Some general ramblings about aesthetics and late 60s pop

[joninc]

using more ribbons and dynamics will help for sure - less top end and more emphasis on the mid range.

[surf's up]

regarding bass tones, have you ever tried the piece of foam underneath the bridge trick? ive had mixed results with it but occasionally its yielded something nice. also some of my best bass tones, along that vein, have come from running it through a miced guitar amp

[jkretz]

tried muting physically with foam before, but then it was too dead... perhaps i used too much foam?

i really think those "rotosound" strings might be the ticket - my bassist has a set coming in soon and we'll string em up.

i should say that the goal of this record - sonically - isn't to sound exactly like a late 60s pop record. but to borrow some of those elements, trying to recreate the entire "sound" of an era would likely end badly or just sound gimmicky.

i think bands like belle and sebastian / fleet foxes / camera obscura etc... do things nice and tastefully (you aren't gonna hear any "strange" panning on those records, but the overall sound of them pays tribute to 60s pop / folk for sure...)

[surf's up]

yeah, it's not the most consistent science. ive made foams before that give me the right sound for two strings and not enough dampening for the other two. im also not a very good bassist, so theres probably some technique issues making it tough for me to generate that carol kaye tone.

[centurymantra]

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?

I'll have to say that I'm sort of sympathetic with where this guy is coming from. First off...YES!! great musicians, arrangements, etc. are essential and pivotal to that "sound of the '60s". That being said, there is very distinct texture and vibe to those recordings that you simply do not find today and is apparently hard to replicate.

Whenever these threads pop up, there are always a stampede of folks falling over themselves to dismiss the importance of gear, engineering, etc., stating that it is all (or at least 99%) all about the musicians. I think people go a little overboard on being so dismissive of the recording process and the role it plays as if it's some kind of obligatory attitude we need to cop lest our egos get the better of us. Let me state again that I fully acknowledge that it is the single biggest and most important factor responsible and often is solely responsible for the appeal and allure of the music. The performance, music and craft of the song is certainly all about the musicians, but I think when talking about the overall sound and texture of a recording there are other things at work - certainly something that accounts for a little more than 1% anyway. The texture and atmosphere of a recording that is created through the process can be a HUGE part of the vibe and an essential element in the direction the atmosphere and emotion of a song. I remember on a thread about the 13th Floor Elevators, someone stated that they would sound the same if they were recorded on a Mac into Pro Tools. I completely disagree. It would be awesome no doubt...but much different.

There really is something special about that early sound. I can?t say that I know how or if it even can be done that way now. Some of it is the gear of the times, some of it is the attitude and mindset of the musical movers & players of the era, some of it is?.who knows? The aforementioned ?spill? and ?bleed? is surely a big part of the process and the sound that resulted. I also think musicians, producers and engineers simply heard things differently back then in that they were directed by a sensibility, attitude and influences that were fostered by the culture and the overall feel of the era. They were going for a ?sound? and tapping into an energy that was already part of the cultural landscape that surrounded them. They weren?t consciously trying to recreate something?it was just something that came naturally. Imagine going back in time and handing them a modern day CD (created by inspired and innovative musicians) and ask them to recreate the ?sound? on that disc. I think they would have as difficult a time re-wiring and re-directing their sensibilities to create that sound as we do theirs.

[joninc]

for some nice bass muting - try taking a piece of felt and running it over the strings near the bridge. tape it down on either side.

just brings a little focus - cuts down on the sustain but doesn't seem to choke bottom end.

http://www.carolkaye.com/www/education/tips51.htm see tip 100

[centurymantra]

i think bands like belle and sebastian / fleet foxes / camera obscura etc... do things nice and tastefully (you aren't gonna hear any "strange" panning on those records, but the overall sound of them pays tribute to 60s pop / folk for sure...)

Another recording that I think really nails this vibe well is the most recent Devendra Banhart record - "Smoky Rolls Down Thunder Canyon".

[joninc]

belle and sebastian and camera obscura play really 60's influenced music too - so that type of production obviously ties in well.

the God Help the Girl album is just another step further down that road too (to the 60's phil spector girl group thing anyways)

[roscoenyc]

I also think musicians, producers and engineers simply heard things differently back then in that they were directed by a sensibility, attitude and influences that were fostered by the culture and the overall feel of the era. They were going for a ?sound? and tapping into an energy that was already part of the cultural landscape that surrounded them.

Yes,
that and they were limited by what the could do technically. How many times they could do it. Unlimited options and the like. That is what made the arrangement so important. In those records most of the time the solo wasn't "on top" of the rest of the record. The arrangement made space for the event that was the solo. The limitations (tracks, no automation) made them work harder to make the record sound great.

[apropos of nothing]

Palm or pinky muting the bass is where its at. Carol Kaye said she taped over her strings at the saddle in her TO interview. I'm not going to question her, but I like having control over how muted or vocalized a particular note is, and I get that with palm or pinky muting.

[mojobone]

If the question is, "Why can't we get that sound today?", I'd suggest it's down to three factors: (leaving aside the music and arrangement)

the gear

the technique

the musicians

Most of the gear those records were made with/on still exists, so we can toss that out as the determining factor as soon as we've heard a recording made on the same equipment that doesn't have that "it" factor we're seeking, though some of it undoubtedly has to do with Dolby noise reduction, mastering, and the vinyl record manufacturing process.

Techniques change over time, and it's possible to learn the techniques of the engineers and producers who made those great records, but I expect that even if you busted Phil Spector out of prison, HE couldn't make records like that anymore, because we no longer have those particular musicians.

I'm not saying we don't have great players today, but on many of those great records, it was the same group of outstanding players on most every session.

Nobody acquires that sort of experience anymore, because recording budgets have changed-you won't have Howard Roberts, Tony Tedesco and Glen Campbell on the same session. Today, you get Carl Verheyen or whomever, and he overdubs three different parts. That, IMO, is where the synergy gets lost.

[Winstontaneous]

tried muting physically with foam before, but then it was too dead... perhaps i used too much foam?

i really think those "rotosound" strings might be the ticket - my bassist has a set coming in soon and we'll string em up.

I'd suggest flatwound bass strings rather than Rotosounds for that classic 60s bass sound. Rotosounds were the first roundwound bass string--they're stainless steel and very twangy. John Entwistle of the Who was the first to use them and they took the bass in a more full-frequency direction, with less solid fundamental than flatwounds.

D'Addario Chromes are a good, inexpensive introduction to flats...a bit on the bright side, but you can just turn down the tone knob. LaBellas are great for the old-school James Jamerson Motown sound. I like Thomastik-Infeld Jazz Flats--expensive but (IMO) worth it and very flexible. Playing flats with a pick and a bit of muting is a whole new (old) world of tone, especially through a miked amp.

[McWoods]

I'll stick my neck out a little here...this being my first post and all...

I grew up on 60's stuff like Motown, Hendrix, the early Who, etc., that's always been my favorite era for music. My take on it is pretty much how joninc summed it up in a previous post:

- 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.

The only thing I don't think is totally necessary are more emphasis on low mids, that depends on the track/artist. Some early Who stuff seems to have some low mid emphasis but other material like the Mama's and the Papa's is a little more lacking in it than others. Could just be my ears tho.

I'm recording my own stuff right now, trying to get something resembling this sound, and the main thing I've been all too aware that I'm missing from the get go is a good reverb--exactly the way joninc describes it. That IMHO is the bulk of what defines the 60's era stuff the OP is referring to.

[jgimbel]

I'm recording my own stuff right now, trying to get something resembling this sound, and the main thing I've been all too aware that I'm missing from the get go is a good reverb--exactly the way joninc describes it. That IMHO is the bulk of what defines the 60's era stuff the OP is referring to.

+1 there. I've read all the stories about the crazy plates and echo chambers with those motown recordings. What a perfect opportunity for a big fun DIY project!

[bluesman]

Take a close look & watch "The Wrecking Crew" & all will be revealed.