July 23, 2003

Board Games

Most recording studios I've worked at have some kind of "vintage" board that was acquired from somewhere else, some other studio that either replaced it or went out of business. (And of course, older is better in perception and reality: when we have a choice, we'll usually opt for 70s-era recording gear and 50s-60s instruments.) Often the studio will be built around the board. Sometimes there's an interesting story about how the board was acquired. Always, there is some kind of board pedigree, a folklorish tale of origin and history encompassing a list of records that are known or alleged to have been recorded on the board back when it was in the other studio.

The way it usually goes is, you ask some question about the board, and the engineer will tell you where it came from and say something like "you know, this was the board they used for 'Layla'." And you say, "no way." And then he explains how Eric Clapton always used to record overdubs at such and such a place, and this is the board that used to be there before the studio went out of business and they turned the building into an Olive Garden. (Of course, that means you eventually have to go to that Olive Garden, order the spicy sausage, and tell your date, "you know, this is the room where they did 'Layla'." And your date says, suspiciously, "who's Layla?") Maybe it was only the handclaps, and Lord knows it probably means all sorts of nasty stuff was spilled into it in those golden years of pushing the limits of middle class morality, but still-- it's pretty cool. For some reason. (That "Layla" example is totally made up-- but it's the kind of thing I'm talking about.)

When I first started hearing this, I assumed that they meant "this model" or this type of board. But no, they mean the actual specific physical piece of equipment. Is it always true? There's no way of knowing, and I've had my doubts before. The Rolling Stones' Black and Blue is one of those that pops up often enough that you start to wonder how it would have been possible for the band to have used quite so many boards in the relatively brief period between It's Only Rock and Roll and Some Girls. (Maybe they were on the board-a-day plan.) Well, you'd start to wonder about it if you were a cynical, soul-less cretin with little imagination and not much of a feeling heart in ya. Because it is cool, the technological-electronic version of meeting a celebrity. There's some fancy studio down in LA that has the board on which "Yummy, Yummy, Yummy" was recorded. Now come on: how awesome is that?

At Sharkbite Studios, where we're recording, the board is a very nice-sounding 1978 Trident TSM:

sharkbiteboard.jpg

Pedigree: Steely Dan's Aja (extremely cool); and overdubs for Pink Floyd's The Wall (not all that cool, maybe not even remotely cool, but kind of funny. All right, all right, I admit, some little part of me thinks even that is kind of cool.)

Posted by Dr. Frank at July 23, 2003 04:41 PM | TrackBack
Comments

C'mon Doc. Surely you're not serious. Steely Dan's Aja, "extremely cool," Pink Floyd's The Wall not? I'm not a huge Floyd fan but The Wall will be remembered long after Walter Becker and Donald Fagan give up their lounge careers for walkers.

Posted by: Tony Steidler-Dennison at July 24, 2003 05:42 PM

Tony, I am a huge Pink Floyd fan, and even though I don't have much use for the Roger Waters era, I prefer almost any of the rest of it to The Wall. It's just my opinion, but I don't think it's possible to conceive of music substantial enough to support pretentions of such surpassing heaviness. It's supposed to make you think, but somehow it makes you giggle instead. I'll concede, though, it's largely a matter of taste, though I think you'd find few who would cite The Wall as a landmark of recording-as-art and sonic brilliance. I could be wrong about that, too, though.

But regardless, you should really dig out Aja again-- it's an amazing, and amazingly recorded, album. Even if you're unconvinced by that, though, you have to admit: when you think that your own rock music is, to some degree and on some level, running through the same circuits as the sounds on those previous albums, the Steely Dan instance is the more interesting of the two.

Posted by: Dr. Frank at July 24, 2003 06:27 PM

Legendary API Legacy board in Orlando. See:

http://www.phatplanetstudios.com/whats_new/dowd_board.html

Posted by: Chris Howell at July 25, 2003 01:01 AM

As a big non-fan of both bands and a big fan of MTX, I appreciate your ability to exclude any Steely/Floyd influence from your own music. I may not agree with your lifestyle choices, but what you listen to in the privacy of your own home is your business!

Posted by: Jason Toon at July 28, 2003 03:44 PM

Alright, sometimes I just gotta back up.

After reading and posting on this thread, I dug through the stacks and stacks of CDs in the closet (the result of 13 years in music retail). Yes, in fact, Steely Dan's "Aja" was among them. A quiet room, the Koss headphones and a sharp focus on the construction of the album alone told me you're right. "Aja" is cleaner in nearly every engineered aspect than "The Wall."

As for Pink Floyd, I'll also agree that "The Wall" is not their seminal work. I don't discount the Roger Waters era, though. I've spent hour after pleasurable hour listening to "Meddle" and "Wish You Were Here." I think the lasting impact of "The Wall" was seeing the movie in a theater on its release in full Dolby sound. The album doesn't stand as well without the visuals. It was a sort of early multimedia experience in which each element was critical to the next.

Then again, the first "The Wall" viewing was under the influence of some long-forsaken chemistry. Maybe *that* was the real impact ...

Posted by: Tony Steidler-Dennison at August 5, 2003 08:49 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?