The sound of vintage recordings

famous beagle

Well-known member
I wasn’t sure where to put this, but I chose not to put it in the Analog forum because I felt as though I would probably get a slanted response. Since the question deals with the aesthetics of music today vs. years ago, I figured this was as good of a place as any.

I’ve read a lot of posts where, when people have maybe asked how they thought a tone had been achieved on a vintage record, someone has said something along the lines of, “But, would anybody really want to get that sound nowadays? I mean, they did they best they could back then, but we’ve come a long way since then!”

This got me thinking that maybe I’m in the minority because, when I hear that question (“Would you want that sound today?”), my response is unabashedly hell yes! One of the biggest reasons I love those old Motown records and such is simply because I love the sound of all the instruments. I certainly enjoy---and many times dig the shit out of---the music as well, but the sound is just as much of the appeal to me. Jazz is a perfect example in this regard. I like some jazz---not all---but I almost always love the sounds---the drums, the horns, etc.---on an old jazz record.

It’s funny because I hear a lot of drummers talking about how they don’t like the sound of drums on vintage records because you can’t hear everything, etc. But the drum sounds on those are one of my favorite things about them! :)

So I was just wondering how others felt about this. Do you view those old recordings as “the best they could do at the time” or do you view them as sounding killer, regardless of when they were made. I realize this is a huge generalization, because in the late 60s, for example, a Motown record had a very different sound than a Beatles record. But to give you an idea of the sound I’m talking about, here’s a tune that I feel captures it well. It’s a song where everything comes together for me: the sound, the song, and the performances.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSxbMm40KzM

Keep in mind I’m not saying that I don’t like the sounds of any modern recordings. I do. But my point is that I do not at all view the sounds of those vintage records as “ok for the time.” The sound of them is one of the primary reasons I enjoy them!
 
We all relate to the stuff we've come up on, there's that. But in addition, as a recordist and musician, I flat out revel in delving into the why and how the songs and production going into them differ, what makes them work' so well!
I'll add one thing- they didn't 'get there w/o great; band, material, you can go way back and the record qualities are a) just great thank you very much, and/or b) realize 'pristine / perfect record qualities -for most music, is NOT what made for a 'great track'.
You can go back to some mono, youtube', and hear things that come through fantastic, with simple phat tones, arrangements etc.. I take from it 'this' what have you- How can I apply this (these..) perspectives to make my tracks work so well.
 
Last edited:
My band have this problem, but from the other side - we recreate (the adverts shout loudly) the authentic sound of the original band, but the authentic sound is often muddy and indistinct - the bass, especially. Often played with the thumb - it's a pretty drum like mostly - as in du, duh, duh - and even working out what note it is is sometimes tricky. Drums are often light and snare heavy, with top end metalwork prominent. It gives us a problem - be authentic and produce that sound, or add in the missing bits for a more contemporary, and perhaps acceptable sound. We sometimes decide the song would be better, and then we disagree about how much. The original recordings wouldn't stretch a medium priced hifi in dynamics and frequency response. Should we tinker because we can? Is hopefully a better sounding recording the aim, when the original people spent so much effort getting it to how we remember it? Would they have gone further if the equipment had allowed it? Difficult one!
 
The song, the performance, the nostalgia and sometimes the sound, but not the recordings. I'll listen to some old stuff and the LCR panning schemes make it difficult to enjoy. I like a nice full sound where I'm engulfed by a brass section, or the bass is in my face. Reverb comes at me from all sides and the guitar and piano are battling it out on either side. I listen to Herb Alpert pretty often and think how much better it would sound if recorded today (and not squashed to death in the mastering process!!)

Not sure if that is exactly what you're talking about, but it's my two cents.... lol. :o
 
The song, the performance, the nostalgia and sometimes the sound, but not the recordings. I'll listen to some old stuff and the LCR panning schemes make it difficult to enjoy. I like a nice full sound where I'm engulfed by a brass section, or the bass is in my face. Reverb comes at me from all sides and the guitar and piano are battling it out on either side. I listen to Herb Alpert pretty often and think how much better it would sound if recorded today (and not squashed to death in the mastering process!!)

Not sure if that is exactly what you're talking about, but it's my two cents.... lol. :o
Excuse me? Answer me this. Just WHO exactally the hell 'squashed to death' 'Herb Alpert!?

:D

'They' didn't. That.. is somebody else's finger prints my friend :)
 
Excuse me? Answer me this. Just WHO exactally the hell 'squashed to death' 'Herb Alpert!?

:D

'They' didn't. That.. is somebody else's finger prints my friend :)

No no no, you misread what I was saying.... or I didn't say it clearly enough. I would enjoy Herb Alpert's music more IF they recorded with contemporary methods minus the "squash it to death" mentality. Yeah, that reads a little better.
 
I have a deep interest in creating older sounding recordings, but little understanding or patience to make it work right. In the last year, I've added a nice preamp to my chain where if I crank it, I can hear some of that old timey gain...but I find myself defaulting to a more modern sounding signal and mix.

I started a thread a while back titled something like "When to Break the Rules"... I didn't get a whole lot of responses, but I was kinda looking for an open discussion on when people here decidedly make something sound less hi-fi than they could. I'm currently recording a demo for my new band in the punk/garage vein, and I'm finding ways to grit things up such as reamping vocal tracks through tube amps w/ overdrive. However, that's more of an attempt to make it dirty rather than vintage sounding. I'm curious to see how this thread plays out!
 
No no no, you misread what I was saying.... or I didn't say it clearly enough. I would enjoy Herb Alpert's music more IF they recorded with contemporary methods minus the "squash it to death" mentality. Yeah, that reads a little better.
Got 'cha! :) Yeah that's a whole dif animal'.
 
I have a deep interest in creating older sounding recordings, but little understanding or patience to make it work right. In the last year, I've added a nice preamp to my chain where if I crank it, I can hear some of that old timey gain...but I find myself defaulting to a more modern sounding signal and mix.

I started a thread a while back titled something like "When to Break the Rules"... I didn't get a whole lot of responses, but I was kinda looking for an open discussion on when people here decidedly make something sound less hi-fi than they could. I'm currently recording a demo for my new band in the punk/garage vein, and I'm finding ways to grit things up such as reamping vocal tracks through tube amps w/ overdrive. However, that's more of an attempt to make it dirty rather than vintage sounding. I'm curious to see how this thread plays out!
Yes this turn out very interesting indeed. Can't now, but to say I think a lot has to do with some of the very direct and 'focused recording, and mixes. That's to say way more than the notion of 'warm 'cozy tones' of old. :)
 
I’ve read a lot of posts where, when people have maybe asked how they thought a tone had been achieved on a vintage record, someone has said something along the lines of, “But, would anybody really want to get that sound nowadays? I mean, they did they best they could back then, but we’ve come a long way since then!”

This got me thinking that maybe I’m in the minority because, when I hear that question (“Would you want that sound today?”), my response is unabashedly hell yes! One of the biggest reasons I love those old Motown records and such is simply because I love the sound of all the instruments. I certainly enjoy---and many times dig the shit out of---the music as well, but the sound is just as much of the appeal to me. Jazz is a perfect example in this regard. I like some jazz---not all---but I almost always love the sounds---the drums, the horns, etc.---on an old jazz record.

It’s funny because I hear a lot of drummers talking about how they don’t like the sound of drums on vintage records because you can’t hear everything, etc. But the drum sounds on those are one of my favorite things about them! :)

So I was just wondering how others felt about this.

I'm the exact same way, and I do think nostalgia plays a big part.
 
The song, the performance, the nostalgia and sometimes the sound, but not the recordings. I'll listen to some old stuff and the LCR panning schemes make it difficult to enjoy. I like a nice full sound where I'm engulfed by a brass section, or the bass is in my face. Reverb comes at me from all sides and the guitar and piano are battling it out on either side. I listen to Herb Alpert pretty often and think how much better it would sound if recorded today (and not squashed to death in the mastering process!!)

Not sure if that is exactly what you're talking about, but it's my two cents.... lol. :o

This is exactly what I was talking about, so thanks for the input! :) So I guess you're firmly camped in the "did the best with what they could" corner.
 
I'm the exact same way, and I do think nostalgia plays a big part.

I'm nostalgic for sure, although, since I was in '72, I missed all this stuff when it originally came around. My parents listened to some ABBA, Kenny Rogers, Pink Floyd (I think only The Wall), and Steve Winwood while I was growing up (and I'm pretty sure I remember a Village People record!), but they didn't really have anything from the sixties to early seventies. I think the first vintage music I discovered on my own was the Beatles, and from then on, I found my way to other greats like Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles, Roberta Flack, etc.

So, while I can't claim to remember that music back in the day, I yearn for the sound and vibe all the time. I also have a huge love for 60s fashion---particularly furniture and design. I like 70s stuff too, and I do have first-hand nostalgia for that.
 
Ah jeez, the playback systems of the time varied so drastically that you could hardly tell what was the recording and what was the sound of the system. The brash rhythm guitar sound on that Stevie Wonder recording would have been mellowed by the truncated HF response of many systems. A lot of that stuff sounded better then on contemporary portable record players than they do now on modern stereo systems.
 
Would they have gone further if the equipment had allowed it? Difficult one!

Great question ... one I think about a lot. I think a lot about things like restrictions and option anxiety. You'll hear some analog purists say things like, "The Beatles didn't need 108 tracks and a parametric EQ on every one. They did Sgt. Pepper's on a 4-track!" But what they don't forget is that the Beatles were operating at the cutting edge of recording during their time. They loved to use new gadgets and experiment with new techniques. So how would that translate if the Beatles were working today? We'll never know, certainly, but I think it's clear that insisting that they wouldn't use "any of that digital shit" is not a comment that will likely hold a lot of water.

And just for the record, I'm an analog guy myself, but I'm not a purist or a snob about it. I think someone should use whichever tool they'd like to create the music they want.
 
Ah jeez, the playback systems of the time varied so drastically that you could hardly tell what was the recording and what was the sound of the system. The brash rhythm guitar sound on that Stevie Wonder recording would have been mellowed by the truncated HF response of many systems. A lot of that stuff sounded better then on contemporary portable record players than they do now on modern stereo systems.

That's another good point for sure. However, I still love the sound of even that digital version of Stevie's tune I posted above.
 
Great question ... one I think about a lot. I think a lot about things like restrictions and option anxiety. You'll hear some analog purists say things like, "The Beatles didn't need 108 tracks and a parametric EQ on every one. They did Sgt. Pepper's on a 4-track!" But what they don't forget is that the Beatles were operating at the cutting edge of recording during their time. They loved to use new gadgets and experiment with new techniques. So how would that translate if the Beatles were working today? We'll never know, certainly, but I think it's clear that insisting that they wouldn't use "any of that digital shit" is not a comment that will likely hold a lot of water.

And just for the record, I'm an analog guy myself, but I'm not a purist or a snob about it. I think someone should use whichever tool they'd like to create the music they want.

They used two Studer 4-track machines because the studio wouldn't spend the money on the newer 8-track machines that other studios were getting. George Martin envied those other studios and would totally have used an 8-track instead of the pair of Studers if he had the option.
 
I'm not too sure on this topic.
While 'modern' recording sounds good, I think sometimes it's a bit unrealistic and artificial.

Everything is as loud as everything else. Seems the goal is to clearly hear every instrument. Even if it's an egg shaker.
Nothing is supposed to be buried.

I also think more emphasis is placed on the 'fidelity' of the recording rather than the quality of the song.

Nostalgia or not, there were many more enduring songs from the past than there are today.

Now there is lots of 'well recorded' music that in 20 years time will be forgotten.

People are sold this concept of new and 'improved' and to some degree brainwashed into things not complying with the new 'standard' as being 'dated'.

Kind of derogatory.

So, i don't know. Not really defending the old or wanting to critisize the new.
No one is better or worse.

But the song is really what matters.
 
Took my lunch break just after reading this thread, and the song below came on the radio...got me thinking about this topic. This is a brand new single! Both artists' bodies of work heavily feature a vintage sound to the production, and I absolutely love it!! The guest vocalist, Leon Bridges hails from very near to me (and famous beagle). I personally love it when I find out an old sounding song I've been digging is actually a new recording. There's something cool about being able to fully capture the essence of decades-old musical styles. What do you guys think about this? If this song was pristine and polished, I don't think it would have the character that I find compelling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83eyUuL8fFk
 
Took my lunch break just after reading this thread, and the song below came on the radio...got me thinking about this topic. This is a brand new single! Both artists' bodies of work heavily feature a vintage sound to the production, and I absolutely love it!! The guest vocalist, Leon Bridges hails from very near to me (and famous beagle). I personally love it when I find out an old sounding song I've been digging is actually a new recording. There's something cool about being able to fully capture the essence of decades-old musical styles. What do you guys think about this? If this song was pristine and polished, I don't think it would have the character that I find compelling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83eyUuL8fFk

I hear lots of modern eq and compression technique on that track. To me it's like a PT Cruiser vs. a '46 Plymouth Woody. But it's still a good track, and I like it better than all the untz-untz stuff that's popular these days.

Have you heard Nathaniel Rateliff & the Night Sweats? It's original but very much inspired by vintage soul/R&B.
 
Back
Top