The sound of vintage recordings

thesoundtek said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Yes, there are terms, like "vintage" or "classic" that have pretty variable connotations. A '90 Diablo is a classic auto to some...
 
Well, to me it is not "age" that is vintage but the technology?

The Beatles and George Martin "straddle" the changes in technologies. Much is made of "valve sound" but in fact a great deal of the Abbey Road kit was transistorized. Tape was getting more and more tracks.

Then there is a big splodge of water to consider! Over here, capacitor mics were very common for classical recording (especially sur le continent) and this fed in I think to broadcast and jazz recording? 'Tother side of the Pond, dynamics held greater sway. Of course "we" had the delicious STC 4038!

Dave.
 
famous beagle said:
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?
Click to expand...

Right.

Every generation kinda moves the lines a bit AFA what it focuses on as "vintage"...though IMO, with regards to recording, I think the lines are somewhat more specific, and seem to revolve around technology and major direction changes in Rock/Pop music.

The technology definitely created some different periods of "vintage. Sure, it was/is almost a constant, steady evolution, but there were milestones that marked more obvious changes in the equipment, and where the old was somewhat pushed to the back and new gear took over...which then eventually made that old gear "vintage"...and then the cycle repeated again at some point.
You look at the real early days of recording...mono tape decks, minimalist mixing/processing...that's some real old vintage stuff. Then came the multi-tracks and the stereo mix-downs...and then the real "golden years" of tape recording with the super-high end machines and huge studio consoles, and outboard processing...and then the digital age started creeping in, and it too has had several "revisions", though rarely does anyone even talk about "vintage" digital gear.
I think all of that is in the "vintage" column...but with various era's and categories.

There was also the music, that somewhat followed the technical changes, like when multi-track recording became available, it provided new ways of doing music...same thing we have now with digital...but also, a lot of music changes where initiated and influenced by outside factors. People's views about life changed in big ways at certain points of history, and so did the music. Those periods also seem to create different views on what people think of as "vintage" or "old-school".

All that said...I think there are two really large periods in the history of Pop/Rock music recording, and the broad line in-between them dictates what most people view as vintage VS modern...and that, IMO, would be the analog/tape days, the "golden years"...and the more prevalent digital recording explosion.
Yeah...there's also a lot of blur there...and nothing happened overnight...but one could safely call anything from the analog tape days as "vintage".
Still, when people talk about getting some retro/vintage sound in their recordings today...they need to be more specific, since there is a difference in getting a '50s Rock sound VS a '70s Rock sound...but both can be called retro/vintage.
 
Technically true....but I think with audio gear, it's become a much more broader term.

If someone today says, "His studio was loaded with nothing but vintage audio gear"...most audio guys immediately envision a studio with tape decks anywhere from the '60s to the '80s, big-ass consoles probably from the '70s-'80s, and lots of expensive mics manufactured in the '50s-'60s. :)

So it's a broad term when describing audio. With that one word, I think you could be talking about anything from the '50s up to the ''90s.

With the '90s...you start getting heavily into the whole MIDI thing, and then digital audio...etc....so it's hard to think of that as old or "vintage"....though the keyboard guys might say differently. :D
 
bouldersoundguy said:
Right, next you'll tell me "bad" sometimes means "good".
Click to expand...

Forgive me if you're being facetious. I can't tell.

part of speech: adjective
definition 1: of wine, of a specified vintage.
The wine list offered a number of expensive vintage wines.
definition 2: embodying the high style of a past era; classic.
The historical society is proud of its collection of vintage crystal on display at the museum.
She found an 80s dress at the vintage clothing store.
definition 3: representing the best or most characteristic of something.
This novel is vintage Faulkner.
definition 4: outdated; antiquated.
They're still using vintage methods of language teaching at that school
 
@ bouldersoundguy's post

Actually yes. There was a recent time (maybe vintage now) where if someone said "thats bad" it meant it was good. :)
Or more recently someone saying "thats sick" meant good.
:D
 
RFR said:
@ bouldersoundguy's post

Actually yes. There was a recent time (maybe vintage now) where if someone said "thats bad" it meant it was good. :)
Or more recently someone saying "thats sick" meant good.
:D
Click to expand...

Of course! It's been that way for a long time and will likely stay that way for a good while. ("He's a bad m*tha f*cka," etc.)

But I wasn't sure if he was being serious or not, so I wanted to find out before talking about what "defines" a "definition." :)
 
famous beagle said:
Of course! It's been that way for a long time and will likely stay that way for a good while. ("He's a bad m*tha f*cka," etc.)


But I wasn't sure if he was being serious or not, so I wanted to find out before talking about what "defines" a "definition." :)
Click to expand...

True.....but, to some degree 'bad' has dropped off as a way of describing something being good.
Whereas "He's a bad MFer" comes from 'bad ass' which is a bit different than 'bad' meaning good.
:D

But back to vintage. Did a recording with a yamaha dx7 and a pair of a adats once. By many that is considered 'vintage' :D
 
RFR said:
True.....but, to some degree 'bad' has dropped off as a way of describing something being good.
Whereas "He's a bad MFer" comes from 'bad ass' which is a bit different than 'bad' meaning good.
:D

But back to vintage. Did a recording with a yamaha dx7 and a pair of a adats once. By many that is considered 'vintage' :D
Click to expand...

True!

I think the term can change and the applicable window can adjust depending on how long something has been around and/or how quickly the technology has evolved. Synths, for example, weren't even around until the 60s---at least the ones that were used in pop music---therefore I think people generally don't have a problem referring to 80s synths at vintage. And, like Miro said earlier, the clear delineation between analog and digital synths makes for a nice boundary as well.

Take personal computers, for example. I don't think most people would have a problem describing an old Apple IIe as a "vintage" computer, yet it's barely over 30 years old.
 
I recorded on a commodore 64 too. Lol:D

That one got thrown off the deck once. The ground below was about 20 feet away.

I'll tell you this, that computer never froze up on me again! Didn't work anymore either. :D

I promptly went back to analog.

May still have some sessions on floppy disc somewhere
 
RFR said:
I recorded on a commodore 64 too. Lol:D

That one got thrown off the deck once. The ground below was about 20 feet away.

I'll tell you this, that computer never froze up on me again! Didn't work anymore either. :D

I promptly went back to analog.

May still have some sessions on floppy disc somewhere
Click to expand...

Awesome! I remember the C64 well---played 10,000 games on my friend's system with it---but I never owned one myself. I had the Atari ST back in the day and tried to do things with it, but at that point I was becoming distracted by other high school things, and it eventually disappeared. I don't remember what happened to it.
 
famous beagle said:
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!
Click to expand...

Hi Beagle. I only read your post and none of the responses so sorry if I'm repeating anything.

I'm not sure the point of the thread since you kinda answered your own question and if you like old recordings due to the sounds then you should listen to them and/or recreate them.

My feeling is the sound of a recording always adds an intangible to the performance. Like if Delta Blues were recorded on clean preamps they would lose the eeriness and if those guys were close mic'd they'd lose the atmosphere. We can't have a modern day Robert Johnson b/c the recordings ruin that. Like can you imagine Pensado recording him? It would have blaring vocals 5db too loud and compressed/"fat" guitars that just make no sense. We can get a guy who plays like like Robert Johnson, but he won't have the aura if he uses modern equipment and engineers make bad decisions that don't fit.

I'm ambivalent to modern recording. It is what it is. Clean, sterile, clarity, etc. Those have some good traits like hearing details better. So, there's that. The things I don't like is that everything has so much clarity that they all fight for space and frequency. To have muddy drums that were indistinct were nice in a way because it frees up a place in the recording for everything else. Modern mixes suffer from every instrument being the loudest and every instrument having the most detail. I'll purposely leave bass or kicks muddy sometimes just for that reason b/c I don't want everything to be crystal clear. Everyone kind of knows this because "saturation" plugins and anything that emulates vintage is all the rage. So, why at the same time do we all feel the need for clarity in every instrument? I don't, but many do, as evidenced by comments in the mix clinic.

I view this all as a sum of the parts thing and holistic where you need a good song, then a mix that suits the style. Not every mix benefits from modern techniques. When an engineer or home recorder tries to force modern principles onto a recording that doesn't call for it they actually do it a disservice. Knowing when to do what is the art of this whole deal and why it's not science.
 
Nola said:
Hi Beagle. I'm not sure the point of the thread ........
Click to expand...

To start a conversation in the subject
Duh.

And judging by the pages of responses, it's going quite well.

Even you have responded quite elegantly.

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top