Talk:No Pussyfooting/Archive 2, HMC as a one take recording

"This is also a reference to "Heavenly Music Corporation" basically being a one-take recording of a live improvisation" That's not quite correct. The track is clearly edited, evidenced (at the least) by the reversed loops and overdubbed guitar solo.x 01:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Eno was manipulating the tapes live as Frip played. Sometimes he'd let the loops run and so Fripp would be "soloing" over the system, other times Fripp's output was incorporated into the loops. It is all explained on the album's own sleeve.--feline1 09:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You are saying basically the same thing, but definitely I'd say that Eno's manipulation is "editing". Or you want to teach us what editing is?Brian W 10:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Eno's manipulation of the tape was done LIVE, in REAL TIME, as a PERFORMANCE. It was not done "off-line" after the performance had finished.--feline1 11:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Please note that I don't have the sleeve available anymore. The CD I have has no notes at all. Can you refer me to anyplace that might have it posted? As far as I remember, they supplied little detail orignally anyway. So, unless they were using a battery of tape recorders, and switched Fripp's guitar from one set to another, so that the tapes could be flipped, with all this then being recorded by a separate two-track, I don't see this as being done in real-time. And I've never seen any info describing such a set-up, but I would be interested to. (Oooh, unless they created a separate loop first, then introduced that during the performance. But again, I've never seen that specifically described anywhere.)x 18:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

An addendum: listening to HMC now, the loops are being added to as the solo is played. This suggests overdubbing. Plus the solos are "stereo-ized" via tape delay at the same time. To be a real-time performance, some of this demands an extremely complex setup, some is impossible.x 19:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And for those interested, who may not have noticed, Wind On Water from Evening Star is a reversed loop. It can be noticed (especially after about 4 minutes in) that it thins out as it progresses instead of building up.x 20:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The procedure used to make the piece is described on the album's sleevenotes, and also in that book "Brian Eno: His music and the Vertical Colour of Sound". There is always the possibility that Eno was lying ;-) but I doubt this - fiddling with multiple revoxes in this way was one of his fortées.

What does this word fortès mean? Is it French or Spanish? Anyway, I am almost an expert in old-analog electronic effects, so I was planning to contribute to some articles here that are missing important info. I'm not sure anyway if you are aware of tape delays: they were sort of boxes that worked in some way as modern pedal devices. Tape delays are different from Frippertronics. They were also implemented in Some old mixers. Brian W 12:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian, I am fast coming to regard you as a complete mentalist, and can only be glad that at present you appear to be confining your proclamations to Talk pages. You will have to forgive my little typo on fortée (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fort%E9e ). I am also intimately familiar with "tape delays" (eg WEM Copicat, Roland Space Echo etc etc) however in this instance Eno was using two or more Revox tape recorders. It is all explained in the album's sleevenotes.--feline1 13:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"and also in that book "Brian Eno: His music and the Vertical Colour of Sound" - thanks I'll try to track that down. ITMT, would you consider posting the sleevenotes somewhere? "There is always the possibility that Eno was lying" - I realize you're probably being facetious, but it's possible that Fripp's or Eno's explanations aren't necessarily completely detailed, but again, I'll see what I can find. Thank you very much. But yes, regarding "tape delays", in HMC there are the actual long loops, but (as some here probably know) there is also a trick of creating a short delay by feeding the right playback into the left record, creating a "stereo delay effect", which Fripp commonly used in Frippertronics. That's the "stereoized tape delay" I was referring to.x 17:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

For those who are interested and might not know, Eric Tamm's two books about Fripp and about Eno are available online:

• Fripp Book
• Eno Book

I've looked them over, and there is little in the way of technical detail about HMC really. There's an interesting little chart that vaguely describes the loop set up. The rest is more or less a critique of HMC as a track. Again, I don't have the sleevnotes, but I don't remember there specifically being a statement that the track was completely produced in realtime. Actually the documentation I've found about it doesn't say either way, as opposed to stuff regarding Frippertronics recordings (except the ones deliberately mixed with other material, which are always indicated as such). Please don't get me wrong, it's just that I think HMC is an amazing and important piece (I've been doing guitar looping myself for twenty years), and want to understand what it truly was.x 17:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Granted the phrase "made in one take" is used in the Eno book, but I'm taking that with a grain of salt for the moment.x 17:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In those books, there is also the quote from Fripp that the process of live playing over the accumulating tape-looping masses of existing notes was akin to "trying to steer a battleship". I don't really see what all the fuss is about - the musicians who made the record have published their explanation of how they did it (Eno was using multiple revoxes and shuttling signals between them, having tapes spool off one machine onto the next) the audio results to me seem not-inconsistent with this description (and if it was instead all elaborately multi-tracked in 16 track, I doubt it would sound the way it does). It's a remarkable piece of music. --feline1 20:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"there is also the quote from Fripp that the process of live playing over the accumulating tape-looping was akin to 'trying to steer a battleship'." Irrelevant. Yes, when creating loops in this style, the source signal can be rerouted so it doesn't feed the loop and thus a solo can be played as the loop decays; however, an educated and experienced ear can tell that's not the situation here. The loops are being added to while the solos are occurring. And, no, I've seen absolutely no documentation so far that the musicians themselves have suppied any details as to how this was done. It's all been extremely vague.

"the musicians who made the record have published their explanation of how they did it" Actually no they haven't. Please show me. "(Eno was using multiple revoxes and shuttling signals between them, having tapes spool off one machine onto the next)" That's a vague and nebulous explanation. If you've done any looping, you realize this. I can explain it in detail if you like.

HMC is apparently more a product of a Frippertronics style loop, which is then blended with a reverse loop. Fripp solos over this whole thing. Granted, technically, if he solos as Eno plays these loops back, and the whole thing is mixed simutaneously, this is in a sense real-time in one take. This may be what they are referring to, but is not the impression given. Regarding Eric Tamm, I don't give much credence to any technical summations he may provide, though he's a fine writer overall.

"I don't really see what all the fuss is about " Accuracy, sweety. Accuracy. If you don't think HMC deserves proper examination, that's fine.x 00:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, this is the mentalist again, here. Two notes.

1-Sometimes musicians report untrue info about their techniques.

2-Frippertronics system, as Fripp's solo works can easily show, doesn't have that peculiar atmospheric sounding that is the trademark of Eno's (instrumental) works. Brian W 01:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Boys, whilst I'm all for some healthy scepticism, the fact is that the only real source of information on the making of this album is the testimony of the two musicians involved. Wikipedia requires that we cite our sources. The dilemma here is that you suspect the sources were lying. I have to say my educated and experienced ears are fairly content to accept that they weren't lying in this case, that Eno probably did pinch enough revoxes to pull the thing off in real time. But the fact is, you've no way to disprove it other than your own speculation.--feline1 07:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"the fact is that the only real source of information on the making of this album is the testimony of the two musicians involved" That's the problem. That fact hasn't been shown. The Eric Tamm books are not testimony from the musicians, merely a vague description by the author. I've asked for info regarding the sleevenotes, but haven't seen a response here. So far, one source you cited doesn't provide what you claimed, and the other seems unavailable.

"The dilemma here is that you suspect the sources were lying." I haven't said or even implied that. I've indicated that they may have been non-specific. The layers created by the looping process are created in real time in one take, which is notable because previously "similar" stuff could only be done with many takes using mutlitracks. But rewinding and then soloing over the loop is not strictly producing the entire thing in one take, as implied.

"But the fact is, you've no way to disprove it other than your own speculation" Ah yes, the old "proving a negative" ploy. Actually I've pointed to some indications that are inconsistent with the "real time" idea; and seen nothing that supports the idea. And "pinching revoxes"? It's not a question of how many tape machines were used.x 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In terms of the cited sources being the musicians' claims, if that's true (still waiting on that), then that's what the article should state: that it's a claim (feline1 did mention skepticism). Unless there's other info showing how this was done in one take, the article shouldn't be stating it as fact.x 18:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)