Introduction
At the start of the 1960s, EMI and Decca owned the principal studios and pressing plants, and they had developed a rigid system for exploiting musicians and their music (Thompson, 2008; Oldham, 2000; Southall, 2009). In this chapter I will argue that certain key individuals had a significant effect on changing the working practices of the recording industry in the 1960s, as the transition from the craft-union mode to entrepreneurial mode in the UK was initiated by the work of a small number of independent producers (Kealy, 1990). The shift to entrepreneurial mode occurs later in the UK than in Kealy’s (ibid) discussion of the American recording industry. It will also argue that the emergence of these figures was part of a convergence of historical factors relating to the recording studio and pro-audio sectors in the UK, changes in the aesthetics of popular music and a subsequent shift in the character of the market. A small number of independent studios also played a major part in this paradigm shift, as by the early 1960s there was a viable independent studio sector that was used by the entrepreneurial producers. These studios were often equipped with more up to date recording technology than the corporate studios and offered a more accommodating working environment than the corporate studios. The adoption of multitrack technology also had a significant impact on the development of rock music in this period. As noted by Frith (1983), from 1967 onwards recording became increasingly important to rock musicians. The record industry began to care about albums as a medium and musicians started to experiment more in the studio (Frith, 1983). Rock music relies on recording technology and “recordings are the “primary texts” of this music” (Gracyck, 1996, p. 21). A small number of independent studios
became involved in mixing console manufacture, their products and those of a few other audio companies led to the development of a UK professional-audio manufacturing sector by the end of the 1960s, long after an equivalent sector had emerged in the US. The emergence of an audio equipment industry meant that it was no longer necessary for studios to build their own mixing consoles, or to rely on purchasing equipment from EMI. British console manufacturers subsequently became world leaders in mixing console innovation. The development of an indigenous technology industry had a significant impact on the growth of the studio sector, and also impacted on the sound of recordings made in the UK. The relaxation of import regulations in 1959 made it considerably more straightforward to source studio equipment, which also helped the studio sector develop. Sales for popular music increased significantly in this decade, and the self-contained group became the dominant configuration for pop performers. This combination of factors shaped the material and industrial conditions of the recording industry in the 1960s and reconfigured record production and the studio sector.
In the 1960s studio production underwent a transition from craft-union mode to entrepreneurial mode, the beginnings of art-mode also occurred in the late 1960s (Kealy, 1990). The transition from the rigidity of the corporate studio to collaborative studio practice happened over a relatively short period, between six and eight years from the start of the ‘60s. This had fundamental effects on the production process. Job roles in craft-union mode were demarcated; and musicians were not allowed to touch the recording equipment. Engineers in this period did not share their knowledge of the recording process with musicians. In contrast, entrepreneurial mode was more collaborative than the formal and impersonal practices of the corporate studios. As Kealy describes: “In such collaborations the sound mixer acts
more like a service worker who must please his clients without benefit of appeal to a set of craft standards enforceable through his union” (Kealy, 1990, p. 213). Unionized working practices determined the demarcation of job roles, the lengths of recording sessions, and regulated the employment conditions of session musicians. The corporate studios had their own technical standards and working practices that staff were instructed to adhere to. As an example of the level of institutional regulation in the corporate studios, restrictions were imposed on the recording staff at Abbey Rd in terms of which microphones they were allowed on specific instruments and where the microphones could be placed (Ryan & Kehew, 2006). Independent producers and independent studios were integral to entrepreneurial mode, and they tended to be more attuned to the cultural and social changes that occur in the 1960s than their corporate equivalents. Independent studios also offered a working environment that facilitated independent production and collaborative working practice. The aesthetic of recording changed considerably in the 1960s: “During the 1960s, the studio became an instrument in its own right, which musicians and producer-engineering teams exploited to create new sounds, rather than simply trying to capture them” (Horning, 2004, p. 704). This shift in the 1960s from capturing a performance to creating an engineered performance was significant, as from this period onwards the definitive musical event in popular music becomes the studio recording (Horning, 2004).
Production of Culture Perspective
The production of culture perspective offers a useful framework to examine changes in the recording sector in the 1960s, both from the label perspective and that of the recording studio. The perspective notes that changes in technology, law and
regulation, industry structure, organization structure, occupational careers and the market can shape cultural products (Peterson & Anand, 2004). Peterson (1990) uses the six-facet model to examine the growth of rock music in America in the 1950s, due to different structural circumstances in the UK the industry changes later than in the US. However, equally significant changes to the market for popular music occur in the UK in the 1960s, which can be summarized using the six-facet model. In terms of technology, the introduction of multitrack tape machines in the 1960s had a major impact on studio practice, so much so that “the production of popular music was completely transformed by the establishment of multitrack tape recording as the norm in studio production” (Theberge, 1997, p. 215). Mixing consoles were introduced that were designed to work with the new (to the UK) multitrack tape machines, and the recording and mixing process starts to take advantage of the possibilities offered by multitracking. Tape recording also allowed extensive editing and the compilation of a completed track from segments of separate performances, and some producers embraced the possibilities of tape editing as a compositional device. UK manufactured studio technology becomes more widely available in the 1960s, as a manufacturing sector develops in tandem with the growth of the studio sector. In terms of law and regulation, the relaxation of import regulations meant that foreign-manufactured recording equipment became more widely available, which partially facilitated the emergence of the independent studio sector. It also meant that more American-manufactured equipment was used in both corporate and independent studios. Once self-contained bands became the main format in popular music, the power of the Musician’s Union over studio sessions began to wane. Also of note in terms of law and regulation, a combination of illegal pirate radio stations and Radio Luxembourg (which broadcasted to the UK as well as Europe) enabled
popular music to gain far greater exposure than was available from state authorized broadcasting in the mid-sixties. Pirate radio stations satisfied the growing demand for pop and rock music from 1964 to 1967; something the BBC was unable to do in this period, as the BBC played relatively little pop music. Pirate radio stations became so popular that by 1966 the total daily audience for pirate radio and Radio Luxembourg was over 24 million (Crisell, 1994). The BBC subsequently introduced Radio 1 in 1967 to counter the popularity of offshore pirate radio stations such as Radio London and Radio Caroline. The organizational structure of the major labels changed in the 1960s, as independent producers who licensed their work to the labels replaced the labels’ A&R supervisors. Corporate producers gradually began to leave the major labels and operate as freelance workers. The A&R role shifted to sourcing new talent and overseeing artists’ careers, by the end of the ‘60s the A&R job role was no longer focused on selecting material and actively running studio sessions. Independent studios offered an alternative working environment to the corporate studios, which eventually undermined the need for vertical integration in every production area. By the late ‘60s many artists on major labels undertook their recording sessions in independent studios. In terms of industry structure, as independent labels entered the market in greater numbers in the 1960s, the oligopolistic structure of the record industry was undermined, although this took until the late ‘60s to have a significant impact.
A large part of the musical expansion that took place in the late 1960s and early 1970s was due to a new wave of independent labels, all carving out healthy reputations for themselves at the expense of the majors. (Barfe, 2005, p. 259). In some cases independent labels acted as a test market for the major labels, so although it may appear that independent labels were able to undermine the dominance of major labels, the reality is that there is often a symbiotic relationship
between large and small labels (Hesmondhalgh, 1996). As a result of these factors, occupational careers changed within the sector as independent producers become the norm, and by the end of the 1960s freelance careers for engineers became a possibility. In terms of the market for popular music, during the 1960s there was a rapid increase in popular music sales, so much so that in 1962 “the British record market was valued at £20 million and album sales reached 17 million while sales of 45 rpm singles peaked at over 50 Million” (Southall, 2009, p. 30). Accurate British Phonographic Industry (BPI) data is available from 1964, and shows that once the long-playing album started to become an important format for popular music, singles sales began to decline, album sales overtook singles sales in 1969, and between 1964 and 1969 UK album sales almost doubled.
(Crutchley, 2014)
Not only did UK sales increase considerably, but British acts also started to sell significantly on an international level, which had been rare in the 1950s. From 1963 onwards ‘beat boom’ bands such as The Beatles achieved considerable worldwide success, generating substantial revenue for the British record industry (Hall, 2014). For example, by 1967 worldwide sales of Beatles’ recordings were over 200 million (Southall, 2009, p . 32). The Dave Clark Five, Herman’s Hermits and The Animals all had number one records in America, and a number of other UK acts also achieved significant success in the American pop market (Southall, 2009). The success was so marked that former EMI managing director Ken East reflected on the impact of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones on the record industry: “After the Beatles, British music took over the world” (East cited in Oldham, 2000, p. 174). Using the six-facet model to summarise the key changes in the period makes explicit the convergences that led to significant change in the recording industry.
Contrasting Production Practice
I will now explore some of the restrictions of craft-union mode and outline the key differences between the roles and practices of corporate producers and independent producers. As the entrepreneurial mode took over from craft-union mode in the 1960s the role of producers changed significantly and session musicians and arrangers became less integral to the recording process (Kealy, 1990; Thompson, 2008). Independent producers had a significant impact on the way records were made, and their business practices changed the way producers were compensated for their work. Staff producers were paid a salary, whereas independent producers
usually owned the recording copyright and received license income from sales. 36 This arrangement significantly reduced the degree of risk the label that licensed the producer’s work for release was exposed to, as the independent producer was responsible for finding artists, selecting material, overseeing the recording sessions and paying for studio time. Prior to the emergence of the entrepreneurial mode, each major label employed A&R managers and studio engineers (Kealy, 1990). Once the entrepreneurial mode became prevalent production staff became freelance. Thompson (2008) notes studio production crews worked in clearly differentiated roles in the early 1960s. As noted by Warner (2003), the Romantic idea of the unique individual artist is undermined by the reality of popular music production, which is almost invariably the result of considerable teamwork; this was evident in craft-union mode and also in entrepreneurial mode and art-mode (Kealy, 1990). Examples of corporate producers include Norrie Paramor and George Martin who worked for EMI as salaried employees; Dick Rowe fulfilled a similar role at Decca. Paramor and Martin were both accomplished musicians and arrangers, and would have considerable musical input into the material they produced. The working method in craft-union mode was for the A&R manager to select material (by liaising with a publisher), show it to an artist, and then to select an arranger to score the musical parts, the arranger would use a contractor (sometimes termed a session fixer) to hire the session musicians necessary. A corporate producers’ job role was in essence to produce commercially successful material for their employer. Although the corporate producer had no financial interest in their work, ultimately, a run of failure could result in the loss of their job (Thompson, 2008). The label’s engineers would operate the technical equipment; there was little experimentation with studio technology due
36 Early independent producers licensed their recordings to the majors; in later years the labels
financed the recording process and remunerated producers with an upfront fee per track and a share of the artists’ royalty points.
to the rigidity of recording practices in the corporate studios. The time constraints of three-hour unionized sessions further discouraged any studio experimentation, the three-hour session (20 minutes of recorded music was the maximum allowed in this period) was a Musicians Union (MU) stipulation and any extra studio time required from the musicians incurred further expense based on the rates set by the MU. Consequently, union regulations were often restrictive in practice. Solo artists backed by session musicians were common in the 1950s and early 1960s, and even when groups became the dominant popular music format in the 1960s they were often augmented or supplanted by session musicians; either due to issues of competence, or to ensure the sessions went smoothly and quickly (Grant, 2011). 37
The craft-union mode was autocratic and the artists had little input into song selection or musical arrangement (Kealy, 1990). For example, the producer Mickie Most recollected that in the late 1950s artists would be told what to record by their A&R manager, who would then work out the appropriate key with an arranger. The singer typically had no input into their repertoire or style, and once they were in the studio the singer’s band (if they had one) would often be replaced by session musicians (Thompson, 2008). Most gained some experience recording for Decca as an artist prior to becoming a producer. His comments below illustrate the lack of input into the recording process that was common in craft-union mode.
We made some ghastly records, but we had no control over them. Somebody used to tell you to learn some song, although they didn’t say what key it was in, or anything like that, so you’d learn it, and go along to the studio, and there’d be a few musicians there who were about ninety-years-old trying to play this music. We’d say, “It doesn’t really sound right”, and they’d say that it didn’t matter, and just tell us to just sing, so you’d go out there and sing, and they’d say “OK goodbye”. You never heard a playback. (Most cited in Tobler & Grundy, 1982, p. 125)
37 Personal Communication (17/08/11)
The working relationships in corporate sessions were usually formal and impersonal as can be seen by Abbey Road engineer Geoff Emerick’s comments below.
Things were definitely more relaxed when George Martin wasn’t around. There was always a certain protocol when he was at a session: we in the control room felt that we had to be on our best behaviour, and even the Beatles seemed at bit constrained by his presence at times. (Emerick & Massey, 2006, p. 121)
In practice, the craft-union mode featured a lack of input into the recording and mixing process from the artist (Kealy, 1990). This is illustrated by the fact that The Beatles reportedly weren’t initially played finished mixes prior to their release. “Incredibly, prior to Revolver, mixes weren’t even given to them to approve beforehand–the first time they’d hear the final version was when the record would come out, or when they’d hear themselves on the radio” (Emerick & Massey, 2006, p. 130). Most had a similar experience when he was a recording artist for Decca: “You don’t hear a record until it is pressed. If you don’t like it there’s nothing you can do about it” (Most cited in Thompson, 2008, p. 82). The musicians’ opinion of the recording was of no consequence in craft-union mode as the A&R supervisor was responsible for any aesthetic judgments. The pop musicians of the early 1960s also had little knowledge of the recording process and of the studio equipment. Keith Hopwood was a founder member of Herman’s Hermits and when interviewed commented on his experience of recording in the early 1960s: “It was a total mystery, you went down to London, and you were in the studio and didn’t know what the hell anything was” (Hopwood, 2011). 38 In the UK, the transition to entrepreneurial mode didn’t necessarily mean that artists became more involved with aesthetic decisions and the recording process. For example, Mickie Most produced Herman’s Hermits and other acts in an autocratic fashion. The main difference in
approach between corporate producers and the independents was the business relationships forged between the independent producers and the labels.
The dominance of the MU in terms of studio practice declined when self-contained groups started to play their own material. This transition changed the length of studio recording sessions as the three-hour unionized session became outmoded, sessions could last as long as necessary. The main corporate studios were closely monitored by the MU, and they adhered to the MU rules more closely than the emerging independent studios. Thompson (2008, p. 141) discusses some common ‘rule bending’ techniques that producers would resort to in the 1960s, such as not putting the red light on when recording a take, so that an orchestral part could be