The Recording of Fun, Fun, Fun and Don't Worry Baby

[Andrew G. Doe]

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

[guitarfool2002]

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?

[c-man]

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?

[guitarfool2002]

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.

[Jon Stebbins]

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?

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.

[guitarfool2002]

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?

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!  

[c-man]

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.

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.

[c-man]

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?

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.

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".

[c-man]

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.

[guitarfool2002]

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.

[c-man]

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! 

[guitarfool2002]

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.

[Andrew G. Doe]

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.

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.  

[Andrew G. Doe]

...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.

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. 

[c-man]

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.

[Andrew G. Doe]

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.

[LeeDempsey]

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

[c-man]

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

[Andrew G. Doe]

Page 44 of Ken Sharpe'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 earlier in its existence (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 Lee: at least I remembered part of it correctly !

[guitarfool2002]

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.

[LeeDempsey]

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

[guitarfool2002]

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.

[guitarfool2002]

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.

[Andrew G. Doe]

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.

[c-man]

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.