McCartney 3,2,1

Recording Techniques, People Skills, Gear, Recording Spaces, Computers, and DIY

Moderators: drumsound, tomb

User avatar
joninc
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2100
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 5:02 pm
Location: canada
Contact:

McCartney 3,2,1

Post by joninc » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:47 pm

Did any of you watch this?

It's a fun watch and I was struck by how good the isolated tracks sound when they pull them up and part of me right away thought "i bet they did some sweetening here" - maybe they did - everything sounds so fat and rich and buttery.

I don't wanna go too far down the rabbit hole here - i mean i get it, it's THE BEATLES - and they were a super group with brilliant arrangements, a genius engineer/producer and that's really such a massive part of the equation... I'm not gonna recreate that without those people - i get it!

but really - why do most of those recording sound so full and round? There's no strident edginess in the top end but it still sounds clear and full with a very satisfyingly deep midrange. There's presence without harshness.

Yes there are a few exceptions, but so much of it has this really luxurious, velvety quality to the sound.

If I could find some way to get halfway there... man.
the new rules : there are no rules

User avatar
joninc
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2100
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 5:02 pm
Location: canada
Contact:

Re: McCartney 3,2,1

Post by joninc » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:55 pm

annd WHAT ABOUT THOSE BASSLINES! (it's total love fest for Paul) but i forgot how amazing so many of those lines are. Just full of great movement and energy - aside from the great sort of melodic leads he plays as well. Super non-typical choices and really memorable.
the new rules : there are no rules

User avatar
Nick Sevilla
on a wing and a prayer
Posts: 5555
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:34 pm
Location: Lake Arrowhead California USA
Contact:

Re: McCartney 3,2,1

Post by Nick Sevilla » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:57 pm

If you are referring to the old Beatles stuff, donw on 4 track 1" tape, well, it is a combination of the equipment and the engineers.

You have to remember, these things were recorded with vinyl in mind as the final delivery medium. Which cannot have extreme lows nor extreme high end on it, as it simply cannot be reproduced.

The low content of the top end was just how things were done then. Go look at how they recorded this stuff, there is a lot of literature out there now.

Add to that George Martin's son who has taken over the curating of all things Beatles, and was trained by Sir George Martin himself along with the remaining Beatles as to how they should sound... and there you go.

Cheers.
Howling at the neighbors. Hoping they have more mic cables.

User avatar
digitaldrummer
ghost haunting audio students
Posts: 3476
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:51 pm
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Re: McCartney 3,2,1

Post by digitaldrummer » Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:48 am

and that Neve console for playback probably helped sweeten it a bit. Also check the credits, Joel Hamilton (who used to drop in here once and a while) was on the engineering team for that film. there is a TapeOp podcast where he talks a bit about it too. And I guess Rick Rubin is no slouch. :lol:
Mike
www.studiodrumtracks.com -- Drum tracks starting at $50!
www.doubledogrecording.com

User avatar
digitaldrummer
ghost haunting audio students
Posts: 3476
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:51 pm
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Re: McCartney 3,2,1

Post by digitaldrummer » Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:50 am

I do wonder how much any of the stories would have changed if George and John could be there... as you said it is a total love fest for Paul, and why not he's great, but I still wonder...
Mike
www.studiodrumtracks.com -- Drum tracks starting at $50!
www.doubledogrecording.com

drumsound
zen recordist
Posts: 7474
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Bloomington IL
Contact:

Re: McCartney 3,2,1

Post by drumsound » Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:52 am

joninc wrote:
Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:47 pm
Did any of you watch this?

It's a fun watch and I was struck by how good the isolated tracks sound when they pull them up and part of me right away thought "i bet they did some sweetening here" - maybe they did - everything sounds so fat and rich and buttery.

I don't wanna go too far down the rabbit hole here - i mean i get it, it's THE BEATLES - and they were a super group with brilliant arrangements, a genius engineer/producer and that's really such a massive part of the equation... I'm not gonna recreate that without those people - i get it!

but really - why do most of those recording sound so full and round? There's no strident edginess in the top end but it still sounds clear and full with a very satisfyingly deep midrange. There's presence without harshness.

Yes there are a few exceptions, but so much of it has this really luxurious, velvety quality to the sound.

If I could find some way to get halfway there... man.
These records were done at one of London's top studio at the time. Though know known for having cutting edge gear, they did always have the highest quality so that records released were the highest quality. The label owned the studio, and knew that quality rises to the top both in terms of artists and equipment. Add to that an amazingly creative group and production teams and you get some amazing records.

User avatar
A.David.MacKinnon
ears didn't survive the freeze
Posts: 3820
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 5:57 am
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: McCartney 3,2,1

Post by A.David.MacKinnon » Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:35 am

One thing to remember is that those 4 track masters are much closer to a final mix than any modern multitrack session. They were mixing as they went to get everything onto 4 tracks. Multiple drum mics to one track, multiple guitars or other instruments sub-mixed together at tracking, plus lots of eq and compression when they bounced that stuff to another machine. Once it's sub-mixed you can't do much to tweak it so its got to be right.
That said, there may well be a little sweetening going on. There's a legacy to protect.

And yes, the bass lines are ridiculous. So much counter melody and movement. It's easy to forget how good he is. It seems so effortless and he's so accomplished in other areas that his bass playing seems less important. But those bass lines really make some of those tunes.

User avatar
digitaldrummer
ghost haunting audio students
Posts: 3476
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:51 pm
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Re: McCartney 3,2,1

Post by digitaldrummer » Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:42 am

if you haven't read the Geoff Emerick book (Here, There, and Everywhere) or the Ken Scott book (Abbey Road to Ziggy Stardust) I would highly recommend them. many similar stories but also some more insight into how those were recorded. I know there are other books too.
Mike
www.studiodrumtracks.com -- Drum tracks starting at $50!
www.doubledogrecording.com

User avatar
roscoenyc
carpal tunnel
Posts: 1530
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: McCartney 3,2,1

Post by roscoenyc » Wed Oct 27, 2021 7:19 am

joninc wrote:
Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:47 pm
Did any of you watch this?


I don't wanna go too far down the rabbit hole here - i mean i get it, it's THE BEATLES - and they were a super group with brilliant arrangements, a genius engineer/producer and that's really such a massive part of the equation... I'm not gonna recreate that without those people - i get it!

Concise, uncluttered arrangements are what I find most lacking in modern popular music.

The Beatles recorded output shows amazing arrangements through their whole career. Even when Phil Spector layered stuff on it was done in very specific ways.

Every step of modern recording technology has done away with limitations.

Part of what got the Beatles records to sound amazing, to the point where you could hear every little bit, was those limitations.

They worked on the arrangements until they were right and those arrangements, more than the gear, are the reasons we can hear the little bits that they wanted us to hear.

Colorblind
takin' a dinner break
Posts: 174
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:23 pm

Re: McCartney 3,2,1

Post by Colorblind » Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:25 am

roscoenyc wrote:
Wed Oct 27, 2021 7:19 am
Concise, uncluttered arrangements are what I find most lacking in modern popular music.

The Beatles recorded output shows amazing arrangements through their whole career. Even when Phil Spector layered stuff on it was done in very specific ways.

Every step of modern recording technology has done away with limitations.

Part of what got the Beatles records to sound amazing, to the point where you could hear every little bit, was those limitations.

They worked on the arrangements until they were right and those arrangements, more than the gear, are the reasons we can hear the little bits that they wanted us to hear.
+1. The arrangements are so hugely important. I think there's definitely something to be said about having been able to work those out together in real time, versus recording one thing at a time and hoping the sum of those performances would amount to some kind of magic. Then again, and according to Geoff Emerick's book, they were doing less and less "together" in later years, and those records are still pretty, pretty good, so what the hell do I know?

User avatar
roscoenyc
carpal tunnel
Posts: 1530
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: McCartney 3,2,1

Post by roscoenyc » Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:34 am

Colorblind wrote:
Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:25 am
roscoenyc wrote:
Wed Oct 27, 2021 7:19 am
Concise, uncluttered arrangements are what I find most lacking in modern popular music.

The Beatles recorded output shows amazing arrangements through their whole career. Even when Phil Spector layered stuff on it was done in very specific ways.

Every step of modern recording technology has done away with limitations.

Part of what got the Beatles records to sound amazing, to the point where you could hear every little bit, was those limitations.

They worked on the arrangements until they were right and those arrangements, more than the gear, are the reasons we can hear the little bits that they wanted us to hear.
+1. The arrangements are so hugely important. I think there's definitely something to be said about having been able to work those out together in real time, versus recording one thing at a time and hoping the sum of those performances would amount to some kind of magic. Then again, and according to Geoff Emerick's book, they were doing less and less "together" in later years, and those records are still pretty, pretty good, so what the hell do I know?
Even when they were working alone the parts had to fit and they were still limited by their format so they still had to be really worked out and specific.
The point I'm getting at is they couldn't just "add another track" a ton of times and sort them out in the mix the way people are tempted to do on 24 track or an unlimited DAW.

User avatar
A.David.MacKinnon
ears didn't survive the freeze
Posts: 3820
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 5:57 am
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: McCartney 3,2,1

Post by A.David.MacKinnon » Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:26 am

The bit where they're talking about the song Michelle and McCartney says "that took three hours" blew my mind. Rubin asks if there was an arrangement already worked out and McCartney says no, they came up with it in the session. Then they solo the bass which is one of him more amazing parts. I know it's old hat to hash over how good they were but stuff like that really brings it home. It's pretty humbling.

User avatar
digitaldrummer
ghost haunting audio students
Posts: 3476
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:51 pm
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Re: McCartney 3,2,1

Post by digitaldrummer » Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:07 am

Emerick also wrote about how Paul would come in and redo bass parts - punching in sections to make sure ever line was articulated correctly. I dare say very few do that these days and instead some engineer will "fix" a wonky note here and there instead...
Mike
www.studiodrumtracks.com -- Drum tracks starting at $50!
www.doubledogrecording.com

User avatar
Nick Sevilla
on a wing and a prayer
Posts: 5555
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:34 pm
Location: Lake Arrowhead California USA
Contact:

Re: McCartney 3,2,1

Post by Nick Sevilla » Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:39 am

digitaldrummer wrote:
Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:42 am
if you haven't read the Geoff Emerick book (Here, There, and Everywhere) or the Ken Scott book (Abbey Road to Ziggy Stardust) I would highly recommend them. many similar stories but also some more insight into how those were recorded. I know there are other books too.
I have both, and highly recommend them. Along with these, which have more of the nuts and bolts of their sessions:

The Beatles, Recording Reference Manual, by Jerry Hammack.
Howling at the neighbors. Hoping they have more mic cables.

User avatar
joninc
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2100
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 5:02 pm
Location: canada
Contact:

Re: McCartney 3,2,1

Post by joninc » Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:04 pm

lots of good thoughts and glad others are finding the series entertaining. It is really cool to hear tracks isolated and to deconstruct such well known songs a bit.

The thing I was trying to articulate in my initial post though, is even more about the sonic texture/tonality of the isolated tracks as opposed to the arrangement and final mixes. There's a lower mid range thickness/richness/density to things like a solo'd vocal stem or bass track - where they are clear but not bright or harsh in anyway. They just feel velvety, rubbery and massively big.

That's the part that I find baffling - how do you create that? (I understand that the source is obviously part of that - but there are key engineering choices that are shaping the way that is captured and reproduced).

Is it harmonic overtones from specific tape machines and very high end tube mics and eq? I can record really nicely sung/played stuff with very nice gear and it sounds anemic tonally by comparison.

It is indeed very humbling.

It seems like a lack of super high air band frequencies is part of what makes it feel so rich.

(btw I find a similar quality when I listen to a song like SAN JUAN by Daniel Lanois - Just a guitar and voice can be sooo big / deep / wide.)
the new rules : there are no rules

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests