Q: Knowing what you know about then and now, if you had a time machine, would you take a Pro Tools box or anything from today back to Abbey Road to help you in the studio?

A: As far as I'm concerned, I had the best training you can possibly have. And part of that training is getting used to mono through two-track through four-track on up. I think one of the main lessons it teaches is how to make a decision, because you have to make decisions on the fly. These days there's too much of, "Oh well, we can fix it in the mix or we can fix it in the mastering. Or let's keep this because someone might need it for the remix or the extended version."

Q: Did everyone or anyone working on Ziggy Stardust know it was going to be as big as it was at the time?

A: No one at that time, I don't care if it was the Beatles or anyone else thought that in 30 years time or 40 years time we would still be talking about those same records. It was generally, the Beatles weren't quite like this, but the majority of artists from a Bowie to an Elton John we were doing two albums a year and if an album stayed in the public's conscience for six months, we were happy. We knew the thing was successful and on to the next one. We had no idea 30 or 40 years later we would be talking about the same thing.

Q: OK, so now 30 or 40 years later we are talking about these same albums and they are on CD. What do you think about the sound of the current Bowie catalog?

A: For me, it's CD and I don't like CD. My whole thing is, when vinyl was at its best, there's nothing that could beat it. But vinyl was going down hill and it was getting worse and worse and so something had to take over and CD is probably better than vinyl would be by now, but it is not as good as vinyl was at its best. With "Crime of the Century" the Supertramp album, at the time A&M was distributed by CBS, that's SONY, over in Europe. And we were able to get A&M to talk to CBS and get them to have the first run pressed by the classical division. And so it was the best vinyl you could get at the time and those first pressings were absolutely astounding--they were incredible and then it was all down hill from there.

Q: And so you think that what Steve Hoffman is doing with vinyl pressed from the original master tape is the way to go compared to CDs?

A: Probably yes. I have to admit I don't have a vinyl setup, I don't have a turntable. I prefer to look forward rather than back and I look to the day when the CD is at the same place that vinyl used to be. I look forward to the next record that I'm going to make, I don't listen to the old ones very much.

Q: So then do you have an IPOD or CD's or what do you listen to?

A: Well it's a combination. I listen to an IPOD at the gym or walking or when I'm on a flight. Other times it will be CDs.

Q: Are you surprised at the number of bootlegs there are out there featuring alternate takes and do you have any theories on how they got out of Abbey Road?

A: Believe me, we've been over this a lot because when I was working with George just before he passed on, one of the things we were doing was trying to organize what was going on with bootlegs and see if there was some way, as we were going to be reissuing everything, see if we could put some of the things on the reissues to take some of the wind out of the sails of the bootleggers. And I have to admit, I was absolutely astounded at how much was actually out there and I was only working with George's stuff and not the Beatles. And the problem is, the record companies aren't particularly interested in stopping it. They are more interested in people downloading--they'll go after those people- thats good publicity, but they won't go after bootleggers. And that is bootlegging is bad for everyone--bootleggers bootleg bootleggers. When I was listening to them I would hear where someone had copied an out take from someone else and added some reverb and claimed it was a new mix or something. It's ridiculous [Ken is started to get annoyed about this]. These are things that the artist never wanted out and it all finishes up with the artist seeing no money, the writer seeing no money, the record company seeing no money and the public getting really, really bad quality.

Q: For the stuff that is commercially out there, what do you think about the sound of the current catalog that is available for the Beatles?

A: First and foremost, none of it's mono, so I hate it all. There were basically only two albums that were done for stereo as far as the Beatles were concerned that they were part of and that was Abbey Road and well even Let It Be they weren't really a part of so only one album were they a part of that was really going for stereo since Abbey Road was only done stereo. Ever other album they would spend a lot of time on the mono and then "Oh, I guess we'd better do the stereo so let's throw it down quickly." And so to me, everything was made by them intended for mono-- that's the way it should be heard. And I can't stand the argument, "Oh, well people like to hear it out of two speakers." They will hear it out of two speakers, it's just always going to be a center signal-- so what? That's the way it was meant to be heard.

Q: In an Mix interview in October 2004 when he was talking about mixing music for surround, Ken Scott said "Crime of the Century by Supertramp would be the most perfect surround record. But after many phone calls I discovered it's been farmed out. Boy, was I disappointed." What did Ken mean by saying that?

A: Well, that says it. I was told by the manager that it was already in the works and being dealt with and apparently one member of the band passed some comment about "It will be money for old rope." I don't know how many Americans understand that, but its English terminology for getting a fast buck. So obviously they weren't going to spend much time on it, just get it done, get it out there and hopefully get a few extra bucks. And they knew if I was part of it it would take longer.

Q: So they don't care whether it is out on SACD or whatever, they just want the money.

A: That's the impression I was given.

Q: I will say this to Ken: I love your studio engineering work! One question about Trident Studios in London. I very much like the sound from records produced there in the 70's. I can hear a very nice room ambience on records produced at Trident. Can you tell us a little about Trident studios ?

A: It was a great time. It started off a little rocky because the two owners had never really had any dealings with a professional sound studio before, from the technical aspect anyway. One was a musician so he had only played in studios. So they made some mistakes like buying an 8-track. It was the first 8-track in London and what they did was they came over to the states and they bought it and took it back. It never occurred to them that here it is 60 cycles and over in London it is 50 cycles. So it finished up that the 8-track was running at about 12 and a half inches per second-- which was fine as long as it was the only 8-track in London because everyone had to use that machine to mix. But as soon as all the other people got 8-tracks, a tape would be recorded at Trident and then go somewhere else and "Hey, why is it running the wrong speed?" But all of those things got worked out and then eventually came the story of "Hey Jude" when I went down there to listen to the completed thing it sounded absolutely phenomenal and when we got back to Abbey Road it sounded like *$&#. There was no high end whatsoever and we spent hours doctoring it to make it sound good and we somewhat succeeded. I noticed there was a comment by Steve that he said he knew exactly what was wrong with it and mentioned something about the mids. So some people notice that it is not as good as it could be, but the majority of the people don't.

Q: I don't have a specific question to ask, but I too think Trident in the 70s is THE best "studio sound" if there is such a thing. To me, Aladdin Sane is one of the most perfect sounding album I know of. So if there's anything we should know about what made this studio so magic, I'd be happy to hear it.

A: The engineers primarily. It's always the way. You could have the greatest studio on earth and if you don't have the right engineers it isn't going to work. You know with myself-- I know that sounds so egotistical-- but there were three of us. Myself, Robin Cable and there was Roy Thomas Baker and we could cover all aspects of what anyone ever came in with. And I suppose another incredible thing about the place was the piano. The famous Trident piano sound. You can get close to it in other studios, but that was the best.

Q: Can you isolate what it was about it? Was it the mikes, the EQ or just the piano itself?

A: It was the piano itself. The sound was so hard and so edgy you didn't have to do too much to it to get it sounding good.

Q: I don't own the Lewisohn book and remain puzzled about the existence of the 27:11 "Helter Skelter" jam. What light, if any, can Mr. Scott shine on this legendary performance? Is it worthwhile? Who participated? Were other songs and fragments incorporated in the jam?

A: As I've been saying recently, if someone doesn't remember about something, don't talk about it. I honestly don't remember it at all so I can shed no light on it. I've read that as well and I could do some investigating.

Q: Well, we'll just have to come back to that question in another interview... What do you think about the fact that older recordings done with limited technology sound fresher and more vital than newer recordings done with state of the art technology. Do you think modern day producers/engineers are lazier?

A: I don't think it's laziness since a lot of them work their *sses off. I don't know...as I said at the top, I had the greatest training you could possibly have and I don't think that kind of training is there today. I honestly don't know what the training was like over here during the same time I was in England. Over there we had EMI and Decca and we all had similar ways of bringing people in and training them and going through mastering and that sort of thing. Because the whole thing of going from tape to vinyl was so much different. You had to be so much more careful about things when you're doing that than you do these days. When you're going from tape to CD or from digital to CD, you don't have to worry about phase, you don't have to worry about too much low end-- you can basically do whatever you want. Having all of those possibilities I don't think is such a good thing if you haven't come up from a very limited place and expanded from there.

Q: With all the big names that Ken's worked with, I'd be curious to hear if there were any records he worked on by people who he thought would become household names (or something like it), but didn't. Records that he really liked/expected would do well, but which just didn't catch the public mood for whatever reason, etc. (And if he wants to say Happy The Man, that'd be even better!)

A: To the person who asked that, I say "Happy The Man". I am always surprised by the success of a record. I don't make records to sell records, I make records to please myself and the artist and if I please other people in doing it the way I do it I'm happy and that's the icing on the cake.

Some Bowie questions for Ken:
Q: Do you recall anything of the songs "Black Hole Kids", "Only One Paper Left" and "It's Gonna Rain Again"?

A: No I don't. I have no idea.

Q: Leading up to 2002, Bowie began work on a new Ziggy Stardust project which was intended to be a soundtrack album to a film. Did you have any involvement in this?

A: No, I did not.

Q: The first three albums that you produced for Bowie follow the form of all originals plus one cover. I was wondering if there was a particular logic behind this or the choice of covers?

A: No, just they were songs that David liked. It’s just the way it went. Like originally for "Ziggy", "Round and Round" was going to be on it as well, which was a cover. But that got dropped just because it didn't feel right with everything else. It wasn't a question of "Oh, it's a cover and we've already got one of those so just drop it." It’s just however the cards fell or were dealt or whatever.

Q: According to the credits, Hunky Dory was entirely produced by you whilst the next three were co-produced with Bowie. Was there much change in your working process or contribution between albums?

A: The person that asked that question didn't look at the cover for Hunky Dory correctly. It said, "Produced by Ken Scott, assisted by the actor" the actor being David. So it was always a joint effort. I consider every album I do to be a joint effort. I'm there to put across what the artist wants to put across not myself. In which case I need the input from them so it becomes a co-production.

Q: Do you know anything about a rumored sequel to the Pin Ups project that was to cover such tracks as "Ladytron" (Roxy Music), "No Fun" (The Stooges), "God Only Knows" (The Beach Boys) and "Summer in the City" (Lovin' Spoonful)? And speaking of covers, do you know if David ever recorded a studio version of "My Death" or for that matter "I Feel Free" and "Gotta Get a Job"?

A: No idea.

Q: What is you favorite Beatles album? What is your favorite David Bowie album?

A: I can't really say. They are all entities unto themselves and while I like tracks on other albums "Ziggy" hangs together extremely well as a total album, but I think there are better tracks on other albums.

Q: Do you find that a growing concern where in years past people listened to and liked a whole album by a group, but now whether legally or illegally people only like a song without regard to the rest of the work a group does or the rest of the tracks on an album? [this is an interview, not an English assignment for the run-on sentence monitors...]

A: To me that is a problem that is being brought about by the major labels and I can't stand it. I have always fought against the thing of, "You've got to have a hit single to have a hit album." You don't. Led Zeppelin proved that. Then Missing Persons did that. We did extremely well with them and didn't have a hit single, although people think we did. It's gone from where you need one hit single to you need two, three, four and they're not giving the artist the room to experiment, to do a concept album. When the majors die, it will come back again I'm sure and I can't wait for that. But at the moment, they're still in charge, they've got the bucks, so that's what we have to live with.

Q: If you isolate the left channel at the beginning of "The Bewlay Brothers", you can clearly hear a squeaking stool, then David smoking a joint. Can you confirm that? It could have easily been erased from the final mix. Why did you leave it?

A: Yes there is a chair squeaking and it's not David having a joint--its David having a regular cigarette. And that was something that I guess I don't know if it happened accidentally and we liked it or if it was done on purpose, I can't remember. So yes it is a chair squeaking and yes it is David taking a puff on a cigarette and not a joint. I never saw David ever use drugs in the studio when I was there working with him.

Q: How much did Lennon & McCartney interact during recording sessions? Did they pick at each other's work or stick mostly to tinkering with their own songs? And do you recall any singular moments of changing something in a song on a whim that became a legendary aspect of the song?

A: Well towards the end it was-- it became separated, they were-- all four of them were together for the basic tracks. But then they tended to-- if it was a Paul song it was him doing almost everything and so on. Sometimes they, he, needed other band members so they would interact at that point. In the earlier days, they definitely interacted more. I think that the Lennon/McCartney song situation-- that was always taken care of before they came into the studio. They didn't have time in the beginning to be able to write in the studio. And a lot of the time the songs had been completed outside and with quite a few of them everyone even knew the songs before they came into the studio. Some time it was, "OK, I've got this one. Let's work this out" and it would be a new song for everybody, but a lot of times they had even demo'd them--the White album especially.

Q: There have been many articles, stories and books about John and Paul in the studio and how they didn't get along. How much of that is true and how much of that is the tabloid journalism that feeds peoples' need for controversy and problems. Was it really all that bad?

A: Not the whole time, absolutely not. Much more of a big deal has been made about it than I saw. Now my mind was often on other things, I was learning my gig-- the first session I did as an engineer was a Beatles session. I had been brought downstairs, I had been sitting in on sessions for two weeks and boom, on a Saturday I'm working with the Beatles as an engineer. I'd never touched the board up to that point.

Q: Were you scared? Or were you confident you could do it? Were they that big by then and you were thinking "Oh my gosh, I'm working with the Beatles!"

A: Are you kidding, this was Magical Mystery Tour. So yea, by that time they were big. I was absolutely petrified. And I was shaking. And as it turned out we got nothing, it was a complete write off-- I had no idea what I was doing. But the thing was I'd had a long term relationship with them going back to "Hard Day's Night" on and off. And I think that because of that they were willing to cut me some slack and let me continue and eventually we got some good stuff together. Were there problems during "The White Album"? At times there were. Let's face it, Ringo quit--there must have been problems. I remember one occasion when we were doing an overdub of brass on one of Paul's songs, Mother Nature's Son I believe, and John and Ringo walked in in the middle of it and suddenly you could cut the atmosphere with a knife. It was suddenly so tense, just for the half an hour they were there and then after they left it went back to normal. So there were moments of it, but you can hear from some of the bootlegs out there some of the earlier takes of like "Blackbird". You can hear John talking to Paul over the talk back and they're laughing and joking- they're having a great time. But people think they weren't even talking at that point. There were some really great moments.

Q: I would like to ask Ken about his recollections of the mixing sessions for "Hunky Dory" and ".....Ziggy Stardust.....” I find it fascinating that David Bowie would not really be involved in the mixing! Was Ken in complete control of how the mixes turned out or did David give him some guidelines beforehand?

A: I was in complete control as such, the basis, of course was set up by the recording. It wasn't like it can be today where you'll hand a finished recording off to be mixed and they'll overdub and pull stuff out or that kind of thing. What we put down on the multi-track was what we were going to use. So there were certain parameters there that were fixed, but from there on-- the balance of everything, the effects, all of that kind of thing was up to me.

Q: I love that drum/handclap intro to "Soul Love" with the fantastic sounding reverb - was it a "plate" or a chamber?

A: It was a plate-- Trident didn't have any chambers.

Q: Do you have a preference for one over the other or do they each have their own applications?

A: It depends. Obviously with a chamber it's there and you can't modify it. With a plate you can change the times and everything so that's better for different things.

Q: Can Ken tell us a little more about his method of mixing different sections of a song and splicing the resulting mixes together to create the whole mix? Was he a pioneer of this method or was it common practice?

A: Pioneer is a strong word, but I had never come across anyone else doing it before. I really don't know if I was the only one doing it or whatever. It came out of necessity for me. When it came to mixing the Bowie stuff, some times it would just be me-- I wouldn't have a second or anyone and to be able to make the changes that I wanted to make during the mixing I had to do it in sections. And I got used to that method rather quickly and really enjoyed doing it that way.

Q: What did the members of Supertramp think when they had a good look at the cover photo of "Crisis? What Crisis?"

A: I remember the picture, but I can only guess what is being referred to. I only have a CD copy so the picture is really small, but I'm guessing there is a bulge of some kind somewhere based on the way the question was worded and icon that was used.

Q: For any given Beatles track, how much was he responsible for the track's "sound," how much was George Martin, and how much was the Beatles? In other words, who made the mixing decisions? Engineer vs. Producer vs. Artist?

A: It changed during their entire existence. When they first started they weren't even allowed at mixes, so at that point it would have been Norman Smith and George. In fact I would have to say in the beginning it would very much be Norman because back then the producer- A and R is Artist and Repertoire and so they were more concerned with the material and the arrangement and the sound wasn't really considered all that important back then. So to start off with it definitely would have been Norman and later when they became more educated about the studio and what can be done and can't be done and what they would like to have done they started to take more control to where it was probably 50-50. Well it would have been 33 1/3, 33 1/3 and 33 1/3 because as it went on George also became more interested in the sound as well. And I would have to say towards the end, they had the final say about everything. There are several tracks on the White Album where when it was time to mix they would just say, "Full bass and full treble on every track." and that's what it would be.

Q: What does Ken remember of the final 24 hour session for the White Album? How was the running order decided?

A: It was grueling. It was my first ever 24 hour session and we were all over the place. With regard to running orders or anything like that, I'm sure we tried several, I can't remember. I was doing things in one control room; John Smith was probably somewhere else sorting out and putting the running order together with someone. They were listening to bits and pieces-- everything was going on throughout the studios of Abbey Road so what anyone actually finished up doing on that day I don't really know.

Q: OK here is that section... Finally, how did he and Emerick get along? What about "second engineers" such as Chris Thomas, Glyn Johns, Alan Parsons, and (gasp!) Peter Mew? What does he think of the current crop at Abbey Road--Rouse, Cobbin, Mew et al.?

A: Well Geoff and I were close friends for a long period of time. It obviously started to change when he was at Apple and I was at Trident. But then once I left Trident I never saw him again until recently when he wanted to interview me for his book. I notice the question asks about second engineers Chris Thomas and Glyn Johns. They weren't second engineers, Chris was Georges stand in as producer and Glyn on Let It Be was the engineer and some of Abbey Road if I remember correctly. As to the current crop of engineers, Allan Rouse is great. He knows so much about all of the tapes and the recorded material. Pete Cobbin I've met once. At the end of that interview on Record Production.com at Abbey Road, Pete came down to meet me and we spoke for 20 maybe 25 minutes. That was the first time I had met him. I have to say I do like what he does to a point. If something is going to be done like splitting up all of the bounces on the four tracks and all of that kind of thing, I think he has the right attitude for doing it. He tries to get as close as he can to the original with the spread. It’s tough because as I said before, the Beatles were involved in the mono-- that's how they wanted them to be heard. If you're going to do it different ways, I think he is talented enough to do it properly and he has the fact that he is a total Beatles fan and so he wants it to be good and he's going to get it was good as he can without the Beatles input.

Q: But you agree with Steve that the original mix, which in this case was mono, was the original mix with the karma.

A: Yes, but then I also did a 5.1 mix of Ziggy which I love-- and I love doing. Was that wrong? I don't know.

Q: True, but you were there at the beginning with that also so you knew what was intended originally.

A: Well I guess that may make some difference.

Q: Speaking of the 5.1 mix, when mixing classic albums such as Ziggy into 5.1, how do you approach it in terms of the placement of the instruments, vocals, etc? Do you go for discreet placement, or do you prefer to spread the sound around? Was this a challenge since, unless you knew something nobody else did, these were never intended for 5.1?

A: I tried to put myself into the same kind of head space as I would have been in back then and try to think the same way, I guess. What I tried to do sound wise was match up the sound as close as I could to the original, and do the same kinds of things that were on the original, but with the added depth and being able to use behind as well. I didn't do anything like putting David singing behind me or anything like that. I kept certain things very specifically placed, but then other things, they could do whatever.

Q: But now Ken, some people might love the 5.1 but at the same time you are said you only like the original mono vinyl versions of things. Doesn't that kind of make you a hypocrite?

A: Well, my argument to that with regard to Ziggy, which is the only 5.1 I've done, the original, stereo, is available if people want to hear that. And if they want to hear something different, they can also hear the 5.1 whereas with the Beatles, the mono isn't even available for people to get-- which bothers me to no end. I think that should be out there. If they want to hear the stereo, if they want to hear the 5.1, that's their choice.

Q: So you aren't opposed to alternate versions as long as the original is still available so the choice is up to the listener and not the company that only puts out one version.

A: Absolutely.

Q: I've often said, one of the ten albums I would take to the Island would be "Birds of Fire" by the Mahavishnu Orchestra. Ken, could you give us some recollections of the making of that recording ?

A: That was amazing. Well, lets see we first started off in England. I should give a little prep to this. When I was over in France recording one of the Elton John albums, it was a communal sort of dining room and so every night at dinner there would be some music playing and we would all be sitting at this long table eating. Well, Elton and Gus Dudgen were fans of Mahavishnu Orchestra's first album "Inner Mounting Flame" and that used to be playing. Now, I would catch snippets of the music when everyone sort of went a bit silent and then people would start talking again. And I just got the impression that it was a bunch of completely whacked out musicians each playing in a different studio-- no one quite knowing what was going on. I thought it was terrible. Then I'm back in England mixing the Elton album and I get this phone call from CBS and it's "John McLaughlin would like to meet you and they are coming over to England to do a TV show and he'd like to meet you with regards to doing the next album." My immediate reaction was "OK, send me over a copy of the album so I can sit down and listen to it properly" and was absolutely blown away. And then seeing them play live at the TV show took me even further. And then getting to work with them was amazing. We started it off in England and then finished if off at Electric Lady in New York.

Q: Why is that done? You said you recorded Elton in France and mixed in England and you started Mahavishnu Orchestra in England and finished in New York. Is that for convenience, practicality, scheduling-- is one better for recording and another better for mixing sound wise? Why are albums recorded at more than one studio?

A: OK. With Elton, for a period of time in England there was a tax benefit to artists writing their songs and recording them out of England. They wouldn't get taxed as much if the money was kept outside of England and the money would be paid to wherever they wrote and recorded the songs. So that was the reason for recording in France. But of course Gus and I had done so much at Trident, we wanted to mix there so that's where we'd go for mixing. With regards to Mahavishnu it was pure practicality. They were Americans and lived over here and just happened to be over in England between gigs and thats where we started it off.

Q: Jan Hammer did a lot of experimentation recording synths through amps later on, but a lot of the BoF stuff sounds pretty clean -- was the MiniMoog recorded direct? The Mini does sound like it's going through an amp on the title track -- that was the debut of Jan's "guitar sound" and I always loved that it seemed to be placed as the first solo on the album just to make you assume it's McLaughlin at first!

A: Sometimes. It was a combination. It was see what kind of thing was needed during the run through and if it worked being clean then take direct and if it didn't we'd take it through the amp.

Q: And on Visions of the Emerald Beyond, that was the band with the string quartet and horn section -- was any of that recorded with the entire band playing at once (and how did you pull that off?) or was it all overdubbed?

A: Quiet honestly I can't remember. A lot of it would have been overdubbed but I'm not sure if it would have been that way on everything.

Q: Now when that is done, what thought process goes into whether a whole orchestra is brought in or one instrument dubbing several parts? Is it merely cost?

A: With Mahavishnu that didn't even come up since they were all there. In a normal situation it's horses for courses. If you only want an orchestra on one track, then you only get them when the rest is finished so you can bring them in to overdub. Sometimes there is... There is a different sound when you double track or quadruple track or whatever a musician or a whole orchestra. If you double track it's a different effect to having a large orchestra so sometimes its preferable to do the double tracking rather than having the larger orchestra.

Q: I thought Missing Person's debut Capitol LP sounded a little safe and reticent (compared to seeing them live in a club shortly before it's release). Was this Capitol's call or yours?

A: Mine. We did most of the recording before they even had to deal with Capital. That was totally my call so I will live or die by that one.

Q: How do you walk that tightrope in getting your records to sound clear, detailed and still have a natural warmth? It sounds like you "pull down" certain frequencies to create space (i.e lower midrange). See Ken they want to know all of your deep dark secrets!

A: I know, and I wish I knew them to be able to put them out there. I really don't know. I don't pull certain frequencies down-- every now and again I will duck out a little around 240[hz] there's a honkyness there on bass and bass drum that I don't always like so I'll pull a little down there, but that's it. Interestingly enough I do have certain set frequencies that I add at which goes back to the old EMI days. It's very similar to the EQ that was available there then. I know it, I like it and it's what I use. And it comes down to getting the sound from the studio and getting that right. It comes down to using the right mikes. And if you get those two things write you don't have to do much.

Q: Earlier I asked if you would like to take back something like a Pro Tools box back in a time machine to which you answered "No." Is there anything that is available now that you would like to have had then even just for convenience? Is there anything that is made better-- maybe a better compressor or is the tape stock better?

A: Not that I can think of. Anything that one would have had would have made it different. And I don't think it should have been different. I think its grown exactly the way it should have done.

Q: Despite your crystal ball failing back then to predict where we are now, I would still like you to peer into it again and tell me where you see things going in the coming years. We've seen the evolution of the MUSIC business become the music BUSINESS. Will that continue or will it come around again away from the big companies and back to the artists?

A: Yes, I believe totally in the pendulum theory where it swings back one way and then the other. I don't know how much its my crystal ball or my hope, but I want the demise of the majors.

Q: But that might put you out of a job since nobody could afford to have you work on their projects anymore as they work on it in their own basements.

A: Hey, if I like something, I won't be expensive. There seems to be this idea that someone like me would cost a fortune. Not necessarily. Look, take someone like Missing Persons. I quit everything for a period of time to look after them because I had total faith in them. To me, it's the music. If the going rate was five bucks an hour for doing an album, I'd be there. If other people are making lots of money, of course I'm going to try and make lots of money, but that's not the bottom line. The bottom line was and still is the music. And as long as I'm enjoying doing that, whatever. And always remember that the act will be making far more money from each record sold if he/she/they don't have to recoup all the ridiculous costs that majors now charge them and they're getting all of the money from the sales not just a ridiculously small percentage.

Q: One last thing. How do you spend your typical day while you're sitting around waiting for the next big thing to come around?

A: Let's see. Remodeling a house, puttering around in the garden. Right now I've been answering a lot of E-mails about a certain book that I'm not going to get in to. I've been helping to put together a website for myself. I'm also starting to do talks/lectures, if you will, which I want to start taking around the country and doing. When I started at Abbey Road, there were engineers there that had been around since the beginning of sound recording. And the stories that they had and the things that they imparted to us were absolutely astounding. We used to sit around and listen to them tell stories and it would blow us away. Unfortunately at that time, there wasn't much interest in them other than from those working at the studio so all of those stories have gone by the wayside. I don't want to see the same thing happen for the next generation-- especially the way the music business has gone. I see it as very, very important that the stories from my era be put out and put out TRUTHFULLY...I had to get that in. So people can learn from what went down then. There were good things and bad things that happened and they need to know both of those sides.

Q: You don't like only the tabloid versions going out. You want them to hear the good stuff as well.

A: I want them to know all of it, but it needs to be truthful. That whole thing about the Beatles animosity toward each other the whole time they were doing the White album. It was nothing like that. There were MOMENTS when it got hard, but a lot of the time it was fine, it really was. Yeah, I just want it to be out there correctly. There's been enough ******** written that isn't correct and there are a lot of people who take credit for things they shouldn't take credit for. And there are people who should be given credit but aren't, like Norman Smith. What he did for the Beatles in the beginning-- invaluable. He was experimenting as well. He was giving them a different sound than most people got in England at that time. And that helped them. That kind of thing needs to be brought out. The first talk I'm doing is basically about my time with Bowie and I'll give some insight to that. I've got a break down of a couple of the multi-tracks that I can play track by track so the people can hear the sound as it was and then what happens to it in the mix and some stories and just that kind of thing. So I'm getting all of that organized. I guess that's a normal day.

An aside from me, Ken. A big hand please for Doug. He did an unenviable task amazingly well. Thanks Doug.

***
My pleasure Ken. And I'm confident there are enough questions maybe we can do this again soon. Thank you very much.
****************
BONUS: For those who missed it, here are some questions that Ken and I didn't get to in our interview, but were asked. In a couple of cases we did cover them, but Ken answered them in a thread on the forum as well. Here is that section:

Q: I'd love to hear Ken's recollections of working with Syd Barrett and Pink Floyd during the late 1967 Apples and Oranges era. What was Syd like in the studio? Was he reasonably together or was it apparent that he was cracking up?

A: Quite honestly I remember very little about working specifically with Syd. The one thing that does spring to mind and I hope I'm remembering it correctly is one Saturday he had a session booked which I was supposed to do. Session's supposed to start at 2:30 no sign of Syd. At 5:30, the time the afternoon session is supposed to end, still no sign so myself and my assistant go round to the pub to eat. We return for the 7:00 start of the evening session and security tells us Syd arrived at 6:00, waited for half an hour then left saying he'd be back. You have to know how this is going to end. We hung around until the supposed end of session, 10:00, leave and are told on Monday he turned up at 11:00. Not too together but I don't thing it's quite a sign of his cracking up.

Q: Most of the outtakes were liberated during the making of the 1983 Abbey Rd Video Show. One of the engineers helped himself to several reels and made copies.

A: I have to say Chris you might be right and you might be wrong on that. I, and probably a lot of others, have spent much time discussing this at Abbey Road. No one has ever got to the bottom of it. I know what the dastardly bootleggers say, but they are the last people I would expect to tell the truth.

Emilio

Q: When you first met David Bowie, I believe he still had his long "Laureen Bacall" hair. What was your first impression of him? And as silly as the question may sound, do you remember the first time you saw him with his Ziggy haircut? I don't mean the exact date, of course, just the situation. What was your and everyone else's reaction? Apart from "It Ain't Easy", which is known to be a leftover from the "Hunky Dory" sessions, do you remember whether David recorded any "Ziggy Stardust" track still with his long hair?

A: I don't remember at all. Sorry.

Q: - If you isolate the left channel at the beginning of "The Bewlay Brothers", you can clearly hear a squeaking stool, then David smoking a joint. Can you confirm that? It could have easily been erased from the final mix. Why did you leave it?

A: I can confirm the sounds are there. I can also confirm it's NOT a joint. To the best of my knowledge db used nothing in the studio as long as I worked with him. I guess it was left because we liked it. Not sure.

Q: Why was "Bombers" replaced by "Fill Your Heart" on "Hunky Dory"? Some bootlegs have "Bombers" segueing into "Andy Warhol" as it would have been on the album. Had you already mixed it that way? Was there any difficulty in replacing it?

A: This thing of alternate tracks always haunts me. For the longest time I didn't even remember a song called "Bombers". So having said that I guess you realise that I'm going to say "I don't remember".

Q: When the previously unreleased "Sweet Head" was included as a bonus track in the David Bowie Ryko reissues, it sounded like a finished recording at first hearing, but comparing it to the other tracks on the "Ziggy Stardust" album, it has no backing or double-tracked vocals. How did you like it? Do you feel like adding final touches when you hear it?

A: No.

Q: Were you disappointed that you were not given the chance to have any degree of involvement when "Ziggy Stardust, The Motion Picture" was finally released in the 80's? And then again in the recently released Anniversary Edition on DVD? I know you did a first mix of the concert, but were you there during the actual performance? (The commentary track by director D.A. Pennebaker and Tony Visconti is interesting to hear, but full of inaccuracies. Couldn't they have checked their facts before recording?)

A: Actually I never got the chance to mix it. I, along with Roy Thomas Baker, recorded it, but then the movie was shelved so no more work was done on it. By the time the project was resurrected David was back working with Tony. Hey your comment about them checking facts sounds like me bitching about Geoff. I guess no one bothers these days. And lastly yes I was disappointed.

Q: The production on David Bowie's "Aladdin Sane" is far more lavish than on "Ziggy Stardust", not to mention the additional musicians and back-up singers. Why was that album given such a deluxe treatment? Was it more difficult to produce than "Ziggy"? What were the basic differences?

A: We did what felt right. That's all we ever did.

Q: I understand Trevor Bolder had been fired after the "Ziggy farewell" concert, but was asked to come back for "Pin Ups" when Jack Bruce declined to join David's band. As a result, how was the atmosphere during the album's recording sessions?

A: OK I guess. Trevor was a pro. He did what he knew he had to do.

Q: Did you have any involvement in the "1980 Floor Show"?

A: I recorded the sound for it.

Q: Piano player Mike Garson's insistence on converting fellow band members to Scientology has become legendary in Bowie history. Do you recall any of that? Did he try to convert you? Just for the record, Mike has long given up Scientology and has been playing with David again since the Outside tour in 1995.

A: He never preached it to me. I happened to have several scientologists around me at that time and none of them ever pushed it at me. The one thing he did do though was something I only understood at a much later date. When it was time for him to leave France and return to England, he told me he had bought way too many things, couldn't pack everything and would I take some things back for him. Sure thing, as he gives me a whole bunch of books. It was much later that I realized that at that time it was against the law for a non citizen to take anything connected with scientology into England. I guess I was his mule.

Q: Is there anything on the Bowie albums that you produced that you can mention as being your idea?

A: Way too long ago to remember anything like that.

Q: Are there any interesting anecdotes of your sessions with Bowie that you could share with us?

A: No.

Q: How did you like the new directions David Bowie pursued after you worked with him? Did "Young Americans" surprise you? And "Low"? Would you have produced these two albums if you had been invited to do it? (I, for one, had been a fan for less than a year when David released "Young Americans" and I was very disappointed. Even though I could see that it was a greatly produced album, it was not my David Bowie. When I became a Bowie fan I thought he would always be that kind of rock and roll figure like Lou Reed, Iggy Pop and Alice Cooper. Today I realize he built a diverse and long-lasting body of work and I admire him even more for that, but at the time I didn't like his new directions. I'm curious to hear Ken's opinion about it.)

A: I think db and I had gone about as far as we could together, so I don't think I would have even if given the chance.

Q: What was the last time you spoke to David as his producer? Was there any kind of farewell talk between you? Since then, have you spoken with him again or seen any of his concerts?

A: The last time we worked together was to record 1980 Floor Show. Production wise it was 1984/Dodo. And yes we are in touch and I have been to some of his concerts. That last tour was f*^@ing amazing.

Q: What are your favorite acts? Do you think the music of the 60's and 70's was better? Are there any new groups or artists that you like?

A: The Killers, Scissor Sisters and Avenged Sevenfold. There is no better or worse as far as talent goes. As far as "the business" goes, much, much, much better in the 60's and 70's.

I better stop or I'll go on forever.

I agree.

Emilio

Q: I shouldn't have read your post, Mal. Now I have another question for Ken. Incidentally, I had been told by a fellow fan that the single mix of "Starman" was different, but I have never heard it. I happen to have the "Fashion" 7" picture disc collection, do you know if the single mix is there? I'll have to check it when I get home.

Anyway, here's my additional question: the 30th Anniversary Edition of "Aladdin Sane" included the single mix of "The Jean Genie". I heard it on headphones and compared it to the album mix. Although they are both in stereo, the single mix has the instruments closer together whereas the album mix has a far wider separation. Why were some songs mixed differently for single release? Was there a technical reason for it?

A: Jean Genie was recorded whilst the band was on tour in the States. The single mix was done by the original engineer. I mixed it for the album.

Q: One pair of mixes I am particularly interested in are the single and album mixes of "Starman". The single has a fantastic loud sound for the repeated A note over the A -> G section that leads into the chorus whereas the album mix is considerably less exciting due to that A -> G section being rather subdued. I wonder if the "loud" single mix is an example of Ken's "mixing in sections" method (see below) while the quiter one is a straight mix? Why would they use the mix with less impact for the album? [What I am also dying to know is why the single mix of "Starman" (ie the one with the loud brigde) has not been made available on CD although I wouldn't expect Ken to necessarily know the aswer to that].

A: I was unaware of different mixes being done for album and single, other than Jean Genie.

Q: Finally, can Ken tell us a little more about his method of mixing different sections of a song and splicing the resulting mixes together to create the whole mix? Was he a pioneer of this method or was it common practice? I know Brian Wilson used to splice different sections together from different takes to create a track but mixing different sections of the same performance separately and splicing those together is a new concept to me! What a great idea .

I am guessing that "Quicksand" may be an example of this mix method since it has a natural break where the guitar harmonics are used and then the doubled acoustic picking in the left and right channels sounds like it has been mixed separately and edited in - also the verses and choruses are very distinct. Was that track mixed with the splicing method? Are there other example that may be less obvious that Ken would like to tell us about in more detail - any particularly difficult sections or mixes using this method that he's particularly proud of?

A: To use a non Bowie recording as an example. "Bloody Well Right" by Supertramp. Starts, Blam, quickly fade everything out but the solo wurlitzer. At the next Blam, edit so I could get all of the band tracks up without any tape noise, quickly fade everything but solo Wurlitzer and so on and so forth. It came down to if I wanted to make changes I couldn't make whilst a mix was in progress... EDIT.

Q: I'd like to ask Mr. Scott if he can tell us something about recording Hot Water with Level 42... BTW The Master Mix is great!

A: That whole album was hard. I'm used to the majority of the material for an album being written and arranged before going into the studio. With that one we went in with a bunch of grooves and everything else was written once those grooves were recorded. Very hard for me. But I'm glad you like how it came out. Thanks.