon, Benny Golson, Bill Hood, Jack Montrose, Ernie Watts, Jack Nimitz.

Trumpets: Ollie Mitchell, Tony Terran, John Audino, Pete & Conte Candoli, Blue Mitchell, Jules Chaiken, Bud Brisbois, John Best, Harry "Sweets" Edison, Cat Anderson, Virgil Evans, Bobby Shew, Chuck Findley, Paul Hubonen, Cappy Lewis, Manny Klein, Don Rader, Roy Caton, Buddy Childers, Ray Triscari, Bobby Bryant, Don Ellis, Maurey Harris, Steve Hufstetter, Oscar Brashear, Uan Rasey, Snooky Young, Jay Daversa, Al Aarons, Lee Katzman, Freddy Hill.

Trombones: Lew McCreary, Dick Nash, Milt Bernhart, Dick Noel, Bob Enevoldsen, Harry Betts, Billy Byers, Tommy Shepard, Gail Martin, Lloyd Ulyate, George Roberts, Bob Brookmeyer, George Bohanon, Gil Falco, Bobby Knight, Charlie Loper, Dick Gould, Vern Friely, Kenny Shroyer, Mike Barone, Grover Mitchell, Dick Hyde, Lou Blackburn, JJ Johnson, Dave Wells, Curt Berg, Frank Rossolino, Tommy Pederson, Dick Leith, Chris Riddle.

String Bass: Chuck Hamilton, Joe Comfort, Don Bagley, Adlophus Alsbrook, Al McKibbon, Chuck Berghofer, James Bond, Red Mitchell, Red Calender, Lyle Ritz, Buddy Clark, Cliff Hils, Ray Brown, Joe Mondragon, Ralph Pena, Steve LaFever, Monty Budwig, Irving Edelman, Chuck Domanico, Abe Luboff, Jim Hughart, Morty Corb, Gene Cerico, Bob Stone, Frank De La Rosa, Ray Durand, Bob West, Peter Mercurio, Mike Rubin, Ed Gilbert, Nat Gangursky, Abe Siegel, Sid Weiss, Jerry Scheff, Carson Smith, Rolly Bundock, Don Greif, Ray Neopolitan, Mel Pollan, Bob Berteaux, Max Bennett, Ray Siegel, Milt Kestenbaum.

Elec. Bass: Ray Pohlman (first No. 1 call studio bassist LA 1957-1964+, was musical conductor of "Shindig" TV Show), Carol Kaye, Arthur Wright, Rene Hall, Bob West, Larry Knechtel, Buddy Clark, Chuck Berghofer, Jim Hughart, Joe Osborn, Max Bennett, Steve LeFever, Jerry Scheff, Lyle Ritz.

Strings: John Vidor, Harry Bluestone, Lenny Malarsky, George Poole, Ed Lustgarten, Virginia Gill, Jimmy Getzoff, Eleanor Slatkin, Fred Katz, Ray Kramer, Tibor Zelig, Erno Neufelder, Fred Seykora, Bobby Bruce, Nate Kaproff, Jerry Reisler, Sid Sharpe, Al Saparoff, Anatol Kaminsky, Ray Kelley, Jerome Kessler, Ann Karam, Arnold Belnick, Marshall Sassoon, Jerry Vinci.

Harmonica: Tommy Morgan, Toots Theilman.

French Horns: Vince De Rosa, Dick Perissi, Bill Hinshaw, David Duke, Willie Ruff, Dwight Carver.

Harpists: Catherine Gotthoffer, Dorothy Remsen, Stella Castellucci, Gayle Levant, Joy ______

Accordian: Carl Fortina, Pete Jolly, Frank Marocco, Dominic Frontiere, Jimmy Haskell.

Studio Singers: Jackie Ward, B.J. (Betty Jane) Baker -singer-contractor, Gracia Nitzche, Bob Alcivar Singers, Billie Barnum, Susie Tallman, Gordon Mitchell, Gene Morford, Ian Smith, Ron Hickland singers, Randy Van Horne Singers (Vangie, B.J., Mary, Hugh, Bob Zwern, Sue, Allen), the Blossoms (Darlene Love, Fanita, Jean King), Johnny Mann Singers, Jack Halloran Singers, Jimmy Joyce Singers, John & Tom Bahler, Al Capps (Eligibles), George Tipton, Ian Freebairn-Smith, Brenda & Pat Holloway, Clydie King, Ray Pohlman, Loren Farber, Thurl Ravenscroft, Tom Bosley, Betty Burke, Barbara Caton, Clark Gassman, Don Robertson, Scott Page, Merrie Clayton, Sally Stevens, Larry Hooper

Thanks Steve, interesting and informative.
You prove the point. Nowadays there is no shortcut to success. Just hard work, talent and knowing your craft. I hope folk take note.

Jim,
If you look at the keyboards list you will see the name Malcolm John Rebennack Jr. He is listed there as "Mac". Any idea who he is? Dr. John.

I find it incredible that virtuoso Jazz guitar legends like Tommy Tedesco, Howard Roberts, Barney Kessel and Joe Pass were hired for rock and roll sessions only to play simple three chord surf music and such. They may have been hired only to play a simple fill or two on a recording. Talk about playing down below your level of expertise? But they didn't have to go on the road so they could be home with their families (although they worked long hours all week for years) and they made more than the President of the United States. They made Doctor's pay and were very highly respected in the LA/Hollywood entertainment circles.

I've been fortunate to have been able to become friends with both Carol Kaye and Billy Strange over the last several years. I've not met Carol in person but we do exchange emails occasionally. Billy Strange (who is accompanying me on acoustic guitar in my picture icon) I have obviously met in person as well as our Internet conversations. What a loving, giving person he is. In the fall of 2005 I had some questions for him about arranging and producing. He was in the heat of a deadline producing Nancy Sinatra's new CD. He was not pleased with the arrangement given him so he had to completely rearrange the whole project and the deadline was just a few weeks away. I implored him to forget about me and my questions until he had completed what was a real and legitimate project compared to my list of questions. And yet he still took time to write me several times answering my questions. That says volumes about the man in itself. Billy is a very loving man and feels no embarrassment or reservation in telling his male friends he loves them. In today's macho culture that is rare. Following his 75th year Birthday Bash our family on his Web Site forum threw for him in Nashville I was talking with Billy. I lamented how I had never had the courage nor confidence in myself to do anything with my music. He told me "You just go on and do it simply for the passion you hold for what you do. All of the money, All of the wealth and all of the fame? It's all Bullshit!"

I said "Billy, considering all you have done in the music business, from being #1 call session guitarist, award winning producer, arranger, publisher and hit songwriter as well as close friends with Frank Sinatra, Henry Mancini, Clint Eastwood, Steve McQueen, Sammy Davis jr, etc etc and even acting in movies and TV shows, all that is incredible. But even more important, considering all that, you still seem just like the guy next door." His answer? He looked me in the eye and said "I AM the guy next door." It blows me away and humbles me to know all that about the man and yet he still closes all correspondence to me with "Love ya pal, Billy. What an incredible human being.

Hi Steve.
Back in the good ol' bad ol' days it was amazing to see just who's names would crop up in a recording session. Most of the time these guys worked in the background unnamed and uncredited. These guys (all known within the industry) were called in, usually last minute, to do a fill, bit of rythmn, perhaps a solo. They only got standard rates for the job, just a few bucks. Most barely scraped a living unless they made it big as a soloist or part of a famous band. They all knew each other intimitely living out of each others pockets. They WERE the guys next door. In fact not always NEXT door, too exist most shared rented flats etc. They did not have huge egos just huge underrated talent and a love of music.
Recently two series of tv programs were screened in UK. The History of Rock and the History of Soul. This was a behind the scenes look at how this music was born, evolved, recorded and marketed. Compelling viewing. Not only a history lesson but a lesson in just how close knit our music community is. Regardless of what kind of music was being produced it showed that the same names you mentioned kept cropping up in all genres. Contrary to popular belief the pop, soul and rock stars of the fifties, sixties and seventies did not produce the music on their own. They used the best sound men and session musicians they could find. In fact it was these session men who really created the music without any real recognition or reward.

Big Jim, back when they still did album covers (when they still did albums), you'd see in the liner notes the same names showing up in all sorts of genres--the same bass player would be on a country album, a rock one, and so on. I always thought it was great that these guys, who were very good and very versatile (and presumably only getting union scale for their work) were getting some recognition.

When they did the first "Blues Brothers" movie, a number of those session guys were in it--they were the "bands" that played behind Ray Charles, et al. And it was really nice to see 'em in the flesh.

Joe

Didn't Booker T and the MG's provide the music for most of the early Motown hits? I remember seeing Steve Cropper in "The Blues Bros". And don't forget (as was mentioned) Glen Campbell and Leon Russell who not only helped The Beach Boys but played on many "Wall of sound " songs. By the way, the harp on "My boy lollipop" is Rod Stewart. My favorite studio musician of all is Duane Allman. Ben

Hi Ben
Hey Joe (good title for a song) I will think about writing one.

Re The Blues Brothers one of my favourite all time films. Yep Blues bros stars Crocker and Dunn co wrote most of the old Stax hits and did session stuff with some of the greats like Sam and Dave, Aretha, Otis Reading, Wilson Pickett etc etc etc the list is awesome. The Memphis sound, Booker T and MGs same thing applies.
Interesting fact when they did Blues bros 2000 just about everybody from that era and music scene wanted to be included just so they could take part. They wanted to do a project with their "family"
I knew that "Millie" of My boy lollipop fame was very young 14 or so and was plucked from obscurity to do the song. Was it 1963 seems a long time ago. Amazed to be told that Rod Stewart did blues harp for that. I do know that he was discovered playing harp on a railway station platform by John Mayall (signed him up on the spot) Mayall had Clapton pre Cream and also Peter Green plus Jeff Beck and many other great blues guitarists in his Bluesbreakers band LINE UP.