The Smiley Smile Message Board

I have two questions that all of you Beach Boys fanatics, Mark or Alan might be able to help me with.

On the recording of Don't Worry Baby, I know it was recorded onto either 3-Track or 4-Track but, how did Brian record it? I know Track 1 had to be the Basic Instrumental Track but, how did the rest go, did he bounce to another tape? because a track of instruments, two backgrounds and one lead Vocal equals 4-Tracks right away. ???

The same with Fun, Fun, Fun There had to be at least one bounce, because of the Instrumental Track with is actually not Mono as originally assumed thanks to MIC, as well as two Vocal Overdubs and The Solo Overdubs.

Bouncing from deck to deck. It was not uncommon for studio cuts of this era to have many many bounces. Sync response was lousy on the these decks (though some bounced internally anyway), so most major studios bounced from machine to machine.

"Don't Worry Baby" was 3-track, and sounds like it has 4 overdubs in addition to the basic track (two background vocals, two lead vocals). The lead guitar was probably a punch-in on one of the vocal tracks. Not sure if the basic track was cut live or to 3-track, then bounced.

Once Brian went mono-only, key parts were often added during mixdown, so they only appear on the final mono mix.

Worth mentioning again is that the focus of attention was the mono 1/4". Multi-tracks were only considered working steps toward that end, so they used them in ways that might be considered unorthodox today. The 'mix' was not a separate process, just the final step ... i.e., 'mixdown' was done in smaller sections every step of the way.

question: Dave said he played the guitar break in DWB; is that true? Of course I would love to think/kmnow my fav BB played on that.

Professor

sounds to me like the jazzmaster or jaguar playing the solo........ which I would assume to be Carl?.....

would love to know definitely too!

RickB

Carl.
Dave DID play it live in Grand Island, NEB in 2011, when he made a surprise guest appearance with the BBs band. On that song, he flailed away at it, swinging his arm almost Townshend-style.

I'd really love to hear the recently discovered 'lost' tape of' SDV2' in its complete form....

what we now have as the alternate's 'DWB' and 'WDFFIL' with the extra intro.......

what else does that tape hold us freaks must hear? audio chatter etc etc

RickB

Here's some info from Jon about the contents:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,7109.msg114285.html#msg114285 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,7109.msg114285.html#msg114285)

It's interesting that this topic has presented itself at this time, since the past couple of days I've been preparing an essay on the making of "Fun, Fun, Fun" to accompany my MIC online sessionography.

Both of these songs are among the earliest examples of the Boys working with three generations of 3-track tape. In the case of "Don't Worry Baby", the basic track was cut in mono, then the other two tracks of the first-gen tape were filled with double-tracked backing vocals. Then there was a transfer to a second-gen 3-track, in which the two background vocal tracks were combined onto one track and the basic instrumental track remained on its own discrete track. Brian's first lead vocal was recorded onto the remaining open track of this second-gen tape, and Carl's guitar intro & break were recorded on the same track, probably as a punch-in after-the-fact. It was from this generation that the new 2009 stereo mix for Summer Love Songs was prepared, and that is on MIC as well. Then, a final 3-track to 3-track transfer was made, to a third-gen tape, during which Brian doubled his lead as a live feed onto the same track that his original lead was being dubbed to. This third-gen tape was used to mix the original mono and stereo versions.

Examining the "Fun, Fun, Fun" session tapes as they appear on the SOT UM Vol. 5 bootleg raises some interesting questions. They are chronologically out-of-order here, but if we listen first to Tracks 5-8, we hear 14 takes of the first vocal overdub and Carl's doubled guitar intro and solo. We know the basic instrumental track was recorded in stereo, with one overdub (doubling Hal's drums and the saxophones) added on the first-gen 3-track tape. Seemingly, this first set of vocals (with guitar) were being recorded at the same time as the dubdown of the first-gen tracks to a second-gen tape; I say that because we have all of these takes, whereas you might expect that they would simply wipe each take and redo it as they went. Instead, they apparently kept the tape rolling, each time feeding in the reduction-mix of the three instrumental tracks down to one track, while the group sang and Carl added the extra guitar parts to a second track on that new tape. Tracks 2-4 on this disc REALLY present a conondrum, because that's where they are adding the organ solo (with guitar & snare drum backup) to a third-generation tape...and what's VERY interesting is that this was apparently recorded to TWO separate third-gen 3-tracks: the source for this bootleg is a 3-track where the two sets of vocals from gen-two have been combined onto one track, the basic track is on its own track, and the new organ-guitar-snare drum overdub is kept discrete on its own track - whereas the original stereo mix keeps the two vocal tracks separate and combines the organ overdub with the basic track in the center - meaning, that mix would HAVE to have been made from ANOTHER third-gen 3-track recorded at the same time as the one used for this bootleg. Why did they do this? My only guess is that they wanted control over the level of the organ overdub when balanced against the basic instrumental track in the mono mix (which, as DonnyL stated, was of paramount importance at the time), so they kept those two things discrete from each other, and mixed the two vocal tracks together, because they knew they would be of equal level...but for the stereo mix, they wanted the two vocal tracks kept separate in wide-stereo, so they combined the organ overdub with the basic track on that dub-down. That's the only explanation I can think of that makes any sense!  Finally, Track 10 (Vocal Overdub) appears to be an early take of the second vocal track...in the background you can faintly hear the track with the guitar solo, blaring from the studio monitor speaker (that was used before they started wearing headphones for vocal overdubs)...which means that part was already recorded. However, this can't be the FINAL vocal double-track, because the floor tom roll heard on this track in the final mix is absent!

That's really curious ... I can't imagine them making any decisions based on the stereo mix, but you never know.

Any chance this was 4-track?

This is what this message board should be about! Thanks, c-man.

<<That's really curious ... I can't imagine them making any decisions based on the stereo mix, but you never know.

Any chance this was 4-track?>>

Nope...Western didn't have 4-track until third quarter of '65. I don't think anyone in the U.S. had 4-track in January '64.

Wonderful information above, thanks c-man (and Donny and MFP!)

Les Paul and Atlantic (with Tom Dowd's insistence) had 8-track machines from Ampex working sessions in the late 50's, though. Remember This thread from 2012?  http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,13763.0.html (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,13763.0.html)

And this Billboard clipping from '59 suggesting *Capitol* had an 8-track at that time along with Atlantic:
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/billboardmar21959.jpg)

The issue of 8-track availability in that thread came up around an Armin Steiner quote that he had the first 8-track running in LA at Sound Recorders.

If you mean a dedicated 4-track machine versus the then-standard 3-track, that's different. But there were 8-tracks running before at sessions prior to '64.

Consider that the industry-wide shift from 3-track to 4-track (in some cases) to 8-track happened in some studios in the same amount of time that exists between when we were hashing this out on that "Armin Steiner" thread in 2012 and when I'm writing this today, and it's mind-boggling actually with just how fast the game was changing in 64-65-66 with studio technology.

And like the Motown 8-track machine from fall '64 and Steiner's at Sound - both designed and constructed "in house" - a lot of it was being done at and by individual studios rather than buying something off the production lines as a stock item.

Pre-64, though, I think Atlantic's in New York (and some say RCA too...) were the main "name" studios running that many tracks.

The whole history and trying to narrow it down is confusing as hell.  ;D

Yeh 4-track was definitely around (and 8-track), but most studios on the west coast seemed to go from 3-track to 8-track relatively quickly. Then there were producers like Mickey Most, who was still bouncing mono to mono deep into the '60s!

3-track was originally designed to record folks like Nat King Cole and Frank Sinatra in stereo (orch. L/R, vocal center). I believe monitor systems were set up with 3 speakers in some studios.

Be that as it may, I'm pretty sure Western didn't have 4-track at the time, and The Beach Boys definitely weren't using 4-track at all until "The Little Girl I Once Knew". "Fun, Fun, Fun" is most definitely 3-track (albeit three generations of it).

Right, and as mentioned earlier the average board/console including the ones used to mix these BB's sessions didn't have a pan pot on each channel to do sweeping l-to-r pans, but instead had a 3-way switch for left-center-right, lined up with the kind of uses for 3-track recording Donny mentioned. It was a different mindset all around.

But then consider what Esquivel was doing in the late 50's with those wild pans and stereo fields, not to mention all of those late 50's novelty/audiophile records where you'd hear a ping-pong match "in stereo", or a train, or an auto race, or whatever else and it throws a wrench into trying to pin down when and/or why certain things were done.

One constant seems to have been the individual studios not wanting to blow out their budgets or risk down time or breakdowns with new equipment when they were being booked around the clock, as in those hitmaking studios like Gold Star around 63-64. It was probably easier and less expensive to keep churning out sessions with what we might consider outdated machines like the 3-tracks that they knew sounded good and worked for their purposes...even though more advanced things were available.

C-man, if that 2nd generation tape was used for the stereo remix of "Don't Worry Baby" wouldn't that have resulted in just a single-tracked lead vocal?  I hear a double tracked vocal on the stereo mix.  Or was this a case where the doubled lead vocal was pulled off the finished stereo master and synced to the rest of the music?

On the UK side, specifically Beatles at Abbey Road, it's odd in retrospect that they got a 4-track in time for "I Want To Hold Your Hand" in late '63, yet didn't get or have access to a proper 8-track machine at Abbey Road until the White Album in '68, which was a solid 2 years after some prominent US studios had already made the switch.

No rhyme or reason apparent, other than possibly the budget and reliability/familiarity issues I mentioned since this stuff was available and in use.

What I just thought of too was the timing of when some of these studios would have gotten a "new" four track to replace a 3-track, or whatever...because as many interviews and memories exist with specific details, hardly any mention the date. I guess the only obvious factor is like the case here  of Fun Fun Fun, where access to the master tapes can show obviously what was used to record it, versus what may have been available. No way to tell.

But with something like Spector at Gold Star - It was mentioned somewhere (here?) about Larry Levine using a 3-track for the "classics", while Levine himself almost talked down on the Ampex 3-track they used early on in favor of a 4-track Scully which had better features and better sound...so it wasn't a case of the "Wall Of Sound" aura owing a debt to 3-track recording if the engineer himself says the three-track machine wasn't as good as the 4-track that replaced it. They bounced tracks on 4-track just like they did on 3-track.

I wonder how much earlier Trident in London got their 8-track? They had theirs in use well before Abbey Road...and Abbey Road had theirs under a microscope well before they allowed their artists to actually use it (all this is from the Lewisohn "Sessions" book).

Interestingly, Mark Cunningham claimed in his book "Good Vibrations:  A History Of Record Production" (Sanctuary Music Library, 1996/1998, pp. 62 & 80) that Gold Star had a Scully 4-track by January '65, and that it was used for the BBs' "Do You Wanna Dance" - but this is evidently wrong, as the only multis from that session in the archives are 3-track. I posed the question of when Gold Star acquired their first 4-track to the Gold Star FAQ website back in February 2004, and their reply was "We all agree that it was mid 1966" (the "we" constituted all three principals - David Gold, Stan Ross, and Larry Levine, all of whom were still with us at the time). I managed to get a more specific approximate time, to within two months, while researching the "Good Vibrations" recording chronology for the "SMiLE Sessions" box set...the first "GV" session, at Gold Star on 2/17-18, was 3-track (then it was transferred to 4-track at Western for overdubs), but the next "GV" tracking session, also held at Gold Star (on 4/9) was 4-track. So, by early April '66, Gold Star had a 4-track, but they apparently didn't have one in mid-February. For whatever reason, they lagged behind Western by a good six months.
 

Great question, as that 8-track availability as well as a more "indie" attitude at Trident where more was allowed and in the open than the regulation-laden EMI was a selling point to get artists to book an indie upstart like Trident. Similar to the old-guard like Columbia's regulations versus indies like Gold Star and Western...but in LA, the bigger corporate regulation-laden studio had an 8-track when the others didn't. Sort of a flipped version of the UK.

I do know that EMI's regulations were more from their previous classical/formal existence, before all those upstart "kids" starting cutting rock records there!  ;D  White lab coats, an almost military-like chain of command system where every worker was supposed to know his place and remain in that place...etc. Credit to the Beatles and George Martin for getting enough clout and being successful enough to at least crack some of that nonsense. Otherwise Geoff Emerick would have been in a cutting room until he was in his 30's before getting a shot at the board, for example.

And one of those old-guard policies was to buy a piece of equipment and have EMI's in-house technicians go over every nook and cranny with a fine-tooth comb before installing the thing and using it.

And that last point is, I believe, why it took until the White Album for them to actually install and use the 8-track: They simply weren't in that mindset of competing with other studios, as they really never had to be doing classical music sessions for decades. While they were cutting "live" classical stuff, the rock and pop studio world was playing "keeping up with the Joneses" and constantly buying new and improved gear to lure artists into their facilities, and actually *getting the new stuff running at sessions* before someone else was the selling point and the goal, and they'd learn as they went in some cases.

Trident was bringing a US studio mentality into the old-guard traditional UK studio business, and it did attract a lot of big rock clients because of it.

That's really interesting, and I have to say it's a little later than the impression I got reading through some less-specific archived interviews with Levine, and also there is an interview conducted by Harvey Kubernik about 10 years ago where 4-track is specifically mentioned in working with Spector several times in the transcript, and it suggests earlier than '66 from what kinds of sessions they seem to be referring to.

That's what I meant by confusing as hell earlier -  ;D - There are a lot of recollections and very specific details but no one seems to have put enough of a specific date or time to when any of this changed, and that's the thing we're trying to figure out!  :) It's cool that you connected these dates via Good Vibrations. Now does this mean too that Wouldn't It Be Nice was done on 3-track at GS then moved over to 4? It would have been almost the same time as the photos I'm about to post here...

And again, consider the often behind-the-times Abbey Road had a 4-track running at sessions in 1963, so if Gold Star didn't get theirs until '66 they were really late to the game.

Craig: To confirm further what you just posted, here are those screenshots I took of the Feb. 1966 session at GS captured on film...you see clearly the Ampex and various "clues" pegging it as the 3-track setup (Donny L, confirm? ) so they still had it in Feb '66. It's great to have film evidence, innit?  ;)

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/Blog%20Post%201/stansonnyphiltest.jpg)

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/Blog%20Post%201/clip5.jpg)

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/Blog%20Post%201/stanrosstest.jpg)

Getting back to "The Recording of Fun, Fun, Fun" for a moment...what's everyone's opinion on these two questions:

(1) Is that a tack piano or a regular piano? It's best heard in the intro, those two big full-note downbeats...to me, it sorta sounds like a regular piano (either upright or baby grand) with the lid up...I think the saxophones, which sound at the same time, give the illusion of it being a tack or at least a detuned (honky-tonk) upight...you can hear the saxes better on the "Hawthorne" basic track as well as the MIC stereo mix...

(2) Listen to the MIC mix through headpohones, and ignore the far right channel (that's a drum & saxophone overdub), and focus instead on the far left and middle channels, which are from the stereo basic track...at 0:17-0:18, there's a snare drum roll in the middle channel, right before Mike's lead vocal starts...to me, that seems independent of the drumming in the far left channel, which at various points includes its own drum rolls...and I right? I'm trying to determine for sure if it's two drummers on the basic track, as I've long thought - one (Hal) coming through in the left channel of this mix, the other (Dennis) coming through in the center. (Hal then doubled his basic beat on the overdub, which is in the right channel here, along with Steve and Jay doubling their saxophone parts).  

Yes, the "Wouldn't It Be Nice" basic track from Gold Star 1/22/66 is 3-track. So is the "Just Wasn't Made For These Times" basic track from Gold Star 2/14/66.

I know it's probably my ears playing tricks on me but the versions of Fun Fun Fun and The Warmth of the Sun on MIC sound different. Those aren't remixes, are they?

My hearing ain't what it used to be, but Dennis was present at the Fun, Fun, Fun session, for the instrumental insert takes at least. At one point, you can hear Brian admonish Dennis yelling, "Hey Dennis, don't make the PICK-UPS!!! You're not gonna make the rhythm, don't make 'em, ?, don't make 'em, forget it." 

They are.

Yeh that's an Ampex 300 3-track, and a 350 mono 1/4"  deck. Curious is the deck next to the 3-track. Looks like another stripped-down or custom 3-track deck, based on an Ampex 300 transport. Actually looks like a playback-only machine. They probably recorded on the main 3-track (3 sets of tube electronics, with the transport in a separate console to the right), the played back on the playback-only machine, and recorded to the standard 3-track on fresh tape.

What this suggests with regard to the "Fun Fun Fun" conundrum is that there would have had to be a third deck if these overdub variations were to have been dubbed from the same takes simultaneously. Since they had this platback-only deck specifically for bounces, this suggests a rented machine. It'd make more sense that a 4-track would be rented for a session, rather than a third 3-track ...

Which leads me to my question:

C-man -- do we know for sure that all "FFF" multis in the vault are 3-track? It really seems like one of the masters could have been on 4-track.

Also worth noting is the Beatles stuff was 1" 4-track, which is sonically superior to 1" 8-track. Also, 3-track is slightly better than 4-track in terms of fidelity.

<<Also worth noting is the Beatles stuff was 1" 4-track, which is sonically superior to 1" 8-track. Also, 3-track is slightly better than 4-track in terms of fidelity.>>

Yes, 3-track 1/2" is slightly better in fidelity than 1/2" 4-track...but not necessarily 1" 4-track. :) Were any of the 4-track machines in use in the U.S.A. (at least West Coast) at the time of the 1" variety?

If a 4-track WAS being used for "FFF", wouldn't they have used all four tracks? I know Brian generally just used the fourth track for a mono mix, but that was over a year later when 4-track had become the new standard at Western and Gold Star.

I neglected to ask if my proposed scenario was even possible...to simultaneously feed two separate 3-track recorders with different mixes (on one, the two vocal tracks were combined, or bussed, into on track - and on the other, it was two other tracks that were combined instead).

The proposed scenario of feeding two separate 3-track machines: If this is 1963, you might run into first synching issues between the different machines trying to get them perfectly together on repeated takes and/or playbacks, and second you might run into various phasing issues when playing them back or even monitoring them. There was no guarantee that the motors would run at exactly the same speed, and as it was 1963 you might get traces of a whooshing phase shifting effect because of this that wouldn't be wanted. I'm running off the top of my head, corrections welcome!

Donny: I cannot remember where, or in what context, but only recently I read one of the old-school engineers say that the 4-track machines were actually better fidelity and sound quality than what they had available with 3-track machines around the time 63-65 approximately. I wish i could recall who this was...Levine? Stan Ross? Damn memory... ;D

Well, I think 1" 4-track (or 2" 8-track) is overkill, but all other things being equal, it's more or less indisputable that they offer a better 'fidelity' than 1/2" 4-track or 1" 8-track ... whether or not they sound 'better' would be subjective. The width per track is about twice as wide, so the sound should be 'fatter' and the S/N ratio better.

Studer made most of the 1" 4-tracks, and they were used primarily in Europe. I was adding this info in reference to the 'Beatles didn't go to 8-track until later' topic to speculate that the preference for 1" 8-track would be workflow, not sound quality ... though the end results could be 'better' because of fewer bounces, etc.

I'm not aware of any studios in the US using 1" 4-track or 2" 8-track in the '60s. Ampex made a 1" 4-track, but it's an obscure deck that almost no one used.

Yeh, your proposed scenario is technically possible, but unlikely. They'd have to set up two different busses on the board, and have two 3-tracks going, as well as splitting the signal ... it would be crazy ... which means they'd have a third 3-track deck ... unlikely. More likely to me -- depending on what's actually in the vaults -- is that they rented a 4-track, or the studio was auditioning one or something. I can't imagine why a third 3-track would be employed. We've seen an 8-track deck in Western in Dec(?) '66, which goes against conventional wisdom.

So we have working tracks for "FFF" that have:

1 - vocal group 1
2 - vocal group 3
3 - full track incl. overdubs

Then another mix that has:

1 - vocal groups 1 + 2
2 - basic track
3 - overdubs

... my guess is either:

1. The final master is 3-track, and the vocal overdub is a different take on the final ... i.e., the UM takes with the overdub track isolated was a work in progress, and they ultimately went back to the previous 3-track and wiped one of the vocal tracks, then bounced the full inst. track to one track on the new 3-track while overdubbing the second vocal group to it's own track (doubt they were thinking about stereo vocals, but they maybe wanted to control the vocals more intricately).

OR

2. The final master is 4-track, and it looks like this:

1. vocal group 1
2. vocal group 2
3. basic
4. overdubs

The UM people could have panned these any way they wanted when they were 'mixing'.

PS -- if my memory is correct, the orig. stereo mix has some tom fills at the end that seem to be on one of the vocal tracks, not centered.

I think c -man meant syncing like bouncing and doing live overdubs while bussing out different parts to two separate decks ?

Yeh I guess the guy was probably remembering that the 4-track deck just happened to be a better or more modern machine ... they probably made some 'headway' with the heads, sync response, etc.

True, maybe I misunderstood what C-man was asking - but even so, you're bussing out to two separate decks, those extra decks would still need to be in perfect sync when it came time to combine everything as it came back to be blended/mixed, wouldn't they? If there was even the slightest change in the motor speed or voltage or whatever else it would start audibly phasing, wouldn't it? I'm just thinking that synching even two decks in 1963 wasn't that easy nor that common if it was done at all, especially on a Beach Boys single that was going to be a mono mix. I can't think of many examples from that specific era where an extra tape machine was linked that way...especially if more than one "take" of the mix was needed.

I just have in mind the mid-1967 Geoff Emerick at EMI mix session having all kinds of problems keeping the orchestra tracks in time with the basics on Day In The Life running two machines in sync during playback, and ultimately the linked machine did drift out enough that the final mix has the brass re-entry noticeably off the beat. They couldn't keep it in sync after the initial link. And that was 1967, not 1963! Just thinking out loud.

I really don't think there's a "FFF" 4-track in the vaults, but I will double-check with Alan.

And, were there actually 2" 8-track machines in existence?? I've never heard of 2" being used until the dawn of the 16-track era. Tom Scholz of Boston fame started out buying a used 1" 8-track and equipping it with a 12-track head, if I remember correctly.

2" 8-tracks exist, though they were not made until later. Jack White records his record on 2" 8-track (Studer). I don't have much interest in European decks or Euro recording history, so I don't have a lot of info on Studers. I doubt Ampex ever made a 2" 8-track, but all you'd need is to have someone make a  2" 8-track headstack.

2" 16 came out in late '67 ... "Everything Playing" by the Lovin Spoonful is the first 16-track record (Mirasound in NY).

Tom Sholtz had a Scully 284 1" 12-track, which was a stock machine. This deck came out around '67 as well. 'Electric Ladyland' was one of the famous record cut on 12-track.

Hmm, that's interesting, considering Scholz has specifically stated that he modified an 8-track with a 12-track head...I'm recalling a Goldmine Boston cover story from '98 that mentions this. By the time Boston landed their record deal, 2" 24-track had become the industry standard...so they transferred Scholz' 1" 15-ips 12-track basic basement recordings to 2" 30-ips 24-track tape (covertly, so the record company wouldn't know) and added the vocals at pro studios in Los Angeles. Intersting story.

Sorry to derail the topic...

You have no idea just how much I love this kind of stuff.

NO. IDEA.

It's fucking great stuff; AGD is not a sole admirer

Oh, and the 2006 remaster of Boston's first album includes a couple of shots of Tom Scholz' basement studio control room set up...obviously from slightly later in time, since a 24-track machine is among the gear...but one of the tape machines definitely has 8 VU meters...looks similar, but not identical, to my Tascam 1/2" 8-track (which I bought new in 1989).

I've also enjoyed this, especially the "reverse engineering" scenarios and trying to work them out as I read them. Very interesting.

One point I'd like to ask, and it hit me while trying to calculate and figure out some of Donny's and C-man's formulas.

If something is reverse-engineered to try figuring out the whole mechanism/process/design, the main point is still the notion of a finished product, and how they got from point A to point B at each stage.

In this case, the finished product is "Fun, Fun, Fun", from 1963...we're not dealing with "Bohemian Rhapsody" or any of a number of infamously complex and complicated mixes that were full of strange choices in the process and dozens of components that needed a lot of hands on the board, yet produced a great record.

Question: Was it really that complex of a process to get the final mix of Fun Fun Fun? I can't get the fact that it was 1963 out of the equation, and the fact that the Beach Boys as recording artists were just over a year old at the time if that. Would this much have been done for one song at this time?

Or is perhaps a more simple solution the answer, simple as in a basic bouncing from deck to deck to free up tracks as we know was done on many classic records of this era from the engineers and artists who made the records?

It just seems like this much complexity to produce Fun Fun Fun might be too much complexity considering the context and the era, not to mention the artist involved.

And question #2, let's assume it was as complex of a process as some of the scenarios suggest: Did any other Beach Boys single or individual song receive this many steps in the process from 1963-1966? And there were far more complex-sounding BB's records than Fun Fun Fun at this time.

You're absolutely right man ... that's kind of where I was trying to get to.

I mean, the idea here is that there is something that can't be explained on the UM boots that seems to suggest there are two different versions of the same multi or ... it was on 4-track. The master being on 4-track goes against conventional wisdom, but to me is a simpler explanation.

Basically, there's one version of "FFF" that seems to have 3 discrete tracks: 1-vocal group, 2-vocal group overdub, and 3-full inst. track. Then there is another that seems to have: 1-both vocal groups, 2-basic track, 3-inst. overdub.

It's precisely because it's 1963 that makes you wonder how the hell that could have happened, ya know? They were bouncing from deck to deck, so it's not like they can just cut discrete elements in and out.

So, if this were 4-track is would be easy: 1-vocal group, 2-vocal group overdub, 3-basic track, 4-inst. overdub. This 4-track master could create BOTH of the mixes  we're talking about.

Like the studio was auditioning 4-tracks or rented one out to play around with, and they went about "FFF" in the usual 3-track manner, while incorporating the 4-track as well. That theory seems simple to me. My question was whether or not we know for sure there's a 3-track mix of "FFF" on the final, or maybe there's a missing tape, etc. etc.

OR -- as I presented in one of my theories above, they simply made one 3-track bounce, then decided to re-do one of the vocal takes and bounced the track together and kept the vocals separate because they weren't sure about one of the takes or something.

It probably wasn't so complicated at the time -- it would be more like, 'oops we didn't plan that very well and ran out of tracks, let's try this unorthodox thing ... cool, that worked well' ... meanwhile, we're left wondering what they hell they did !

Teac 8-track:

(http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/4087/5302863_1.jpg?v=8C7810EC4AEF690)

Scully 8-track:

(http://www.historyofrecording.com/images/Scully_280-8.jpg)

Scully 12-track:

(http://www.gearslutz.com/board/attachments/so-much-gear-so-little-time/300165d1342047010-brian-wilson-filmed-using-scully-8-track-western-1966-67-5lf5ne5kb3ke3l33m0c5gff89f3d0eab2135c.jpg)

That's interesting... does that mean that the 2009 lead isn't double tracked?  I'll have to dig that out and see how it sounds, one of the best things about Brian's vocals was when they were doubled IMHO

DonnyL wrote: <<Like the studio was auditioning 4-tracks or rented one out to play around with, and they went about "FFF" in the usual 3-track manner, while incorporating the 4-track as well. That theory seems simple to me. My question was whether or not we know for sure there's a 3-track mix of "FFF" on the final, or maybe there's a missing tape, etc. etc.

OR -- as I presented in one of my theories above, they simply made one 3-track bounce, then decided to re-do one of the vocal takes and bounced the track together and kept the vocals separate because they weren't sure about one of the takes or something.>>

On the first point, maybe...but the problem with that scenario is that on the SOT mix, there's only 3 discrete elements, not 4...I would think if the producers of SOT were mixing from a 4-track, they wouldn't have combined both vocal tracks (unless they were working with a vintage board that had four inputs but only the 3-position output).

On the second point, I'm thinking it's unlikely, because (in my proposed scenario, at least) the organ overdub is being recorded onto the third-gen tape as the two vocal tracks are being mixed together. To achieve your scenario, they would have to have re-recorded the organ solo while redubbing to the Gen-3 tape, with the two vocal tracks separated. Not impossible, but it seems to me like the final organ take on the SOT disc IS the final take that's on the record.

Craig can correct me, but I think what he meant was that all three tracks from the first-generation 3-track (mono instrumental, two backing vocal tracks) were sync'ed up with the track from the third-generation tape with the doubled lead and instrumental punch-in, to create four tracks in Pro Tools from which the new mix was created.  But I've been known to be wrong before...

Lee

When I read this, I thought about one aspect which could be a factor in what has been analyzed so far, and I put the phrases in bold:

Could it be that in trying to decipher what was done to mix the record in 1963, the SOT process has been given more weight than it possibly carries for that goal? I'm just thinking of what SOT was, how and when it was done, etc. and maybe the SOT "evidence" is making the equation more complex?

We have an idea what was done with SOT, and in some obvious cases there are key elements of the tracking process missing from the SOT collections, meaning there were things like overdubs flown in live during mixdown and whatnot that were not on the multis when the SOT folks did their own remixing.

So I'm just thinking, whatever is on SOT and what was "remixed" to create SOT was not only done with a modern mindset using equipment that was similar too but not exactly what Brian and Chuck (or whoever else) used originally, but it was also done with a different mindset where the "mixing" was thought of as a catch-all rather than designed to create a final mix for a record release. So they'd get possibly tracks on those tapes that Brian or Chuck may not have weighted very heavily, yet for SOT's purpose of getting it all out there and mixing everything they found into some kind of hastily done balance mix ('kitchen sink' mixing...), they had some things which weren't considered in 1963, and vice versa.

I'm just thinking out loud, but maybe what the SOT people did or didn't do with what they found is getting in the way of trying to calculate what Brian and Chuck did in 1963 with what they had to work with.

This thread has been on my mind all week, and yesterday I listened to the original '63 mix as would have been heard in 1964 - As I replied to Donny, there may have been extensive work done to reach that point, but when listening it's not that complex of a mix nor is it really that multi-layered of a record production.

I don't have any valid theories to offer, wish I did, but maybe in the analysis process removing some of the SOT factors would get closer to what was done in 1963?

Hang on...1963? I thought Fun, Fun, Fun was started January 1, 1964, which is still the latest information on the Bellagio site. Has new evidence come to light they started working on the song earlier than was known? Sorry, I did try to read back through the thread to find the answer myself, but didn't see anything regarding dates...and man, is this thread technical. (Not complaining - I know it's threads like these that make this a special place.)

hmm ... I'd say that final scenario is more plausible that the one where they had a third 3-track going though.

What if they were overdubbing vocal group 2 and organ solo at the same time ?

I mean, let's say it went like this:

* They do a few takes with the vocal overdub being submixed with the first vocal, and the inst. overdub going live to their own track (all simultaneously)

* Upon playback, they realize they want more control over the 2nd set of vocals instead of the organ, so they swap the busses (i.e. the organ goes with the basic track, and the vocal stays on it's own.

I think you're correct in a philosophical sense. And we're on the same page in terms of referencing SOT as 'clues'.

However, we have the situation where if we're listening to the orig. mix, it just sounds like a regular 3-track mix (vocals 1 / vocals 2 / track) -- no mystery.

But we have the SOT which isolates two elements (the inst. overdubs) which should not have been available to isolate ... they would have been locked together.

So, yeh it makes more sense to me that the master was 4-track and the SOT people combined the two vocals together for their 'mix' for whatever reason.

If this is proven to not be a possibility (4-track, that is) ... then, my other theory makes okay sense to me. More than a third 3-track being present anyway.

.

Delving into another "FFF"-related scenario, this time guitar-wise:

Could everyone who has access please listen to the new MIC stereo mix, and tell me what they hear for guitars in the center channel, after the intro has finished...it's hard to be completely sure, 'cause the vocals come in on top, but I hear a Dano 6-string bass picking away at qurter notes...and, I've always assumed a normal rhythm guitar chugging away on the low E and A strings, playing a standard Chuck Berry 5th-and-6th toggle. And I'm sure there's a standard Fender bass in the mix, too. BUT if you listen to the backing-track only from the Hawthorne, CA set, I hear the normal guitar playing a rhythm pattern on the higher strings (especially notable in the fade section), instead of the low E and A sting part I mentioned. Thoughts, opinions?

Recorded in January '64 is correct. It was written and first rehearsed in 1963...prior to Dave's departure.

Fun, Fun, Fun. If we are to believe the tale that at least the beginning of the song was written in a cab near Salt Lake City (and not during the Australia tour) this would have been on Sept 7, 1963 coming from the Lagoon, just outside of Salt Lake City. Dave Marks was still in the band. Orrrrr, they were in a cab coming from the Terrace Ballroom in Salt Lake City, where they appeared on Dec 27 and 28 1963. By this time Al was in the band. Then the song, at least the backing track, was recorded on January 1, 1964. Correcto mundo?

Right, recording initiated Jan 1 '64. Dave has a strong recollection of rehearsing the song with the BB's in late '63, so I'd think the Sept. '63 date is likely for it's birth as a composition.

Great thread! Boys n Girls........

keep it alive!!!!

I love this 'stuff'...!!!!

RickB

DonnyL: <<It'd make more sense that a 4-track would be rented for a session, rather than a third 3-track ...>.

Instead of renting an additional 3- or 4-track, what if they borrowed the extra 3-track from Western 1 or Western 2? All three Western rooms had two 3-tracks, right? As long as the second 3-track from 1 or 2 wasn't needed there for a particular session, I could see them wheeling it over to Studio 3 for the "FFF" overdub/dubdown session...

I think the low part is there in the CA mix, just a bit murkier and buried, like the sax parts that certainly shimmer and are more detailed/seperated on the MIC mix - the MIC mix also draws more attention to a lot of harmonics between the Rguitars and pianos.

Hmm, I don't know if they had 3-track in all rooms. Lots of smaller studios had a couple mono or 2-track decks only. What were Western 1 or 2 used for? Were they big dates, or radio station jingles, commercials, etc ?

In any case, though, even if they did have access to a third 3-track, I can't imagine simultaneously bussing two-different mixes/live overdubs at the same time to two different machines, just to decide which to use later. That really sounds kind of crazy. Stranger things have happened, of course ... but I'd bet lots of money that something like that did not happen.

EDIT: I just realized I'm confusing Gold Star w/ Western, based on the photos in this thread -- Sorry! ... So basically, we DON'T know that they had a playback-only deck, or how the setup was. They more likely were bouncing from two standard 3-tracks. But the basic info I've posted would still apply -- I still don't think there would be a third 3-track in there at any point.

Western 1 and Western 2 were both much larger rooms than Western 3. Western 1 in particular was used for lots of orchestra and big band dates. If the Studio 3 control room had two 3-track decks, I'd bet the other two rooms did as well.

So I guess my final guess based on the info provided is:

If the final 1/2" master is for sure 3-track, and the layout is: 1-vocals, 2-vocal OD, 3-track,

then the SOT mix that suggests [1-vocals, 2-track, 3-inst. OD] was an alternate take that features a different (but probably sounding more or less the same) vocal OD. I think the simplest explanation would be the most likely.

Here's some timeline info for Western's studio rooms, some of this I was discussing earlier this year regarding some questionable dates for a Petula Clark recording session:

Bill Putnam signed the ownership agreements to take over the facilities in Fall 1961. Renovations and installations started up, and the first sessions were held in 1962. There are photos from this "grand opening" ceremony featuring artists like Rick Nelson, if I recall.

The only studio room *not* to be in operation was Studio 1. That was undergoing extensive renovations, and if you connect the dots and clues, not to mention the official literature, Studio 1 was not completely finished and in full operation until 1966. So for those first few years, 62-65, Western more or less had two main tracking rooms, and several adjunct project rooms used for voiceover work, ads/jingles, and the like where a large room was not needed. These would have had a more basic equipment setup. There were also editing and copying/dubbing rooms as well.

This also explains why all Beach Boys session photos at Western prior to 1966 show them in Studio 2 (the Party sessions) or Brian's preferred Studio 3.

There was also United before Western, which had lettered rooms instead of numbered. This was Putnam's first purchase in LA dating to 1957, financed also by Bing Crosby and Sinatra. United A was where many of Sinatra's Reprise recordings were cut, though in '66 his sessions with the Wrecking Crew were also done at Western 1. The big-name singers like Sinatra usually recorded at United A, although United B was popular too. Then when Putnam bankrolled Western, they combined to become United-Western in the 60's. The room lettering and numbering stayed the same.

So if we're talking about Beach Boys in 1964, Western 1 was not in operation yet, and only 2 rooms were running full sessions at Western.

And here is Western 1:
(http://precambrianmusic.com/united3a.jpg)

great info !

Remember how Chuck is quoted in the Preiss book as saying Studio 3's control room was finished at the time of the BBs first session there, in April '62, but the recording room itself was still under construction; so he, Murry and Audree all sat in the control booth of Studio 3 and communicated to the band via intercomm as they played in the larger Studio 1 across the hall, with the microphone cables running back to the board in Studio 3's booth. The above might exlpain why they didn't just use Studio 1's tracking room AND control booth: because the booth was under renovation...in Studio 3, the opposite was true...

Just an aside: The thing with Western 1 and the timeline came about earlier this year as I was communicating with fellow board member "jeremylr" (who writes *terrific* and very informative music articles BTW, highly recommended reading! ) , about researching and dating some Rick Nelson pictures for one of his projects, including a photo that was supposedly celebrating the "opening" of Western.

Let me just say that as with a lot of this stuff...there is a lot of incorrect and missing information floating around even some reliable sources when it comes to dating these events and photos and everything. It's navigating a minefield, as anyone who has done this in any way can attest. In the case of Western, a source I thought was on the level had cited Petula Clark as being either the first "official" or among the first sessions at Western...unfortunately in 1961 and even into '62 she was still cutting records in French, and wasn't really much of a factor in US music or studios and whatever.

Then the possibility came up that she was the first session held at ***Western 1***, the newly renovated studio 1, which would date to around 1966, and this made much more sense, both with the timeline and the kind of records she was making that would seem to be a fit for Studio 1, with the larger facilities.

But even then, something as simple as a document, session sheet, interview, whatever would nail it down as "fact", but I wasn't able to come across anything of the sort. So it goes on the most logical solution, factoring in anything, risking being "wrong" at least until something more solid surfaces to confirm 100%.

I'm just adding this backstory, connecting Bill Putnam to Rick Nelson to Petula Clark to the Beach Boys in some sort of warped "six degrees of separation" kind of scenario, to demonstrate how and why sometimes the reports we read and might use for reference can be not only tough to suss out through conflicting info, but also a fascinating search effort that leads to information you didn't even set out to find, but which eclipses what you were digging for in the first place! That's the joy of it. The pay sucks, but it's a ton of joy...  ;D

So the way we got to information on Western 1 in this thread related to the BB's and something resembling a timeline, relating it to certain Beach Boys questions and things like "why didn't they use Studio 1, why are there no photos, etc... ) traces back to researching something totally unrelated to the Beach Boys! But now some points might make a little more sense to the BB's history in the studio.

C-Man: Thanks for the info on Chuck Britz and the Preiss book...I had forgotten about those quotes!

I took a look at my copy and read through Chuck's quotes, and a few things stuck out.

That first session you mentioned, Chuck said it was on a Sunday and they did that demo session for Surfin Safari, Surfer Girl, and 409, with Murry Audree and Gary Usher (who Chuck said sang on the sessions too) in attendance.

What's interesting is that the date of this places it as very, very early in the history of Western in general, not long after they had opened for business after Putnam signed the papers and began renovating and building up the rooms. That would explain why Studio 3's live room was still under construction, yet the booth was ready for sessions.

But consider Chuck's words when he said "they were in a big studio across the hall..." while Chuck, Mom, and Dad were in #3's booth and talking via intercom. I believe that big room would have been "Studio 2" at the time, as #1 wasn't ready to do much of anything as it was being constructed and overhauled.

Studio 3 was the smallest live room, still under construction for that first BB's session with Chuck, Studio 2 was a larger room where a band could cut records, and Studio 1 was the largest room built for larger orchestras and all of that but not ready to go until a few years later.

I'm guessing it was studio 2 where the Boys were tracking that Sunday, and it's very interesting that they were there very, very early in the process of building Western to the point where that split-studio setup had to be done to track. Then Chuck also says he didn't see them for a few months, but they came in later with Murry to say they had been signed to Capitol. Very cool backstory!

What also caught my attention from Chuck's comments was this:

"Everything was done on a four-track basis; the first sessions were done on a three-track. Everything was mono as far as the music was concerned. We did all the vocals live and dubbed them. Everybody sang at one time."

It sort of confuses the issue again of when exactly they went to four track, right? Same thing with the mono-stereo issues, do all of the pre-1964 BB's mixes from Chuck and Brian line up that way, where the instrumental tracks are always mono, including the overdubs like solos or organ tracks, and whatever else came after the basics were tracked?


Just for the record, this is one of the series from the Party sessions at Studio 2, I wish there were some more expansive views of the room itself from that era to give a sense of its size and layout versus both #3 and the later #1. I'm looking...

(http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7a2v9CKar1rbsd7uo1_1280.jpg)

Yeah, I considered that it might have been Studio 2 instead, but for some reason decided it was more likely Studio 1. They were both across the hall, weren't they? I asked Alan Boyd and he seemed to think it was Studio 1 - I think it's directly across the hall. Is Studio 2 across and down, or just down? If just down, it would seem Studio 1 is the likely candidate.

And...it wasn't a Sunday, apparently. So much for that memory! :) Actually, he doesn't say it WAS a Sunday, does he - just that "they wanted to book a session on a Sunday". It was, in fact, a Thursday. And the Gary Usher session was the previous Monday.

The memory issues strike again! That's what Chuck said, but even reading it you get the impression it was booked on a Sunday and that Gary Usher was with the Boys and sang. More to sort out.  ;D

I'm staying with the idea that they tracked in Studio 2, mostly on the basis of Studio 1 not being anything near complete, several reports of it undergoing "extensive renovations" which suggest much more than a facelift, let's say, and not being ready to book for sessions until about 4 years after the Boys cut those first tracks with Chuck at Western.

The physical location of the room doesn't seem too significant, as they could easily communicate between rooms and booths, and even if they weren't hard-wired to do that (which I'm pretty sure they were as standard practice), it would be a simple case of patching in. No matter where each room was, they'd be linked, and if they weren't it was a simple thing to rig up. But I'm sure they were.

This early in Putnam's ownership, and it was within the same year that Western started booking that the BB's came in, I'm guessing that big Studio 1 room was pretty rough in that first year, and hadn't been fixed up acoustically or cosmetically for some time after, especially considering the smaller #3 was still being renovated as the BB's showed up to record.

Again, I don't know for sure, but I'm going heavily on the construction timeline from UA and the history of when Studio 1 started booking sessions about 4 years after that first BB session over the memories.  :)

Possible reason why they couldn't/didn't book a session on the Sunday - it was Easter Sunday.

Also... is it possible that Chuck was, some fifteen years after the event, conflating the 4/16 Gary Usher session (at which the band provided the instrumental backing) and the 4/19 BB demo session ? Given that Murry was indisputably at the Thursday session, my guess is Usher might have diplomatically decided to wash the car that day.

I'm pretty sure Gary was at the 4/19 session...(1) Murry was at both the 4/16 and 4/19 sessions (2) Alan and I, and maybe Adam, think we can hear Gary singing backup on "409" (3) David recalls that Gary played the guitar intro on "Lonely Sea".

http://www.studioelectronics.biz/newsletters/65dec.pdf

guitarfool2002 wrote: <<I'm staying with the idea that they tracked in Studio 2, mostly on the basis of Studio 1 not being anything near complete, several reports of it undergoing "extensive renovations" which suggest much more than a facelift, let's say, and not being ready to book for sessions until about 4 years after the Boys cut those first tracks with Chuck at Western.>>

I'm still leaning toward Studio 1: since Studio 2 was apparently fully operational in early '62, why not just book it? My guess it it was already booked. From Chuck's quote, Studio 3's tracking room was under construction, and only the control booth was operational. With Studio 2 already operational, perhaps the plan was to get Studio 3 up and running next, before gutting and rebuilding what used to be the "theatre" into Studio 1. Perhaps the recording equipment formerly used in the Studio 1/theatre was moved into the new Studio 3 control room, thus there was no Studio 1 control room yet.

I think we can say it was Studio 1 if we knew for sure that of the two big studios, only Studio 1 is across the hall from Studio 3 (as Chuck said the room in question was)...if they are BOTH across the hall from Studio 3, then we can't say for sure without knowing the specifics of the renovation timeline. Jon Stebbins, you've been there - what do you recall about the locations of Studios 1, 2 and 3 in relation to one another? Is Studio 1 or Studio 2 across the hall from Studio 3, and the other one on the same side of the hall as Studio 3...or are they BOTH across the hall from Studio 3?

With all due respect to his importance in the Beach Boys story, i've found many obvious errors in Chuck Britz recollections about the Beach Boys studio process. Again we have someone who was there, whose anecdotes and interview answers need to be scrutinized, but so happy that there are some CB responses to be fact checked.

Regarding David, I originally thought he was describing Gary Usher as having recorded the guitar intro to Lonely Sea, but I'm pretty sure he later clarified that Gary "wrote" the intro, but that Carl recorded it, and that Gary played no guitar on the actual session. David witnessed Brian and Gary writing Lonely Sea, and made the point that it was unusual in that it was more of an Usher musical composition that Brian added lyrics to. Hence the guitar intro being a Gary thing.

One other consideration...It's also a good possibility that the non-Wilson voice on 409 is David.

More things to scrutinize.

PS I think you're right about studio 1 because somewhere in the revolving recollections of those early early days David mentioned to me that they used the big studio one day, not sure which day, but one of the first sessions.

My recollection is that 2 and 3 are side by side and that studio 1 is across the hall, actually on the other side of the wall of the lounge across the hall...so you have to go down the hall and around...but if you could bust through the lounge's wall, then yes it would be across the hall. Please, anyone who is more solid in their memory of the layout, correct me if I'm wrong.

<<PS I think you're right about studio 1 because somewhere in the revolving recollections of those early early days David mentioned to me that they used the big studio one day, not sure which day, but one of the first sessions.

My recollection is that 2 and 3 are side by side and that studio 1 is across the hall, actually on the other side of the wall of the lounge across the hall...so you have to go down the hall and around...but if you could bust through the lounge's wall, then yes it would be across the hall. Please, anyone who is more solid in their memory of the layout, correct me if I'm wrong.>>

Thanks, Jon. Regarding David's recollection of using the big studio one day...according to Mark L., "Punchline", the outtake included thiry years later on the "GV" box set, was recorded in Studio 2. Regarding the lounge...I wonder if that lounge was there back in early '62? Not that it would necessarily matter, as guitarfool2000 points out, the various rooms could have easily been connected via cables, but walking across the hall from room to room would have certainly been easier with no lounge. Just wondering.

Thank you for posting that - those are *the* standards for tracing the history of United-Western.

Having said that, please read just pages 1 and 2 of that company newsletter. The history of Western 1 is spelled out clearly.

I ask: How could the Beach Boys or anyone be recording in a room which was actually a theater and was at the beginning stages of being totally stripped down and rebuilt as a live tracking room to accommodate orchestras and large groups?

The newsletter read that the former theater at Western was "completely dismantled, until only the basic shell of the room remained".

Also, note that tons of granite and concrete were poured to level the sloping floor (as any theater would have) and provide acoustic treatment on top.

No matter what the layout, no matter what anyone in the band remembers, in spring 1962 Western 1 was still a theater with a sloping floor that was being stripped down to the bare foundation for renovations that took upwards of 3 years.

Logically, does it make sense that the Beach Boys were recording in that theater room a few months after Western opened for business?  :)

The only other "studio" room at Western was studio 2 at this time, as 3 wasn't finished either.

Those newsletters are fascinating, and a vital resource... but like most in-house publications, they're not 100% accurate.

Apart from the newsletters' reliability, in this case Putnam had just signed the paperwork around 6 months prior to add the "Western" facilities to what he already ran as "United", and began building up each room to get them ready to book sessions. Let's say it's early 1962 - The room that would become Western 1 was still a theater-style room with a sloped floor, and it would not be in any condition in April 1962 to have a band go in there and cut tracks.

Again I weigh all sides of these things including memories which can be more shaky than an internal newsletter, and if I'm wrong I say it, but in this case I don't know how or why it's being challenged when it's a fact that what would become "Western 1" was A. a theater room and B. under renovation when the Boys did those first sessions with Chuck.

It seems pretty basic to say if Western 1 didn't exist and wasn't even a studio room in 1962, beyond the fact that they were stripping it down to the bare walls and foundation to rebuild it as a tracking room with a flat floor (that in itself is a massive job), how could any band record in there in 1962?

Yes...but do we know when the actual tearing down phase began? This is what I was getting at above...in its former incarnation as a theatre, did Studio 1 have a control room or any kind of recording gear setup? I don' know, but if so, the first step would logically be to build a control room in Studio 3 and move Studio 1's gear into it. Then, assuming they could only do one thing at a time, the next logical thing would be to build the Studio 3 tracking room...once finished, they would have two fully-functioning studios (2 & 3), which makes sense business-wise. Finally, they could concentrate on stripping the flooring, etc. out of Studio 1 and rebuild it, while booking sessions into 2 and 3. This last phase apparently took three to three-and-a-half years. Most theatres have a flat stage...so the band obviously could have set up on that stage for the session. Makes sense to me, especially considering if they were recording in Studio 2, why would they have needed to use Studio 3's control room?

Just to add...those theater rooms or "projection rooms" were also a bit of a throwback to a previous era of recording and film: I spent time in the mid 2000's in what used to be the Record Plant in New York City, and besides the famous tracking and mixing rooms they had a big projection room, with an angled floor just like the description of what Western 1 had before the renovations. According to what I was told, that projection room dated back to when some of the first "talkies" were screened there. As it was in the 2000's, it wasn't really fit for the average tracking session, as the floors were cement, the walls were brick and/or stone not acoustically treated for recording, there was a high ceiling again not acoustically treated, and it had windows on the side and front. It was a massive echo-laden white room, basically. When I was there I was told it was mostly being rented out for photography and modeling shoots for some extra revenue, as nothing was being recorded in there for the reasons above. I have pictures of that room, it basically looked like an empty storage area. I don't believe anything was tracked there musically, but I could be wrong.

So even for them to have renovated that room would have been perhaps less extensive than what Putnam did to build Studio 1, but still a major project involving some of the same concerns, like the floor and walls/ceiling.

Your logic applies in almost any realm, and most likely does here...but as any musician would know, sometimes you end up working in less than optimum surroundings, in between, on top of, while construction is happening around you etc... Being that the BB's were an unsigned act, and probably getting the studio time as favor from somebody, recording a demo etc... Sure, that demo came out great and ended up being pressed as an eventual hit record, but IMO a scenario where they worked in a room in the process of a partial demolition is at least plausible. Unlikely...but in that business, always plausible.

I'll check on this, but I do not think Studio 1 in its state when Putnam took ownership was a recording room, and it wouldn't have a "booth" necessarily or any equipment to record as it was - according to UA - a projection room. Any equipment in there would have been for projection and not recording purposes, and that could include the design and construction of the area itself, which is what had to be redesigned and rebuilt to make it a recording room.

A scenario: They could book just a mixing session in studio 2's control room, close the window to the studio floor, and have another band on the floor without disturbing too much. I mean I'm not suggesting that's what happened, but I've been in studios where two control rooms shared a common studio floor or tracking room, and if say studio A was recording from the floor studio B could close up the booth window and use it for mixdown or other jobs not needing that live room.

Again, I'm not saying that's what happened in '62 but I've worked where that scenario did happen regularly if not every day with booking time.

And here's the unknown: We don't know for how long the "live room" at Studio 3 was down when the BB's were there. Maybe it was just something minor that made it unusable, perhaps just for a few days or a week, and they had to shift things around to accommodate the bookings. Something as common as a wiring problem or even a burst pipe could have taken it out of service, who knows.

The only studio we know was out of commission for a specific period of time was Studio 1, again due to the renovations. But who knows if either another booking in Studio 2 or a similar repair/renovation schedule made it unavailable for the BB's when they booked time?

So many variables!  :)

This reminds me of the Village Recorder in West L.A. (which used to be a Masonic temple), with its huge upstairs auditorium. My understanding is that it was pretty much used for nothing except storage, until G N' R decided to track drums there for "Chinese Democracy". Now it's one of their "featured rooms". Incidentally, Studio D at the Village, which was designed and built specifically for Fleetwood Mac to record the "Tusk" album, is once again being used by the Mac - I thought I recognized the control room that Christine and Lindsey are sitting in from the recent photo Ed Roach posted on Facebook, and so I compared it to photos on th Village site - and yeah, that's it.

This reminds me of the story of how, when the Stones were recording their "Undercover" album at EMI Pathe Marconi in Paris, that particular room - a rehearsal room in which they'd recorded each of their albums since "Some Girls" - was being deconstructed around them, even in middle of takes for "It Must Be Hell".

Reviving this topic based on the inclusion of another Chuck Britz quote on the subject of the Boys' first Western recording session:

"They wanted to use Studio Three, but only the booth was finished so I put them in Studio A across the hall and ran lines to Studio Three's booth. Murry, Audree and I stayed in the booth and spoke to them on the intercomm."

I found this in James Murphy's outstanding book "Becoming The Beach Boys 1961-1963". The footnote in the appendix gives the source as:
Chuck Britz interview, July 7, 2008, http://en.440tv.com/search.php?query=chuck+britz&cat+0

As nice as this is, it's unfortunately not conclusively helpful in clearing up the question of which room was used in the tracking of the first Western Beach Boys session...Chuck refers to it as "Studio A" - and from all the evidence, Western was only using "numbered" rooms at that time (Western's sister studio United, across the lot, used lettered names for its rooms). This could be, and probably was, a mere misspeak, and although I think "Studio A" is more likely to be misspoken for "Studio 1" than it is likely to be misspoken for "Studio 2", it's still - unfortunately - not a definite indication.

Another case of too many variables that can't be narrowed down, specific to what Chuck meant, whether he misspoke or perhaps he was misquoted when the interview was transcribed? No way to tell, unfortunately, especially in this case...what did Chuck mean or what did he mean to say? It may be lost to time, and probably is.

What I will add is that Chuck saying "Studio A" really becomes a mystery considering the Putnam studios were basically his workplace and office, as he was on the staff and worked both facilities as a full time job. He'd know just like all the other employees the difference between the studios, as these guys knew not only the rooms but the differences (sonic, equipment, size/capabilities, etc) between each of the rooms as it was their job to do so in order to get the best sounds for the paying clients. "Studio A" as it was named would immediately trigger the reply "United" with anyone familiar with those facilities, as well as anyone who studied the history...so Chuck saying Studio A is baffling with all things considered.

What also sticks with me is the issue of "paying clients"...no matter who it was, if a facility got a new client coming in for a first session, the facility and staff would want to make the best first impression on the based on their needs and according to the business concept of making the best first impression possible so that first time client not only becomes a repeat client but also a loyal customer for years to come.

The idea that a pro studio trying to build up the reputation and cache of a newly-purchased facility (Western coming after United) would set up a session for a new client - any session - in a studio room that was under massive renovation and construction and possibly had the usual trappings of bare walls, scaffolding, paint cans and construction supplies, tools/lumber/etc strewn around the room where the musicians would be paying to play and record their music...

Pure speculation, but I have a hard time seeing that happen. Going back to previous posts, Studio 1 was undergoing a massive overhaul, if not being stripped and gutted entirely to the bare walls and cement floors and was still several years away from being fully prepared and ready to open: I wouldn't think a studio facility would put a new client in such a room if they were paying and if the facility hoped to have them back paying again.

To your point of a possible misquote: it appears the source was a video interview conducted in 1993 and posted online in 2008; it is still there, accessible from the link I posted, but I get an error message saying that it can't be played on an imbedded device. Maybe someone else would have better luck...I couldn't find it on Youtube, but then I only did a quick look there.

As far as Western wanting to make a good impression no matter who the client was - that makes sense, but then, even if it was the fully-operational Studio 2 tracking room that was used, but not the Studio 2 control room (because, in this hypothesis, it was being used for another client's mixdown session), why would they agree to let a client track in one room while the engineer worked in another room across the hall, with no eye contact between them, and with the engineer likely having to run across the hall once or twice to adjust the mics? Probably not a horrible inconvenience, but not the most professional-appearing approach, either. Knowing that Murry funded the session himself, I can easily see a situation where, being told Studio 2 was fully booked with other clients on one or both of the Boys' desired dates that week, Murry agreed to do it the way they did it - especially if that setup was offered at some kind of a discounted rate.

All speculative, of course - that's why I wish we knew for sure! We probably won't ever, though!  :)

Unfortunately that is the same multi-part Chuck Britz interview that was on YouTube years ago (or at various times reposted since), but it's the series that got pulled down and has been unavailable since. I wish I had ripped a copy of the series when it was up, but I did not. I definitely saw those videos when they were available, though.

Agreed on the "cut rate" angle - Standard practice for studios up to the current day to offer discounted rates to book during typical off-peak times, or blocks that traditionally are not booked by the bigger clients. Bands come in on a Sunday night or something, run through a mini-set of their songs with little production or overdubbing, it's a quick get in and get out deal and the band walks away with basically a demo that was mixed mostly as they ran through their material. It doesn't make much money for the studio, but the rooms are at least bringing in some money where they normally would not, and chances are the band might come back to do a more full session and tell other bands about the facility if they had a good experience. I can see that happening with the BB's in '62.

It still sticks in my mind that "Studio 1" did not even open for sessions until 1965, and consider we're talking about something from 1962, almost 3 years prior to when Putnam actually opened up the room for official business. Even the most ragged bunch of kids coming in to record a song for kicks, I can't picture having them in a large room with no acoustic treatments, and what had to be a work-in-progress atmosphere that would go along with a full ground-up rebuilding and redesign of a room like Studio 1.

The linking of #3 control room to another room would be awkward but not unheard of - Once the band got set up and the mics/levels placed and ready to track, the engineer could communicate via talkback without needing eye contact, it's been done and again - awkward, not the best setup, but it works. Eventually United/Western got a full closed circuit video monitoring system linking the full Putnam facility to any studio or control room, and it was a big sell for the film and TV scoring clients.

If it were a case of Studio 1 opening up for sessions a few months later, I could rationalize it more, but approaching three years prior to anyone actually able to book a formal session in there while it was being gutted and rebuilt? I can't see that happening for reasons of construction and the realities of studio design and what would be necessary to rebuild a studio room ground-up.

But again, it's pure speculation and educated guessing, unfortunately Chuck isn't with us to expand on his comments, and as one day in 1962 when an unknown band of young musicians walked into a studio complex still under construction to cut a demo, some of the minute details we would need to really seal this case are most likely lost to memory and time. Maybe there is still a source that hasn't been found.

Just my 2¢, while I can easily imagine cables being run down corridors between studios, running them hundreds of feet across a damn great parking lot to United is hugely unlikely... and anyway, Chuck actually says "across the hall", clearly indicating it was Western 1 or 2.

I recall those interviews - for Dutch TV, I think - and fascinating as they were, there were a couple of errors by Chuck. When I interviewed him in the Western Three control room in 1985, I discovered that while his memory for the music was sharp as a knife, titles meant next to nothing to him.  ;D

Strictly speaking, it wasn't the first Western session for the band. Three days earlier, on April 16th, they provided instrumental & vocal backup for a Gary Usher session for some songs he'd written with Brian - " Beginning Of The End", "One Way Road To Love", "Visions" & "My Only Alibi". Usher had apparently used Western before. After 4/19, Brian didn't use Western again until September, when he recorded the Bob & Sheri version of "Surfer Moon". Of course, that's partly because they had to cut the first album in the Tower.  :)

I've just had the opportunity to hear the audio from the C.B. interview referenced above - regarding the BBs first Western session(s), Chuck said "They wanted to use Studio 3", meaning they had some kind of choice or say in the matter, and after explaining that only the booth for Studio 3 was built ("Well Studio 3 wasn't done - only the booth was done...the room itself was not, there was no carpeting, there was nothing in the walls - it was just a wide open place"), he goes on to definitely say, "So I put them in another studio, 'Studio A', which is probably - it's a humongous studio, it's a BIG studio. And I run tie-lines - we couldn't even see each other, all we could do was talk to each other."

Comparing the dimensions of the three Western studios, I'm not sure I would refer to Studio 2 as "humongous" or "BIG" with that kind of emphasis - it's definitely bigger than Studio 3, but not nearly as big as Studio 1. I'm also not sure why, given a choice, they would specifically request the to use the Studio 3 control room, even if it meant using the tracking room across the hall, instead of the control room of Studio 2. However, we can't ignore the fact that the room which became Studio 1 in 1965 was merely an unused theatre in 1962. If it could just be established that Studio 2 is in fact across a hall from Studio 3 - even if it's just a small corridor - and knowing that Studio 1 was, at that time, merely an unused theatre awaiting gutting and reconstruction, I'd be inclined to think that Studio 2 was in fact the studio in question. However, the fact that Chuck refers to it as "Studio A" still gives me pause: I believe he'd be more inclined to accidentally say "Studio B" in place of "Studio 2", and "Studio A" in place of "Studio 1". In fact, later in the interview, the interviewer mistakenly says "Studio C" instead of "Studio 3", and Chuck corrects him by saying, "No, Studio THREE". I just wish we knew for sure if there was at least a corridor separating 3 from 2, even if they ARE on the same side of the hall! If there's only a wall separating them, it seems less likely that he meant Studio 2.

Chuck goes on to talk about song titles, and obviously confuses some of the ones he did with them a bit later ("Surfin' U.S.A.", "Lana", and "one of the car songs", at which point the interview prompts him with the title "409", which Chuck agrees to - and that, of course, WAS done at the April '62 session). Chuck does specifically mention Gary Usher and David as having been there. Interestingly, he also says, "We did the overdubs in Studio 3, 'cause it was just like organ, and things like that, and some vocals, which was GREAT, 'cause it gave them this nice, airy, light sound to 'em." Of course, there is no organ on "Surfin' Safari", "409" or "Lonely Sea", but there IS organ on some of the BW/Gary Usher stuff they did a few days earlier, as well as the later "Surfin' USA", of course.

He goes on to describe how they left saying they'd see him in a few months, and went on to get signed by Capitol and record there with Venet, doing what Chuck described as "the worst damn song they ever did", "Ten Little Indians" - "which was a joke - but that was his (Venet's) forte. Then, they were back to me, right after that 'Ten Little Indians' episode."

He also says that for a year or so, they would deliberately try and book a session at Capitol when they knew they couldn't get it, because it was real busy - then when he (Brian) couldn't get in, he was able to go somewhere else (Western). That would explain how they were able to record "Surfin' U.S.A", "Shut Down", "Lana", and "Farmer's Daughter" at Western, yet they still had to do the rest of that second album at Capitol! I found that to be quite interesting and funny!

Lastly of interest here, Chuck answered a question about the basic track layout on those early sessions by confirming they were using 3-track at this point (which he said they'd had for about a year already), and that he would sometimes "ping-pong" instrumental overdubs such as organ onto the mono basic instrumental track, so that they would always have two tracks for vocals.

FWIW, which is probably diddly with a light frosting of squat, when I was in Western in 1985, Three was on the right side of a short corridor leading from the reception area. I seem to recall a door in the left wall, and one more at the end of the passage. Didn't explore further as I was set to interview Chuck in the control room of Three (as arranged by Steve Desper the preceding day). Lovely man, much missed.

Oh, and I was shown a hole in the corridor wall by the door of Three, where there used to be a plaque of the names of all the artists who'd recorded hits there... until some lowlife stole it.

Page 44 of Ken Sharp's EXCELLENT book Sound Explosion! Inside L.A.'s Studio Factory With The Wrecking Crew offers the following diagram of the Western Recorders layout as it stood in 1968 (not drawn to scale):

                   Studio 2
                  |            |
     Studio 6 |            |
Mic Storage |            |
     Studio 1 |            |Studio 3
Tape Supply|            |
                  |            |Maintenance
Traffic Office|            |

Studio 6 was likely a small dubbing room or mastering room (maybe Studios 4 and 5 were mastering rooms on the second floor?).  The Mic Storage (aka Mic Box) and Tape Supply were likely no bigger than walk-in closets directly off the hallway, with the expansive Studio 1 filling in the space behind all of the small rooms on the left.

So IMO Studio 1 would be the likely "across the hallway" candidate, and if it was just an empty theatre at that point Chuck could have thrown up some baffles and given the young artists a cheap rate on the otherwise unused space.

Lee

Thanks, guys - it's looking more and more like Studio 1 was indeed the "one" in question...

Thanks Lee: at least I remembered part of it correctly !

So I also heard Chuck on those videos say the guys wanted to use Studio 3 but the live room wasn't ready to use at that time, the walls/floors were not acoustically treated and you couldn't get a good sound in such a room, so he used 3's control room and had to run tie lines to the big room where the band was set up...

And Studio 1 in 1962 was basically in the same state if not worse than #3, no treatments, much larger room, much harder to "control" the sound, because it was still three years away from being renovated and "ready" to get sessions in there.

if it were as simple a case as throwing up gobos and baffles, Chuck could/would have done that in #3 rather than run lines across to an even larger room with no treatments on the walls, ceilings, and floors, and have a live band in there rather than the room in #3.

Does it make sense to have used the largest room at Western which was not acoustically treated and was three years away from even booking a session if the room the band wanted to use was in the same state yet much closer (months if not weeks) to being ready to use? And why use the biggest room with no treatments when there was a fully operational "live" room on the same hall?

Next question: Has anyone here ever tried to record in anything like an empty school gymnasium, an empty theater, large church or chapel room, etc? Vocals, organ, piano...that's fine. Put a drum kit and electric guitars in there and it's like recording in a cave. Very hard to manage.

So the band shows up "Hey guys, I know you want to use #3 room, but that's not ready...it will be soon, but it's not ready. Let me put you into a room three times the size of #3, that's also not ready and won't be until 1965, but I'll run lines into it and we'll have, you know, world peace...".

Yep. Sounds like good business and good logic. :)

One great thing to take away...getting to revisit Chuck's interview, it should put to rest the notion that Carl Wilson or anyone else not named Brian had much if anything at all to do with producing Beach Boys records Chuck Britz was involved in recording prior to late 1967. It's all in the interviews from the man who was with Brian more than anyone else in the studio, as the interviewer points out.

OK then I have another -- very speculative -- theory...

In addition to the three main studios, Western had several mastering and dubbing rooms.  Given the "Studio 6" on the chart in Ken Sharp's book, that would imply that at some point there was a Studio 4 and a Studio 5.  Granted the mastering rooms would not need much more space than enough to hold a tape deck, a console, some amps and effects, and a lathe; but how big would the dubbing room(s) be?  Big enough to hold a 4-piece combo and a lead singer?  And, maybe, the dubbing rooms were initially labeled "Room A," Room B, etc." before Putnam acquired Western, and then were renamed numerically in order to avoid confusion.  If "Studio 6" was originally "Dubbing Room A," then mystery solved.

This morning I remembered seeing a picture of a daily schedule from United/Western in some book, with all of the times, clients, studios, and engineers listed.  I just found it -- on page 144 of Domenic Priore's Look! Listen! Vibrate! SMiLE!.  It's from 2/9/67.  In the STUDIO column there are references to studios 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 (Western) and B, D, E, F, and G (United).  Studio 6 is shown as being scheduled for a "Mag Transfer," and Studio 7 for a "Decca Records / Bud Dant" session.

Is anyone Facebook friends with former Western engineers Joe Sidore or Winston Wong?  I wonder if they would know if the dubbing/mastering rooms were originally labeled alphabetically, or if Studio 6 was big enough for a 5-man band.

Lee

A good avenue to pursue, but I know that tracksheet very well too, and consider Western and United had undergone quite a few upgrades and changes from 1962 into 1967, including the ability to "link" studios between United and Western and in some cases, specific for film scoring, have a closed-circuit TV monitoring system between the live room and the actual booth where the engineers and various machines were.

Some of those rooms were also specific to advertising clients and voiceover work, where it was bare-bones and smaller, but still had the capabilities to do the standard voiceover, editing, and post-production work. You may have a vocal iso booth and a smaller console with tape machine for the voiceover artists to come in and read copy, or whatever. Same with ad work like jingles that only needed editing or a new voiceover on an existing music package depending on the client. The ad agency clients who used full bands used the same rooms as the regular musicians.

I've seen a photo or two of the United/Western "transfer" rooms, they looked more like labs than what we know as studios, and were full of various machines and equipment to edit, dub, and even cut acetates when requested. Not for tracking at all.

I just want to add this to the info going into the discussion and speculation about Studio 1. This is the front page of the UA newsletter Dec 1965 edition, the previous "Fall 1965" issue mentioned that Studio 1 would be opening its doors in a matter of weeks, and the official date as seen in December's issue was Nov. 22, 1965. This was Bill Putnam's most "modern" studio design up to that point, incorporating brand new concepts and features that no other studio up to that point had done.

I mention this because note in the text of this scan the description of the renovations and work done on the former theater room that became Studio 1, dating back to when Putnam first acquired Western in '61.

I know there has not been a firm confirmation either way, and we still just don't know, but consider the sheer amount of work they did on that room to turn it into Studio 1, and consider when the Beach Boys first went to Western to cut those demos.

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/uanewsstudio1_zpso6cfbnsf.jpg)

Lee, Fred Vail's story of Brian mastering Pet Sounds indicates there was at least enough room for two grown men to sit on the floor while the mastering engineer was at the console.

Lee - I don't think one of the smaller mastering rooms would be the "Studio A" in question, since Chuck described it as "humongous" and "BIG".

Other Craig - even though the new & improved Studio 1 had its grand opening in the fall of '65, it could still have theoretically (or "theatre-etically", if you care to pardon my pun) been used for some recording prior to the major renovations that led to that grand opening - as stores and other businesses that undergo major renovations often see fit to have such an "opening", as opposed to a "reopening".

As for them specifically requesting the Studio 3 control room - I can only think of two possible reasons:
(1) there was some technical advantage that the other rooms didn't have (if so, it must have been Gary Usher who recognized or otherwise knew of it, since Murry and the Boys were still novices at this point), or
(2) it was cheaper
And joining the room-less Studio 3 with the booth-less Studio 1 in its then-current state probably saved them a fair amount in terms of discount, compared to booking the fully-constructed Studio 2. This, I think, would've definitely appealed to Murry.

Since it was a theater, I'm trying to figure out how a band with a drum kit would be able to track on a sloping floor, never mind the acoustics. Sunset Sound was a former auto garage and had somewhat of an angled floor too, but nothing like a theater.

I'm an old theater buff, and it was always standard operating procedure when converting a theater to other use to level the floor of the auditorium.  I assume this would have taken place in this case as well.

CMan -

Dave Marks, when he was here, claimed (I don't think for the first time, I think this was also in Stebbins' book) that he did the guitar break on "Don't Worry Baby."  His story is that with the band on tour Brian called him in to do the overdub, even though he was out of the band at that point.  The fact that it's on a discrete overdub track on a bounce of the basic (and presumably done at a later date), and that the only other person recording on the bounce overdub reel (presumably around the same time) is Brian, would tend to back up this story.  Any thoughts on this?  Do we have a confirmation that it was Carl and not David?

Would be good to know, since this is (in my opinion), one of the great guitar "solos" in rock 'n' roll history.  

Do we know the name of the theater that was converted to the studio?  I can research this; it's my bailiwick.  I might be able to get it from the address, too.

Actually, the article posted upthread explicitly says they leveled the floor of the theater.

I tried to do a little bit of research on the theater at 6000 Sunset, and I am a bit puzzled.  All articles about Western refer to it having been the "Radio Center Theater," but cinematreasures (the go-to website for this stuff) has no record of it, and there's really nothing on the 'net about such a place either.  There was a large building two blocks away (on Vine) called the Radio Center Market.  The building still stands, though greatly altered.

Curiously, the only record I've been able to find of the building's use prior to its conversion is as - some sort of a recording studio.  This website (http://randsesotericotr.podbean.com/) has a picture of an acetate disc done in 1947 for a voice reel.  The place that did the acetate is "6000 Sunset Radio Center".  The label of the acetate clearly identifies them as "broadcast and recording studios" - not a theater.

I'm wondering if this wasn't some kind of a complex that wasn't a movie theater per se but a place where live radio (and TV?) broadcasts with a studio audience and such could be done.  The name itself implies that.  Looking at the structure of the building, it looks much more like a film studio building than a traditional movie or stage theater.  It was unusual for movie theaters to have that kind of a sloping roof....likewise, there's no real space in the front of a building for a marquee, and almost every theater in operation after 1935 or so had one, and the building was clearly built after that time.

This matches up with what David said in his 1981 Trouser Press interview: aside from the fact that he incorrectly states "We recorded the Candix stuff at Western United Recorders on Sunset Boulevard", he describes Western as "a little radio soundstage that was used for radio shows." From what he goes on to say, he's clearly describing Studio 3 as "little", but perhaps the much larger Studio 1 was used as a theatre for live radio broadcasts that required an audience, hence the sloped floor for seating.

If Studio 1 was in fact used for live big band radio broadcasts, the sloping floor probably ended with a stage and/or orchestra pit, where the band could set up. The acoustics could have been managed with baffles, gobos, and close mic-ing.

Yes, the guitar intro, solo, and outro are "dropped-in" on the same track as Brian's first lead vocal. Do we know if the band toured without both Brian and David at this time? Either way, although there's no way to know for sure from the session tapes, there's enough circumstantial evidence IMO to warrant identifying David as the possible "lead" guitarist on "DWB".

Lot of info on this page so far - Have to go at them one at a time!

First - I think what we're missing is the timeline of when the construction on the Western studio rooms began, specifically studio 1.

The day the Beach Boys went there for the demos with Chuck, he could not set up a session in the live room of #3 because it was under construction and he deemed it unusable for a session since it wasn't finished. So we know on that exact date that the construction and renovation had put #3's live room out of commission, as of April 1962.

The UA newsletter I posted here states the full renovation of Studio 1 with details - yes, they leveled the floor and poured 'tons' of decomposed granite and concrete in order to do so, along with gutting the entire room down to the bare walls and rebuilding a modern system of acoustic paneling that could be controlled by the engineer.

The question is - In April 1962, had those renovations already been started or was it still basically sitting there as it was when Bill Putnam purchased it from Don Blake?

If we can pinpoint when the renovations were started on Studio 1, and determine if they were already underway as of April 1962, it would help erase the doubts at least I still have about the ability to do a session in such a room. If it were under construction to the degree of renovations described in the newsletter in April 1962, it wouldn't be logical to have a live rock band in there.

If it were still in the state it was in the 50's - with a stage perhaps - then it would make more sense.

I think pinpointing when the full renovations started on Studio 1 would solve this one with more definitive proof. We know Studio 3 was under construction in April '62 to the point where Chuck couldn't use it to record a band...we need to know when the work on Studio 1 was begun.

If you only have 3 studios, it would make logical sense to keep two of them in some form of operational state at all times, and renovate one at a time.  But of course the variable here is that Putnam also owned United right across the street, and he could route business over there while Western was being renovated.  But I like where this is heading -- that Studio 1 may not have been "under construction" in April of '62 -- just in a state of disrepair, but somewhat usable by a young band, their cost-conscious manager, and their resourceful engineer.  Hopefully we can locate a trade article or other documentation that would confirm this.

Lee

That's what I'm hoping too. Unfortunately I think the available UA company newsletters start in 1964. If a date for when the work on Studio 1 was started - and by all accounts posted above and elsewhere it was a massive construction job as a full tear-down and renovation - it would at least be more evidence that Chuck could have set the band up in Studio 1 before the full renovations were started.

The fact all studios had undergone renovations when Putnam bought Western backs up Chuck's memory that Studio 3 wasn't available to use due to construction not being complete.

The wild card is Studio 2. It wasn't as big as Studio 1, but it was a large room.

You know, as I think about it, it's also stylistically not the kind of thing Carl would do on lead guitar.  Brian of course could have specified the part, but I could also visualize Carl balking at just playing two chords over and over as the solo.  Brian may not have wanted to even go there.  Might have been easier all 'round just to have David punch in the part if Carl was gone, rather than wait and possibly have a conflict over the part. 

Also, this is a "solo" that Al played live just about as much as Carl over the years, even when Carl was present - implying this is one Carl didn't mind giving away - kind of like he gave the "Surfin' Safari" solo to Jeff for many years, and he gave the "Barbara Ann" and "Help Me, Rhonda" solos to Ed Carter and others for many years.

Yes, the premier issue (Vol. 1, No. 1) of the United Affiliates Newsletter is dated September '64. It states "The job of renovating is 75% completed with only the large 'Studio One' to be finished. Work is proceeding on this big studio and is scheduled for completion in the fall of '64." Assuming that last bit isn't a typo, this means that work on Studio 1 took a year longer than expected, since it wasn't finished until November '65. I can't imagine them working on it from late '61, or even early '62, through to late '65 - that's an awfully long time - and, since we know they were taking a multi-staged approach to the renovations, and that Studio 3 was not yet fully "ready" when the Boys came knocking in April '62, it's easy to conclude (without knowing with absolute certainty) that the tear-down and build-up of the Studio 1 room didn't commence until sometime after work on Studio 3 was fully completed - meaning, it was probably intact in its "theatre" configuration at the time of the Boys' maiden sessions there.  

https://studioelectronics.biz/newsletters/64sep.pdf

That "solo" is so basic that Brian could just as well have played it himself had he wanted to.

Yes, I asked this question several pages ago, & I am very happy to see it addressed here however inconclusively. Dave plays that in concert during the reunion shows and it sounds so authentic. Dave says that he played it and I wonder if it can be confirmed.

Not unless someone else in the band (Brian, for instance) confirms it. Due to the nature of that particular overdub, there's no way to tell from the extant tapes. And I've been told that Dave is not absolutely 100% sure of this, but strongly believes it based on his memories of attending the session that included the recording of "Denny's Drums" (Jan. 7th - same day as the recording of the "DWB" basic track), and of being alone in the studio for a guitar overdub with Brian - and thinking, "Brian finally gives me a lead, and that's it?" So, as I said, there's enough circumstantial evidence to warrant it a "strong possibility", or even "likelihood", so that's how I'm crediting it in the sessionography - for now. One other participant backing it up would seal the deal for me. 

I can imagine any guitar player being disappointed by being given that lead, but seriously - very few guitar breaks tug at the heartstrings more than that one.  Imagine what it would have been like with a "proper" solo - would have totally blown the vibe.  Sometimes less really is more.

I'll bet that's the way Dave feels about it now.

Good point. I've played that on stage and it just as powerful as the break on Surfing' Safari that I'd played a couple of tunes earlier.