Or are we just remembering them the way we want to remember them?
I hear a lot of talk glorifying the old recordings of the 60's and 70's to tape, and how they had "depth," or similar terms to describe how glorious they sounded, usually followed by a lament on how modern music sounds like crap by comparison. Yet if one listens to them objectively, a lot of those recordings were usually paper thin in the low end, and the drums sounded kind of weak.
This was sparked by my listening to Second Hand News and Go Your Own Way. To my ears, the low end is severely lacking, and the drums sound weak and thin. If a mix engineer were to send that over now I'm guessing they'd be fired on the spot.
Even the Mighty Zep sounds lacking on the low end of the kick and I hardly hear any highs to the cymbals or hat in my (admittedly fading) ears. Bass guitar seems pretty quiet, yet awfully hot in the mids, as opposed to having real bottom end.
Thoughts? Am I talking out my ass here or what?
Topic Tags
Comments
To my ears, The BB's version of Do you Wanna Dance has at least
To my ears, The BB's version of Do you Wanna Dance has at least 15 vocal tracks. You've got Dennis singing the lead, ( a rarity for the group ) which sounds doubled, then the 3 part "do ya, do ya's " doing the 8th note run thing - which also sounds doubled, along with Brian's obligatory falsetto, which also sounds doubled, and harmonies to that, which included Brian's wife Marilyn...which are also likely doubled; so, to my ears, at least 15 vocal parts ... at least.
Now, that's not to say he was working with 15 discreet vocal tracks, because he wasn't. That technology wasn't available at Gold-Star Studios ( or anywhere else for that matter at that time, either, with 16 track machines still a good 8 years into the future from 1965.)
Chuck Britz ( One of Brian's favorite Gold-Star engineers), likely had the guys around one mic, with Brian arranging and directing parts and harmonies at the mic, and that take would have been recorded to one track; then another pass of the exact same parts, at which point those two tracks would have been comp'd down to one; and so on, and so on. It's also important to note that the original release was mono, and was intended as such.
But - that big vocal stacking wasn't uncommon for Brian, who was a Spector fan, and who wanted his vocal productions to sound just as big as Spector's. The difference between Brian and Spector ( not the only difference) is that Spector loved Gold-Star's echo chambers, and was known for swamping his productions with chamber verb; whereas Brian liked to have things a little more dry, and would accomplish the sound he wanted more by layering. It's not that he didn't also use the echo chambers there; he just generally didn't use as much of them in his mixes... depending on the song, of course.
I've also a deep suspicion that the person often listed as contr
I've also a deep suspicion that the person often listed as contributor is often somebody else. Many tracks are varispeeded - Eb not being a particularly nice key for guitars, and on these ones, some of the voices are pretty difficult to identify - I'd not want to bet on Brian using his voice and crediting somebody else. Some of the songs written for Spector by Brian and rejected are so clearly meant for a different audience that it sort of shows. We don't use tracks, but I did attempt a harmoniser tryout - it worked amazingly well for solo singers, so I figured maybe we could use it, but it mangles beach boy harmonies - and totally useless for us. The voices are really good - and pretty realistic, but it stacks harmonies in very predicable ways - so going from F to G for instance, moves them all parallel - whereas BB harmonies would perhaps rob the bottom note and replace it at the top, while moving another down. The gizmo can't do this.
paulears, post: 436565, member: 47782 wrote: Eb not being a part
paulears, post: 436565, member: 47782 wrote: Eb not being a particularly nice key for guitars, and on these ones, some of the voices are pretty difficult to identify -
Well, he was also using horns in some stuff, too... so it's possible.
Unless you're talking about songs that have only guitars ( and bass, drums, keys, etc)...
Many of the popular songs have really obvious edits in them - mu
Many of the popular songs have really obvious edits in them - musically they're tight, but reverb tails just get chopped really bluntly. You can find some stems of just the vocal parts and they're revealing too. That video also reveals somebody with no instrument or mic - and nobody seemed to notice he didn;t do anything!
Forgot to say - have a listen to do it again - this is the one with the odd drum sound that Brian Wilson could never explain properly.
"Do You Wanna Dance" is a Bobby Freeman song from the late 50's.
"Do You Wanna Dance" is a Bobby Freeman song from the late 50's. Brian did not write it.
i think they are lip syncing. no cables to the guitars. no mic cable to Dennis's mic. not uncommon for tv shows in the '60's.
Mike Love looks like a dufus trying to dance in sync with the Shindig Dancers. i don't recall boys doing the pony. that was for girlz. what a schmuck.
most pop records of that time were edited together from different takes. Good Vibrations is one example. i think Capitol had Scullys but with the old Ampex 300 3 and 4 tracks, punch ins were difficult. reverb was added to vox tracks when recording not at mix. that explains reverb tails being cut off.
Al, Brian and Carl all had talent. Mike and Dennis were lucky to get to go along on the ride. Dennis got it and it led to his downfall. Mike paid Brian back by stabbing him in the back. not a very nice person in my opin.
Kurt Foster, post: 436596, member: 7836 wrote: i don't recall bo
Kurt Foster, post: 436596, member: 7836 wrote: i don't recall boys doing the pony.
Yeah, it's like he's kinda doing a cross between the pony and the Jerk.. which he is also failing miserably at. And no... guys didn't do The Pony... That was definitely a chick thing.
Shindig, for those who aren't old enough to remember, was a show that featured popular entertainers, and I don't recall any who actually performed; it was all lip sync'd in those days, it was a lot like American Bandstand.
been thinking about this. i may be mistaken thinking the reverb
been thinking about this. i may be mistaken thinking the reverb was printed on the vx. tracks. they may have done it at mix. a lot of records were mixed in sections and then they edited the 1/2 track masters together. that would also explain cut off reverb tails.
i am sure that was the case with a lot of Beach Boys stuff like "Good Vibrations" or "Wouldn't It Be Nice". Joe Walsh's "Rocky Mountain Way" / "Life's Been Good", was done like that too. this was common, especially before 24 track became the norm. with higher track counts this practice became not as necessary although i'm sure it was still done on occasion. someone like Bob Ohlsson would have more accurate input on this.
Holy cats has this thread morphed into...I don't know what it is
Holy cats has this thread morphed into...I don't know what it is now.
I stand corrected on my points about tape still being used, but I still love the great sounds I've heard from the 90's and even the 2000's
NO! NO! NO! NO! and NO! For the last time, I'm not saying I think the music of the 90's is good because I liked it better. It has f*** all to do with that.
Examples:
Nevermind-Never really liked it, and have never owned anything by Nirvana, but when it comes on the radio I think, "man, that sounds great."
Compare to...
Beatles-Fantastic music. In 100 years when they implant a tiny chip behind every newborn's ear with all the knowledge of the universe on it, the Beatles music will be standard issue. But only good sound as long as we employ Kmetal's caveat: *for it's time, but really if we listen objectively, the bass guitar is too midrangey, the kit has no whomp, and George's guitar ALWAYS sounds like ass-except maybe Daytripper. There's no way they could do with 4 tracks what can be done now. They were inventing it for crying out loud, we've had 50 years to perfect it
Fleetwood Mac-Rumors, Eagles-Hotel California. Love it. You could play any of that stuff at my funeral, but it's not as polished, and I stand by my statement that the bottom end of Rumors might just be the worst(read nonexistent) I've ever heard.
Compare to...
Michael Jackson-Black or white. Sorry, but I never liked MJ, and never bought his records. But are you really going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that Rumors or Hotel Cal could possibly stand up to this sonically? C'mon.
So I'm separating my love of the particular artist from the sonic landscape entirely.
---
What about artists who have survived long enough to record in different decades?
Compare Kate Bush, James and the Cold Gun(1978) to Love and Anger(1989)-bonus points if you recognize the guitar player without Google. This isn't even fair.
Or let's revisit MJ: Hit up "Take Me Back," and give it a good listen. Now fire up anything from Dangerous. Please.
---
Or what about different artists doing the same song a few decades apart:
Compare the SOUND of George Baker doing Little Green Bag(1969) to Tom Jones and BNL(1999). If you think the older version sounds better I want an ounce of whatever it is you're smoking.
Even more dramatic is to dial up Elton doing Madman Across The Water(1971), give it a listen, and then check out Bruce Hornsby doing it exactly 20 years later. The improvements in mixes in those 20 years, especially obvious in the bass and kit, are absolutely staggering.
So yeah, I'm sticking with my original assessment, and in fact, I'm starting to think lots of music in the modern era sounds far superior to anything they did in the 60's or 70's as well. We just remember things the way we WANT to remember them.
Again, my two bits.
Kurt Foster, post: 436623, member: 7836 wrote: been thinking abo
Kurt Foster, post: 436623, member: 7836 wrote: been thinking about this. i may be mistaken thinking the reverb was printed on the vx. tracks. they may have done it at mix. a lot of records were mixed in sections and then they edited the 1/2 track masters together. that would also explain cut off reverb tails.
i am sure that was the case with a lot of Beach Boys stuff like "Good Vibrations" or "Wouldn't It Be Nice". Joe Walsh's "Rocky Mountain Way" / "Life's Been Good", was done like that too. this was common, especially before 24 track became the norm. with higher track counts this practice became not as necessary although i'm sure it was still done on occasion. someone like Bob Ohlsson would have more accurate input on this.
That's interesting I love rocky mountian way, never noticed the edits. I'm usually OCD about that stuff.
Worn they typically mix in sections to get the fader rides right? Or to pick the best sections take wise? Why not edit the multitrack if it's for the best takes?
These techniques Facinate me becuase they accomplished so much of what's done a daw today.
Lol back then it was he jerk now there's a move called the 'twerk'
The jerk was also a great Steve Martin movie. Digressing at 90mph here.
took-the-red-pill, post: 436641, member: 21836 wrote: Holy cats
took-the-red-pill, post: 436641, member: 21836 wrote: Holy cats has this thread morphed into...I don't know what it is now.
I stand corrected on my points about tape still being used, but I still love the great sounds I've heard from the 90's and even the 2000's
NO! NO! NO! NO! and NO! For the last time, I'm not saying I think the music of the 90's is good because I liked it better. It has f*** all to do with that.
Examples:
Nevermind-Never really liked it, and have never owned anything by Nirvana, but when it comes on the radio I think, "man, that sounds great."Compare to...
Beatles-Fantastic music. In 100 years when they implant a tiny chip behind every newborn's ear with all the knowledge of the universe on it, the Beatles music will be standard issue. But only good sound as long as we employ Kmetal's caveat: *for it's time, but really if we listen objectively, the bass guitar is too midrangey, the kit has no whomp, and George's guitar ALWAYS sounds like ass-except maybe Daytripper. There's no way they could do with 4 tracks what can be done now. They were inventing it for crying out loud, we've had 50 years to perfect it
Fleetwood Mac-Rumors, Eagles-Hotel California. Love it. You could play any of that stuff at my funeral, but it's not as polished, and I stand by my statement that the bottom end of Rumors might just be the worst(read nonexistent) I've ever heard.
Compare to...
Michael Jackson-Black or white. Sorry, but I never liked MJ, and never bought his records. But are you really going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that Rumors or Hotel Cal could possibly stand up to this sonically? C'mon.
So I'm separating my love of the particular artist from the sonic landscape entirely.
---
What about artists who have survived long enough to record in different decades?
Compare Kate Bush, James and the Cold Gun(1978) to Love and Anger(1989)-bonus points if you recognize the guitar player without Google. This isn't even fair.
Or let's revisit MJ: Hit up "Take Me Back," and give it a good listen. Now fire up anything from Dangerous. Please.
---
Or what about different artists doing the same song a few decades apart:
Compare the SOUND of George Baker doing Little Green Bag(1969) to Tom Jones and BNL(1999). If you think the older version sounds better I want an ounce of whatever it is you're smoking.
Even more dramatic is to dial up Elton doing Madman Across The Water(1971), give it a listen, and then check out Bruce Hornsby doing it exactly 20 years later. The improvements in mixes in those 20 years, especially obvious in the bass and kit, are absolutely staggering.
So yeah, I'm sticking with my original assessment, and in fact, I'm starting to think lots of music in the modern era sounds far superior to anything they did in the 60's or 70's as well. We just remember things the way we WANT to remember them.
Again, my two bits.
I attended an aes presentation/Q and a with Ken caliai (
MJ- the best thing sonically was beat it imo and the snare was the best part aside from vocals.
As far as the 2000's that's a sharp drop off to me. The exception being the low end in rock finally got full range like pop/hip hop. I think 2000's is full of garbled garbage and small over processed mixes. Tons of (aliasing?), cymbal swirl, overly harsh vocals, and guitar tones not even close to the 90's. Tape and distorted guitar cannot be matched to my ears yet.
Imo it's not until just recently where the new gen converters employed and l2 trends dying that were hearing appropriate levels of brightness (darker) in mixes and vocals that aren't shrill. We are finally approaching hi definition mixes. Hollywood movies have been doing for much longer. No doubt from higher sample rates and more space from multi channel audio.
As far as carryover artist slash (who bought an old wooden studio in Cali, and tracks to 24 track) has the best sound. Arguably in all current rock and roll. His song w fergie is just bangin, it's one of those instant turn up sonic mixes. His albums always sound good. Also heaven and hell (black sabbath w dio) absolutely crushed production wise. Smoking all modern rock. Staying both current and true to the heritage.
Paul Simon has some underrated vintage recordings his still hold up, being good clear mixes without excessive verb or tacky mix tricks.
took-the-red-pill, post: 436641, member: 21836 wrote: Michael Ja
took-the-red-pill, post: 436641, member: 21836 wrote: Michael Jackson-Black or white. Sorry, but I never liked MJ, and never bought his records. But are you really going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that Rumors or Hotel Cal could possibly stand up to this sonically? C'mon.
Ok, so you use an example of Michael Jacksons' Black Or White released 20 odd - years after Rumours and Hotel California....
took-the-red-pill, post: 436641, member: 21836 wrote: Even more dramatic is to dial up Elton doing Madman Across The Water(1971), give it a listen, and then check out Bruce Hornsby doing it exactly 20 years later. The improvements in mixes in those 20 years, especially obvious in the bass and kit, are absolutely staggering.
And then you make the statement above discussing the improvements 20 odd years later, "especially the obvious in the bass and kit...", which I think just re-inforces the fact that technology, recording practices and how the medium is released had evolved over time.
I'm not saying that those songs on Rumours and Hotel California don't hold their own, as a matter of fact, they most certainly do. These were two of the biggest selling albums of their time and still are, Rumours has sold over 40 million copies to date, and Hotel California over 32 million copies sold to date worldwide.
They were great recordings for there time, I'm sorry if you were maybe too young to have experienced growing up with them, which is a shame, because you would not really have had anything "modern" to compare them sonically to, and could appreciate them for what they were in their time...
- but I think that in excess of over 72 million copies combined for those two albums alone proves that they were great standout albums for their time.
And I will even go out on a limb and say songs from those two albums would almost certainly still get more airplay today on commercial radio than say, Michael Jackson.
-I can't even remember the last time I heard something played by Michael Jackson on commercial radio recently.
Add to the fact that Michael Jacksons' sound had more influence from Quincy Jones sonically than Michael Jackson, who, after all, didn't play any instruments on his albums. Quincy Jones hired some of the best musicians in the world to play on MJs' records. He just added a voice over the top.
Nobody bought those two particular albums, Rumours and Hotel California, for their cover artwork, or some pre-fabricated king-of-pop image. ;)
IMHO
took-the-red-pill, post: 436641, member: 21836 wrote: Fleetwood
took-the-red-pill, post: 436641, member: 21836 wrote: Fleetwood Mac-Rumors, Eagles-Hotel California. Love it. You could play any of that stuff at my funeral, but it's not as polished, and I stand by my statement that the bottom end of Rumors might just be the worst(read nonexistent) I've ever heard. Compare to... Michael Jackson-Black or white. Sorry, but I never liked MJ, and never bought his records. But are you really going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that Rumors or Hotel Cal could possibly stand up to this sonically? C'mon.
Well, first of all, you're comparing apples to oranges... MJ's music was most certainly of the "dance" genre', and as dance music, it was mixed very differently. The dominant sonic characteristic for that style is of a pronounced low end. Neither Rumors or Hotel California were in the same style. You might as well be comparing metal to jazz...
And, it's all relative... relative to the time, relative to the gear, to the technology...
Comparing things like the kick drum sound of a Beatles record to that of a modern production is pointless. They had the gear that they had, and they used it in the best ways that they could... and often, they pioneered new methods by breaking the rules, or at the very least, pushing the envelope(s) of what was considered "standard practices" at the time. No one put a mic directly up against a kick drum until the engineers at Abbey Road did... not Motown, not Stax, not at Goldstar... not until the guys at EMI did ( and at risk of losing their jobs as well)...
Also, you have the luxury of being able to look back ( meaning listen) with the ears of someone who is accustomed to today's all-but noiseless technology; there's virtually no noise floor to masque with signal level, there's no limits on track counts, and we now have the ability to zone in on one single note - if we want, or feel it's needed, to correct anything we don't like.
We grew up with that gradual technological advancement, and as each year passed, recording methods - and equipment - provided increased fidelity. But... we didn't have the ability to look back at the last 40 years, as you do now, all in one big lump, and compare things in the ways that you can now.
That being said, I stand by my statement, that there are recordings that were done 40 years ago that not only stand up to today's fidelity, but in some ways, surpasses it.
To wit ... both Steely Dan's Aja', and Donald Fagen's Nightfly - as far as I'm concerned - sonically trumps a multitude of recordings that came after them.
No once can convince you otherwise... You have your idea of what you think hi-fidelity is, and that's fine... For you, and going by what you've mentioned, one of the criteria for determining fidelity is the low end - or the lack of it, as the case may be. I don't listen that way. I listen to the entire mix. But, that's just me. We all listen to music differently.
Everything else is just preference and opinion... and you are most certainly entitled to your own. ;)
Going back to Buddy Holly - I found what might be the same recor
Going back to Buddy Holly - I found what might be the same recording as I remembered on Spotify - True Love ways, but the version from the 20 Golden Greats release - that has the pre-record intro. The panning is Beatle's style with hard left and right. There's a bit of hiss - but the clarity on some sources is quite 'modern'.
Sean G, post: 436648, member: 49362 wrote: Ok, so you use an exa
Sean G, post: 436648, member: 49362 wrote: Ok, so you use an example of Michael Jacksons' Black Or White released 20 odd - years after Rumours and Hotel California..
Sean G, post: 436648, member: 49362 wrote: And then you make the statement above discussing the improvements 20 odd years later, "especially the obvious in the bass and kit...", which I think just re-inforces the fact that technology, recording practices and how the medium is released had evolved over time.
Thank you for helping me to make my point whether or not that wast your intent: that as the recording industry advanced, it got better and better, with more advanced gear, and more importantly a deeper knowledge base, so it stands to reason that those 90's recordings were far superior even to what George Martin or Brian Wilson could have ever done 20,30, or 40 years before.
Sean G, post: 436648, member: 49362 wrote: They were great recordings for there time
EXACTLY, but they don't stand up with what can be done now. Again, resources, tracks, gear, knowledge base, number of ears and years working on the problem.
As for number of records sold, current airplay, who played on MJ's album, or Quincey Jones' production: interesting, but not related to the thread.
DonnyThompson, post: 436657, member: 46114 wrote: And, it's all relative... relative to the time, relative to the gear, to the technology...
Thank you also for helping me make my point. There is no way Martin could do with a pair of 4 tracks, and no knowledge base to work from(because he was INVENTING the stuff he couldn't count on existing information) could possibly have done that of 30 years later.
DonnyThompson, post: 436657, member: 46114 wrote: comparing things like the kick drum sound of a Beatles record to that of a modern production is pointless.
It's a bit frustrating when people don't even read the question. Whether music sounded better in 1960 or 1990 IS THE COMPARISON BEING MADE, from my original question to now. Comparing a 60's kick, or bass guitar, or mix, or snare to a 90's kick, bass, snare, or mix is EXACTLY the point of this thread.
DonnyThompson, post: 436657, member: 46114 wrote: They had the gear that they had, and they used it in the best ways that they could
Thank you again for reinforcing my point. They had limited gear, limited knowledge base, and they were the pioneers, so OF COURSE their stuff isn't going to sound as good.
DonnyThompson, post: 436657, member: 46114 wrote: To wit ... both Steely Dan's Aja', and Donald Fagen's Nightfly - as far as I'm concerned - sonically trumps a multitude of recordings that came after them.
True. There are exceptions, and you can add Dark Side(other than Floyd's consistently wussy assed "piff" sounding snare), and a few others, but overall, the best recordings done in the 60's and 70's couldn't stand up to the best of the 80's and 90's.
I'll shut up now. Listen to both of these before replying and telling me how wrong I have this whole thing:
lol. ttrp; i think you have it backwards. those old recording s
lol.
ttrp; i think you have it backwards. those old recording sound great to me. i think they had it just right. all those recording you are dissing, will still be played 50 or a hundred years fom now when no one will remember Nirvana or any of these stupid rappers or Beyonce', Bruno Mars etc.
an element you are missing i believe, is the stereo systems we had in those days. all hail MACINTOSH, NAKAMICHI, FISHER, KENWOOD, SANSUI! (when they were not Asian junk) they had a loudness button that boosted the lows and highs. they had bass and treble controls that no one knew where to set, so they usually cranked them all the way up! with the loudness button engaged!! yielding huge treble and bass boost. big speakers that moved air. capable of loud playback sans distortion. you can't listen to those recording on earphones or buds, an iPAD or a computer and pass judgement. it's just not the same thing. and YouTube (MP3 /MP4's bla bla) sucks for audio quality. you can't post that sh*t and make comparison to anything. it's just not a good example.
it's the new stuff that sounds bad. it's fatiguing. we listened to records for hours, days even. people can't listen to any of this new stuff for more than a few minutes. it just doesn't sound good enough to hold attention or draw them in. it has more low and high end than needed and not warm round bass and silky highs but harsh brittle highs and over compressed low end that when you look at it on a track is not a waveform but a constantly peaking solid block, like taking a crayon and coloring the whole page, guitars that eat up waaaay too much bandwidth (all that low end is what the bass is for), unrealistic sounding drums (samples, vst's, dick drumming and rude hi tuned sounding snare drums that go, whank! whank! whank! ) locked to a grid, over tuned vocals, over quantised (any is too much imo) over compressed and over processed (just 'cause you can, doesn't mean you should). of course, i would never try to force you into seeing it my way. :ROFLMAO:
took-the-red-pill, post: 436682, member: 21836 wrote: It's a bit
took-the-red-pill, post: 436682, member: 21836 wrote: It's a bit frustrating when people don't even read the question
What is even more frustrating is when people start threads and either don't like differing opinions put forward, or make out that those differing opinions are wrong when they go against those of the OP.
Opinions are like dicks, everybody has a different one, it can be something to be proud of, but you don't go around trying to ram it down other peoples' throats.
Maybe you should have just started a poll, stating what you believe and see how many people agree with you, or just made a blanket statement, as opposed to asking a question inviting other opinions, so you didn't have to spend the entire thread opposing views that do not match your own.
FWIW
took-the-red-pill, post: 436682, member: 21836 wrote: rue. There
took-the-red-pill, post: 436682, member: 21836 wrote: rue. There are exceptions, and you can add Dark Side(other than Floyd's consistently wussy assed "piff" sounding snare), and a few others, but overall, the best recordings done in the 60's and 70's couldn't stand up to the best of the 80's and 90's.
I think if you listen to 'have a cigar' you'll hear plenty of 200hz. I think floyds snare is pretty fat sounding. The kick is not the modern 5-10 slap/click, but the snare is just fine imo
Kurt Foster, post: 436686, member: 7836 wrote: years fom now when no one will remember Nirvana
I agree on the comercial pop but I think nirvana and Alice in chains will stand the test of time. Teen spirit is probably one of nirvanas weakest song. Fact is they were an album band. They're unplugged showed that they may only know three chords but they have true talent and heart.
Couldn't agree more about old sound systems. Mcintosh is an amp I'd love to own, it's on the hitlist. And my dads zenith or maybe allegro speakers are still some of the best I heard. They had plenty of broad frequency response, but an unmatched authenticity to the sound.
What about the bands today that sound better with old sounding recordings?the black keys first few albums were four track Tascam recordings done in their basement. Got them and indie record deal and eventually the deal for 'brothers' which killed comcerially.
There's no way, those first few albums would sound better with apogee or prism and state of the art equipment in a refined studio. The roughness is what makes them soulful and intimate. How terrible would jack white be with pristine sonics.
Older technology interacts and breathes with the artist in a way new gear doesn't.
That's why largely old equipment sounds better. Why 50 years later are all the designs based of classic simple circuits.
Neve, pultec, api, UA, all that stuff. Just trying to capture the souls of old gear, which it doesn't quite do. I think Kurt would agree with me there. The looser QC and more careful construction just had soul, and reflected it in the gear.
Engineering and sonics is about matching the sound to the songs. It part of the art. You gotta know when to break out the tape, when to use the tubes, and when ultra hi def Hollywood sound is right. It's part of the job of engineer/producer.
That's why a lot of new semi professional recordings suck. No soul to the medium. The same two mics the engineer has on everything, and everybody that comes theough the door.
Add to that the lame samples he/she was too cheap to purchase the real thing or real quality samples the big guys use and it's mundane mediocrity at its best.
Don't forget a lot of the 90's hip hop which absolutely bangs, was done to tape. jay z's reasonable doubt for a classic example. Wouldn't be surprised if hard knocks hit tape either.
Sonics and fidelity are just a canvas. That's what makes some of those old recordings stand up to me. I praise Eddie Kramer for not destroying the re-released Hendrix stuff by modernizing it, it stayed true. That previously unreleased song sound good and true.
I leave this one with a demo from my old band. You mean to tell me this would be better in a pristine studio recording? This was a basement, live, to 4track reel to reel Tascam, threw a mackie board and two ch of Art. 57 on overdubbed vocals. Sure the performance could be tighter but that's not the point. Money is 'mastered' in PT, I need some money is the mix.
[MEDIA=soundcloud]gushusound/money
Sean G, post: 436687, member: 49362 wrote: Opinions are like dicks, everybody has a different one, it can be something to be proud of, but you don't go around trying to ram it down other peoples' throats.
Lol once in a while ya try and ram it down the throat, sometimes it works and sometimes you get rejected.
Here's a couple brand new recordings on the charts. Both have a
Here's a couple brand new recordings on the charts. Both have a nice clear clean sound. Beside being good songs (imo) they're production doesn't get in the way and fits well. They don't sound particularly high budget, not über glossy. But good clean well done recordings.
Also a Paul Simon song. The arrangement may be a bit dated (still pretty neat and always makes me smile) but the recording is just fine. It's 30 years old. Overall i think it's the cleaner recorsings that stand the test of time better. Even tho my personal (musician)taste leans toward rougher, I tend to mix fairly hi fi in most cases. But 30 years later this track stands right up to the newer ones barring some volume adjustments.
I'm glad you singled out Graceland Kyle, It truly is one of thos
I'm glad you singled out Graceland Kyle, It truly is one of those standout albums for its time, not just for Paul Simons' musical talent and songwriting ability, or its variety of musical styles, but also for its sonics. It has great dynamic range to say the least. You can hear the headroom available, its not compressed up the wahzoo like so much today.
This is truly one of those albums that stands the test of time. It was a great recording then and still is to this day.
And anyone who says otherwise really is just kidding themselves.
"Maybe I have reason to believe that we all will be received in Graceland...."
I got a bit confused with the order of some of the things in the
I got a bit confused with the order of some of the things in the movie - the history in my head was a bit different, but it was good to watch. The band leader in our band has been with the band since the start, and his brother moved to the US, and played with the real Beachboys - so we have a bit of inside info. Quite a few questions on certain aspects of their music, Brian can't remember - one track has a weird sound at the start and exactly how they recorded it remains a mystery. Digressing - but they covered quite a few other people's songs, but got the 'Wilson' spin - All my life I remembered Cliff Richard's version of DO you Wanna Dance, and on joining the band 3 or 4 years ago, discovered the Beach Boys version - and had to unlearn the UK one, and Brian Wilson's has a totally new bit in the middle. I do wish they had recorded the bass a little more prominently - it's often very low in the mix and quite dull, making it quite difficult to hear. If you ever get bored, try to count voices, and often there are far more than first listen suggests. We're a four piece and it's a bit tough to do some of them.