Ken Scott on remixing David Bowie’s Ziggy Stardust album
“I was bored to tears with it after 50 years – now I’m excited by it”
David Bowie’s 1972 album The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars has been remixed in Dolby Atmos by Ken Scott and Emre Ramazanoglu and is released on blu-ray this Friday. SDE recently caught up with Scott, who of course co-produced the original album, to ask him more about the record and the Atmos remixing process.
SDE: Let’s talk briefly about the recording sessions for the album. You obviously had a busy 1971 because you did Hunky Dory as well...
Ken Scott: Amongst many others! It was busy, yeah. Look, it was a great period then, because the recording contracts were such that acts had to come out with an album every six months. So the recording process was so quick. Both Hunky Dory and Ziggy took two weeks each to record and a week to mix.
When it came to doing this record, was there any kind of brief from David in terms of the sound he wanted?
Nope! All he said was, it’s going to be more rock and roll than Hunky Dory.
Is it true that a lot of this album was recorded almost live, in the studio?
No more than Hunky Dory or Aladdin Sane. It would bass, drums and sometimes electric guitar; sometimes acoustic guitar and sometimes piano. But the two main things that always went down first were bass and drums, and then it was whatever would work best on top of that. Sometimes rough vocals, but not always
You have mentioned before, I think, that David’s vocal performances were superb in terms of getting it down first or second takes. Is that very much the case?
Yeah, of the four albums [Ken made with David], I’d say 90 to 95 percent of of the vocals were one take, first take, from beginning to end. It’s just amazing.
Does that mean you didn’t really need to do much dropping in, to fix things?
None [laughs]
That’s quite surprising. He was obviously a brilliant vocalist, but was that unusual for for someone to be able to do that?
I’ve never come across another performer in the studio like that. From him, it was always a performance. In technical terms, they’re not perfect; they’re sometimes not quite in pitch, sometimes they’re not quite in time, but they’re coming from deep within him, and it’s a performance, and that’s what makes it work.
Did David always know when he’d got the one, or would he would he say, “let’s try it again”?
No. He knew. There were times when Ronno [Mick Ronson] and I would hear something when he was putting it down and we’d go “we’ve going to have to punch in for that” and then we’d hear it back, and it was absolutely intentional, and it worked perfectly.
When you were recording the album, did you feel like this might be the commercial breakthrough?
It was always a case of ‘who knows’. We weren’t specifically making records for a particular market or to sell. We were making records that we would be happy with and that we’d like to listen to, later. It was that kind of thing. And if other people liked them, that was great.
When David was in the studio, how much of this Ziggy spirit / character did he bring in, or was that not really there at all and he was just a working musician, recording a song?
Got it! [laughs]. Look, one of one of David’s biggest talents was the ability to get together a team that would give him exactly what he wanted, without him having to direct them too much as to what to do. When he wanted the American sound, he went over and he got a bunch of American musicians, American producers, and everything, and he’d just show them a song, and say, let it go, do what you do? That’s why you put them together. And it was the same with with The Spiders.
In terms of the technicalities, was this a 16-track or 8-track recording?
16-track.
And that gave you enough freedom? Were you having to bounce down? Did you have enough tracks to separate drums and do all that kind of thing?
It depends what you mean by separate drums. These days, every individual drum is on its own track, but back then, no, it would be stereo drums. We might have snare on its own track sometimes, or a bass drum on its own track, sometimes along with the stereo drums. But back then, one of the things of only having two weeks was you had to make decisions. And so we we decided what it was going to sound like, right from the get go, so I’d get the drum sound that would work, and we’d carry on from there.
The reason I mentioned that is, obviously that becomes pertinent later on with the 5.1 and the Atmos mixing and all that, which we’ll talk about shortly. Back to 1971: were you acting like an intermediary with the record label when they were checking up on progress?
The label never checked up on progress. And the management had signed David because they believed in him and put him in the studio to do what he does best, which is create,
But what about ‘Starman’? That was a late addition because someone, somewhere said, “Look, there isn’t really a single”.
The record company, RCA, once they got the finished thing, said it was great. The album’s great, but there’s no single. I’ve checked up on this, in terms of whether David had ‘Starman’ already written, but no, he wrote it specifically, a few days before we recorded it.
I find that very interesting. It’s like art meets commerce, isn’t it? It’s still brilliant song, but he kind of he delivered what they wanted.
Yeah, absolutely, yeah.
Now you’ve obviously revisited this album in the past. In 2003 you did a 5.1 mix and a new stereo mix
No, no, no. Hang on. Let’s get that bit straight. The record company made the stereo from the 5.1. I wanted my name taken off it because the stereo that was made from that was so bad. It was never meant to be folded down to stereo.
So it was just a fold down version from the 5.1?
Absolutely. And it’s awful! The 5.1 is not great either, but…
Well tell me a little bit about the 5.1 then, because that would have been the first time anyone was trying to do a surround sound mix with this particular record, so you would have been going back to multi-track tapes, dusting them down, baking them and all that kind of stuff.
Actually, the tapes didn’t have to be baked from that period.
It would have been just over 30 years later at the time you did the 5.1 mix [2003], did you choose to try and fix anything or change anything, or did you keep strictly to the whole EQ and the vibe of the original record?
We kept to the original, and one of the main reasons for that was when I was approached to do it by the label, I said, “Look, there are two ways we can do this. I can either modernise it a bit, change things, or keep it the same as it was”. They said “We’d love to have both, but we can only afford one, so keep it the same as the original”. So that’s what it was. It was the original, just [with elements] put in different places [channels].
Of course, David was still with us back then. How involved, or not, was he with the whole 5.1 at that time?
Not! He was never involved. He was only involved in mixing of two songs of the four albums I did with him. He didn’t like to hang out in the studio mixing. Hearing the same thing over and over again getting it right…
I guess he was so prolific in the 70s in particular, that disinterest in mixing gave him the freedom to move quickly onto the next thing.
Yeah, once he’d finished something, his part of it, he was off.
So you don’t reckon he would have even listened to the 5.1 anywhere at the time, in a studio in New York or something like that?
I don’t know. No idea.
The record labels over the years have always had a rather ‘ad hoc’ strategy towards Bowie and surround sound. Some albums have been done, like Station to Station and Young Americans and some have not. I always wondered whether if David had some issue with surround sound in general.
Not that I’m aware of
With the new Atmos mix. You’ve worked with Emre Ramazanoglu. Tell me a little bit about, roles and responsibilities and how the two of you work together on this project.
It was absolutely fascinating for me, because my background is as an engineer. I’ve tried a couple of times working with another engineer and just sitting at the end of the desk, as the real producers do, but I found that I would be listening to the sound too much… telling the engineer, “Okay, let’s hear a bit more high end on that cymbal.. no, no, down a bit”. I’d waste time doing that, whereas when I’m the engineer, I just reach over and do it. So that’s the way, over 60 years, I’ve generally done it. When they first brought up the whole Atmos idea, I thought “Oh, that’s great. I can do a lot of it at home and then just go into a studio to finalise it”, but as soon as I started to delve into Atmos, I realised there is no way a 75-year-old is going to ever learn all of that that quickly. So I realised I had to find someone, and I’d met Emre, we’d spoken about Atmos, and so we spoke [again], got together and it was bliss. We were both of the same mind. We knew exactly what was needed. It was great.
How long did it take then to work through the whole record?
It took 10 days. But I’d done a lot of work before that. I went into Abbey Road, number two studio and fed stems through to get room sounds and all of that kind of thing. Also, as I had control for a change – I wasn’t being told by the record company it has to sound like the original or anything like that – I insisted that I should be able to change it up. Look, the whole glam rock sound was very much the 70s. Now we’re in the 2020s and it needs to be different. And the main thing that characterised the whole glam rock thing was the very, very dead drum sound. And so I wanted to change that drum sound. So I added samples to what Woody [Woodmansey] was playing. I never got rid of any of Woody’s parts, I just added sounds to them, to bring it more to a modern type of [drum] sound. And so that took a while! Jesus, going through with the hi-hats, like matching up every single hi-hat… it gets boring to say the least.
Can you expand a little bit on this?
Several years ago, I did a drum sample library called Epic Drums. And what it was, I used five drummers that I’d worked with in the past to emulate the sounds as close as possible. One of the drummers was Woody, and so I I got to use some of Woody’s drum sounds from that to match up with what we already had. And just change it around a bit, make it not as dead as it was, just more open tom sounds, more open snare. And also, at the time, I hated cymbals. Now I quite like cymbals, but because the drums were stereo, I couldn’t bring up the cymbals without bringing up everything else. So I had to also put cymbals to match up to those [on the tape] so that it feels natural. Everything’s gotta be exactly in time with what what he played.
Did you take that approach with anything else, or was it just on the drums?
Just the drums, that’s the only one you can really do, because the guitar is the guitar. Yes, we would have added room sound to it and that kind of thing, so we would have changed it a little bit in that way, and maybe the EQ would have been slightly different, but a guitar sound, is a guitar sound, is a guitar sound, basically… whereas the drums can vary an awful lot.
I think I read an interview in the 90s, where David Bowie said looking back on it, he thought the sound on Ziggy was a bit on the ‘thin’ side. I’m sure he was really happy with at the time. But is that fair comment from him?
Absolutely fair, but it’s also slightly revisionist, because back in the day, because we were dealing entirely with with vinyl and you couldn’t have as much low end or anything as we could in the 90s with CDs, or as we can today with streaming and everything. So, yeah, at the time it was fine but as we got used to more low end it started to sound thin.
You’re making all these changes, but how does the Bowie estate figure in all this? I mean, they might be saying “well, hang on, Ken, we’re not sure we want you to do that…”.
No, no, they were right behind me all the way. Look, David was different to most artists in many ways, but one of the other ways that he was different was that he insisted that if anyone was going to do any work on on his past product – and I hate the word ‘product’, but that’s the general term – it had to be the original people. So I get to work on the four albums that I did with him, Tony Visconti gets to work on the albums he did. Harry Maslin on his, which is great because most artists don’t do that.
I’m glad you’ve said that because I was going to ask you that very specific question. That makes a lot of sense, and it’s obviously great that people like yourself and Tony are still around to do this.
And we can still hear! [laughs]
With the Atmos Mix, did you need to go down the road of using any AI to do anything such as separating music fused together on the same track?
No. Straight from the 16 track.
There’s a new stereo mix of the album on the blu-ray which – like the Atmos Mix – isn’t on the Rock ‘n’ Roll Star! box set. Did you want to do the stereo mix, partly because of the previous issue with the other stereo mix, and also to make the most of the improved drums that you were talking about?
Well, absolutely, but it initially came from the fact that Apple insist that their immersive audio matches up to the stereo mix. Now that’s fine if you’re dealing digital because it always runs at the same speed, but with analog tape, it never runs at the same speed twice. So matching up a stereo mix with a 16 track multi-track is almost impossible, unless you go in and you start to use things like Elastic Audio to move them into the same time and but then you lose quality doing that. So what I said was, “Look, I’ll do the Atmos, but for Apple, for everyone, I’ve also got to do a brand new stereo mix”. And we did it an unusual way because Emre said the normal way is to do the stereo mix first, get that perfect, then do the Atmos. But we did it the complete opposite way; we did the Atmos first, and then got the stereo from that, and it was amazing. It’s a fold-down, yes, but because of the way Emre sets everything up, it worked perfectly. I think there were two songs that we had to boost or cut the vocal like one dB, just to sit it in or bring it out a little bit more. And that was it. Otherwise, it was perfect.
Were there any songs on the album that you thought worked particularly well in Atmos?
I love ‘Rock and Roll Suicide’, the way that turned out… but just the whole album. I was bored to tears with it after 50 years, come on, and now I’m excited by it. I listen to it in the car all the time, the stereo version. It’s the response that I’ve received from fans that have heard it, and hi-fi enthusiasts and all that kind of thing. And Woody, the drummer. Woody said “When I heard it, I felt as if I was in the band”. And he didn’t mean that in a funny way. He meant that he felt as if he was in there with the band, the way it used to be. The whole album has come alive to me again.
Finally, Ken… You did a remix of ‘Life on Mars’ a few years ago when there was a some focus on Hunky Dory. Are there any plans to do Hunky Dory in Atmos or maybe Aladdin Sane? Has anyone talked to you about that?
No. You’d have to ask Parlophone about that.
Thanks to Ken Scott who was talking to Paul Sinclair for SDE. The Ziggy Stardust Atmos Mix is released on blu-ray on Friday 6 September. Order your copy from the SDE shop.
Tracklisting
The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars David Bowie / blu-ray audio
-
-
2024 Dolby Atmos Mix, New 2024 Stereo Mix (192/24), original Stereo Mix (96/24)
- Five Years – 4:42
- Soul Love – 3:34
- Moonage Daydream – 4:40
- Starman – 4:10
- It Ain’t Easy – 2:58
- Lady Stardust – 3:2
- Star – 2:47
- Hang On to Yourself – 2:40
- Ziggy Stardust – 3:13
- Suffragette City – 3:25
- Rock ‘n’ Roll Suicide – 2:58
-
32 Comments
32 thoughts on “Ken Scott on remixing David Bowie’s Ziggy Stardust album”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
i really love the sharpness of the 2024 stereo mix and the Multi channel mix. (oooh how many times I promised mysselt not to buy it again (got the fr vinyl, RCA, RCA CD , RCA US pressing I D/L the other editions
Regarding the multichannel, are you sure the 7.1 folds back to 5.1?
Listening to the first beats of 5 years drums it seems they are like far away in an empty warehouse. Maybe the other part of the sound was in the atmos ceilings speakers and didn’t fold back to 5.1 speakers.
Anybody has some info regardingf the 7.1 compatibility to 5.1
BTW what the plan with warner of being two years late on reissue?
I’ve just finished listening to this mix in 5.1 as I haven’t an atmos amp (yet) and have to say it was really enjoyable.
As an old Bowie fan (having bought the original vinyl) I’m always worried that my ears will miss something on all new surround mixes , but this one is quite special. Separation and clarity was fantastic.
Great interview Paul even when Ken seemed a bit reluctant to answer questions more thoroughly.
I still wish I had my cassette from Mexico. It was brilliant.
Ken Scott says he asked to have his name removed from the 2003 stereo mix, but I just looked at the SACD and the 2012 LP/DVD sets I have and his name is clearly indicated as creating both mixes. So it was never removed.
He asked, but they didn’t answer!
In order to decide whether I should buy this blu-ray with the Atmos mix or not, yesterday I have been listening to the 5.1 mix as available on the 2002 vinyl+DVD edition of Ziggy Stardust. Quite an immersive mix and very satisfying. I don’t undersatnd why Ken Scott thinks it’s not great. I really wonder what the Atmos mix is going to add to this experience. But I don’t expect it to be night and day compared to the 5.1 mix.
I just listened to the 5.1 mix from 2003 right after listening to the Atmos mix (albeit in 5.1 downmixed from Atmos/7.1) and the mixes are different. Different enough that I am glad I decided to purchase the Atmos Blu-Ray which came today. The Atmos mix is actually a lot more immersive than the 5.1 mix (a lot more going on in the rears when listening in 5.1).
I assume when you said 2002 vinyl+DVD you meant the 2012 release.
2012 indeed. Thanks.
The 2012 remaster was – for about 5 minutes – available as an edition with a DVD-Video disc that had the 2003 5.1 mix plus 4 extra tracks, sadly only in half bitrate DTS for some bizarre reason, and the ‘mastering’ wsas truly brutal, with severe limiting for volume resulting in what I call a ‘toothpaste mix’.
I hadn’t realized the 2003 stereo was a downmix – that explains much, and it was the same thing with the dreadful stereo remix of ‘Station To Station’ as well where the ‘stereo’ was a fold-down from the appallingly poor 5.1 mix.
to enjoy atmos you need 7 speakers and a woofer, instead of 5 speakers and a woofer. Still in 5.1 the sound is nicer in 20 years digital signal processing has made lot of or progress.
Fantastic discussion! The comment about the ‘thin’ sound came from an interview with Paul du Noyer from April 1990, and related to the then upcoming Ryko reissue.
That cover image looks seriously remastered itself! As far as image quality, colour grading, clarity & resolution is concerned it’s radically different from the original and is IMHO absolutely beautiful.
It’s a new colourisation that was done for promotional purposes, mainly. This isn’t being used for the cover of any product.
…isn’t being used…Well it should be. It looks fantastic l have spent half an hour staring at it.
I agree, it looks amazing.
Me too! Makes the original look like it was colorized (colourized) by a 5-year-old.
Great interview and tremendous insight, thanks Paul. I suppose that this makes the “Rock n Roll Star” BluRay redundant. I bought the 40th anniversary edition in 2012 – vinyl LP + BluRay (pity they don’t do this much anymore) and it appears that that edition was a remaster of the 2003 Scott mixes, performed by Ray Staff. It sounds good but not great – again as Ken says – a bit dead. So I’m really excited about this (I confess to enjoying, in particular, the “modern” remixes of the Beatles catalogue). Also, I have found that if you encounter the original vinyl pressings of many of these classic albums (e.g. Exile on Main Street), those were clearer and punchier and more dynamic that later represses – and I suspect that this is the same for Ziggy.
One question Paul. The picture at the top of this article of the cover of Ziggy is beautiful, but clearly not the original. Is this an official piece of artwork or an AI generated version?
Great interview, I’m really looking forward to checking this out!
Great interview as always Paul! But those things drummers use are “cymbals”, not “symbols”, lol.
Great interview. Just one thing to point out: When he says, “At the time, I hated symbols” he was talking about… cymbals!
Indeed! Transcription error fixed! :)
Very fascinating interview,indeed! David Bowie still is one of Rock’ s most fascinating characters. Maybe I’m wrong as I am German. When it came to the sound of the drums, the word “symbols” occurs a few times. Shouldn’t it be ” cymbals”?
Waw – Frankenstein drums! That worries me …
Fascinating interview !
Has there ever been an album that has been re-released more times than Ziggy Stardust? And I say that as a fan.
The discussion thread on Discogs is a little old (nine years out of date!), but Dark Side of the Moon (I think it was by ABBA??) has no less than 1,375 editions with Untitled – Led Zep a paltry 1,066 editions in second place looking at the listings pages. Ziggy’s number (444) is on the Rise but it Falls behind these two behemoths. Interestingly, according to Discogs’ notes the UK RCA edition has never been available on CD!
Yeah, I was just about to go full-on wiseass and say that this interview was so good as to be called ‘symbolic’, but… Too late now.
Anyway, loved reading this, and wanted to throw in a shout-out for Ken Scott’s book Abbey Road to Ziggy Stardust: Off the Record with The Beatles, Bowie, Elton, which is a blast to read and quite a contrast to Geoff Emerick’s recollections of the Beatles’ glory days, as found in his own autobiography.
About the 1,375 editions of Dark Side… Is that not (maybe) a summary of all formats in all countries from all manufacturing plants since 1973? I can imagine (maybe) that many catalog numbers considering how long the album has remained a global best-seller as a catalog item across every possible physical format. But that would not constitute over a thousand different editions. More likely, the number of true re-releases is far, far lower, though no doubt the prism has been sold every which way it can be.
I’d guess the album most often reissued (not just repressed) might be Kind Of Blue. I recall once reading that Miles’s 1959 masterpiece had 25 different editions, and that was some time ago, so I presume there are more since. But I’d love to know the true answer.
Thanks much.
Thats’s 1375 “editions” on Discogs though – which generally has separate entries per country/territory and lists each format and track/label/sleeve/colour variation separately too. I doubt anyone would think any of the 250+ 1973 entries for DSOTM should count as re-releases. I would treat them all as the original release (or maybe two – Stereo and Quadrophonic mixes!)
Those are different versions/pressings that have been. Released worldwide. Naturally the biggest selling albums have been re-pressed more and in more countries.
Nothing to do with being re-released.
I make it about 7 or 8 releases of Ziggy. Original, first CD, Roku CD, EMI CD, Box set, Atmos mix. May be missing a few anniversary vinyl releases on coloured vinyl
Yeah, off the top of my head there’s:
– Original RCA issue in 1972
– RCA’s first CD in the 80s
– The Ryko releases (technically issued by EMI in the UK but I wouldn’t count that separately)
– The 1999 EMI CD (possibly reissued with Parlophone branding circa 2012 but I wouldn’t count that separately either)
– 2002 double CD anniversary edition
– 2003 SACD(?) issue with the 5:1 mix
– 2012 40th anniversary remaster CD & Vinyl
– 2016 breakout releases from the Five Years box (same master as the 2012)
– 45th anniversary gold vinyl
– 50th anniversary half speed master and picture disc
– 2024 Atmos Blu-Ray
So that’s about 10 or 11 different incarnations unless I’ve missed any?
You forgot the second Ryko remaster – the AU20 box set ‘Golden Years’ was a totally different master to the ‘regular’ Ryko edition as Dr Toby Mountain redid the 7 records in the set. It’s the same tracklist though.
So we have the following:
01 – Original vinyl/cassette/8-track
02 – The RCA CD (with differences between the European/US/Japanese editions)
03- Ryko Regular (in the USA – in Europe it was on EMI, and repackaged (although the same masters) with the ‘Sound & Vision’ imprint on the packaging) – this edition was much better than the appalling RCA CD’s were!
04 – Ryko AU20 (very different sounding & far superior too)
05 – The 1999 EMI 24-bit remaster – it is a different sounding master to the Ryko/EMI sets with the bonus tracks, so it should be counted separately IMO
06 – the 30th anniversary edition (the 2CD set had it’s channels reversed too)
07 – The 2003 SACD (stereo/5.1)
08- the 2012 Ray Staff remaster (dreadful)
09 – the remaster in ‘Rock ‘n’ Roll Star’
10 – The 2024 remix (stereo/Atmos-ish)
That’s just the different masters – not counting the various different editions, but an edition is one thing – a remaster is another thing entirely!
There is also the unreleased version from the original 1/4″ tapes before it was turned into a VCM (vinyl cutting master), cassette or 8-track version, as with vinyl you need to apply RIAA curves and sum the low end to mono etc – so the actual original tapes back in the day were always better sounding than what was actually released because you wouldn’t be able to cut the vinyl from the full-fat original master, which I can assure you is not at all ‘thin sounding’.
It’s an interesting question I’d love to know the answer to.
I’d go with one of Rumours, Tubular Bells or Dark Side of the Moon.