Some general ramblings about aesthetics and late 60s pop

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

Moderators: drumsound, tomb

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

Post by roscoenyc » Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:18 am

A lot of what Carges said.

I'd say the most important elements of the music you described were

the Songs, Arrangements & Performances.


Even though some of the 60's pop stuff was done in great studios I'd
say that more often than not the gear was very low on the why
this music remains great factor list.

jzombie
ass engineer
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 1:10 pm

Post by jzombie » Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:46 am

surf's up wrote: 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?
For me it's both - the improved performances of musicians playing together live without "cans," and the fact that the bleed makes it sound more like musicians playing together live without "cans."

As far as making the bleed pleasant rather than distracting, I think the most important factors are the usual ones - good sound at the source and a good room, followed by good mics, etc. etc.

User avatar
Snarl 12/8
cryogenically thawing
Posts: 3510
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:01 pm
Location: Right Cheer
Contact:

Post by Snarl 12/8 » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:51 am

To me the main ingredient that's missing today is that those motherfuckers could play! I'm talking single takes where 12 people would nail it with precision AND feeling. They could play individually and, more importantly together in a way that I think is almost completely lost in today's world. Actually, there might be the same number of people in the world that are that good, but as a percentage of the number of people that are recording, it's gone way down. Back then, you'd get a group of guys that really had chemistry, and an in-house arranger and you'd roll with that for as long as you could, churning out hits.

That's my take, the *average* level of musicianship and arranging has gone way down. Not to mention engineering and producing. It can't really be the gear or the rooms because that shit's gone through the roof. Your average DAW today has more computing power than what we used to put a man on the moon, by far.

I think before recording was democratized by the cassette 4-track it took a real commitment and talent to even wind up in front of a microphone in a studio. We're missing that screening process today. You don't have to have any sort of genius, or fan-base, or anything to get yourself recorded today, just a $149 bucks or so.

http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid ... Categories
Carl Keil

Almost forgot: Please steal my drum tracks. and more.

User avatar
joninc
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2099
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 5:02 pm
Location: canada
Contact:

Post by joninc » Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:06 am

Snarl 12/8 wrote:To me the main ingredient that's missing today is that those motherfuckers could play! I'm talking single takes where 12 people would nail it with precision AND feeling. They could play individually and, more importantly together in a way that I think is almost completely lost in today's world. Actually, there might be the same number of people in the world that are that good, but as a percentage of the number of people that are recording, it's gone way down. Back then, you'd get a group of guys that really had chemistry, and an in-house arranger and you'd roll with that for as long as you could, churning out hits.
+100

totally agree. many of us have worked with some great players but generally there are a few that excel in a group. these players all were top of their game. they played on most of these records mentioned and were often uncredited so it would look like the band played their own instruments. see "the wrecking crew".

Image

lots of "cans" in that pic.
the new rules : there are no rules

User avatar
surf's up
pushin' record
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:34 am
Location: Texas

Post by surf's up » Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:58 pm

Snarl 12/8 wrote:To me the main ingredient that's missing today is that those motherfuckers could play! I'm talking single takes where 12 people would nail it with precision AND feeling. They could play individually and, more importantly together in a way that I think is almost completely lost in today's world. Actually, there might be the same number of people in the world that are that good, but as a percentage of the number of people that are recording, it's gone way down. Back then, you'd get a group of guys that really had chemistry, and an in-house arranger and you'd roll with that for as long as you could, churning out hits.

That's my take, the *average* level of musicianship and arranging has gone way down. Not to mention engineering and producing. It can't really be the gear or the rooms because that shit's gone through the roof. Your average DAW today has more computing power than what we used to put a man on the moon, by far.

I think before recording was democratized by the cassette 4-track it took a real commitment and talent to even wind up in front of a microphone in a studio. We're missing that screening process today. You don't have to have any sort of genius, or fan-base, or anything to get yourself recorded today, just a $149 bucks or so.

http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid ... Categories
I'm sorry but I have to disagree with several of your points. The session players back then were excellent, but I think that has very little to do with the gap in sonic textures that exists between modern and old recordings. There are plenty of really amazing musicians playing today using well-built, well-tuned instruments making records that are diametrically opposite to stuff from the 60s.

Just look at Brian Wilson's SMiLE. I think I remember reading that he claimed the musicians he used on the 2004 remake were much better than the players he used on the original demos. Whether this was just posturing or not, who knows. But each of the two versions definitely has its own distinct sound. The songs are the same, the musicians ostensibly better, and the recording still lacks that certain fingerprint that made the Boys' stuff so amazing.

I do agree that as a there is a big democratization of basic recording capabilities, and that has inevitably produced lots of less than stellar recordings (bad in every sense - musicianship, songwriting, production). But I don't think that has much effect on how things are at the upper levels. The commercial recording industry - the big and medium studios, the bands with label support and producers and mastering engineers who have been profiled in magazines are putting out a product that is for the most part unique from the product their predecessors put out. And I dont think that can be blamed on the kid recording blink 182 covers on an mbox in his dorm. If anything, there is more of a trickle-down effect than a trickle-up effect in terms of aesthetics sensibilities.

User avatar
joninc
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2099
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 5:02 pm
Location: canada
Contact:

Post by joninc » Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:15 pm

There are plenty of really amazing musicians playing today using well-built, well-tuned instruments making records that are diametrically opposite to stuff from the 60s.
of course there are lots of great players these days - but they are not gathering 20 of them at a time to perform at together once in a large room. that is IMO a different type of skill. you can't do 6 takes of the prechorus bass lick and comp in the best one. this is more orchestral in nature.

nowadays - they are micro recording/comping/editing it piece by piece in isolation. of course there are some exceptions - but, by and large, this is the modern way.

i might refine my comments to say - the big difference from then and now is:

1. the players are amazing (feel, versatility, experience - many being jazz players first)
2. they play together as a whole amazingly well
3. there is a real sound and feel difference in recording it all simultaneously
4. there is not the same ultra wide frequency range in the formats of that day that there is now (less extension on top and btm)
the new rules : there are no rules

User avatar
JGriffin
zen recordist
Posts: 6739
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:44 pm
Location: criticizing globally, offending locally
Contact:

Post by JGriffin » Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:19 pm

surf's up wrote: I do agree that as a there is a big democratization of basic recording capabilities, and that has inevitably produced lots of less than stellar recordings (bad in every sense - musicianship, songwriting, production). But I don't think that has much effect on how things are at the upper levels. The commercial recording industry - the big and medium studios, the bands with label support and producers and mastering engineers who have been profiled in magazines are putting out a product that is for the most part unique from the product their predecessors put out. And I dont think that can be blamed on the kid recording blink 182 covers on an mbox in his dorm. If anything, there is more of a trickle-down effect than a trickle-up effect in terms of aesthetics sensibilities.
Agreed. The barriers to entry are still very much there as far as major-label stuff. The things we're hearing on radio are what gets past those barriers. If it was just about 4-tracks and mboxes, major-label stuff would still have "that" sound we're talking about and everything below it wouldn't.
"Jeweller, you've failed. Jeweller."

"Lots of people are nostalgic for analog. I suspect they're people who never had to work with it." ? Brian Eno

All the DWLB music is at http://dwlb.bandcamp.com/

jkretz
gettin' sounds
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:23 am

Post by jkretz » Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:20 pm

interesting thread! i'm curious to see what tricks come out of this - as i'm also about to start recording a record with late 60s pop production in mind.

people consistently mention that live takes / bleed is important to the sound. sonically (ignore the amount of compression / limiting) do you think groups like fleet foxes hit the mark? i would agree that belle and sebastian do.

here's a link to a song from our last EP that best represents our new material - http://mariageblanc.bandcamp.com/track/off-white-noise

what would you change to give it more of a late 60s pop feel? (most of) this obviously was not done live, and i think in general we left things too dry...

i'm not trying to sidetrack or hijack the thread, i just wanted to post an example of where i tried this and missed the mark and thought it might be helpful.

User avatar
surf's up
pushin' record
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:34 am
Location: Texas

Post by surf's up » Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:33 pm

joninc wrote:
There are plenty of really amazing musicians playing today using well-built, well-tuned instruments making records that are diametrically opposite to stuff from the 60s.
of course there are lots of great players these days - but they are not gathering 20 of them at a time to perform at together once in a large room. that is IMO a different type of skill.

nowadays - they are micro recording/comping/editing it piece by piece in isolation. of course there are some exceptions - but, by and large, this is the modern way.
I agree that those are different skills, and the latter skill probably isn't abundant as it once was, but I think that exists as a separate reality that doesn't really explain why things sound differently now. It may be related to that question, in the sense that changes in recording methodologies and technologies have unintentionally discouraged musicians from developing their skills in that way, but it seems like more of an effect than a cause.

I think we should just go ahead and establish that good musicianship and good material is a fundament to a great recording. But beyond that, what are the missing ingredients that make those old recordings so special?

User avatar
joninc
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2099
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 5:02 pm
Location: canada
Contact:

Post by joninc » Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:37 pm

cool tune and nice recording.

to make it more 60's ish - i'd say:

THINK AM RADIO

- cut some top - LPF from about 14 up.

- a little more emphasis in the low mids (the stuff we tend to cut out these days)

- contain the drums more to one space - less stereo spread. more extreme hard panning of some elements.

- i'd use a more classic sounding reverb - something a little more metallic (spring/plate) sounding. not harsh - just less a little less rolled off sounding - with more hid mid presence in it.

- finally - something to glue it together and make things sound less separated.
a nice mashing overall on the mix - some PSP vintage warmer - fatso - tape - tube comp. something mashy. the chandler stuff comes to mind (plugs or hardware)
the new rules : there are no rules

User avatar
surf's up
pushin' record
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:34 am
Location: Texas

Post by surf's up » Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:48 pm

jkretz wrote:interesting thread! i'm curious to see what tricks come out of this - as i'm also about to start recording a record with late 60s pop production in mind.

people consistently mention that live takes / bleed is important to the sound. sonically (ignore the amount of compression / limiting) do you think groups like fleet foxes hit the mark? i would agree that belle and sebastian do.

here's a link to a song from our last EP that best represents our new material - http://mariageblanc.bandcamp.com/track/off-white-noise

what would you change to give it more of a late 60s pop feel? (most of) this obviously was not done live, and i think in general we left things too dry...

i'm not trying to sidetrack or hijack the thread, i just wanted to post an example of where i tried this and missed the mark and thought it might be helpful.
No prob, it's very pertinent. I liked that song, and the recording is nice in it's own right. It's definitely in the right direction as far as emulating a 60s sound, mostly due to the arrangement. I think you're right about it being a tad dry, or maybe just some of the reverb decay not being as long as it could be.

I was also thinking some of the electric guitar stuff, especially the little rhyhtmic stabs could be layered, maybe add some tremolo or experiment with with octaves or phasers on one or more of the layers in a subtle way. When it's just elec. piano and guitar harmonizing about 2 minutes in, I feel like a more lush guitar sound would be cool.

Overall really nice, love the orchestration of that last instrumental section.

User avatar
joninc
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2099
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 5:02 pm
Location: canada
Contact:

Post by joninc » Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:51 pm

I agree that those are different skills, and the latter skill probably isn't abundant as it once was, but I think that exists as a separate reality that doesn't really explain why things sound differently now.
I think we should just go ahead and establish that good musicianship and good material is a fundament to a great recording. But beyond that, what are the missing ingredients that make those old recordings so special?
i don't know man - maybe i am not understanding you - sorry if this feels like we're goin in circles but IMO it's hard to underestimate the impact of live recording vs overdubbing.

have you done much live recording? no offense meant - but there really is an intangible thing that happens when people interact in real time that you cannot replicate by overdubbing the exact same parts in the same place in the room with the same gear etc..

i've only done a few albums this way but it becomes apparent pretty fast whether the players are really up to it or not - can they hear what's happening in the room and adjust accordingly? can they blend in where it's needed and project when it's time to step out and be featured? can they crescendo with the band? can they lock in rhythmically?

there's a spirit and a feeling that is created that cannot be replaced with compression or automation or technology. it's that real human thing that resonates deeply with us. it connects on a gut level.

take that combined with great songs/players/arrangers/engineers/etc. etc... now that's some magic!
the new rules : there are no rules

jkretz
gettin' sounds
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:23 am

Post by jkretz » Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:54 pm

thanks for the input - that tune was done last summer and mixed around this time last year. most of that song was recorded digitally @ 44.1 / 16 bit with only the drums being done to tape / then later dumped to computer.

this time around i'm doing the whole record to tape (until i run out of tracks and am forced to bounce to computer anyway) which i think will immediately help with the high frequency stuff. another goal is to not touch any digital reverbs. i've got some spring reverb tanks around that i'm gonna hook up and run stuff through - we'll see how it works out i guess.

panning i could not agree more about. less spread of elements with more hard panned elements. i might actually do mono overhead + close mics + a mid side room mic setup for drums.

bass sound on 60s pop is something i've never been able to get correct. it seems to me that on the actual 60s stuff, there is wayyyy less low-end to the bass and it almost always sounds muted. whenever i've tried this my bass sounds have just become anemic... actually that's evidenced in the song i posted.

it's interesting that you recommend something to mash it all together. this EP was done on basically no budget - largely in my basement at the time - and we couldn't afford to have it mastered. i originally tried to just slap some compression and limiting across the stereo bus to "glue together" but then it sounded even less "retro". i'm guessing it was the plugins and settings i was using, but when i stripped it all off it got A LOT closer to what i wanted to hear.

who knows maybe the tape will take care of that this time around.

User avatar
surf's up
pushin' record
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:34 am
Location: Texas

Post by surf's up » Tue Sep 01, 2009 2:02 pm

joninc wrote:
I agree that those are different skills, and the latter skill probably isn't abundant as it once was, but I think that exists as a separate reality that doesn't really explain why things sound differently now.
I think we should just go ahead and establish that good musicianship and good material is a fundament to a great recording. But beyond that, what are the missing ingredients that make those old recordings so special?
i don't know man - maybe i am not understanding you - sorry if this feels like we're goin in circles but IMO it's hard to underestimate the impact of live recording vs overdubbing.

have you done much live recording? no offense meant - but there really is an intangible thing that happens when people interact in real time that you cannot replicate by overdubbing the exact same parts in the same place in the room with the same gear etc..

i've only done a few albums this way but it becomes apparent pretty fast whether the players are really up to it or not - can they hear what's happening in the room and adjust accordingly? can they blend in where it's needed and project when it's time to step out and be featured? can they crescendo with the band? can they lock in rhythmically?

there's a spirit and a feeling that is created that cannot be replaced with compression or automation or technology. it's that real human thing that resonates deeply with us. it connects on a gut level.

take that combined with great songs/players/arrangers/engineers/etc. etc... now that's some magic!
Well I agree with that and I'm not trying to dismiss the importance of having musicians that can do that well. I think we were kind of inadvertently arguing about different things. I didnt mean to imply that doing things live in a single environment isnt really key in obtaining that sound. I think that it is. I was more objecting to what I got from Snarl's post, the idea that there is some great disparity in the ability of studio musicians today vs. studio musicians of yesteryear that accounts for different sounding records.

I think of good musicians as a sort of prerequisite in the whole equation, because like you've said, playing together as an ensemble requires a unique proficiency that is very distinct from virtuosic skill - so you need people like that in order to satisfy the methodological requirement of doing things live. At least if you want it to have a good vibe.

jkretz
gettin' sounds
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:23 am

Post by jkretz » Tue Sep 01, 2009 2:03 pm

also, there's already a thread about making a record without condensers - so i don't want this one to head there. but i'm gonna make an effort to use large diaphragm dynamics and ribbons wherever possible on this new record. guess i just have some idea in my head that it will get me closer to the sound i want... really no rhyme or reason to it (i'm guessing it's not "period correct" at all) so don't tear me apart!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests