The Impact of Blues Recording Techniques on Recorded Sound

Kelly Meyer

Crossroads: Musical and Cultural Perspectives on the Blues

Final Project

April 10, 2010

CONTENTS

RATIONALEp. 1

PARAMOUNTp. 3

METHODOLOGYp. 7

DISCUSSION p. 9

LESSON PLANp. 11

REFERENCESp. 13

Meyer 1

The Impact of Blues Recording Techniques on Recorded Sound

The purpose of this project is to determine how recording techniques at Paramount Studio in Grafton, Wisconsin affected recorded sound.

Target grade: College Sophomores / Juniors

Curricular target: Music Technology II

Rationale

This project will focus on the recording techniques used at Paramount Studios in Grafton, Wisconsin during the 1930s and the effects those techniques had on recorded sound. The primary purpose of this experiment will allow students the opportunity to examine the characteristics of sound and acoustics in different environments. By utilizing the same type of microphones that were in use at Paramount in similar conditions, students will display practical application to those techniques and will have immediate analysis of the sound through the use of modern technology and TEF (time, energy, frequency) realizations.

This experiment will also have secondary implications. As students gain an understanding of historic techniques and their results, they will have the opportunity to compare and contrast those techniques with modern recording practices. Students will be able to delineate between the two processes in regards to efficiency and application. A follow-up experiment could include the same tests with modern equipment. This will give an opportunity for critical thinking and problem solving opportunities as students perform a comparative analysis.

Students will also be able to explore the history of music in the United States and the important role that Grafton, Wisconsin played in the evolution of our musical heritage. The blues play an important role in that heritage and “race records” of the 1920s and 30s helped push the evolution of all musics. Grafton, Wisconsin pressed one fourth of the nation’s “race records” and over 1600 songs were recorded by more than 60 African American artists between 1929 and 1932.[1]

To facilitate a complete educational experience for the student, some introductory material must be presented. They must, at the very least, be introduced to an overview of how a major record label found a home in rural Grafton, Wisconsin. They must be given an opportunity to understand who controlled the studio and why. The introduction of this material will better facilitate an understanding of the recording techniques and the resultant sound.

Paramount

The history of Paramount studios and how Wisconsin became a staple in America’s musical history is a path that must travel through furniture. The Wisconsin Chair Company was founded in 1888 in Port Washington, Wisconsin with factories in Port Washington, Grafton, and Sheboygan.[2] By 1920, the company was well established and had been making phonograph players for Paramount.

All recording for Paramount, prior to 1926, was done in New York at the New York Recording Laboratories. New York also cut and pressed from the wax master until the demands grew too great and New York could no longer maintain progress. New York Recording Laboratories subcontracted the metal plating to be done in Connecticut and shipped to Grafton to be pressed. Grafton was chosen because of its reputation with producing quality Paramount phonographs.

Arthur Klopp, who had come to Grafton from New Yorkand was credited as its “guiding genius,”[3] worked in a close relationship with Arthur Laibly to manage the studio. Mayo Williams, also from New York, worked primarily as a talent scout and salesman. Aside from these three men, only a handful of additional employees worked in the studio.

The Grafton studio was a very busy studio between 1929 and 1932 as it focused its attention on the blues musician but also recorded white performers and one live sporting event. The schedule of blues artists that recorded in Grafton is a veritable “who’s who” of blues musicians. Among the many names are Ma Rainey, Charlie Patton, Robert Johnson, Skip James, Son House, Blind Lemon Jefferson, Tommy Johnson, and Muddy Waters. The artists arrived by train or car and were housed either at the Grafton Hotel or in Milwaukee before their sessions.

The sessions were held on the second floor of a 50’x 200’ building adjacent to the pressing plant.[4] There is some discrepancy as to how that floor was divided into rooms, butJanet Erikson, the daughter of an employee remembers being at the studio as a child; “The recording room was small, in comparison with modern studios.” She goes on to describe the atmosphere: “It was also wet and clammy due to the lack of heating. In the winter it was cold; during the summer it was baking hot and humid. In an effort to reduce

the dampness Alfred [Schultz, her father] draped the studio with burlap, covering the walls and windows with blankets and towels.”[5] Stephen Calt and Gayle Dean Wardlow quote H. C. Spier, who contradicted Erikson’s claims, stating, "‘Their studios wasn't up to par at all.’ He felt that its recording premises were too large, ‘consisting of big rooms, all square and everything.”[6] Spier also describes the constant dampness that plagued the rooms. Calt and Wardlow also state that “According to Schultz its weak wooden floor required frequent reinforcement, while unsatisfactory room acoustics led Laibly and Klopp to drape its walls with burlap in order to reduce reverberation”[7]The size and dimensions of the rooms remain a question, but it is safe to assume that the temperature and humidity was an issue. Although the physical space of the studio was less then ideal, the technology was state-of-the-art.

Grafton was designed to house the most recent recording technology; electrical cutting. Sound was to activate a diaphragm, which in turn controlled the lathe. The studio was designed by an engineering firm from Madison, Wisconsin, and was built with the cooperation of the University of Wisconsin. Because of the innovation involved, Paramount would only have to pay for the materials used in the project. The studio was equipped with a five-foot tall, two-panel amplifier, recording heads, and a parabolic microphone. Not only were the electric recording heads modern for the time, but the tube-powered parabolic microphone was a novel concept for a studio application. Parabolic microphones, because of their peculiar shape, were used to record opera at the time. At close proximity, parabolic microphones have a tendency to only allow low frequencies that the parabola is large enough to pick up.

The parabolic microphone was not as successful as planned and was discarded in favor of a ribbon microphone which provided a superior frequency response for musical recording. Sig Heller, who recorded at Paramount in 1932, provided a photo of a microphone used in the studio during his session.[8] The microphone appears to be a carbon suspension ring microphone which was used in the early 1920s for broadcast purposes. If Paramount had completely gone to carbon microphones in 1932, it would have certainly been a regression in quality. It would be more realistic to propose that, by 1932, Paramount would have been using at least three microphones[9].

According to Son House, in a 1965 interview, a single microphone was used and it was shaped like a “watermelon”: “The horn was on top of the house and you could let them down or raise them like that. It had one set along by your mouth and one on this side coming down near your instrument.”[10] House could be describing a modified parabolic microphone, with two parabolas that extend, one to the mouth and one to the instrument. An artist’s rendition of the studio, based on journal accounts, shows a microphone with an extended parabola that protrudes through a wall. If this were actually the case, the elongated parabola would have been an acoustical nightmare, creating a length of reverberant surfaces for the sound to travel through. Regardless of which microphone was used in each session, and how it was used, the resulting sound is going to differ in each application. It is the fine nuances of sound that culminate into a finished product.

Methodology

The primary purpose of this experiment is to describe the effects of blues recording techniques on recorded sound. Multiple microphones and microphone placement techniques will be analyzed through digitized TEF realizations using real-time analysis. The data will be analyzed for frequency and amplitude variances between applications.

This will be a quantitative experiment that is quasi-experimental in nature. The participants will include a solo performer who will perform “My Black Mama” by Son House on guitar and vocal, as well as three different types of microphonesbelieved to be used at Paramount: a ribbon microphone, a parabolic microphone, and a carbon microphone. A fourth microphone type, dynamic, will also be used as it was common during this time period, but not listed in Paramount’s records.

The song will be performed twice with each microphone; once in close proximity to the performer (12 inches from frontal plane), and once at a distance (6 feet from frontal plane). The song will be played live each time. This will result in a slightly different recording each time, but will, as accurately as possible, replicate a Paramount recording session. There are two distinct aspects to the performance that must be accounted for in the recording: 1. There must be two distinct sound sources, providing two distinct timbres; the voice and the guitar. 2. The recording must be able to account for relative attack, sustain, decay, and release of each pitch. The same performer will perform each time to best replicate each prior performance and a period blues song was chosen to best account for style.

Each performance will be individually analyzed and compared against the other results for response variations. To minimize ambient responses (room noise), a recording room will be set up to coincide with the oral accounts of Paramount’s studio. The room will be prepared with anechoic foam to accentuate immediate sound over ambient sound.

Following the initial analysis, students will also be allowed to discuss and test alternate recording techniques in conditions that may have been available to Paramount. Following the initial experiment, students will be allowed to test the same conditions with modern microphones.

Discussion

The primary purpose of this study is to observe the impact that blues recording techniques had on recorded sound at Paramount Studio in Grafton, Wisconsin. There are many techniques and factors that could influence the resultant sound, but this study focuses on microphone placement and microphone choice. Students will also gain valuable historic insight and be able to relate it to current trends. This study is far from being a definitive representation of blues recording techniques, rather it is meant to serve as a tool for understanding and a doorway to future studies.

This project does have its delimitations. The first is the accuracy of the logs. Some logs were kept, but include information such as artist, schedules, and various titles. These must be combined with interviews taken fifty to sixty years after the session and include eyewitness accounts of people who were children at the time.

The second obvious limitation is the equipment, as we do not have access to the equipment used at Paramount in 1930. The objective, though, is to determine how recording techniques affected sound. We can determine, through the TEF analysis, how microphone changes and placement affected the output. We can also determine which kind of microphone and which placement produced the best results.

The third limitation is that we cannot duplicate what happens to the sound at the output stage. Much of the completed sound quality was dependent on the recipe used to make the pressings, the quality of the press, and the detail of the presser. Our output is going to be digital to facilitate TEF analysis. Offsetting this limitation is the realization that our experiment, like the recordings of the 1930s will utilize a constant as an input and a constant as an output. The use of various software will give slightly different results but if the same software and process are used for each take, this variable becomes a constant. The only variables, from the recording techniques, are microphone choice,microphone placement, and any variations in performance.

It is possible to use other techniques to minimize performance variance. It is possible to run a complete sweep of the audible spectrum into a microphone for total frequency response, or to play a pre-recorded version of the song into each microphone. While this will give an accurate reading of the microphone’s frequency response, it will not necessarily give an accurate representation of its application during a blues recording session. By using a single performer for each take, there will be less reliability than the use of an electronic source, but will be more accurate in application.

Lesson Plan

Class: Music Technology II

Materials:

Paramount information and powerpoint

Microphones:Ribbon

Parabolic

Carbon

Dynamic

Appropriate analysis software: Signal Scope Pro (Aurora plugin for Adobe Audition will substitute)

Appropriate microphone stands and cables

  1. Introduce Paramount as a central blues recording facility
  1. Introduce Paramount information with powerpoint presentation
  2. Information is taken from attached paper
  1. Preparation for experiment
  2. Performer
  3. A single performer should be utilized to perform on acoustic guitar and vocal.
  4. Must finger pick and use no slide
  5. The song should be “My Black Mama” by Son House or an early blues song of equal difficulty.
  6. Room
  7. Select a room that is roughly 200 – 400 square feet. This average size will provide easier control of sound.
  8. Cover as much surface area as possible with anechoic foam or other acoustical material.
  9. The experiment
  10. Place ribbon microphone on a stand, 12 inches from the frontal plane of the seated performer, mid-height between mouth and guitar.
  11. Have the singer perform the song, recording to Signal Scope Pro (or other analysis software).
  12. Save this file with a recognizable name: “ribbon_12”
  13. Place the ribbon microphone on a stand, 6 feet from the frontal plane of the seated performer, mid-height between mouth and guitar.
  14. Record and save as before, using the new file name: “ribbon_6.”
  15. Repeat a-e with each microphone.
  16. The analysis
  17. Open and print the FFT and Spectrogram realizations of each test for side-by-side comparison.
  18. Chart results based on amplitude of specific frequencies (60 Hz, 250 Hz, 500 Hz, 750 Hz, 1 kHz, 2.5 kHz, 5 kHz, 7.5 kHz, 10 kHz, 12 kHz, 15 kHz, 17.5 kHz, and 20 kHz) during registered times.
  19. Open discussion
  20. Did microphones vary between distances?
  21. Did one microphone respond better to high/mid/low frequencies?
  22. Does one microphone out-perform the others in overall response?
  23. How could microphone placement affect response?
  24. Are any of those techniques used today?
  25. Were the recording techniques and equipment really a limitation to recording, or does the digital age really hinder the final product?
  1. The Experiment – The Sequel
  2. Based on discussion, repeat the experiment using different techniques.
  3. Document microphone and placement
  4. Perform the experiment with modern microphones and compare those results with the original microphones.
  5. Perform the experiment with two microphones of the same type: one for voice, one for guitar.
  6. Do specific microphones perform better for different sources?
  1. Closing
  2. This experiment should provide insight to recording techniques of the past and enable the student to draw direct correlation to techniques used in modern recording.
  3. This project could segue nicely into many areas: mastering, duplication, other genres and styles.

References

Ballou, Glen. Ed. Handbook For Sound Engineers: The New Audio Cyclopedia. Macmillan, Indianapolis, 1987.

Calt ,Stephen & Gayle Dean Wardlow. “Paramount’s Decline and Fall (Part 5),” from 78 Quarterly, article&id=65:paramounts-decline-and-fall-part-5&catid=37:miscellaneous-paramount-articles&Itemid=54 (accessed 4-11-10).

Davis, Don & Carolyn Davis. Sound System Engineering. 2ed. Macmillan, Indianapolis, 1987.

Janet Erikson, interview with Alex van der Tuuk. “Alfred Schultz: Paramount's Pressing Foreman,” 2006. from article&id=145:alfred-schultz-paramounts-pressing-foreman&catid=49:new-york-recording-laboratories-employees&Itemid=54 (accessed 4-09-10).

Sanborn Insurance Company, Fire insurance diagram. Personal e-mail communication with Alex van der Tuuk, 4-9-10

Sig Heller Interview with Alex van der Tuuk. Personal e-mail communication with Alex van der Tuuk, 4-9-10.

Son House, interview with John Fahey, Barry Hansen and Mark Levine, 1965, from Paramounthome, article&id=112:son-house-interview-1965-&catid=47:new-york-recording-laboratoriesoral-histories&Itemid=54 (accessed 4-10-10).