famous beagle
Well-known member
I have to chuckle a little here when you mention the Beatles as having a "vintage sound". I would suggest that you check out recordings by Elmore James, Big Mama Thorton, Billie Holiday, The Ink Spots, Robert Johnson then you will get an idea of real vintage. Also listen to Crosby,Stills and Nash's first album then listen to the second one and ask yourself "what do I hear?" Moving on...
I agree with Miroslav completely on this point. As an "old geezer" pushing 70 I grew up listening to the recordings of the day and even then it was apparent that the recordings reflected the available technologies of the day. I was a fan of motown and Phil Spector's "wall of sound" back in those days. Where the initial instrument tracks were all recorded in one one room of a group playing the music live. The combination of the energy of the live recording and mic bleed as opposed to single tracking each instrument to a pristine track is a huge difference in itself. Adding vocals and other instrument tracks later did not detract from the live vibe . Also using stairwells, live empty rooms or hallways for reverb instead of some vst or outboard hardware is another factor to that vintage sound. Tape has it's sound as do consoles that use tubes and transformers. Mic placement techniques or lack of also contributed to some of those recordings.
While most of us don't have the resources to "buy into" all of that old gear or have a studio, I've found that going back to recording live sessions with groups as opposed to layering parts brings back a lot of that vintage vibe.
Thanks for the input! I've definitely heard lots of recordings by Elmore James, Robert Johnson, Billy Holiday, Louis Armstrong, Big Bill Broonzy (what a voice!), and many artists from the 40s, etc. Those Robert Johnson recordings are simply soul-stirring, especially "Come on in My Kitchen" ("can't you hear that wind howl" ... amazing stuff) and "Hellhound on My Trail." But just because you're older than I am doesn't mean that the 1960s shouldn't be considered vintage in the year 2016. A record from 1966 is fifty years old now. That's not vintage?
I mean, someone who's 80 could come along to you and say, "I get a chuckle when I hear you refer to Robert Johnson as 'vintage.' You should go back and listen to some W.C. Handy or Mamie Smith recordings if you want to hear a vintage sound. Or better yet, listen to the 1889 recording by Brahms!" In other words, there's always a bigger fish.
I'm not saying I can't relate, because I get a bit of a chuckle when I hear people refer to the 90s (either in gear or music) as vintage. But I was born in 72, and I have no problem with people referring to the 70s as vintage. Even the early 80s, IMO, can pass as vintage to me. I guess you and I just have a different idea of what that word means. I kind of think of it as around a minimum 30-year cutoff.