Some general ramblings about aesthetics and late 60s pop

[surf's up]

I have recently become enchanted by the sound of old pop recordings, especially stuff from the late 60s/early 70s. The music itself has always been tops to me, but it is only lately that I've realized how much the particulars of how it was recorded contribute to its overall quality. I am especially partial to West Coast sounds and what I guess is sometimes called the 'sunshine pop' genre. Stuff like the Critters, the Association, The Mamas & the Papas, the Beach Boys, etc. But really everything from that period rules so much compared to what's come along in the subsequent years. Some of the British stuff like the Kinks, the Tony Burrows stuff, the Hollies, etc. is pretty awesome, and Detroit was always putting out great recordings....right now I am totally infatuated with "Band of Gold"

I know this has been discussed a lot, but I am really trying to parse what elements make recordings from that era so sonically distinct from what's churned out today. I think it's one thing to know how things were done back then, and that's a good starting point, but it won't necessarily automatically convey what aspects of that methodology were especially critical in the sonic signature. I also realize that some of it is due to the songwriting/arrangements, but what I am really trying to get at are the extrinsic things that made those great songs into great recordings.

I have some crude, vague thoughts about it, but I doubt this list is exhaustive, and I am pretty clueless about what weight each of things has in contributing to those sounds. Here's what Im guessing is partly responsible:

1) The acoustic qualities of the recording milieus.
2) The manner in which material was performed (recording things live, positioning of the instruments within the ensemble, live monitoring during overdubs, bleed, etc.)
3) The medium onto which material was recorded
4) The specific varieties of artificial ambience used and the relative contributions of the echo chamber and plate reverbs.
5+) ????

I should add that although part of my interest in this is academic, the other part is the eventual goal that I can make an album that borrows heavily from the aesthetic tradition of these records. The thought being that by learning as much as I can about why those records sound like they do, I am better equipped to pick a studio, pick musicians, and communicate with the engineer.

I'm very interested to hear what thoughts you guys have, and also if you can think of some examples of modern recordings that have successfully duplicated that tradition, either in the process or the end result (or ideally, both).

[losthighway]

I suppose it's not the most insightful beginning but the Spector wall of sound comes to mind pretty quick with some of that stuff. What I gather on that production-wise is a tremendous amount of instruments being recorded on very few mics/tracks with a lot of limiting.

[Trick Fall]

I've actually been on a big Beach Boys, Mamas & Poppas, Monkees, Turtles kick. I think the sheer talent of the musicians involved had a lot to do with the sound and I would bet many of those records had the same session musicians playing on them. I also think the fact that they were playing together in a room contributed a lot.

Not exactly like sixties pop, but a lot of the early Belle & Sebastian stuff has a similar feel for me.

[AstroDan]

I've been really into the Shangri-Las as of late.

I think another factor in this era is the session musicians. A lot were very disciplined and accomplished and sort of 'stepped down' to play pop. They had a world of varied rhythms in their arsenal...and when they got together with a handful of 17 year olds from the ghetto and some New York couple to write the songs, it was pretty special.

[losthighway]

Not exactly like sixties pop, but a lot of the early Belle & Sebastian stuff has a similar feel for me.

Yeah, if you hear the BBC sessions disc of them you can totally tell that they can really play that well. Good stuff.

[cgarges]

Two words:

Hal Blaine

No, really, I get what you're saying. I think the medium has less to do with that sound than the mile-long list of other factors:, such as:

The performances
The arrangements
The physical location of the instruments (usually in the same space)
The personalities of the people involved (probably the biggest thing lacking in today's productions)
The type of microphones
The type of electronics
Horrendous monitoring conditions
Mastering using only a Pultec and an LA2A
Three sessions a day
MONO!
Cigarette smoke (not something I miss)
Studios with real instruments, a receptionist, AND a tech on staff
Producers who knew how to get a good performance out of a musician rather than knowing the fuck out of the tools that can fix that stuff later

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

[CurtZHP]

There seemed to be a sort of guerrilla quality to a lot of those old recordings. It was quick and dirty, get in, get out, get it on the radio. And in a lot of cases the studio and/or gear was so primitive by today's standards that they had no choice. The console had no pan pots? Well I guess the guitar is going on the left then! And while we're at it, put the drums (recorded as a single instrument) on the right.

I had read somewhere (I wish I could remember where) that The Kingsmen's hit "Louie Louie" was recorded in mono using a single microphone. The band supposedly set up around it with the lead singer standing right under it. It was suggested that this was the biggest factor in the song's infamous lyrical unintelligibility.


It'd be interesting to conduct an experiment - and maybe this has already been done - where recording school students are given the chance to re-record some classic song, using good musicians on the original instruments, but with modern recording equipment and techniques. Of course, the students would have to be wholly unfamiliar with the music to make it a decent experiment. It would be interesting to hear how they make it sound.

[Jitters]

The biggest difference to me is that those old records sound like a band in a room, whereas now days records to seem to be a surreal kind of impression of humans making music. There was a lot less fussing over the record making process, and an emphasis on nailing the performance. The record making simply didn't get in the way of that. And then it was out the door and off to the pressing plant, rather than being mixed to death in post.

[vvv]

Listen to some of Frank Black's '99 (Pistolero) through '03 (Black Letter Days) stuff, recorded live to two track, but with modern equipment.

For me, it's like, there's an immediacy ...

[JGriffin]

Another aspect of it is bleed. Or spill, as they say in the UK. It's not so much mixed to death in post but that after the 60s --especially in the 70s when the technology first made it possible-- every instrument was separate, gated, isolated, even if the musicians were all in the same room. Made for some very sterile recordings.

[Jitters]

Another aspect of it is bleed. Or spill, as they say in the UK. It's not so much mixed to death in post but that after the 60s --especially in the 70s when the technology first made it possible-- every instrument was separate, gated, isolated, even if the musicians were all in the same room. Made for some very sterile recordings.

Very true. I suppose I should have said ?separated to death? rather than ?mixed to death?.

[jgimbel]

Not exactly like sixties pop, but a lot of the early Belle & Sebastian stuff has a similar feel for me.

+1. I'm not a big fan of theirs, but I love their drum sounds. I've been looking for a while for info on their processes without much luck. I know that the musicians in 1960's pop/motown had of course much to do with the sound, but folks always say it's the musician that makes those recordings sound like it does..I just can't swallow that. I mean not that they don't provide the incredible playing, but I've heard very talented musicians play motown live on "period-correct" equipment, and it obviously doesn't sound the same as they recording - because it's a recording. The musician is most of the sound, but it seems like it shouldn't be impossible to get those kind of sounds without those particular musicians (though I feel Belle & Sebastian do, hence why I'm so interested in finding any info on what they're doing).

I have a feeling the way I said that might imply I don't understand the importance of those musicians, I hope that's not the case. I've got an enormous amount of respect for them, but I can't buy that it's the musicians alone that make those records sound like they do, especially since it's been duplicated (or close) by B&S.

[surf's up]

Another aspect of it is bleed. Or spill, as they say in the UK. It's not so much mixed to death in post but that after the 60s --especially in the 70s when the technology first made it possible-- every instrument was separate, gated, isolated, even if the musicians were all in the same room. Made for some very sterile recordings.

That's perhaps the aspect that fascinates me most. It seems like such a simple thing, a hindrance even, at least considering the way we've used technology to make it as obsolete as possible. I imagine most bleed back in the day was just accidental, an unavoidable byproduct of the way they recorded, but it just ended up coming out really awesome sounding.

For those of you who embrace bleed in recordings you engineer, is there an intentional, willful thing about it, or is it just a natural thing that follows from the "live in one room" setup? Any tricks or ideas you've learned that separate the pleasing kind of bleed from the kind that just gets in the way? Or would you say all bleed is pretty much equal?

[CurtZHP]

Very true. I suppose I should have said ?separated to death? rather than ?mixed to death?.

Nah, I think you could be right either way.

[surf's up]

Another difference I forgot to mention but that Ive definitely noticed is frequency range. Older stuff almost always contains a more condensed frequency range than modern recordings. This is probably another thing that probably would have been considered a limitation at one point, one that technology eventually "liberated" us from. Ive noticed it both on the low end and the high end.

When I picked up the 2004 SMiLE I wasnt hugely into it. The songs were great; recording aesthetics was my biggest issue. I ended up just putting a LPF over the whole album and burned a copy of it like that, which I found much more appealing.

Probably my favorite tones of any instrument from this era are bass guitar, and carol kaye leads the way for me. It's just so awesome how powerful and rhythmically entrancing bass can be without needing to rattle everything in your house.

So I guess my next question is what were the conditions that prevented the older recordings from having the same extended frequency range we hear on today's recordings? Is it the medium itself or does it have to do with the choices made, possibly due to the expectation of cutting vinyl and the limitations it imposed?