The Shadows At The BBC - A Few Thoughts

[Martin Page]

I've listened to both CDs now and on the whole I can say it's an excellent collection of material.

Martin.

[Arpeggio]

George.....you have 'got it in one'.

rob

[bob t]

I've listened to both CDs now and on the whole I can say it's an excellent collection of material.

Martin.

Where did you get it from Martin ?

Bob T

[Martin Page]

I've listened to both CDs now and on the whole I can say it's an excellent collection of material.

Martin.

Where did you get it from Martin ?

Bob T

I'll message you Bob.

Martin.

[David Martin]

Re Hoffers comment about ropey sound quality etc... I remember the earl "live" shows on radio and, generally speaking, the sound and balance were rubbish! (I remember thinking that our band in North Staffs - The Zig Zags - sounded much better live tha n some of our heroes) So a few years back, when "The Shadows at the BBC" project looked like it was a real proposition, and The Shadows themselves were sent a copy of all the possible inclusions, I had a chance to hear all that material... some of it was exquisite... and some of it was really awful - the sound, not the performance, and those tracks were marked as "never to be released"...

I wonder what will be included eventually?

[Arpeggio]

That's interesting David. There would be two 'areas'. 1) Material from the 'Bernie Andrews Tapes'. 10 years on John Beecher has only just finished going through them all. He did say that some material was 'master tape quality' and some was clearly recorded 'off air'. If John eventually brings anything out then we can be sure that he will only use the very best quality tapes. Maybe not everything sent through 10 years ago was the best quality available - who knows? 2) Material held by the BBC which would be their own master tapes or transcription discs. Sound quality there would therefore not be an issue.

Bests....Rob

[RayL]

Rob,
BBC pop and rock mixing in the early 1960s was, too often, awful! I gave up listening to Saturday Club because the BBC Studio Managers (this was the name used by the BBC for people who did sound mixing in studios) made such a rotten job of mixing. These SMs were much older than the age range of the bands who played and much, much older than the audience for the music. They were expected to mix anything for which they were allocated so it might be day 1 Gardening Club, day 2 A Story, A Hymn And A Prayer and day 3 The Shadows. It was not until much later, when Radio 1 came in, that the BBC started using people with a feel for the music and a talent for mixing it.

With anaemic, bass-light mixes, and little or no reverb, those SMs managed to turn even the most dynamic band into a pale shadow of themselves. One contributory factor was the PPM (Peak Programme Meter) that they had to use.This is designed to react very quickly to sudden peaks and then allow the needle to drop back more slowly (until the next peak comes along). There was a great fear of "taking the transmitter off the air" by sending a sudden peak down the line so SMs had strict instructions not to exceed '4 peaking 6'. A PPM is good for speech, but much less good for pop music.

It is very possible that many of the Shadows tracks that The Shadows (or their management) did not wish to have released, were rejected because the mixing was so awful, rather than for reasons of technical quality.

Ray

[dave robinson]

My copy arrived today and I have just listened to it tonight.
Interesting and I'm glad i heard it, my only comment is that it is very clear that the magical sound we all seem to love came out of Abbey Road studios - if ever proof was needed, this is it.

[Arpeggio]

Thanks Ray for your most erudite post re: BBC sound recording (Saturday Club, Easy Beat etc., etc.). Dave's comments were interesting too. I have some further observations.

Firstly - as we know - the aim of any studio recording is to get the best sound / performance possible. To that end (let's say early 1960s) The Shads (who rehearsed thoroughly before entering the recording studios) might have three hours to (sometimes) lay down a couple of tracks. Plenty of time to run through several takes & take on board suggestions from Norrie Paramor. Iron out any errors etc., etc. Malcolm Addey responsible for the mechanical aspects of the recording plus whatever team of technicians might be needed. As we also know now - there was the possibility for 'superimposition' too. Echo, reverb & other studio effects could also be added. Etc., etc. The studio recording would be as perfect as it could be. A live performance would inevitably be different (how could it not be?) even though the Shadows were brilliant a recreating 'that sound' as closely as possible.

The BBC recordings can't be viewed in the same way as the ones from EMI. Ray has covered the technical limitations perfectly. Moreover - The Shadows (say, at Maida Vale) would (either in their own right or backing Cliff) have three hours (M U breaks included!) to put down 6, 7 or 8 tracks to the BBC's satisfaction. Little or no echo or reverb etc., etc.

BUT.....the BBC recordings are historic sound documents. They are what they are. Can anyone of a certain age honestly say (again for example) that they weren't thrilled and excited to hear "Man Of Mystery", "Walk Don't Run", "Driftin'", "Apache" etc blasting out of the radio on Saturday November 5th, 1960? What these tracks may lack in 'sound quality' they more than make up for in terms of energy and performance. It WAS a big thing to broadcast for the BBC in those days. This is why this material is important. Moreover, there were often differences in the live arrangements or Hank might play an improvised solo etc., etc. It is the sound of the Shadows as broadcast 'live' to the nation at the time. It is part of our musical heritage. I would think that fans want to hear these tracks & be transported back to just how it was at the time.

Bests.....Rob

[dave robinson]

Thanks Ray for your most erudite post re: BBC sound recording (Saturday Club, Easy Beat etc., etc.). Dave's comments were interesting too. I have some further observations.

Firstly - as we know - the aim of any studio recording is to get the best sound / performance possible. To that end (let's say early 1960s) The Shads (who rehearsed thoroughly before entering the recording studios) might have three hours to (sometimes) lay down a couple of tracks. Plenty of time to run through several takes & take on board suggestions from Norrie Paramor. Iron out any errors etc., etc. Malcolm Addey responsible for the mechanical aspects of the recording plus whatever team of technicians might be needed. As we also know now - there was the possibility for 'superimposition' too. Echo, reverb & other studio effects could also be added. Etc., etc. The studio recording would be as perfect as it could be. A live performance would inevitably be different (how could it not be?) even though the Shadows were brilliant a recreating 'that sound' as closely as possible.

The BBC recordings can't be viewed in the same way as the ones from EMI. Ray has covered the technical limitations perfectly. Moreover - The Shadows (say, at Maida Vale) would (either in their own right or backing Cliff) have three hours (M U breaks included!) to put down 6, 7 or 8 tracks to the BBC's satisfaction. Little or no echo or reverb etc., etc.

BUT.....the BBC recordings are historic sound documents. They are what they are. Can anyone of a certain age honestly say (again for example) that they weren't thrilled and excited to hear "Man Of Mystery", "Walk Don't Run", "Driftin'", "Apache" etc blasting out of the radio on Saturday November 5th, 1960? What these tracks may lack in 'sound quality' they more than make up for in terms of energy and performance. It WAS a big thing to broadcast for the BBC in those days. This is why this material is important. Moreover, there were often differences in the live arrangements or Hank might play an improvised solo etc., etc. It is the sound of the Shadows as broadcast 'live' to the nation at the time. It is part of our musical heritage. I would think that fans want to hear these tracks & be transported back to just how it was at the time.

Bests.....Rob

I agree Rob, I just felt that my comment was a valid one given the time and effort we have spent over the years trying to match the sound for our own playing - I now happily concede that it IS the Abbey Road studio that holds the magic. I still enjoyed the CDs though.

At the risk of going on too long I would say that the talent of The Shadows shows through massively here, but they suffered the same problems that all of us do in getting the sounds how they need to be - which is refreshing and shows that they are human after all. As proved at the outset with MOVE IT, Malcolm Addey is THE MAN and Abbey Road THE PLACE.
At last I can put it to bed now and enjoy my gear for the sound it gives, which is pretty close and satisfying, I think that applies to many of us on this site.