Getting a 60s 'authentic' sound

[Will25]

Hi,

I'm probably going to sound like Lee Mavers here, but how do I go about getting a decent 60s sound that captures the 'true' sound of the instruments? I've been doing digital recording both at home and in the studio and I don't feel happy with the sound I'm getting - I think going analogue is probably the answer but what techniques do I use? I'm thinking of like The Who, Small Faces, Kinks or even Elliott Smith for example. My band is made up of vocals, harmonica, acoustic, electric, bass and drums.

Many thanks

 

[miroslav]

Analog gear and tape will help...but it's also about playing with a 60s vibe. If you play in a modern Alt/Pop style..it's going to sound like modern Alt/Pop.
You might also consider tracking as a group, with minimal isolation.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

What miroslav said. Also use unattainable vintage mics, and not too many of them. No more than three on the kit, sometimes only one. Try to get the whole band live into four mics. That's for the early sixties. For the later sixties limit your inputs to eight at a time, not more than four on the drums using Glynn Johns technique or the like.

 

[Will25]

Thanks guys, this is helpful any specific equipment you'd recommend? I've got an AKG D19 which is probably the most 'vintage' of my mics - any decent models you know of? And also would my Tascam DP01 be hindering my sound? It already gives off this horrible hum even without a mic plugged in - I would love to go analogue but I'm on a budget...

 

[gecko zzed]

If your Tascam DP01 gives off a horrible hum, then you should fix it or get rid of it. Though sixties music has a characteristic sound because of the techniques and technology of the time, the intention from self-respecting engineers at the time was to produce high quality recorded material, and you should be thinking the same way.

 

[Track Rat]

60's recording had mostly to do with no (or very little) over dubs and the band all playing together in a room at the same time and "leakage" in the mics. In my humble opinion, digital or analog has little to do with it. It's more to do with that approach than gear.

 

[clivus]

60's recording had mostly to do with no (or very little) over dubs and the band all playing together in a room at the same time and "leakage" in the mics. In my humble opinion, digital or analog has little to do with it. It's more to do with that approach than gear.

Ditto this! This is my preferred method of recording for this very reason.

 

[John Willett]

In the '60's the music was recorded as a single performance.

No overdubbing - get the whole band into the studio and record everything at once.

This is one reason why '60's music is still loved so much, it was a recording of a performance with everyone putting their whole heart and soul into it.

Modern multi-tracking and over-dubbing tends to destroy this and can suck the life out of the music if you are not very careful.

 

[John Willett]

60's recording had mostly to do with no (or very little) over dubs and the band all playing together in a room at the same time and "leakage" in the mics. In my humble opinion, digital or analog has little to do with it. It's more to do with that approach than gear.

Oops - I had not read this when I posted above.

Totally agree.

 

[gecko zzed]

This is one reason why '60's music is still loved so much, it was a recording of a performance with everyone putting their whole heart and soul into it.

Agreed . . . it was a recording of a performance. And indeed, the best loved music from that era was when heats and souls were included. However, However, having grown up in that era, I recall that there were many recordings lacking that heart and soul, and just as many bandwagon hoppers as there are these days.

 

[aaronmcoleman]

For gear I'd recommend a dolorean at 88 mph to get that 60s gear.

 

[Mike-Mat]

You need a "Wall of Sound".

Mike

 

[Track Rat]

I recall that there were many recordings lacking that heart and soul, and just as many bandwagon hoppers as there are these days.

I grew up just a few blocks from Motown in th mid 60's. The music bussiness hasn't changed much, just the recording practices.

 

[NYMorningstar]

Use old gibson guitars, fender amps, a leslie and lose alot of sleep.

 

[miroslav]

What's really funny here is that there was NO..."60s sound"...if you think about it.

If you RW back to the 60s....and listen to music from 1960 through 1963...1963-1966...1966-1969...1969-1972...you will find that there was all kinds of "60s sounds" going on, and the stuff in the early mid-60s was totally different from the late 60s.


So like...what kind of "60s sound" are you really after?

The early 60s Doo-Wop Pop left over from the late 50s?
The early mid-60s post R&R/Doo-Wop Pop?
The mid-60s British Invasion Pop?
The mid-late 60s California Pop?
The late 60s psychedelic Pop?
The end-of the 60s/early 70s psychedelic Rock?

 

[grimtraveller]

60's recording had mostly to do with no (or very little) over dubs and the band all playing together in a room at the same time and "leakage" in the mics. In my humble opinion, digital or analog has little to do with it. It's more to do with that approach than gear.

Ditto this! This is my preferred method of recording for this very reason.

In the '60's the music was recorded as a single performance.

No overdubbing - get the whole band into the studio and record everything at once.

This is one reason why '60's music is still loved so much, it was a recording of a performance with everyone putting their whole heart and soul into it.

Modern multi-tracking and over-dubbing tends to destroy this and can suck the life out of the music if you are not very careful.

You need a "Wall of Sound".

Mike

No offence folks, but I find that a rather romantic and myopic view that is only partly true. It does not represent "the whole 60s", only some of it. If anything, the 1960s was the decade where the groundwork was laid for techniques and practices, the fruition of which is what we see now . Part of the 60s story where music is concerned is how the music and the recording of it developed and splintered in a thousand different directions........almost at once.
Don't get me wrong, I love music from '63~'69 and many of the artists have been a great influence and inspiration, but many if not most of the engineers, producers and artists of the time would've killed for the way things are now. Sadly. If you read about how studio craft developed, you may just find that that analog "60s sound" was far more to do with the limitations of the times and technology and that those in at the deep end constantly looked for progression, cleaner recordings, less hiss, more tracks, longer to record, more opportunity for sound manipulation. It may interest people to know that quite a few Beatle records prior to 1965 were splices of two or more performances and from '65 onwards, so many songs that we lionize as being pure and authentic were edited to the max with all manner of studio trickery ~ many an artist felt guilty because in point of fact, their stuff wasn't any more authentic than now. It's just that now, nobody quibbles at multiple overdubs and records coming out that bear little relation to what was actually recorded.

 

[grimtraveller]

As a postscript to all that, I think that life for the home recorder, for the most part or certainly alot of it means that recording is often a lone venture for much of the process so some songs will be conceived in a different way and therefore, the recording of those songs will be different much of the time. But at the end of the day, you still have a recording of a performance. Many of the great guitar and instrument solos of the 60s and 70s and beyond were not only overdubbed, they were put together from numerous overdubs, like Art Garfunkel's vocal for "Bridge over troubled waters" and a host of others.
It's also worth pointing out that "the analog sound" is precisely what so many engineers/producers of the times sought to get away from. It wasn't viewed then as being wonderful. Rather, it was a pain in the patootie that necesitated ever increasing technological advancement and invention to deal with and defeat. How ironic.
I point all that out in the interests of balance ~ personally, I love the way records sounded then.

 

[miroslav]

It's also worth pointing out that "the analog sound" is precisely what so many engineers/producers of the times sought to get away from. It wasn't viewed then as being wonderful. Rather, it was a pain in the patootie that necesitated ever increasing technological advancement and invention to deal with and defeat. How ironic.

I don't think that is true.
Most engineers of today who were also recording back then...still like/prefer the sound of analog, but they've crossed the bridge and embraced digital just to stay current...nothing more.
If anything...it was the editing that was the downside of analog tape, and what is really the most appreciated capability of digital today...not primarily the "sound".
That said...most have found ways to get their "sound" even with digital.

I'm not trying to bring up the boring digital VS analog debate...just saying that I don't think they were trying to "get away" from the analog sound.
Heck...look how much of digital is trying to get back to the analog sound!

 

[Richard Monroe]

Get 2 Revox open reels. Record 4 tracks with AKG, Neumann, and Telefunken mics. Then bounce the 4 tracks to track one on the other open reel. Use old Ricks, Gibsons, and Fender guitars and Fender, Vox, and Marshall amps. Take lots of LSD and methedrine, smoke some thai sticks that are really from Hawaii, and drink plenty of Boone's Farm to decrease the shakes from the speed. Then edit with a pair of scissors and some Scotch tape. Wear love beads, bell bottoms, and Ho Chi Minhs- Nehru jackets for British invasion. Press that baby onto vinyl, and you're good to go. I regret to say that I've done *all* of the above, except I never had a telefunken mic.-Richie

 

[grimtraveller]

just saying that I don't think they were trying to "get away" from the analog sound.
Heck...look how much of digital is trying to get back to the analog sound!

That, for me, is the huge irony of the matter. Sometimes you know, the things we wish for, when we get them, end up landing us in a situation where we wish we could go back to where we were before the wishing ! Granted, editing was a big part of the drive towards wishing 'for a better day' but the sound played a big part too, if the stuff I've read over the last 34 years is to be believed. Just the desire for a clean sound that was unobtainable with track reducing (although I've never been able to detect lousy sound due to bouncing ! ), for example. More tracks helped with the problem but didn't eliminate it. Like you, I don't want to get into analog vs digital because that horse has been flogged to death, but there were people who felt that sound could be better. Technological developers obliged them. Some felt it went too far and was "too clean" and perhaps looked at analog with newer ears. It's far easier to assess how something sounds when you have something to compare it to. In isolation, it's understandable that you seek something 'better'.
Or something like that.