60s drum recording techniques?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DanRoy
  • Start date Start date
D

DanRoy

New member
I think these are some really great sounds. there's a consistency to actually most of the instrument sounds, from acoustic guitar to drums to bass, and sometimes electric guitar. I'm talking about a really focused, almost soft sound....well rounded. the closest way I can describe how it makes me feel is it's like listening to a great sounding nylon string classical guitar.

I'm talking mid to late 60s here...dylan, floyd, beatles, VU...or even earlier like buddy holly

I'm really curious...what sort of mic placement was generally used for these sounds? and how many mics? and if you know, even what mics were selected?

I wonder if going to tape was a factor in these sounds, or the preamps on those old boards, or the limitation in track count, or something I haven't thought of?

or what are some good resources to check out?

any info would be appreciated, thanks much
 
Rent the DVD "Standing In The Shawdows of Motown" to see how the Funk Brothers (Motown's rhythm section) recorded many of their rhythm tracks with one or two mics... it still boils down to great players playing great songs.
 
Most of the sound came from the players themselves. But you still can't discount the gear and techniques employed. I know the Beatles were tight miking drums by the mid 60's as were a lot of the bands. I feel it was the fact that the bands were generally playing together in a room for the bulk of the tunes with limited over dubbing. Good rooms, good mics, good players. Really not much of a secret. When I listen to just about anything recorded from the late 70's through the 80's when things started to be recorded in a more totally isolated and dubbed (assembled a piece at a time) way, songs started sounding thin.
 
Thats very interesting .... So how exactly did the beatles record and other bands from the 60's? if they were all playing together ...how many mics did they use?...what mic placement?

i know for a fact when i try to record my band this way there is so much mic bleed happening that its so difficult to get it to sound anywhere near good .... i am talkin about drums, bass, guitars and vocals here in a garage of course ... :)
 
While things got more sophisticated in the later years (say '67 on up, give or take), much of the rest of the Beatles stuff was recorded on four track machines with mixers whose channel capacity today would seem laughably entry-level to many on this board.

If that's not an arguement or keeping it simple, nothing is. :)

G.
 
"tight miking" is that the same thing as close miking or is it like some gray inbetween thing? and with 4 channels, you'd have to be choosey with where you put those 4 mics, if you put them all on drums (did they? or was it 4 for all instruments combined?)

I'd look into the beatles gear book, but i'm more interested in recording technique and equipment than guitars and amps
 
lurgan liar said:
i know for a fact when i try to record my band this way there is so much mic bleed happening that its so difficult to get it to sound anywhere near good .... i am talkin about drums, bass, guitars and vocals here in a garage of course ... :)
Click to expand...
When you are doing something like this, you have to have the sounds of the instruments completely together. There is no way to fix it later.

The other thing you have to realize is that you can not put a band in a room and just mic them up and expect it to sound like a Disturbed album. If you are going for that authentic Beatles (or some other mid 60's bands) sound, you have a chance. It would be an artistic choice that you might have to explain to people.
 
The Beatles sound was a lot due to old tube Redd 37 console built by EMI. EMI built almost all of the gear at the studio. Anything purchased from the outside ( like 4 track recorders) was held by EMI engineers for as long as a year so it could be modified. This is one reason the Beatles left EMI at time to time and went to studios such as Olympic. Olympic had an 8 track recorder. So did EMI but it wasn't released for use yet. I do still believe ( and agree with Track Rat) that a great deal of the sound is the players. Having the best mic's preamps,rooms sure help. Think of it like: if your a total shit guitar player, and you are recorded with the best gear, all the end result will be is a very clear and crisp recording of someone that sucks! Motown recordings were very identifiable. Hitsville! It was a funky dirt floor garage as the Standing in the shadows of Motown shows. But it had a "sound" That sound I think was more the players and vibe than anything else.
 
awesome topic!!!


also, i think most of the vocal parts were overdubbed...or at least the lead vocal parts
 
lurgan liar said:
Thats very interesting .... So how exactly did the beatles record and other bands from the 60's? if they were all playing together ...how many mics did they use?...what mic placement?

i know for a fact when i try to record my band this way there is so much mic bleed happening that its so difficult to get it to sound anywhere near good .... i am talkin about drums, bass, guitars and vocals here in a garage of course ... :)
Click to expand...
I think there is a misconseption that band like the Beatles played all together at once all the time. If you read the book "Recording the Beatles" it details very well the path. First....big studio with lots of space. Players could be in same room however seperated enough to eliminate bleed. Or use bleed if wanted as in "Yer Blues".he Beatles would in many cases record. drums, bass direct, one or 2 guitars at once, then layer from there. They bounced a LOT. Fill up 4 tracks then transfer those 4 tracks mix properly to 1 track on second 4 track machine leaving now 3 tracks open and so forth. I those day a lot of planning had to come into play with regard to what was recorded and in what order. You did not want to be into the 3rd bouncing of tracks and then realise that something way back on first recording is too loud or too soft. Songs almost got mixed along the way. Decisions about the mix had to be made along the way. I don't remember how long Sgt. Pepper took to record,I'm thinking 6 months at best, but what an increadable recording. And to think how short it took to complete. "Limited equipment", no computers or automation. "Limited equipment" is kind of a gofy statement as most engineers would give there left nut for one of those old J37 Studer 4 tracks,or Fairchild compressors, U47 and U48 mics!!!!!! ,I would!
 
In the late Beatles years, they use Coles ribbon mics for overheads... cymbals, toms and the overall kit.

http://mercenary.com/40studribmic.html

And hot damn... they sound like gold :rolleyes:

If you want a "60s sound", try a three or four mic setup. This is what I do... but I don't recommend it for punk, metal, etc:

If you don't have ribbons, get two LDCs (bi-directional, if you get 'em). (Assuming the drummer is right handed), put one mic about 4-6 feet away from the floor tom, slightly behind the drummer, on the right hand side. Set it up to be level with the rim of the floor tom. Point it into the center of the drum set, but in front of the drummer's body.

Place your other LDC directly above the snare drum, 4-6 feet up from the snare. Point it to the center of the kit.

If the song is kick-heavy, mic the kick normally.

Depending on how hard the drummer is and the exact set up of the kit, you'll want to tweak the mic direction and placement a little bit. Pan the mics hard left and right. You'll really hear the air in the drum kit.

Some of the old REM records were done this way.

It works like a charm for me. Hope it helps you :D
 
The book "Revolution In The Head" not only covers how the Beatles songs were written (who wrote what parts, what the song is about, etc.), but often covers how they were recorded, what studios/rooms they were recorded in, and sometimes what guitars/amps were used. A great read.
 
Hey Track
Great job with the song. A really good retro vibe. Just a little to "clean" sounding for me. What I mean is very detailed. I know in the past we spoke about some older Studiomaster or Soundcraft boards. I don't know what your path is but that old analog equipment completly along the path really had a lot to do with the sound. Tape saturation and hiss I guess. LOL
I did a vintage sounding blues version of the poem Twas The Night Before Christmas. The drums were done with one mic going into an Aphex 107.
I guess my best advice to DanRoy is just experment. That's all the fun of doing this at home.
 
If you're tracking in a garage, I think the best plan would be to deaden the space around the drums as much as possible.

Most of the drums of the late 60's through the 70's tended to be fairly dry. You might hear a little room sound, but very minimal for the most part. You can also tell that a lot of those guys liked to mic the bottom of the snare (and gate it so there's not a lot of decay).

Cymbals tended to be fairly dark and mellow-sounding; played lightly, and the overheads tended to be out of harm's way from them, and closer in to the toms. Lots of ribbons and dynamics used, running in to mic pres with big transformers (as opposed to today's high-speed opamps). The big trannies help to sort of smear the transients slightly so it's a little less detailed. You're talking mostly bigger and slower-responding microphones, running in to bigger and slower mic pres.

The anlog tape obviously helps with this a bit as well, but I don't think played nearly ad big of a role as some people might suggest. The big difference, overall, is that most modern equipment is all about fast transient response, and capturing the highest degree of detail ... whereas back then, equipment was designed and manufactured to be of the very highest quality and durability. Just a somewhat different emphasis.

Right around the 80's is when you started hearing a lot of drums tracked in a dry room, later to be blown up with tons of artificial reverb, gates, and all sorts of cheesy digital effects. There was a big shift in the mid nineties, towards a lot more natural room sound with stuff tracked in very large, spacious rooms but with minimal processing. Nowadays, you hear a lot more medium-sized rooms with gobs and gobs of compression to draw out every ounce of resonance and decay.
 
Last edited:
Trackrat. Very nice job. You seems to be a Beatles fan like myself. Hey, point of interest. I bought an older AKG mic from Decca studios, studio 3 ,from England. The studio where Beatles got turnned down. Kind of cool to get gear from famous studios. My latest is a 1969 U87 from The Hit Factory. I bought it from the firm that was selling there gear. Maybe Lennon used it in 1980? I have seen pics of him doing vocals with u87
 

Attachments

  • neumann 2.webp
    neumann 2.webp
    34.7 KB · Views: 146
Last edited:
That sir, is so cool it makes my head hurt.
 
Thanks! Hey Track,( or anyone else) you've been here a long time. I need to post an Ebay scam warnning. A guy is tryinbg to buy recording items with false postal checks. I just came back from post office and had them confirmed that money orders he sent me are fake. It is a Nigerian scam. The Feds are aware of this. I'd like to post and let everyone be aware that if they are seeling itmes on Ebay, BE CAREFUL! I can give more details. Where, or how can I do this best? Thanks,Jim
 
Last edited:
Track Rat said:
If you're interested, I've got a Beatles cover you can hear. In my humble opinion, it has kind of a vintage sound to it. You tell me.
Click to expand...


Well, you certainly nailed the snare sound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top