60s/70s recordings

nyarlothothep

Its strange but the quality varies so much on older records. For example, Jimi Hendrix Vodoo Child (the long version) sounds pretty decent but on the same record you have Little Miss Strange, which is very distorted, or for example Long Hot Summer Night which is even worse in sound quality. Its similar for Led Zeppelin, some tracks sound fine but then the vocals on The Rover sound very weak and distorted, the guitar playing is a bit dodgy towards the end too!

Contrast this to Pink Floyds or Queens recordings which sound consistently pristine and the question why do established artists like Zep sound terrible in comparison?

PaulBrewer

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Its strange but the quality varies so much on older records. For example, Jimi Hendrix Vodoo Child (the long version) sounds pretty decent but on the same record you have Little Miss Strange, which is very distorted, or for example Long Hot Summer Night which is even worse in sound quality. Its similar for Led Zeppelin, some tracks sound fine but then the vocals on The Rover sound very weak and distorted, the guitar playing is a bit dodgy towards the end too!

Contrast this to Pink Floyds or Queens recordings which sound consistently pristine and the question why do established artists like Zep sound terrible in comparison?

I always thought the Stones stuff sounded well tatty...

BumbleB

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Its strange but the quality varies so much on older records. For example, Jimi Hendrix Vodoo Child (the long version) sounds pretty decent but on the same record you have Little Miss Strange, which is very distorted, or for example Long Hot Summer Night which is even worse in sound quality. Its similar for Led Zeppelin, some tracks sound fine but then the vocals on The Rover sound very weak and distorted, the guitar playing is a bit dodgy towards the end too!

Contrast this to Pink Floyds or Queens recordings which sound consistently pristine and the question why do established artists like Zep sound terrible in comparison?

or in the beatles records where sometimes bass is panned left and vocals right, weird !!

Heinlein

It was probably the equipment: all sides of the music business - musicians, producers and fans - cared less about the quality because it wasn't unusual to listen to the N-th copy of a recording on a terrible tape recorder back in the day. (Should I say it wasn't illegal to make copies.) What mattered more was the music and the message. Vinyls were basically superior to tapes, but they physically were fading away quickly as you listened to them.

One prominent figure on the rock scene was Alan Parsons who engineered "Abbey Road" and "Dark Side Of The Moon". Many followed this high standard later.

And then cheap digital equipment came into play leaving you no chance to be less than perfect.

Latchy

BumbleB wrote: »

or in the beatles records where sometimes bass is panned left and vocals right, weird !!

That is very noticeable and I think it might have being to get the best stereo sound at the time .The early beatles records were recorded on 4 track .Then they moved onto 8 and on sgt pepper they had 12 track which allowed more overdubing .
.

PaulBrewer

BumbleB wrote: »

or in the beatles records where sometimes bass is panned left and vocals right, weird !!

The story regarding that (and I have no confirmation of it) is that the original masters were band on one side and vocals on the other and that it was George Martin's plan to balance those vocals at mastering which I believe was the case on first release.

The norm was mono pop records in those days.

When those masters were re released ( I recall those Red and Blue Collections) they got mastered as was!

That's the sceal I heard anyways ...

nyarlothothep

Latchy wrote: »

That is very noticeable and I think it might have being to get the best stereo sound at the time .The early beatles records were recorded on 4 track .Then they moved onto 8 and on sgt pepper they had 12 track which allowed more overdubing .
.

I liked that hard panning in a way. Its weird and awkward but it doesn't feature on many records which gives it appeal.

120_Minutes

it waas the drugs man, those sweet sweet drugs....

Latchy

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I liked that hard panning in a way. Its weird and awkward but it doesn't feature on many records which gives it appeal.

Yes very appealing .The Revolver album was were the over dubbing and experimentation began and is sometimes refered to as ' son of pepper ' But the previous album 'Rubber Soul ' is the perfect example of that early stero sound on all the tracks .As other poster said , George Martin seperated the vocals on one side ,instruments on the other which gave us that crisp wide sound.

jtsuited

yeah Alan Parsons really raised the bar.

If any of you have seen the making of Dark Side of the Moon dvd, you'll have seen the bit where he goes through the multitracks of some of the songs, soloing tracks, bringing faders up etc. and explaining what he did.

The amazing thing is you realise how sparse that record (my alltime favourite album btw) is. Lots of space, things kept simple, direct and to the point.

Agree with the drugs comment too. Some of the stories you hear about Steely Dan, the Eagles, etc. really make you wonder what kind of state they were in making these great records. I'm sure the occasional dodgy mix was released because coked up superstars made that call (and really dug the vibe, man).

PaulBrewer

Latchy wrote: »

Yes very appealing .The Revolver album was were the over dubbing and experimentation began and is sometimes refered to as ' son of pepper ' But the previous album 'Rubber Soul ' is the perfect example of that early stero sound on all the tracks .As other poster said , George Martin seperated the vocals on one side ,instruments on the other which gave us that crisp wide sound.

I'm not sure I made myself clear -

The intention was to cut mono master blended from the 2 track one, NOT release the vocal on one side, music on the other one.

Heinlein

120_Minutes wrote: »

it waas the drugs man, those sweet sweet drugs....

Some (just some) drugs can make you very picky about the sound though. I mean, very, very sensitive and picky. Right? Seriously, I wonder why didn't acid make some of the rock bands of the 70's produce more neat sound.

Latchy

PaulBrewer wrote: »

I'm not sure I made myself clear -

The intention was to cut mono master blended from the 2 track one, NOT release the vocal on one side, music on the other one.

Yes that came later with the read and blue albums release's .I am talking about the original recording session at rubber soul , with mikes placed on instruments as well as vocalists .Were as before it was just one mono ( all in one ) sound . They were seperated to give that high steroe sound. The Beatles engineer at the time was Geoff Emirick .He along with Martin is responsible for getting that unique Beatle sound.

Latchy

Heinlein wrote: »

Some (just some) drugs can make you very picky about the sound though. I mean, very, very sensitive and picky. Right? Seriously, I wonder why didn't acid make some of the rock bands of the 70's produce more neat sound.

Their brians were fried up .Getting out of bed was a mjor hassle ie, brian jones , kieth moon , syd barret,etc . Even john lennons brain was fried from acid and it showed in a lot of his later , post beatle recordings . .

madtheory

PaulBrewer wrote: »

The story regarding that (and I have no confirmation of it) is that the original masters were band on one side and vocals on the other and that it was George Martin's plan to balance those vocals at mastering which I believe was the case on first release.

The norm was mono pop records in those days.

When those masters were re released ( I recall those Red and Blue Collections) they got mastered as was!

That's the sceal I heard anyways ...

That's what George Martin said, but actually, he forgot that he did put those out as the stereo mixes, Abbey road Tape logs back that up. No Beatle was ever present for a stereo mix, with the exception of Abbey Road album. So yes, mono is where it's at, if you want to hear the artist's vision. The Beatles remasters due in September includes a boxed set of all the mono mixes. Some major differences, even one or two lyrical, such as Help.

It's all in the amazing book "recording the Beatles".

As for the OP, I still hear albums with major differences from track to track, such as the Mylo album. It's all down to the production team. Some people are just better at it than others, and the most talented artists/ bands don't always work with the best production teams, and vice versa.

PaulBrewer

madtheory wrote: »

That's what George Martin said, but actually, he forgot that he did put those out as the stereo mixes, Abbey road Tape logs back that up. No Beatle was ever present for a stereo mix, with the exception of Abbey Road album. So yes, mono is where it's at, if you want to hear the artist's vision. The Beatles remasters due in September includes a boxed set of all the mono mixes. Some major differences, even one or two lyrical, such as Help.

It's all in the amazing book "recording the Beatles".

Interesting. I must get that book!

madtheory

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Interesting. I must get that book!

I recommend it. It's feckin' fantastic.

PaulBrewer

madtheory wrote: »

I recommend it. It's feckin' fantastic.

Tweeky spoke of it before. I suppose it does chronicle the birth of pop and pop recording.

BumbleB

PaulBrewer wrote: »

The story regarding that (and I have no confirmation of it) is that the original masters were band on one side and vocals on the other and that it was George Martin's plan to balance those vocals at mastering which I believe was the case on first release.

The norm was mono pop records in those days.

When those masters were re released ( I recall those Red and Blue Collections) they got mastered as was!

That's the sceal I heard anyways ...

I heard (on SOS) that also engineers were doing stereo mixes then but only maybe spending a day or two on them because they weren't really all that important.Actually a perfect example of this is Paperback Writer .

PaulBrewer

BumbleB wrote: »

I heard (on SOS) that also engineers were doing stereo mixes then but only maybe spending a day or two on them because they weren't really all that important.Actually a perfect example of this is Paperback Writer .

A day or two ? With 4 tracks? ..... more like an hour or two!

BumbleB

PaulBrewer wrote: »

A day or two ? With 4 tracks? ..... more like an hour or two!

I think it was a day.

PaulBrewer

BumbleB wrote: »

I think it was a day.

as in a 4 track machine .... not 4 songs!

madtheory

Paul's right. Definitely not a day. It's a four track! The mix is pretty much locked on tape, live performance and limited bouncing. They tracked with effects, did you know that? For example, reverb and echo applied. An hour or two for the mono mix, maybe three of four if there was editing to do. The stereo mix was done after the band left, an hour for that at most. A whole day just for a mix didn't happen until 16 track.

jtsuited

madtheory wrote: »

Paul's right. Definitely not a day. It's a four track! The mix is pretty much locked on tape, live performance and limited bouncing. They tracked with effects, did you know that? For example, reverb and echo applied. An hour or two for the mono mix, maybe three of four if there was editing to do. The stereo mix was done after the band left, an hour for that at most. A whole day just for a mix didn't happen until 16 track.

it's incredible to think about the processes back then versus the audio capabilities of your iphone nowadays.

as far as i know there are one or two producers nowadays who insist on printing tracks with effects as early as possible just so they commit.

Stephen Street is one I know of who took that approach with the Cranberries first album (if the story I've been told by one of the engineers on that album is to be believed).