Hi!! I hope someone can help me.

I'm preparing to teach a class on popular music of the 60s. I had a dream that I needed to create a template to reflect the Beatles tracking. They used 4-track/8-channel, but I thought I could double that to give me more flexibility, i.e., each drum could have its own track (BD, SD, etc.).

Any help is appreciated. The more authentic and detailed with the appropriate plugins where they belong would be fantastic.

Thank you.

 

I'm not quite sure of your question but if you are looking for Beatles individual stems to work with then you can get them from here:
(https://remixpacks.ru/?f1=The+Beatles&f2=&f3=&f4=The+Beatles&wpcfs=preset-1)
There are a total of 74 Beatles songs mostly multitrack OGG and MOGG files.
They can be opened in free audio editor Audacity (https://sourceforge.net/projects/audacity/) and converted to individual Wav,Mp3 or other individual files and remixed at your leisure.

 

Thanks for the stems. They'll be helpful, but I also need the tracking . . . what's on what track . . . FX . . . how to organize Logic to resemble their console.

 

No probs. Can't help you there I'm afraid but best of luck with your research!

 

@tommyzai
You're gonna have to do a whole lot of reading of that book that explains each mic, placement, double tracking, etc of every Beatles song. I hope the class isn't tomorrow. Or even in a months time!
Why multiply your channels if you are trying to be authentic?
They didn't have multiple mics on drums, if that's what you are thinking.

Waves and Abbey Road came together and made plugin versions of some of the Abbey Road gear. That's as close as you'll come to making Logic like Abbey Road.
Btw, you are using the word 'tracking' (a verb) incorrectly.
When we are 'tracking up' we are laying down the takes.
Unlike The Beatles, really, who had to play as much live as possible before overdubs, due to the bouncing down process.

I'm friends with an AIR studios recording engineer of that time, and he was one of a group of people who were ushered into a room to preview Sgt. Peppers prior to release. Syncing two machines, or however they did it, to create 4 tracks, and then all the bouncing down, was quite mind-blowing at the time.

There is *tonnes* of compression on every instrument going in, and later on over the entire mix, to my ears. That's how it sounds to me, anyway.
But you really need to check that book out.
Happy researching!

 

@tommyzai

You seem to have answered your own question, if what you say is true:
Just set up 8 audio channels, and then only 4 buss/aux channels (which will be like sub-groups when you've finished tracking up). First 8 channels of live recording down to buss 1, then that's it for that sub-group. Then the same for the remaining 3.
Not quite the same as back in the day, but hey.
They would have, for instance, filled 3 tracks and then have needed to bounce them to the 4th, during which they might even add a live take on the bounce. If that last live take was good, then they would delete, sorry, record over the original first 2 with new parts and carry on with the same technique, bouncing those (maybe even with track 4) to track 3. Inputing during the bounce gets dangerous the further you go though, especially as it couldn't be undone, so I don't know how much of that they did. It's all in 'the' book, though.
Good luck.
Hope this helps a bit.

 

@tommyzai Just had a thought. If you're teaching a class on "popular music of the '60's", choose any of the rest of the decade before Sgt. Peppers and make your job easier! And maybe even stray away from The Beatles altogether!
You mentioned they used 4 track so I must assume you are specifically referring to Peppers.

 

to my memory, the beatles only had 4 mono tracks recorders with band tape, and at best, an echo chamber.

there was a lot of overdubs made by bouncing tracks to one single track before they could technically sync tape machines.

to me, the best DAW to get closer would be to set up a harrison mixing console with 4 tracks.

there's no way the beatles would have the technical possibility to separate drums like you want to, instruments were recorded sometimes all together, and overdubs was recorded after that.

the only thing I can recall about the mixing is an interview of G.Martin saying that McCartney's bass was set in the mix at -2db ( according to him, it was a request of mc cartney himself )

there's a film / documentary of the Rolling Stones recording by jean-claude godard, "sympathy for the Devil", but I don't know if there's something similar about the Beatles.

it was a lot of hours ( days ) of work to mix and record, we're so used to flexibility nowadays that it would be impossible to resume the mixing and recording process of an beatles song in one or two hours.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recording_practices_of_the_Beatles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_multitrack_recording

 

Hmmm. So how would they have bounced multiple tracks to one single track without any synchronisation?
Hopefully you can answer so I can save on 'phoning the engineer I mentioned above!

 

Thank you for the great replies. By "tracking," I did mean recording the tracks . . . trying to organize them and name them as Sir George Martin did. I know I'm going overboard a bit, but . . . and then of course I will modify a little, too . . . and take some liberties. I think the biggest challenge will be sticking to 8-tracks as they used later on . . . especially when I know I can have unlimited. But, I want to be as authentic as possible without making it too difficult. Any additional thoughts on how to list the tracks and what FX to put on each? Any guidance is appreciated. I searched like crazy hoping there was a template out there that I could modify, but most templates are for EDM. Yes, the WAVES stuff seems closest in look and sound.

Yeah, that book Recording the Beatles is expensive and probably more info than I need. I found several "free" eBooks versions online, but each time I tried to download/read I was prompted for my credit card and info.

 

I don't mind using 16-tracks and avoid the bouncing . . . I can simply explain that the extra tracks represent what would be a bounce, combining two or main tracks.

Harrison would be the good choice, except I'm picking up an Abbey Road theme for Logic.

 

Last edited: Mar 1, 2019

Just out of interest, is it music tech you are teaching, or are you incorporating Logic into a music composition class, or what?

Also, as the other person pointed out, they barely had any 'FX', just an echo chamber type of affair, maybe plate reverb, I don't know. And in '66 they developed ADT, which could also produce some phasey effects. So I really wouldn't have a clue re. FX plugins per track.
Other than that, he seems to be talking some strange stuff, because I know they sync'd two machines for Peppers, so they must have been 4 track machines if 4 track came around in '63 and was used on I Want To Hold Your Hand.

Yeah, but you wouldn't be bouncing anyway, that's the point. You'd be committing parts to one recording channel. It's not as if you can really bounce/merge tracks in the same way now. You'd just have to bounce the stereo out/2 buss of Logic.
And as I said in my first response to you, they didn't have multiple tracks for drums. Channels, maybe. They could have had any number of outboard channelling gear to route stuff to record. The whole point of you being authentic would be to mic up the kit with just kick and overhead, getting the levels right through mic proximity, and committing that to tape/Logic. The proximity affects the EQ.
Then maybe a bass take along with a vocal at the same time, these being recorded down together to track 2, and unchangeable thereafter.
Eventually having 4 tracks to blend together as a finished piece.
Although they didn't do that; they had to play as much down live as possible if they wanted to be energy efficient.

So please, what is it you are teaching exactly?

 

"So please, what is it you are teaching exactly?"
I'm actually a counselor and ESL teacher. I teach "at risk" teens and young adults . . . lifeskills/survival in an English speaking environment, English (of course), and music in the Western world. Music helps keeps students interested and coming to class. I project my old MacBook onto the board/wall (often). It works well with the smaller classes and after-school groups, but is a mess in the big classes. In the past, I taught at a college and it was super . . . they were there to learn, but "trouble teens" are often difficult to keep motivated. I've been working my way through the genres. I think they're ready for the Brit Invasion. I've managed to open a few minds/ears to music beyond boy band karaoke. And, if nothing else, teaching this way make it fun for me. AND, of course, after the course is over, I'll have the foundation ready for my next project. hehe

 

Well done you! You are a true soldier, as I'm aware both how great it is when they *want* to learn, and also how it is with problem teens who have 30 convictions by the time they are 16.
You will change their lives with your passion, or at least the ones that are open. And music is always good for the inner-self anyway, so I imagine even the ones that don't appear to be touched by your teaching presence may still be, but unbeknownst at the time.
But even one of those changed lives can end up helping the world in the future.
Keep on keeping on, bro!

 

Thanks for the love. I'm trying.
Any help/guidance to get a simple, yet fairly authentic template is appreciated. In truth, I'm overwhelmed and confused, but hopeful . . .

 

No template, just an inspirational documentary about the Dutch band 'Analogues',
and their process of playing Pepper for a live audience:

 

Hmmm, maybe Reaper offers more options.

 

I doubt it! Compared to one of 'the forefathers', as Logic is.

What options are you referring to?

Very good though, Reaper.

 

@tommyzai @ 8:24 on the vid, that's the book I mentioned.

 

I probably should have asked if anyone has any good 60s rock type project templates for Logic. I think I need more to work from . . . creating from scratch is a bit much for me as I'm new to Logic.