Techniques & ideas for 60s/70s style recordings????

[A.David.MacKinnon]

P.S. Also, most 60's era records didn't have any stereo recording done in the tracking stage. Sources were recorded mono (ie: one overhead, one room mic) and those mono tracks were panned for the stereo mix.

[jhamburg]

amongst all the great suggestions already noted:

1) song and arrangement
2) players
3) limited track counts, limited takes
4) use dynamics and ribbons
5) plate or spring verb.

joel

[drumsound]

amongst all the great suggestions already noted:

1) song and arrangement
2) players
3) limited track counts, limited takes
4) use dynamics and ribbons
5) plate or spring verb.

joel

1)YES
2)YES
3) YES and NO I think (and from some things I've read-esp Stones and Beatles) a lot of takes were done. Go for the magic-run the machine and Capture the lightning in a bottle.
4) US yes, less so in Europe.
5) And Chambers!

[donny]

Hmm, the answer is fairly simple but you have to go all the way to get it ... i don't think there are any shortcuts.

first of all, you are not going to make a record that truly sounds like the '60s because it's not the '60s. the way that people write songs is different, the way the bands play is different, the times are not the same; people think differently.

drummers and guitar players particularly do not play in a manner that makes a record sound like a '60s record. Because everyone has heard Led Zeppelin. and Led Zeppelin ruined everything. musicians in the '60s were influenced by jazz standards, lawrence welk, etc (i don't think many of them were intentionally influenced, but this is what was "standard" ... part of playing music is accepting what music is. or what we perceive to be acceptable). so, yes, the great ones were pushing the envelope. but the envelope itself was something very different.

but you can probably get close ... there are groups and musicians/producers who have come close; they are the ones who are going all the way, dedicating themselves and having a certain kind of vision.

so assuming you get past this challenging hurdle of getting a group of musicians, or at least someone with vision and a bunch of people who are good at adapting to his vision, then you can begin looking at the techinical details.

i think the "record everyone in the same room" stuff is kind of overstated. a lot of '60s records have a shit ton of overdubs. i think that recording live was more a '50s-early '60s thing, then it got to overdubbing in groups, and then into overdubbing individual elements by the time you get to 8-track. and comping, bouncing, etc.

the simplicity of getting a '60s sound is setting up the same kind of limitations. and it's super great because setups in the '60s were very simple. this means 4-track or 8-track with limited EQ, a good reverb, a tape delay and an old-type compressor. get some old electro voice mics and maybe one large condenser. use a simple, straightforward mixer that doesn't have too many capabilities. and use a tape machine! there were no computers in the '60s and the concept of a computer sort of goes against the spirit of the times.

it doesn't have to be expensive either. truly, i think you could get a teac 3340 4-track, a shure M67 mic mixer, any decent 2-track or mono deck to mix to (even some kind of consumer deck ... you'd be surprised at the equipment some of the garage bands of the era used), a little berhinger mixer or an old teac mixer would work. and your 388 is fine, and your studer is more than fine.

let the limitations of the equipment set the stage for you. everything else will fall into place if you have the vision.

and mix mono or L/R/C ... you won't really hear panning until the '70s. and yeh, the '70s sound pretty different than the '60s. basically, just pick an album or two that you really like from the era and study it.

[Anthony Caruso]

Great posts all! Interesting take on drummers, Donny. Before anyone had a template for rock, they had swing and bop. It's interesting to think how there was a time when nobody had heard "rock drums", and had no starting point for what "rock drums" should sound like. And that people as a whole just played differently, because there wasn't 5+ decades of rock influence on the players of the world.

Anyway, I've been listening to a lot of new classic multitracks lately. Been lucky enough to come across the Doors, Hendrix (holy fuck solo'd solo in Purple Haze ), the Dead, and P-Funk. Some things that stick out to me:

1) Lots of printing verb with tracks. The drums are 2-3 tracks (kick isolated if anything), and have a verb. The vocal has a verb. It may be the same plate/chamber/whatever they had on every printed instance, but by printing separately like that during tracking it probably influences the sound as opposed to sending a lot of stuff to 1 verb during a mix, maybe keeping it cleaner as opposed to having 1 over-excited verb clanging away during a mix.

2) BG vocals always be tracked together, several people harmonizing around 1 mic. Definitely not overdubs bounced to 1 track, because you can hear the people talking/interacting (Doobie Brothers "Long Train Runnin": "We're gonna have to take that one again". HA!)

3) The tracks sound good. Like really good. I know that at least some of these aren't the Guitar Hero doctored multi's going around. NOT tons of noise, not tons of distortion/saturation, some bleed but not crazy "cymbals in everything" bleed. Bleed is like a low muffled electric guitar in the drum mics, good gobo-ing or loud amps in iso booths maybe. The Doors vocals are chilling, as well as clear and clean. Drums are punchy but not popping, not super-compressed.

Which brings me a question/ponderous thought I've been having...

How much of what we perceive as the sonics of this era has more to do with the mastering and final medium on which it is listened to? Common opinion would say, "Make it sound old, put distortion/saturation on the tracks, make sure it bleeds, narrower frequency spectrum etc". But if you just do a faders up mix of "Truckin'", it sounds like anything that could come out of a studio today and not a whole lot like a modern record with "vintage" sonics. In the transition to final mix, master, dub, vinyl, radio, whatever the path the people's ears this song took after being tracked, how much of this distortion/saturation was added by driving the shit out of the console it was mixed on, or how hard the master mix tape was being hit? How much of the low end was hacked out for the master? How much of the perceived sound of the era is really the sound of a physical, mechanical delivery method like vinyl, or at least mastering for vinyl (in the case of non-digi remastered stuff)?

If these multis are representative of a lot of what was happening in that late 60's/early 70's era, I think that people's perception of the sonics of the time have been influenced heavily by the delivery medium.

[red cross]

If these multis are representative of a lot of what was happening in that late 60's/early 70's era, I think that people's perception of the sonics of the time have been influenced heavily by the delivery medium.

Or perhaps generational loss from another set of EQ-ed masters from the original 2 trk master tapes?

I agree that listening to the first generation multi-tracks from this period is always an enlightening experience with regards to how we've always perceived the "fidelity" of these records. Which is why I also love the Pet Sounds stereo remixes so much.

[gavintheaudioengineer]

Loving this thread! That is all.

[???????]

Assuming you have musicians who are playing the way they need to play to get the sound you want to get...

bleed. real chamber. period instruments.

What's interesting is that a lot of those older recordings aren't "lo fi" or "mid fi" at all. A lot of them are incredibly HIGH fidelity, actually, more so than modern recordings. But there are bigger rooms, and the mics aren't always jammed right up on the source.

An example of an old-school hi fi record is "Rainy Night in Georgia" by Brook Benton. Lots of room/chamber. Lots of realistic space around everything. "Old school" doesn't have to be fucked up and weird.

[biasvoltage]

Use a Fender or Rickenbacker bass with FLATWOUND strings. And tell the guitar player to leave all his pedals at home!

You could also hire Hal Blaine, Carol Kaye and Joe Osborn to play on your record....

[nobody, really]

something about 60's records that sticks out to me, if I was to think about it, which I am, is how un-balanced the mixes are. like there's this one element that always sticks out, and it's unique to the song. it's like something that identifies the song. it's cool and rare to hear that on modern records. that kind of mixing takes balls, i think. john goodmanson comes to mind....

[jgimbel]

something about 60's records that sticks out to me, if I was to think about it, which I am, is how un-balanced the mixes are. like there's this one element that always sticks out, and it's unique to the song. it's like something that identifies the song. it's cool and rare to hear that on modern records. that kind of mixing takes balls, i think. john goodmanson comes to mind....

Love that. Now and then I make videos on Youtube. Often they're recording techniques or demos, but sometimes I do covers, or put up videos from recording sessions here. I do like to do things that are less traditional, and even when I do something like distorting vocals a bit, or having toms less than blaring in a mix, I'll get 100 comments of people telling me "hey idiot your vocals are distorted, you don't know how to record". Granted, Youtube is a forum for morons to spout their daily hate, but even if you ignore the way dicks word things and just look straight at the group thing, people are so used to listening to crappy, homogenized music that they think anything other than that is wrong. Always amazing to me how close-minded people can be today, when the recordings they claim to have grown up on have much more variety than they seem to be able to handle. I have a video on drum recording techniques and in it I don't have a res head on my kick because I was recording a song with pretty dead drums before doing the video, and I can't tell you how many comments I've gotten about how you can't do that, and that a drum without a front head is just something an idiot would do.

Mixing like that takes balls, but also the ability to ignore probably the majority of people today that can't understand that not everything needs to be exactly the same as everything else. I'm glad to be a younger guy that doesn't fall into that group, and always happy to meet others who are like-minded in that regard!

[Dr Rubberfunk]

something about 60's records that sticks out to me, if I was to think about it, which I am, is how un-balanced the mixes are. like there's this one element that always sticks out, and it's unique to the song. it's like something that identifies the song. it's cool and rare to hear that on modern records. that kind of mixing takes balls, i think. john goodmanson comes to mind....

Yes, definitely this - massively upfront tambourines for example, a favourite of mine!

Great thread, and lots of useful knowledge being dropped (as ever!)
I thought I might add some of my own experiences, as the OP is in the UK, and EV 635s aren't littering the streets over here unfortunately but I've had great results with cheap dynamics that are a bit more common over here from AKG (D130 / 230 - nice omnis) & Beyer (M550 LM for example) in a variety of situations, on guitar, drums, even hanging down the back of my upright piano. Plus if you're looking to pick up some drums for the studio, I'd recommend looking for an Olympic or Premier (or any of the older British companies - Ajax, Edgeware, Carlton, Beverley etc) kit from the 60's / 70's - great drums, thin shells, small sizes, record really well with 2 mics ...


And, hoping that the thread can keep it's tongue firmly in it's cheek, and appreciating that ???????'s post above about fidelity is spot on, for those that maybe haven't seen them, is it appropriate to link to the Gabe Roth 'Shitty Is Pretty' articles from 2000 again?

http://www.funkydown.com/downloads/shitty1.pdf
http://www.funkydown.com/downloads/shitty2.pdf
Bit of Friday afternoon fun, if nothing else

[???????]

something about 60's records that sticks out to me, if I was to think about it, which I am, is how un-balanced the mixes are. like there's this one element that always sticks out, and it's unique to the song. it's like something that identifies the song. it's cool and rare to hear that on modern records. that kind of mixing takes balls, i think. john goodmanson comes to mind....

One of my absolute favorite examples of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTLwDh3Dr4E

Rare B-side, with the funkiest tambourine I've ever heard, and it's louder than the whole rhythm section by the end of the song. And I'm so glad, because it's absolutely carrying the groove of the track.

[Dominick Costanzo]

The gear matters so little.
You don't need an EV 635 or a Rick or a vintage Fender Deluxe or a UA console or tube pre's to make it happen.
You need a good song, good arrangement and good musicians.
Please! There are so many gear options these days (compared to the '60's).
Having only Chinese mics and an MBox is not a limiting factor.
Back then we used U47's BECAUSE THEY WERE THERE!
Not because it was a U47, but because it got the job done.
If yo didn't have one u you used what you had.
Countless great records were made with crappy gear.
Countless crappy records were made with great gear.

In order of importance,
Song
Arrangement
Musicians
Gear

[jkelly222]

The gear matters so little.
You don't need an EV 635 or a Rick or a vintage Fender Deluxe or a UA console or tube pre's to make it happen.
You need a good song, good arrangement and good musicians.
Please! There are so many gear options these days (compared to the '60's).
Having only Chinese mics and an MBox is not a limiting factor.
Back then we used U47's BECAUSE THEY WERE THERE!
Not because it was a U47, but because it got the job done.
If yo didn't have one u you used what you had.
Countless great records were made with crappy gear.
Countless crappy records were made with great gear.

In order of importance,
Song
Arrangement
Musicians
Gear

I agree with the order of importance. I do think the gear is crucial though. Getting the sound you want with the instruments, amps, rooms and the musicians is the most important part. From there you can do a lot with just about any recording set up. If it sounds good in person it's more likely to transfer to a good sounding recording.