C
Chibi Nappa
New member
It still does... -_-'
Chili
Site Moderator
mattr
Resident moody teenager
I thought that's partly what pre-emphasis EQ curves were for...
R
rockinokie
New member
...all very interesting to me
For the most part I don't think the drums were ignored or purposely pushed back. Do you think those old jazz records would have a thumping bass drum if not for the lack of recording technology? No. It is just the style of the music. Rockabilly was formed from hillbilly and blues. Most hillbilly groups did not even consider having a drummer. The upright bass and "chunk chunka" rythmn guitar were the percussion of the group in these times and the same goes for rockabilly. There are quite a few records that did not include drums at all. That is because they were not nessesarry with the percussion of a good slap bass.
Now I WILL say that during mic placement I'm sure it was taken into consideration as not to affect the phonograph needle.
...but what do I know. I am 26 and will argue with a brick wall.
Atleast I can admit that right?
For the most part I don't think the drums were ignored or purposely pushed back. Do you think those old jazz records would have a thumping bass drum if not for the lack of recording technology? No. It is just the style of the music. Rockabilly was formed from hillbilly and blues. Most hillbilly groups did not even consider having a drummer. The upright bass and "chunk chunka" rythmn guitar were the percussion of the group in these times and the same goes for rockabilly. There are quite a few records that did not include drums at all. That is because they were not nessesarry with the percussion of a good slap bass.
Now I WILL say that during mic placement I'm sure it was taken into consideration as not to affect the phonograph needle.
...but what do I know. I am 26 and will argue with a brick wall.
Atleast I can admit that right?
leddy
Well-known member
For the most part I don't think the drums were ignored or purposely pushed back. Do you think those old jazz records would have a thumping bass drum if not for the lack of recording technology? No. It is just the style of the music. Rockabilly was formed from hillbilly and blues. Most hillbilly groups did not even consider having a drummer. The upright bass and "chunk chunka" rythmn guitar were the percussion of the group in these times and the same goes for rockabilly. There are quite a few records that did not include drums at all. That is because they were not nessesarry with the percussion of a good slap bass.
Now I WILL say that during mic placement I'm sure it was taken into consideration as not to affect the phonograph needle.
...but what do I know. I am 26 and will argue with a brick wall.
Atleast I can admit that right?
That's a good point. Also, if you listen to older recordings with drums, I believe you will generally find that drums were often tuned much higher than today.
Dr.Bootleg
New member
That's kind of ironic considering Butch Vig produced both of those records (Green Day and S. Pumpkins).
I think people tend to overthink the whole "production" issue. There were great recordings back then. There are some great ones today. It ultimately comes down to what sounds good to you. Period. It's all subjective. Off the top of my head it seems like it would be difficult with today's technology to make something sound so "lo-fi" but like some people have already mentioned...it's probably easier than you think.
T
Terry Wetzel
New member
Rami, congradulaations, you are capable of a civilized answer to a comment! you see, i've been around a while and kinda' pick up on these little things. Lets be friends, huh!Interesting point. So, some of the reason for the resulting sound was due to limitations in the playback medium. Which tells me that those recordings would have more low end, for example, if they could. But they couldn't. Interesting.
M
MCI2424
New member
Originally Posted by Terry Wetzel
in the old days bass drums were totally ignored and bass was pushed to the back because, if too prominent it caused the phonograph needle to skip.
Actually................The Beatles were told this for years by the English Engineers. Paul's bass was always turned down until he heard an american record. Paul complained and got his bass put on the record hot. Everything worked fine. Listen to Paper Back Writer.
Old wive's tale.
in the old days bass drums were totally ignored and bass was pushed to the back because, if too prominent it caused the phonograph needle to skip.
Actually................The Beatles were told this for years by the English Engineers. Paul's bass was always turned down until he heard an american record. Paul complained and got his bass put on the record hot. Everything worked fine. Listen to Paper Back Writer.
Old wive's tale.
Todzilla
New member
Nowadays, recording technology allows the deferring of many decisions until mixdown (even later). In those old days, engineers had to really know their craft. Mix decisions and tonality of each instrument had to be right during tracking, or else!
I think those old days put a lot of emphasis on room acoustics, nice mics and preamps and above all else PERFORMANCE.
I like the track at a time approach for my stuff, but i agree the rootsey music the OP described really needs to be tracked live in the studio.
I think those old days put a lot of emphasis on room acoustics, nice mics and preamps and above all else PERFORMANCE.
I like the track at a time approach for my stuff, but i agree the rootsey music the OP described really needs to be tracked live in the studio.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Yep..at least in part. Worries about the bass being able to track on wax were mainly the domain of the mastering engineer, and not a whole lot of concern to the mix engineer or mix producer.
There was another more mundane marketing reason why bass was often minimized on jump/swing/rock n' roll recordings in the 50s and 60s: they wanted the mix to sound good on your average crappy AM radio or average record player with built-in 4" "full-range" speaker.
If the recording depended too much on a low bass hook, that hook would be lost on the vast majority of the target audience. And that bass which did come through on those flabby AM radio and portable record player speakers tended to rattle them and sound crappy anyway.
So, yeah, in a way technology did throttle the fidelity of *some* recordings, but it wasn't so much a limitation of the recording/production technology as it was of the mass playback technology. But this tended to apply more to the mass genres, what would eventually be called "Top40". Even back in the 50s there was a segment that cared more about true "high fidelity" than they did about sounding good to The Fonz down at Arthur's Drive In, and there were plenty of classical, jazz and jazz/pop recordings released that sound pretty damn good, even today.
G.
C
Chibi Nappa
New member
Eh... These days technology makes people think they can defer decisions until mixdown or later... And then when decision time comes the technology can do some sort of approximation of a fix... And then you end up with a bad recording.
Lot of bad recordings this decade across all budgets and genres.
cavedog101
Well-known member
Yes. And the reason was the depth of cut in the masters with the lathe. The English Mastering engineers at EMI were held to strict standards which had not changed in so many years. It was simply "How we do it here". The American companies tended to cut the masters a bit deeper which allowed for more bass in the recordings. RIAA standards werent really in place at the time and everybody did it their own ways. Pauls complaint was exactly that reference to more bass in the recordings. The bass track on Paperback Writer was the first time they recorded bass using the big in-studio speakers (the 'white elephants' if you will) as a mic. Much like the sub-kick thing for kik drums. They used it on two tracks, Paperback Writer and Rain. EMI's managers made them stop because of 'improper use of equipment'. It also picked up everything in the building. Another positive step in the direction of multitracking during this time was separating the drums and bass from the same track. Since they werent both being affected by the same compressor any longer the clarity became immediately apparent. Also Geoff Emerick had become the engineer at this time and had switched Ringo's drums to the Fairchild's instead of the Altec compressors as the bass didnt sit right in the Fairchild for his ear. At Rubber Soul there is a distinct difference in bass response as well as drum clarity as opposed to all the other Beatle tracks from earlier.
But I digress.
Todzilla
New member
True, but I meant that decisions on compression, effects, relative levels, etc... can be deferred. It can create a mixdown nightmare, but allows many of us to get away with a lower skill set when it comes to tracking. In the old days, you had to have your tracking skillset really well developed or you were screwed.
C
Chibi Nappa
New member
This is exactly what I mean. Technology today lets people think they can put off these decisions until mix time or later. Everything right down to EQ and relative levels should really be taken care of in tracking. If for no other reason than you have an accurate picture to fit your overdubs into. Can't really know what that second guitar should sound like if the rest of the tracks aren't 90% final. Even tracking at the wrong relative levels leads to mixdown headroom disasters.
Every sound/part/melody in a production has its place. If everything is tailored specifically to its place you get the best possible outcome. It is possible to do this before the sound is recorded. Can't really change microphones after the fact. Can't really tell the guitar player to hit the strings lighter/harder after the fact. etc. And it comes down to such subtle differences... Mic, position, and tone changes that could never be done with a mixing deck EQ. It's all tracking. Today's software makes people think it isn't.
Honestly, the song should sound damn near ready for the radio before any mixing at all with the faders sitting at 0.
I'm not saying you don't use reverb at mix time. I'm saying you track in such a way that the real-life ambiance and space is most of the way there and then the mix reverb only has to nudge it a tiny bit more.
I'm not saying you don't use compressors at mix time. I'm saying you hammer it all out with proper arrangement and performance dynamics. Work that mic. Dial in that bass player's compressor pedal. Pull that drummer's head out of the clouds and get him to bash consistently. Plug into that Distressor so the singer can hear the compression in real-time and match his performance to the processing. Then at mix time do whatever tiny bit you need to nudge you to the finish line. Or heck, throw in some buss compressors. You can be far more experimental with your mix compression when the tracks themselves are already dynamically correct since there is nothing to fix, only stuff to improve on.
More importantly, if the tracks are correct before the mix even starts, you drop the mentality of "must compress, must EQ, must transmogrimorphify" etc. These tracks may need nothing at mix time. But the world isn't perfect so they may need a mighty plugin hammer. You just don't know until you listen. So you do listen. Unnecessary processing is avoided because none of the processing seems "mandatory" anymore.
But the tracking skill set is everything. Home recordists are throwing all of their energy into a mixing skill set. All of these people are striving to be really great at mixing poor tracks. Doesn't it make sense instead to get really great at making tracks in the first place?
Right now I don't think most people even know what great tracks are. Many people seem to strive for no hiss, clear "full" sound, no distortion and call that a great track. It is only a great track if it fits into the puzzle living in the head of the producer. A hiss-free, clear, full piano could be a disaster if it shoves the acoustic guitar all over the place.
Fantastic tracking with primitive mixing still sounds fantastic. Fantastic mixing with primitive tracking leads to polished turds (please forgive the cliche).
It is still exactly like this. Thus many productions are screwed.
Last edited:
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I'd just slightly alter that statement to read, "It provides the illusion of allowing many of us to get away with a lower skill set when it comes to tracking."
You know that I am all about frontloading the quality and nailing the tracking as well as possible, and I agree with the general thrust of your point of not deferring until mixing what can and should be done in tracking, but I think the above quote is a bit of an overstatement for many situations, regardless of level of engineer skill.
There are a whole lot of legitimate reasons to run tracks through any given type of processing during mixing that either just can't be anticipated during tracking or just physically or logistically can't be done during tracking.
One should not defer fixing a track until mixing, true. But often mixing involves making adjustments to an intrinsically perfectly good track that does not require "fixing" per se.
G.
C
Chibi Nappa
New member
Yeah, I do take my absolutes a bit far when writing. I hate to sound wishy-washy.
I don't literally mean ALL eq, 'verb, levels, etc is done at tracking. I just mean that a thin loud sound should be recorded thin and loud and a lush soft sound should be recorded lush and soft... And that the creation of such sonic specifics can be surprisingly subtle and demanding even at the "rough" tracking stage.
But yeah, you still bust your arsenal to whittle and polish further in mixing.
And some highly desirable "out-there" unnatural stuff does have to wait until mixing. But that is why I always remember to never say always.
I don't literally mean ALL eq, 'verb, levels, etc is done at tracking. I just mean that a thin loud sound should be recorded thin and loud and a lush soft sound should be recorded lush and soft... And that the creation of such sonic specifics can be surprisingly subtle and demanding even at the "rough" tracking stage.
But yeah, you still bust your arsenal to whittle and polish further in mixing.
And some highly desirable "out-there" unnatural stuff does have to wait until mixing. But that is why I always remember to never say always.
Last edited:
cavedog101
Well-known member
THIS is great advice. It is how those recordings of yesteryear came out so well. It is all about decision making before you ever hit the red-light-button.
When track counts were small, you HAD to record exactly like this. All the sounds were predetermined before a mic ever got placed. One of the reasons that mic placement was so good was the fact that most studios had 'seconds' ....the engineer could sit in the both and listen to the players as they rehearsed the song while the seconds placed the mics.
Its always better with two...........
Dont let Todd fool you....his skill set is quite good.............
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
In our minds, when we listen to recordings from yesteryear, do we actively diffrentiate a great song or great performance of a song, from the actual recording of that song ? Maybe sometimes we gauge older recordings from the perspective of what's around now......which is perhaps unfair. Yet at the same time, I see the point Rami was making a few months back. The Rolling Stones actual recordings up to about '68 simply weren't particularly good. Even Mick Jagger moaned about how they'd do great recordings as a band, then bounce down for overdubs and the end result was always mush {listen to 'Have you seen your mother....'}. It also leads me think that in truth, even with the same sets of tools, some engineers are simply better at their craft than others. Even in the 'primitive' 50s and 60s there was a real disparity between the sounds of various records. Some sound really clear, some sound like a ball of wool.