Arctic Monkeys  ­ The Demos vs.

 The Album

Justin Morey
Leeds Metropolitan University
j.morey@leedsmet.ac.uk

1

Abstract
Arctic Monkeys first album,
‘Whatever   People   Say   I
Am, That’s What I’m Not’
(2006) was prefigured by a
collection of demos, which
were   widely   circulated   by
fans on MySpace and other
social   networking   sites,
and which created not only
a   substantial   audience   for
the   first   album,   but   one
which was already familiar
with alternative versions of
a   number   of   the   album
tracks prior to its release.
In this paper it is proposed
to   investigate   the
qualitative   differences
between the demo and the
commercial   releases,   from
the   point   of   view   of   both
the   listener   and   the
producer.   The   paper   will
also   explore   how   the
technical   and   creative
process and environment of
the demo studio differ from
that of a larger commercial
facility,   and   how   this
impacts   on   the   finished
record.  won   the   prestigious
It will be suggested that a
range of research methods
is   an   appropriate   way   to
gain   a   useful   perspective
on a recording or series of
recordings.   As   such   it   is
proposed   to   highlight   the
variety   of   approaches
taken in the course of this
research,   including
comparative   technical
analysis,   interviews   with
the producers, and analysis
of   reception.   The   latter
approach   leads   to   a
discussion   of   questions   of
authenticity,   in   particular
whether   there   is   such   a
thing   as   an   authentic
recording   process,   and
how   far   this   can   be
perceived   by   an   audience.
It   is   proposed   to   develop
these   areas   more   fully   in
future research.
1 Introduction
The   Arctic   Monkeys
album,  Whatever   People
Say I Am, That’s What I’m
Not  was   released   on   23rd
January 2006, selling more
than   360,000   units   in   its
first week, a new record at
the time for a debut release
in the UK. Prior to that the
band   had   seen   their   full
commercial   release,   ‘I   Bet
You   Look   Good   On   The
Dancefloor’   reach   number
1 in the UK singles chart in
October   2005.   The   record
Mercury   prize   for   UK
album of the year in August
2006,   and   it   was   one   of
only   two   albums   released
by   independent   record
labels to appear in the Top
50   Global   Best   Selling
Albums Chart for 2006.
The groundwork for this
success   was   widely
attributed in national, music
and music industry press to
the   dissemination   by   fans
of   the   band   of   copies   of
demos across MySpace and
other   user   generated
content   and   social
networking   sites.   These
demos,   recorded   between
July   2003   and   November
2004   were   given   away   by
the   band   on   CD   to   fans
after   gigs,   and   the
subsequent free distribution
of   these   songs   over   the
internet was seen by many
commentators   as
fundamental   not   only   in
building   a   substantial   fan
base for the band, but also
in   presenting   a   new   DIY
model   for   success   in   the
music industry.
The   success   of   the
demos   in   establishing   an
audience  for the band also
meant   that   many   of   the
debut   album’s   listeners
were   already   familiar   with
alternative   recorded
versions   of   many   of   the
tracks. As a result, there is
disagreement as to which of
the   recorded   versions   is
more authentic, with many
listeners   preferring   the
apparent   immediacy   and
spontaneity   of   the   demo
versions   to   their   more
polished   cousins   that
appear on the first album. It
is the intention in this paper
to investigate, then, how far
these qualities can be seen
to be affected by recording
process,   environment   and
practice.   This   will   be
addressed by comparing the
approaches   of   the   two
producers   concerned   and
the   studios   that   they   used.
A   technical   comparison   of
some  of  the  recordings,  to
compare   stereo   image,
differences   in   spectral
emphasis,   tempo,   apparent
distortion and phase issues,
will also be discussed. This
will lead to a discussion of
how far authenticity and lo­
fidelity   are   linked   in   the
minds of listeners, and also
of how far it is possible to
make   correct   judgments
about the recording process
through aural analysis.
1.1 Assumptions
While   issues   of
reception will be discussed
later in the paper, I feel that
it   is   appropriate   at   this
point to note my subjective
opinions   on   both   sets   of
recordings,   and   the
assumptions   that   I   had
made   about   the   recording
process as a consequence of
both my listening, and my
experience   as   a   producer
and   engineer   at   a   project
studio   which   had   more   in
common   with   the
environment   where   the
demos were recorded, than
the   more   “professional”
environment   where   the
album   was   created.   My
subjective opinion was that
many   of   the   demo
recordings   had   a   certain
intimacy,   immediacy   and
energy  that   was  lost   to  an
extent   in   the   album
versions,   despite   being
clearly superior in terms of
recording   quality   and
clarity   (particularly   in
comparison   to   the   digital
distortion   apparent   on   the
demos   in   their   mp3
format). Being aware of the
time   constraints   usually
involved   in   creating   a
demo,   I   had   assumed   that
they   had   been   recorded
virtually live with minimal
editing,   although   the
separation on the vocal and
its   staging   suggested
overdubbing   in   a   vocal
both.   I   had   attributed   the
apparent   looseness   or
“participatory
discrepancies” (Kiel, 1987)
to   the   engineer   not
employing   a   click   track,
and   guessed   that   a
relatively   humble
environment, not dissimilar
to   the   kind   of   rehearsal
room a young band would
typically   frequent,   had
allowed   the   band   to   take
ownership of the recording
space   and   perform
unselfconsciously.   The
pace   at   which   the   tracks
would have been recorded,
meanwhile,   had   prevented
boredom   or   fatigue
becoming   a   problem,   and
promoted   the   sense   of
immediacy   and   energy   in
these recordings.
The album versions, by
comparison, sounded much
tighter. I had assumed that
the   time   available   to   the
producer   had   allowed   for
composites   to   be
constructed   from   multiple
takes,   with   additional
timing correction employed
through   careful   editing   on
the   DAW.   This   in   turn
suggested   the   use   of   click
tracks,   possibly   involving
changes   in   tempo   to
preserve   dynamic   feel,   to
allow   for   easy   editing
between   takes.   My
subjective   view   was   that
the   time   taken   on   this
process had sapped some of
the   energy   from   the
performances in the pursuit
of accuracy, particularly in
the   case   of   vocal   delivery
and performance.
I believe it is relevant to
discuss   my   assumptions,
because while my research
proved some of them to be
correct or at least plausible,
it   also   revealed   some   of
them to be very wide of the
mark.   The
producer/practitioner   as   a
listener   will,   inevitably,
make   assumptions   about
recording   process,   and   the
level   of   accuracy   in   my
own   assumptions   will,   I
hope, help to highlight why
this   is   problematic,   even
when   it   is   done   in
combination   with   detailed
technical   analysis.   It   also
leads   to   questions   of   how
far   the   reception   for   a
recording can shed light on
its production.
2  Reception
Although   anecdotal
evidence had suggested that
I   was   not   alone   in   my
appreciation of the demos, I
investigated   the   responses
of   fans   to   the   album
recordings in comparison to
the   demos   by   looking   at
views   posted   on   a   variety
of   fan   forums,   and   also
looked   at   the   critical
reception   for   the   album
where the demos had been
mentioned   in   the   review.
While   there   was   certainly
not   a   universal   preference
for   one   set   of   recordings
over   the   other,   there
certainly   seemed   to   be   a
strong   preference   for   a
number of the demos as the
definitive version. While it
is   perhaps   not   surprising
that hardcore fans of a band
would prefer the demos for
no   other   reasons   than   a
sense   of   ownership   and
familiarity,   the   language
used   in   expressing   the
preference   is   in   itself
interesting.   Words   such   as
energy,   passion   raw   and
edge   reoccur,   as   does   a
particular preference for the
vocal   delivery   on   certain
demo   versions.   The   music
critics   who   express   a
preference,   also   tend   to
concur, with the critic Tim
Jonze   (2006)   commenting
in   his   NME   review   “the
tidier  production  here   fails
to   add   any   more   life   to
those   snarling   [demo]
versions”.
3  Authenticity
Much   of   the   language
used by fans in praise of the
demos   suggests   that   they
perceive   them   as   in   some
way   more   authentic   than
the album versions. Moore
(2002,   p210)   notes   that
authenticity   is   “ascribed,
rather   inscribed”,   and   that
“intimacy…and immediacy
(in the sense of unmediated
forms of sound production)
tend   to   connote
authenticity”.   (Ibid,   p211).
Moore   (2002)   offers   three
ways   in   which   this
authenticity   tends   to   be
ascribed:
i. The   apparent
authenticity   of   the
artist’s   mode   of
expression   in   terms   of
his/her own experience,
unmediated   by
technological   trickery
or fakery.
ii. The validation
of   the   listener’s
experience   through   a
sense   of   connection
with the artist’s mode of
expression.
iii. The   execution
of   musical   style   or
genre,   which   can   be
perceived to belong to a
tradition   of   artists   to
whom   authenticity   has
previously   been
ascribed.
Arctic   Monkeys   have
certainly found authenticity
ascribed   to  them   under   all
of   the   above   terms.   The
lyrical   content,   with   much
use of vernacular language,
delivered   in   a   regional
accent,   and   often   in   the
form   of   a   first   person
narrative   offers   both
“authenticity of expression”
(Ibid.   p214)   and
“authenticity   of
experience” (Ibid. p220), as
do the simple arrangements
and   “live”   sound,
suggesting   a   relatively
unmediated   style   of
production   to   the   listener.
Music   critics   such   as
Hasted (2005) have tended
to place Arctic Monkeys as
the next link in a chain of
independent­spirited,   raw­
sounding   bands   after   The
Libertines,   and   stretching
back to bands such as The
Clash.   Interestingly,   the
band   themselves   have
publicly   distanced
themselves   from   any
connection   to   The
Libertines,   allying
themselves   instead   to   the
American   garage   rock
tradition,   recent   notable
exponents   of   which   have
included The White Stripes
and   The  Strokes.  This  can
be   evidenced   by   anecdotal
evidence   of   Arctic
Monkeys playing covers of
songs   by   both   bands   in
their   fledgling   live
performances,   and   more
recently with a performance
of The Strokes ‘Take It Or
Leave   It’   for   a   live
performance on French TV
in   2007.   Shepherd   (2007)
has suggested that there are research,   but   some   of   the
certain sonic characteristics differences   analysis   has
common   to   garage   rock, revealed   will   be   discussed
and   this   will   be   addressed here, particular with regard
further   in   the   technical to   how   this   might   impact
analysis,   particularly   in on reception.
relation   to   which   set   of Comparison   of   the
recordings   belongs   to   this recordings   reveals   that
tradition   more   than   the staging is relatively similar;
other.  two guitar parts are present
Further   to   Moore’s most of the time, and both
discussion, there is another producers   decided   to   pan
way   in   which   authenticity these   left   and   right   of
can be ascribed to the band, centre   respectively,
which   could   be   described although   there   is   a   greater
as  authenticity   2.0.   The apparent   width   of
nature   of   the   method   of separation of the two guitar
discovery of the demos, via parts in the album versions.
UGC   sites   ranging   from Vocal,   kick   and   snare   are
MySpace to fan forums and positioned   centrally,   with
peer­to­peer   file   sharing the rest of the kit appearing
networks,   renders   the across   the   stereo   image   as
demos   authentic   by   being dictated   by   the   hard
unmediated   by   the   music panning   of   the   overhead
industry   either   in  terms   of mics,   with   the   main
supervision   by   a   producer difference   being   that   the
or   promotion   by   a   record drum   kit   imaging   is   from
label   or   other   marketing the   drummer’s   point   of
company.   The   role   of   the view   in   the   demos,   and
producer of the demos has from the audience point of
also   been   largely   ignored, view in the album versions.
with   even   the   band’s Notable   differences   on
wikipedia entry making no listening are that the demo
mention of  Alan Smyth in vocal   sounds   brighter   and
this   context.   As   such,   the louder   in   the   mix   than   its
demo   recordings   can   be album   counterpart,   the
seen   to   be   the   band’s demo   guitars   are   harsher,
version. and the demo mixes sound
more   muddy   and   louder
4 Comparative than   the   album   versions,
having been compressed to
Analysis the   point   of   noticeable
It is intended to produce clipping   distortion.   A
a   detailed   comparative comparative   listen   of   both
technical   analysis   of   both versions   of   ‘I   Bet   You
sets of recordings in future Look   Good   On   The
Dancefloor’ in the purpose­
built   listening   room   at
UMASS   Lowell   revealed
the demo to be harsh to the
point   of   ear   fatigue   in   the
mid range, while the album
version   had   considerably
more   separation   of
instruments   across   the
stereo image, and a greater
apparent   depth   from   front
to   back.   A   visual
comparison   of   the
waveforms   confirms   the
demos are louder, as did the
need   to   reduce   the   demo
version   wav   (supplied   by
Alan Smyth) by 4.3dB  for
its   highest   peak   energy   to
be   consistent   with   the
album   version   for   the
purpose   of   comparative
spectral   analysis.   The
ambience   on   the   vocals   is
apparently   subtler   on   the
album   versions,   but   more
noticeable   and   with   a
longer decay on the guitars
and   drums,   while
separation of instruments is
clearer   on   the   album
versions,   and   the   bottom
end is fuller. The sound of
the snare drum in the demo
recordings   suggests   that
phase   cancellation   leading
to   comb   filtering   has
occurred between the close
kit   mics   and   the   overhead
mics.   This   is   especially
apparent   in   ‘Mardy   Bum’
where   there   are   audible
phasing   problems   on   the
drums   in   the   chorus
sections.   Spectral   analysis
of an excerpt of ‘A Certain
Romance’ confirms that the
album   version   has   less
energy in the “muddy” low
mid   250­380Hz   frequency
range,  while the demo has
more energy in the “harsh”
mid range frequencies of 1­
4KHz.   Comparison of the
two   recordings   with   a
goniometer   reveals   that
album version has a wider
stereo image than the demo
version.  behind   at   a   number   of
Shepherd   (2007)   has
suggested   that   sonic
characteristics   of
recordings considered to be
in   the   tradition   of   garage
rock   include   a   narrow
stereo   image   and
significant energy in the 1­
2KHz   range,   which   would
allow   the   conclusion   that
the   demos   are   sonically
more authentic to a garage
rock   tradition,   while   the
finesse   of   the   album   in
terms   of   frequency   range,
separation   and   consistency
of   ambience   suggests   a
grander   production   scale
that   might   be   attributed   to
classic   rock.   The   apparent
digital   distortion   of   the
demos also places  them in
the   more   lo­fi   tradition   of
garage rock; I had assumed
this   distortion   had   been
created   by   file­sharers   in
converting   the   demo   CDs
to   mp3.   Alan   Smyth   had
shared   this   view,   but   his
subsequent   analysis   of   the
original   ProTools   sessions
revealed that a limiter plug­
in   had   been   inadvertently
bypassed,   allowing   this
clipping to occur.
Figure 3. Logarithmic spectral
plot of “A Certain Romance”,
album version, verse 1, bars 1­
4 
Figure 4. Logarithmic spectral
plot of “A Certain Romance”,
album version, verse 1, bars 1­
4  5.1
A   comparative   analysis   of
tempo was also conducted,
to   discern   whether   or   not
one   of   the   reasons   for   the
perception   of   greater
energy   in   the   demo
recordings   was   simply
because   they   were   played
faster.   This   revealed   that
clicks   were   used   in   the
demo   recordings,   although
they   usually   seemed   to   be
disabled   by   the   final
chorus.  It  also  showed  the
band’s   relative
inexperience,   because
although  they  were  clearly
using a click to keep tempo
consistent, they can also be
heard   to   drift   ahead   or
points.   This   perhaps
explains the loose sound of
the   demo   in   spite   of   this
tempo   mediation.   The
album   versions   vary   much
more   in  tempo,  suggesting
that   they   were   recorded
without   a   click,   although
the   exception   to   this   may
be ‘I Bet  You Look Good
On The Dancefloor’ which
is   at   a   steady   103BPM
except for the instrumental
introduction and its reprise
near the end of the song. If
anything,   the   album
versions   are   also   played
slightly   faster   than   the
demos,   suggesting   that
perceived energy is not due
to tempo in these cases.
5 The Demos  of   this   paper,   some
 Introduction
Arctic   Monkeys
recorded   demos   on   five
different occasions between
August   2003   and
November   2004   at   2Fly
Studios,   Sheffield,
engineered   and   produced
by   Alan   Smyth.   These
demos plus a few early live
recordings   make   up   the
collection know as Beneath
The   Boardwalk,  originally
distributed   by   the
photographer and friend of
the band, Mark Bull, on his
website,   but   which
subsequently   became   very
widely   distributed   across
the   internet.   Seven   of   the
demos   recorded   with   Alan
Smyth were re­recorded for
Whatever People Say I Am,
That’s   What   I’m   Not.   In
future   research,   I   will
undertake   a   detailed
examination   of   four   tracks
as   case   studies,   namely   ‘I
Bet   You   Look   Good   On
The   Dancefloor’,   ‘Mardy
Bum’,   ‘When   The   Sun
Goes   Down’   (originally
entitled   ‘Scummy   Man’)
and   ‘A   Certain   Romance’.
Of these, the last three were
all recorded by Alan Smyth
on   his   fifth   and   final
session with the band on 2 nd
November   2004,   while   ‘I
Bet   You   Look   Good   On
The Dancefloor’ was one of
three tracks recorded at the
previous   session   on   28th
July 2004. For the purpose
examples of key differences
in   approach   and   result   in
these   recordings   will   be
discussed.
5.2 Environment
I visited Alan Smyth at
2Fly   Studios   on   14th  July
2008   to   look   at   the
recording   environment  and
to interview him about the
processes   involved   in
creating   the   Arctic
Monkeys   demos.   Smyth
was   able   to   show   me   the
original   ProTools   sessions
for the demos in question to
verify the recording, editing
and   mixing   techniques
detailed   below.   He   also
answered   supplementary
questions   via   email   as   my
research continued. 2Fly is
situated   within   a   single
storey concrete building in
the   courtyard   of   a   large
Victorian   industrial
building   called   the
Stagworks,   which   is
currently split into a variety
of   work   units.   2Fly   is
essentially   1   large   room
with   an   angled   dividing
wall  separating   the control
room   and   live   area.   The
control   room   is
approximately   3.6   x   3m,
and   the   live   room
approximately   5.5   x   4.5m,
with   a   small   triangular
vocal   booth   built   into   one
corner.   Acoustic   treatment
consists  of frames  covered
with carpet  and filled with
off cuts of climbing jacket
filling   in   both   the   control
room   and   live   area,   and   a
large carpet hanging on the
rear   wall   of   the   control
room.   Various   shelves,
boxes and discarded pieces
of equipment in both rooms
make   for   “a   lovely
diffusion”   according   to
Alan   Smyth.   Using
approximate values for the
total   absorption   coefficient AC30 preset in the case of
of   the   room   suggests   a the rhythm guitar), with the
reverb time of between 0.26 amps used more to give the
and 0.35 seconds at 1Khz, band   the   sense   of   playing
with   this   time   lengthening together in one room, as not
at lower frequencies.  all   band   members   always
wore   headphones.   The
drums were recorded using
a  set   of  Shure   drum  mics,
with   a   standard   set­up   of
one mic on kick, toms and
hi­hat,   two   overheads,   and
a   snare   miked   top   and
Figure 2. Live Room, 2 Fly bottom.   Jamie   Cook’s
Studios, Sheffield (Morey, guitar   would   usually   be
2008) overdubbed   later   in   the
session,   and   vocals   were
5.3 Recording overdubbed   in   the   small
Process   ­ vocal   booth   using   a   Rode
Figure 1. Exterior, 2 Fly NT2 mic via a TLA Fatman
Tracking
Studios, Sheffield (Morey, preamp.   All   sources   were
2008) At   each   of   these fed   into   ProTools   via   a
sessions,   three   or   four Soundcraft   Spirit   Studio
It   is   a   basic   and
tracks   would   be   recorded desk,   but   were   monitored
functional   working
and mixed in one long (12­ and processed “in the box”.
environment.   According   to
14   hour)   day.   Drums,
Alan   Smyth,   the   premises
rhythm   guitar   and   bass 5.4 Recording   &
was originally acquired as a
would be recorded together
rehearsal   space   for   his Editing   Process
in   the   live   area   with   Alex
band,   Seafruit,   and   the
Turner   usually   singing –   Time   and
studio   still   has   the   feel   of
an inexpensively converted
along   unmiked   while Tempo
playing   guitar.   It   was
rehearsal   space,   or,   as   he Time   constraints   were
possible   to   verify   this
puts   it,   “it’s   a   bed­sit clearly an important part of
process  by listening to the
basically   with   recording the   recording   process   and
drum overhead tracks of ‘I
equipment in it. I thought it final outcome at 2Fly, with
Bet   You   Look   Good   On
was   homely”   (Smyth, four   live   takes   being   the
The   Dancefloor’   where
2008) maximum that Alan Smyth
there   was   minimal   audible
would record for each song.
bleed   of   bass,   guitar   and
The   first   of   these   takes
vocal. At the time the band
would generally be used to
had   small   practice   amps,
listen   to   how   the   band
and   while   these   were
performed   the   track,   and
sometimes   miked   up,   the
then   assess   how   far   they
guitar sounds on the demos
would need the guidance of
were created using the Amp
a click track. According to
Farm   plug­in   in   ProTools
on   DI   tracks   (the   Vox
Smyth   (2008)   during   my
interview with him:
“If   it   felt   tight,   but   it
should   be   tighter,   I
would   give   them   a
click,   but   just   for   the
first   minute   or   so.   If   I
had   to,   I   would   design
the click track to allow
the   band   to   speed   up
and slow down”.
Smyth   (2008)   provided
further   justification   of   this
methodology   in   a
subsequent email:
“The   reason,   I   didn't
think   the   songs   ever
sounded   settled   at   the
beginning   and   for   me
the earlier part of a song
must settle comfortably
so that everyone knows
when   the   next   beat's
coming!!   (Band
included!)   Don't   forget
the   band   were   still   17
and  were   pretty ragged
if   left   to   their   own
devices!   However   it
always   sounded   much
more   exciting   if   I   let
them go click free when
they   started   to   pull
away, there was always
a   point   in   each   song
where   this   would
happen,   not   always   the
same point in each take,
just   when   it   felt
natural”.
Of   the   four   tracks   in
question in this case study,
analysis   of   tempo   showed
that ‘I Bet You Look Good
On The Dancefloor’ and ‘A
Certain   Romance’   both
follow a click until the last
chorus   and   instrumental
coda   respectively   (at
102BPM   and   140BPM).
With   ‘Scummy   Man’,   the
(drum­free)   intro   was
recorded in free time, while
the   rest   of   the   song   was
played   to   a   click   that
changed   tempo   for   verse
and   chorus.   With   ‘Mardy
Bum’,   Smyth   used   a
technique   which   he
describes   as   ‘variable
click”   where   he   tapped
along   to   the   band’s   initial
take,   recorded   without   a
click,   and   designed   a
variable   click   track   which
replicated the way the band
naturally speed up and slow
down,   but   allowed   for
greater   tightness   and
consistency between takes.
Smyth   assembled   a
master   track   from   the   2­3
takes   recorded   with   his
click method of choice and
with   the   integrity   of
component   sections
preserved.   Jamie   Cook’s
guitar   parts   were
overdubbed   (but   this   was
due   to   his   daytime   work
commitments   rather   than
any   production
consideration) as were Alex
Turner’s  vocals, but again,
due to time constraints this
was   generally   a   composite
of   two   takes.   Sometimes
Smyth   copied   and   pasted
sections   of   backing   if   the
band   had   been   unable   to
produce   a   relatively
consistent   recording,   and
bass   player   Andy
Nicholson’s   playing   in
particular needed additional
correction   to   improve
timing,   although   both   of
these practices became less
common   in   the   later
recording   sessions   as   the
band’s   experience   and
technical   competence
improved.
5.5 Mixing   and
Mastering
With the demos, Smyth
adjusted the mix during the
tracking   process.   Drum
sounds   were   EQ’d   on   the
desk prior to recording, but
any   dynamic   processing
was   done   within   ProTools
and   incorporated   into   the
monitor mix from tracking
onwards. Smyth noted that
he   liked   to   automate
compression   rates   and
attack   times   “especially
with vocalists that go from
loud   to   soft…it   lets   the
thing   breath”.   Any   reverb
or   delay   effects   were   also
added within ProTools, and
a combination of mastering
plug­ins,   including   Sony
Oxford   Inflator   And   EQ
and   Waves   C4   Multiband
Compressor,   were   applied
to   the   master   bus.   Smyth
preferred  to send the band
away   for   an   hour   or   two
while working on the final
mixes, with them returning
to   the   control   room   for
approval towards the end of
the   process.   Final   masters
would normally be run off
at   the   end   of   the   day’s
session.
6 The Album 
6.1  Introduction
Whatever  People Say I
Am,   That’s   What   I’m   Not
was   recorded   at   Chapel
Studios,   Lincolnshire   over
15 days in September 2005,
engineered by Ewan Davis
and   produced   by   Jim
Abbiss.   Much   of   the
process   of   tracking   and
mixing   is   described   by
Abbiss in an interview with
Paul   Tingen   for   the
September   2006   issue   of
Sound On Sound magazine,
and he has responded to my
additional   questions   about
this session via email.
6.2 The
Environment
Chapel   Studios   is   a
well­appointed   residential
recording   studio   facility
situated   in   the   village   of
South   Thoresby,
Lincolnshire.   Studio   1,
where   Arctic   Monkeys
recorded   the   album   is   a
former   Wesleyan   chapel
converted   by   Munro
Acoustics. The live room is
approximately 12m x 6.7m
x 5.5m high with carpeted
and wood flooring, as well
as   a   range   of   drapes   and
acoustic screens to alter the
room ambience and isolate
the sound of the performers
when   recording.   The
control   room   is   5mx   6m
and has also been treated by
Munro   Acoustics   (with
additional   “tweaks”   by
other   specialists   over   the
years) for optimal listening.
6.3   Recording
Process   ­
Tracking
According   to   his
interview   in   Sound   On
Sound,   the   process   of
recording the album shared
some   features   with   those
used   on   the   demos.   The
band played live together in
one room (including Jamie
Cook,   who   didn’t   have
other work commitments to
be  concerned  about  at  this
stage in the band’s career),
but   with   the   guitar   amps
placed   in   booths   and   the
bass   amp   placed   in   a
corridor   to   provide
separation.   The   musicians
had  their  own  mini­mixers
to   tailor   their   headphone
mix   to   their   own
preferences.   Alex   Turner
chose to sing live on a few
of   the   songs,   for   which
additional   baffling   was
used   to   allow   for   better
isolation   of   the   vocal
recording.   The   recording
schedule   allowed   for   one
day for the tracking of each
song,   with   a   day   at   each
end for set­up and breaking
down   respectively.   Jim
Abbiss used a combination
of preamps when recording
the band, with half the mics
going   through   the   Amek
desk   in   the   control   room,
and   the   remainder   via
Massenburg,   Telfunken   or
API external mic preamps.
The drum recording was
achieved   using
considerably   more   mics
than the demo. Kick drum
and   toms   were   double
miked   in   addition   to
overheads   and   room   mics.
The   snare   was   miked   top
and bottom, “with an AKG
451 placed at the side of the
snare   drum,   heavily
compressed   to   give   front
and to bass [kick drum] and
snare.”   (Tingen,   2006)
Guitar and bass amps were
also   double   miked,   and
vocals   were   recorded   with
valve   Neumann   M149
through   a   Urei   1176
compressor.   Jim   Abbiss
used   ProTools   for
recording   “as   a   tape
machine   and   for   quick
editing,   very   much   the
same   way   people   used
razor   blades   years   ago”.
(Ibid)
6.4  Recording
Process   –   Time
& Tempo
I   asked   Jim   Abbiss
about   the   number   of   takes
he did when tracking each
song   for   the   album.   He
thought the average for the
band was four takes, and if
Alex   Turner   was
overdubbing lead vocals he
was   “very   quick,   we’d
generally   do   a   warm­up
take and a couple more  to
choose   between.”   Other
overdubs   were   not
numerous,   and   mainly
consisted   of   “occasional
backing   vocals,   percussion
and organ” (Abbiss, 2008)
Having discovered Alan
Smyth’s   variable   tempo
track   method   when   I
interviewed   him,   I   asked
Jim   Abbiss   if   had   had
employed   similar   methods
when recording the album.
He replied:
“A couple of songs had
clicks just at the start to set
a tempo and then we faded
them   out   of   the   guys’
headphones, but I didn’t do
this   with   any   of   the   four
songs   in   question,   they
were   all   free   time.   Matt
Helders has naturally good
consistent tempo.” (Abbiss,
2008)
Analysis   confirmed
Abbiss’s   comments,
although   other   than   the
introduction and its reprise,
the remainder of ‘I Bet You
Look   Good   On   The
Dancefloor’   is   at   a
metronomic   103   BPM,
suggesting that Abbiss may
not   have   remembered
events   correctly   for   this
song.   He   also   emailed   me
back   after   the   initial
interview   with   an
interesting   additional
comment   about   the
recording process:
“"[A]   Certain
Romance"   incidentally
my   favourite   song   on
the LP, was recorded all
live   in   one   take.   Alex
wanted   it   to   be   special
&   wanted   a   "warts   &
all"   version.   I   was   a
little  wary  of  this, as  I
wanted it to be as good
as it could be, but said
OK lets try it. Myself &
Ewan   (engineer)   then
sat   transfixed   as   they
played an amazing take
with   no   mistakes   all
through.”   (Abbiss,
2008)
6.5  Mixing   &
Mastering
  Unlike   Alan   Smyth,   who
had   to   track,   mix   and
master in a day, Jim Abbiss
was   able   to   conduct   his
mixing   sessions   at   a
different location (Olympic
Studios,   London)   with   a
different   assistant   (Barny).
Mastering   was   not   a
consideration   for   Abbiss,
with  this  being undertaken
by   George   Morino   at
Sterling Sound, New York.
While Smyth had mixed “in
the box”, Abbiss had opted
to go for a manual mix on a
vintage   EMI   TGI   16
channel console, with some
sub­mixing   in   ProTools.
Abbiss   also   suggested   that
timing   correction   and
editing   was   kept   to   a
minimum:
 “If a take can be nudged
in a couple of places to
sound   better   while
keeping all the dynamic
&   sonic   character   of
that   original   “magic”
take then I do it rather
than   re­recording,   but
my   goal   is   never   a
“perfect”   grid­aligned
result”. (Abbiss, 2008)
7 Conclusions
7.1  Recording,
Mixing   &
Environment
Some of the conclusions
drawn   from   this   research
would   be   of   little   surprise
to   recordists   or   producers.
Certain   elements   of   the
sonic   differences   between
the   recordings   can,   quite
reasonably, be put down to
the   range   and   quality   of
equipment available to Jim
Abbiss,   whether   it   be   pre­
amps   and   mics,   or
compressors, EQ and other
outboard. The live room at
Chapel   Studios   gave
Abbiss   the   option   of
recording and incorporating
the   room   ambience,
although he may have used
this   in   conjunction   with   a
high   quality   reverb   unit.
Alan   Smyth   had   to   mix
drums   recorded   in   a   live
room with DI’d guitars and
vocals   recorded   in   a   very
small booth, so it is perhaps
not   surprising   that   the
ambience   doesn’t   sound
quite as consistent as in the
album   versions.   Similarly,
a   combination   of   time,   to
correct any phase problems,
technique   and   equipment
has   led   to   much   clearer
drum   recording.     Spectral
differences may be at least
partly   due   aesthetic
choices, but in the case of
Alan Smyth, it may also be
due   at   least   partly   to
monitoring   on   nearfield
speakers   with   limited   bass
definition,   leading   to
boosting   in   the   more
audible   low   mid   range   to
improve   apparent   bass
definition,   with   a
consequent  boost in the 1­
4KHz range to prevent the
mix from sounding muddy.
There   is   a   consistency
of practice across demo and
album versions, in that the
majority   of   elements   were
tracked   live   into   ProTools
in both cases, and a similar
small number of takes were
recorded,   from   which
composites   were
assembled.   What   is
interesting is that counter to
my assumptions, and those
of   many   fans,   the   album
versions   have   undergone
far less technical mediation
by   the   producer   than   the
demos.     Overdubbing   was
confined   to   some   vocal
recordings   and   additional
percussion   and   keyboard
parts, and timing correction
was  kept  to the  minimum.
Even   the   album   mixing
process can be seen as more
“authentic”   in   terms   of
Abbiss   performing   a
traditional   manual   mix,
harking   back   to   standard
studio practice  in the  days
before SSL desks and other
automation.   The   question
does remain, though, as to
how  much  automation and
other   “in   the   box”
mediation   occurred   in   the
ProTools   sub­mix   prior   to
its   break­out   to   the   EMI
TGI 16 desk.
In   terms   of   the
reception   of   the   demos   as
having   more   energy   or
passion,   it   is   perhaps   not
the recording process itself
that   has   created   these
differences,   but   a
combination   of   both   the
environment   and   activities
around   both   sets   of
recordings,   and   the   band’s
development   as   musicians.
Abbiss says in his interview
with   Sound   on   Sound
(Tingen,   2006)   that   the
mics, amps and drums were
permanently   set   up
throughout   the   15   days   of
recording. Given that there
was   minimal   technical   set
up   during   each   day   of
recording,   and   the   band
recorded virtually the same
number   of   takes   of   each
song as they had done when
recording   3­4   different
songs in a day with Smyth,
there   is   the   question   of
what was going on in each
recording session when the
band   were   not   performing
the   take.   My   analysis   had
shown that while the album
versions   felt   slower   than
the   demos,   the   actual
difference   in   tempo   was
minimal. It is worth noting
that according to the band’s
official   website,   Arctic
Monkeys   played   59   gigs
between their last recording
session with Alan Smyth in
November   2004,   and   the
commencement   of   the
album   sessions   in
September   2005.   It   is   this
intense   performing
schedule,   then,   that   led   to
the   apparent   tightness   of
the   album   versions,   rather
than   Abbiss’s   technical
mediation.   This   touring
schedule had also created a
problem for Abbiss, in that
the   band   had   been
accustomed   to   playing   the
songs   more   quickly   and
aggressively   as   their
technical   accomplishment
increased,   which   led   to
Abbiss having to work with
the   band   to   rein   in   these
tendencies,   and   take   the
sound and feel back to what
had   been   captured   in   the
demos.   Abbiss   confirmed
this   approach   to   me   via
email:
“ It is something myself
and   Lawrence   Bell
[head   of   the   band’s
label, Domino Records]
both felt was necessary.
The   guys   had   been
touring and playing the
songs  faster   and  faster,
and   in   most   cases   the
lyrics   had   become
 garbled and the grooves
of   some   of   the   tunes
lost. So I wanted to get
the feel back and allow
Alex   to   get   his   words
out”. (Abbiss, 2008)
This   process   had   not
been   achieved   to   the
satisfaction   of   Lawrence
Bell in the case of the song
‘Mardy   Bum’,   which   had
led to the band re­recording
it while on tour in Germany
on 11th November 2005. As
Jim   Abbiss   was   not
available   for   this   session,
Alan   Smyth   recorded   the
band   at   Telstar   Studios,
Munich,   again   employing
his   variable   click   track
method   from   the   demo
sessions:
“Album   version   of
Mardy   Bum   was
definitely   done   to   a
variable   click   to   slow
them down!  They'd got
so   used   to   playing   it
that it was miles to fast
and   ruining   the   song.
The   same   technique   as
[the   demos]   was
employed   but   it   was   a
lot harder as they really
wanted to race away in
places”.
Abbiss   notes   in   his
Sound on  Sound  interview
that there no pre­production
was done for the album, so
I   would   suggest   these
comments   from   both
producers would lead to the
conclusion   that   at   least
some   part   of   the   album
recording   sessions   for   the
previously   demoed   songs
involved   working   with   the
band   to   curb   their   natural
urge   to   play   the   songs
harder   and   faster.   It   is
perhaps   this   factor,   then,
rather   than   technical
mediation,   which   has   lead
the   audience   to   perceive
greater   energy   or   edge   in
the demos, where, although
the band were harnessed to
a click track for at least part
of   each   recording,   they
were playing at the limit of
their   technical
accomplishment   as
musicians   at   that   time,
whereas the album sessions
had   required   a   curbing   of
this energy. It perhaps also
suggests   why   a   preference
has   been   expressed   by   the
audience   for   the   vocal
performances in the demos;
Alex Turner had developed
a   vocal   delivery   that   was
suited   to   live   performance
in front of an audience, but
which had lost some of the
intimacy   of   the   recordings
realized   in   Alan   Smyth’s
cosy vocal booth. This can
be evidenced not just in the
reception   to   both   sets   of
recordings,   but   in   Jim
Abbiss’s decision to use the
demo  intro  to ‘Where  The
Sun Goes Down’, and edit
it   on   to   the   front   of   the
album version in preference
to   the   recordings   made
during the album sessions.
I would suggest that the
choice   of   location   for   the
album   sessions   had   also
contributed   to
performances   that   in   some
cases seemed to lack some
of   the   edge   of   the   demo
versions.   In   my   interview
with   Geoff   Barradale,   the
band’s manager he noted:
“It   was   a   town   record
and   we   made   it   in   the
countryside,   which   just
didn’t   fit   –   it   was
available  and  we  could
get it done”. (Barradale,
2008)
This   reveals   the
pressure   on   the   band,
management   and   label   to
get   the   album   released
before   the   intense   interest
created  in the band by the
demos   began   to   dissipate.
The   demos   for   an   album
ordinarily   function   as   a
blueprint   for   the   band   and
the   producer,   but   in   the
case   of   Arctic   Monkeys,
they   also   acted   as   a
blueprint   for   the   audience.
The   awareness   of   this   by
both label and producer can
be seen in their intervention
to   insure   consistency
between   the   album
recordings and their widely
appreciated   demo
forebears.   Geoff   Barradale
also   revealed   that   Jim
Abbiss had originally been
contacted   to   remix   the
original   demo   recordings
for   the   album   release,   and
had done so for both ‘I Bet
You   Look   Good   On   The
Dancefloor’   and   ‘Mardy
Bum’;   it   was   intervention
by the band that had vetoed
this   process,   as   they   had
felt that it would be ripping
off   fans   to   sell   them
remixed   and   repackaged
versions of songs that they
had already downloaded for
free.
7.2  Producer   As
Author
Some   of   these
conclusions   raise   the
question   of   the   extent   to
which   either   producer   can
claim   authorship   for   the
recordings.   It   could   be
argued   that   Alan   Smyth,
through   his   technical
mediation,   had   shown   the
band   their   potential   at   a
point in their career where
their  musicianship  was  yet
to quite reach the standard
that  the demos implied. In
this   way,   the   demos   not
only   provided   a   sonic
blueprint for the band, but a
template   for   the   live
performance   of   the   songs.
As   Geoff   Barradale
commented:
“When   you   put   a
recording   down   it   kind
of finalises it. Once the
ban   knew   what   the
songs were going to be,
they   had   nailed   them
live   within   a   week   or
two”. (Barradale, 2008)
As such, Smyth can be
seen to have a greater claim
to   authorship   in   his
productions   than   Abbiss.
The   album   was   a   more
collaborative   effort,   with
different   assistants   for
tracking   and   mixing,   and
mastering   realised   by
another   person   in   another
country.   Alan   Smyth   had
had   to   fulfil   all   of   these
functions   in   a   highly
compressed timeframe, and
yet his role as producer of
the demos has been largely
ignored by fans and critics
alike.   By   contrast,   Jim
Abbiss   had   the   task   of
creating   an   album   that
remained as true as possible
to   the   recorded   version   of
the Arctic Monkeys already
familiar   to   their   audience,
but with a separation, and a
frequency   and   dynamic
range   more   acceptable   to
radio   broadcast.   As   such,
his   most   significant
mediation   was   to   ensure
that the band remained true
to   the   original   blueprint
established by Alan Smyth.
When   Geoff   Barradale
described Abbiss as “a safe
pair  of  hands”,  I  took  this
to be indicative of the need
for   a   producer   who   could
precisely focus his creative
and   technical   energy   to   a
brief,   which   required   an
adherence to an established
template.
7.3  Methodology   &
Authenticity
It is interesting that the
reception   for   the   demos
often   involves   language
that   would   suggest   these
recordings   are   the
definitive   or   authentic
expression   of  the   songs   in
question,   and   yet
considerably   more
manipulation   of   these
source   recordings   appears
to have been employed than
on the album versions. My
study   of   these   recordings
has   shown   that   it   is   not
until   the   producers   have
revealed their methodology
that   a   true   picture   of   the
process can be understood.
However,   without   critical
listening, technical analysis
and a study of reception, I
suggest   that   it   would   be
difficult   to   formulate   the
necessary   questions   to
unpick   the   recording
process.   I   therefore   offer
this multi­faceted approach
as   a   reasonable   model   for
the investigation of the art
of record production.
My research so far leads
me   to   agree   with   Moore’s
view   that   authenticity   is
ascribed   rather   than
inscribed.   The   demo
version   of   ‘A   Certain
Romance’   sounds   more
authentic   to   listeners
because   the   relative
amateurishness of the band,
Kiel’s   “participatory
discrepancies”, continues to
shine   through   in   spite   of
Alan   Smyth’s   mediation.
These   same   listeners   will
find the album versions less
authentic   by   virtue   of   the
professionalism of both the
band   and   the   producer,   as
“technical   mastery…is
equated   with   artifice”
(Moore, 2002, p213). Thus,
the   album   version   of   ‘A
Certain   Romance’   will   be
seen   as   the   less   authentic
expression   despite   being
recorded   entirely   live   by
the   band   in   one   take.   A
careful listen to this version
reveals  in the few seconds
of silence at the beginning
the   voice   of,   presumably,
recording   engineer   Ewan
Davis saying “shall I keep
rolling?”,   an   attempt
perhaps by the producer or
band   to   inscribe   this
version   as   immediate   and
authentic.
Brian   Eno   makes   the
following   comment   about
the studio :
“The effect of recording
is that it takes the music
out   of   the   time
dimension and puts it in
the space dimension. As
soon   as   you   do   that,
you’re   in   a   position   of
being   able   to   listen
again   and   again   to   a
performance, to become
familiar   with   details
you   had   most   certainly
missed   the   first   time
through, and to become
very fond of details that
weren’t intended by the
composer   or   the
musicians”. (Eno, 1983,
p127)
This   is   true   for   the
producer,   but   equally   true
for the listener to a finished
recording, especially if that
listener is a fan of the artist
in   question.   This   also
perhaps   explains   the
disappointment by listeners
with some of Alex Turner’s
vocal   delivery   on   the
album;   it   is   not   an   exact
match   for   the   demo,   and
some   of   the   nuances   that
they   have   come   to   know
and   love   have   gone
missing.
One   issue   of   an
ethnographic   approach   in
my   methodology   remains
the   reliability   of   the
witnesses,   not   because   of
any intention to mislead on
their part, but because it is
quite possible to remember
details   incorrectly,
especially, as in the case of
the   interviewees   here,   two
or more years have elapsed
since   the   events   in
question.   But,   like   the
model   proposed   by   Davis
(2008)   of   the   production
analyst   as   detective,   the
analysis tools available to a
researcher should allow for
either   confirmation,   or
reveal  the need  for further
investigation.
Acknowledgement
s
I   would   like   to   thank
Jim   Abbiss,   Geoff
Barradale   and  Alan Smyth
for   agreeing   to   be
interviewed   as   part   of   this
research, and Dr Bob Davis
References  Kiel, Charles (1987) 
Participatory Discrepancy
Tingen, Paul. 2006. Jim 
Abbiss – Producing 
for his help and advice.
Braidwood, Stefan. 2006.  and The Power Of Music.  Kasabian And Arctic 
Arctic Monkeys: Whatever In Cultural Anthropology, Monkeys. Sound On Sound
People Say I Am, That’s  Vol. 2, No. 3 (Aug., 1987), Magazine. Cambridge.  
What I’m Not (Album  pp. 275­283. Oxford.  Sound On Sound Ltd. 
Review) (Available at:  Blackwell Publishing (Available at: 
http://www.popmatters.co Mella, Pete. 2005. Arctic  http://www.soundonsound.
m/pm/review/arcticmonke Monkeys Interview  com/sos/sep06/articles/jim
ys_whatever/ Last  (available at:  abbiss.htm?print=yes Last 
accessed 12th December  http://petemella.blogspot.c accessed 12th December 
2008) om/2006/11/arctic­ 2008)
Davis, Bob. 2008.  Creative  monkeys­interview­oct­ Unknown Author(s):
Ownership And The Case  2005­l2sb.html (Last 
Of The Sonic Signature  accessed 12th December  http://www.arcticmonkeys.
Or, I’m Listening To This  2008) com (last accessed 12th 
Record And I Don’t Know  Moore, Allan. 2002.  December 2008)
Whodunit. Proceedings of  Authenticity As 
the 4th Art of Record  Authentication. In Popular http://www.arcticmonkeys.
Production Conference,  Music (2002) Volume  com/forum/viewtopic.php?
UMASS Lowell, Dec.  21/2, pp. 209­223.  t=4911
2008 Cambridge. Cambridge 
Eno, Brian. 1983. The Studio  University Press. http://www.arcticmonkeys.
As Compositional Tool. In  Moylan, William. 2002. The  com/forum/viewtopic.php?
Cox &Warner (Eds.).  Art of Recording:  t=4772
2004.  Audio Culture pp.  understanding and 
127­130. New York.  crafting the mix. London.  http://www.arcticmonkeys.
Continuum. Focal Press. com/forum/viewtopic.php?
Hasted, Nick 2005. Year Of  Murphy, John. 2006. Arctic  t=5742
The Arctic Monkeys. The  Monkeys: Whatever 
Independent (Newspaper).  People Say I Am, That’s  http://www.arcticmonkeys.
London. Independent  What I’m Not (Album  com/forum/viewtopic.php?
News And Media Ltd.  Review) (Available at:  t=6031
(Available at:  http://www.musicomh.co (Last accessed 30th July 
http://www.independent.co m/albums/arctic­ 2008)
.uk/arts­ monkeys_1205.htm http://www.arctic­
entertainment/music/featur Last accessed 12th  monkeys.com/music.php
es/year­of­the­arctic­ December 2008)
monkeys­519609.html). Shepherd, Becky. 2007. The  http://www.chapelstudios.
Jonze, Tim. 2006. Arctic  White Stripes, Garage  com
Monkeys: Whatever  Rock, And The
People Say I Am, That’s  Production   of http://www.geocities.com/t
What I’m Not (Album  Retrospectivity. ransporterraum/frames.ht
Review). NME. London.  Proceedings of the 3rd  Art ml
IPC Media. Available at:  of   Record   Production
http://www.nme.com/revie Conference,   Queensland http://www.ghettorecorder
ws/arctic­monkeys/7837   University of Technology, s.com/welcome.html
Last accessed 12th  Brisbane Dec. 2007 http://www.mardy­
December 2008) bum.com/forum/index.php
?topic=104.0
 http://www.mardy­ with   the   permission   of   the
bum.com/forum/index.php copyright   owners,   but   the
?topic=34.0 author   would   like   to   make   it
http://www.mardy­ clear   that   he   has   neither
bum.com/forum/index.php verified   this   nor   used   this
?topic=13.0 website   to   gain   access   to   the
songs in question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik
i/Arctic_Monkeys
(Last accessed 12th 
Discography
December 2008) Arctic Monkeys. 2006. ‘A 
Certain Romance’ on 
Whatever People Say I 
Notes   On Am, That’s What I’m Not. 
Interviews Domino
Arctic Monkeys. 2006. ‘I Bet 
Jim   Abbiss   answered   my You Look Good On The 
interview   questions   via   email Dancefloor’ on Whatever 
on 1st October 2008, and added
People Say I Am, That’s 
additional thoughts via another
What I’m Not. Domino
email on the same day. Geoff
Arctic Monkeys. 2006. ‘Mardy
Barradale was interviewed on
Bum’ on Whatever People
30th  September   2008.   Alan
Say I Am, That’s What I’m
Smyth was interviewed on 14th
Not. Domino
July   2008,   and   answered
Arctic Monkeys. 2006. ‘When 
additional questions via email
The Sun Goes Down’on 
between 21st July 2008 and 5th
Whatever People Say I 
November 2008. In this paper,
Am, That’s What I’m Not. 
I   have   attributed   quotations
Domino
made   by   the   interviewees   to
Strokes, The. 2001. ‘Take It 
the speaker in question. I have
Or Leave It’ on Is This It. 
omitted   transcripts   of
RCA
interviews and the emails that
formed   part   of   the   research
process from the references to
protect   the   contact   details   of
the   subjects,   and   because   the
reader will not have access to
this material.

Notes   On
Discography
The demo versions of the
songs referred to in this paper
are  available  at  the  following
website:
http://www.arctic­
monkeys.com/music.php

The   website   claims   that

these songs are made available