Carol Kaye and Richard Davis (Van Morrison's Astral Weeks) are probably my two favorite bass players.
Famous Beagle, I was thinking about this thread a bit tonight, and what you're reflecting on is a lot like Iceberg Theory.
Tonight I was listening to mainstream recordings from the 40s, like the crooners, and realized I want to hear more detail. The backing bands are faint and there is crackling and you just can't make out much detail. Modern recordings have too much detail. It is like dating a beautiful girl and looking at her from 10ft away, but when you get in too close you see she has fine lines, blackheads, grey hairs, and other flaws. That's what a modern recording is like -- a girl up close and you owning eagle eyes. As a listener, I don't need to hear the finger moving on a string and every other fine detail. I think the reason you like those 60s and 70s recordings so much is b/c they are somewhere in between the extremes. Like you hear good detail...but not everything. The omission (iceberg theory) lets the brain wander and interpret or invent things that are missing. So they're balanced between dullness and extreme clarity, and humans tend to like balance.
I dunno. It's pretty interesting. Definitely I feel that you can give a listener too much detail...leaving things to the imagination or interpretation is a strong tactic. I have heard some modern recordings where that extreme clarity and detail work, but they're more the exception imo, and in general are more sparse mixes.
Very interesting! I agree there is something to that for sure. And yes, the 60s, for the most part, kind of represent the perfect amount of above-water iceberg to me. That's not to say I don't like any recording where things are close-miked, etc. I
love me some of the old Tom Petty production, for example, like "Breakdown." I like some of his later songs, but the Jeff Lynne productions are less appealing to me. Although some later albums kind of returned to a more vintage flavor and aren't as glossy.
You hear a lot of people say (even in this thread it's been brought up) that a big part of that sound was just having the band in the room playing together. And I'm sure that is a huge part of that sound. What's funny is that, even though I'd heard that before, I've never really tried it. I came up cutting my teeth on home recording in the late 80s, and by then close-miking everything had been well-established for a long time. And so that's how I learned to record, and that's been my default mode since then.
Of course, in my defense, I often record as a one-man operation. I also don't usually have access to a nice, big, good-sounding studio room either. Any time that I've ever tried recording "a band all in a room playing" has basically just been throwing up a little mic to record a band rehearsal, most often in a home living room or a small, crappy rehearsal studio space, and it usually sounds pretty crappy. (It serves its purpose, which is to document a rehearsal, but it's usually not something I listen to for the joy of the tones or anything.)
I'd love the opportunity to try out the full-band recording method at some point, but I don't know if it'll happen. Several things have to come together: a well-rehearsed band, material worth recording, a place to do it, the funds to do it (if that place is a studio that has to be rented), and a consensus within the band that this is the sound we want. Seems like a lot to hope for. Who knows? Until then, I'll just keep doing what I do. I may try to partially implement what I can, when I can, to see what effect I get. For example, when I have my drummer friend come out again (the one who played on "Standard Protocol," the most recent song I had in the mp3 clinic), maybe I'll try to just record he and I (me on bass) with two microphones to see what happens. I don't know.
The good news is that I usually have fun experimenting regardless of whether or not the results are keepers or not.
