A question for the middle-aged

  • Thread starter Thread starter cat-eggs
  • Start date Start date
C

cat-eggs

New member
hi.

i was listening to the mumps today... their songs were recorded in 1975, and i can't believe how goddamn incredible the vocals sound.

has microphone technology not changed much in 20-some years? what were they using back then?

thanks

bye.
 
Microphone technology has not changed much in 20-some years.

Among other things, this is why 20-some-year-old microphones still sell for high prices, and 20-some-year-old microphone designs are still produced.

In 1975 they probably used any of a number of mics: Neumanns, AKGs, Shures, etc. Pretty much like now, except that -- relative to today -- they suffered from a relative shortage of copies of Neumanns, AKGs, Shures, etc.

Consider: the Neumann U87 (still made) was introduced in, I think, 1967, and its precursor the U47 goes back to 1947. The Shure 545, which is a "Unidyne III" mic like the current SM57, was introduced in 1960, and the model 55 was introduced in 1939.

You may also note that men landed on the moon in 1969. 1975 wasn't exactly the technological dark ages. Although I would agree that -- even if the equipment necessary to get a man to the moon and back doesn't exist anymore -- the technology to produce a video game in which you pretend you're going to the moon has improved dramatically since then.
 
Last edited:
Who are the "mumps"?

//Though I was sson to be middle aged, but obviously not. :)
 
It's true that vocals has been recorded with "the same euipment" for many years, the biggest different might be how the other instuments are recorded today, and the diffence in how instruments are played.
VEry often there is is a lot colose up sounds today, with a lot of energy in mid and hi mid freq. This couses big problems to get the lyrics out in the mix. Consonants are very short and weak, and drums and other instruments has a tendency to kill the consonants. A vocal that sounded good when recorded, too often need a lot of eq/limiting to cut through in the final mix.
So a full good vocal sound needs a lot of space in the mix to get through.
If you listen to records from different years, chek out how the snare and kick has moved up and down in freq. From the fat boomy "Elton John type" up to many of todays 3-5k rattel. That easily will kill your lyrics.

rgds
 
regebro said:
Who are the "mumps"?

//Though I was sson to be middle aged, but obviously not. :)
Click to expand...

Don't feel bad. I'm 46 and I've never heard of the mumps either.
 
i had the mumps once, about 40 years ago. they didn't make any noise though.
 
maybe it sounds like early bowie.

badfinger sounded good too.

it was a different recording philosophy.

the mics may be the same and the mic preamps may be the same but a lot of the effects and processing are not.

even if you had ALL the equipment used on that album you might have a hard time trying to duplicate the sound.

:)
 
the mumps were one of the first great CBGB's acts -- then blondie and talking heads. it's all downhill from there. (kristian hoffman (who wrote almost all of mumps' songs) is a lyrical genius in my opinion, but i digress).

jeap, that's interesting about a different recording philosophy you mentioned. now i'm inclined to investigate the philosophy instead of the equipment. i really like the way this era of music sounds.
 
ok

nowadays theres a lot of "close miking" and use of noise gates and isolation and overdubbing and editing and direct injection of bass. all this leads to a big "punchy" sound for instruments.

one track may be a composite of 15 takes. all you have to do is cut and paste drag and drop.

back then nothing was digital. anything you have thats digital era only wont work.

for vocals that means no digital chorus or flange. digital pitch shifting and harmonizing are counterproductive too.
analog reverbs and delays may get you closer.

miking with more distance gives your mix more room to breathe. theres less "punch" so the other tracks may not compete so much with the vocal.


the vocals were probably recorded with good mics and preamps with maybe some compression onto tape and then EQ'ed. the equipment probably gave a fat and up front sound and the mix probably didnt compete with the vocal too much so the vocal could shine through.

they didnt want as many takes back then cause of the tape used. with crosstalk and possible tape stretch and the fact that tape is less effective the more times you record over it they tried harder to make each take count.

well thats just some observations from the peanut gallery.

:)
 
that makes a lot of sense. i hadn't considered how close micing of instruments hogs the frequency spectrum from other tracks.

i'm going to try backing up for a while instead of eqing the hell out of things. maybe they'll fit together better. granted, the pop appeal might be somewhat diffused.
 
in my opinion theres way too much high impact crap going around.

theres nothing worse than a super-punchy high impact bass drum high in the mix.

if you listen to a drum set for pleasure youre not going to put your ear an inch off the skin so why put the mic there?

people will respond to a pleasant sound.

you can make a nice sounding pop song without super high impact punchiness.

my pet peeve

:)
 
The resolution of digital technology is much lower than the resolution of analog technology. What happened when digital technology first came to the mainstream in the form of MIDI and samplers? The SNARE IN YOUR FACE.

It's a trend that continues. All the digital media, including television is IN YOUR FACE.

Listen to Zep records from the 70's. There's no comparison. You get all these Nue Metal bands now trying to get so much energy into their music, but none of it holds a candle to bands like Zep that often recorded Bonzo's drums with four mics or less.
 
Well, it seems like there are trends in mic'ing techniques and processing that offer many options not available in the 60's-70's.
I agree that the lyrics often get lost in the modern mix, and I hate it. Being a lyricist/singer/songwriter, I am a storyteller, and I use music as a vehicle to tell my story. If the story gets lost, I failed completely. I really hadn't realized that this was a function of recording technique trends, I thought it was just bad engineering. Oh well. As an old psychedelic fogey, I was (and remain) influenced by some really obscure music.-Jefferson Airplane, It's a Beautiful Day, Saloom, Sinclair, and the Mother Bear, The United States of America, Country Joe and the Fish, as well as some not-so obscure stuff, The Beatles, The Who, The Eagles. I assure you, as a self producer, my approach to mixing and arrangement will leave the vocals up front, use dedicated instrument solo breaks, and will not be afraid to sing songs that express political opinions and have social impact. I would never get this sound at the average current pro level studio.-Richie
 
Last edited:
Dot said:
The resolution of digital technology is much lower than the resolution of analog technology. What happened when digital technology first came to the mainstream in the form of MIDI and samplers? The SNARE IN YOUR FACE.

It's a trend that continues. All the digital media, including television is IN YOUR FACE.

Listen to Zep records from the 70's. There's no comparison. You get all these Nue Metal bands now trying to get so much energy into their music, but none of it holds a candle to bands like Zep that often recorded Bonzo's drums with four mics or less.
Click to expand...

what a good post!

i am snorky over at the other forum btw.

the television thing is another pet peeve. the images go by so fast and "in your face" is a good way to describe it.

terrible.

give me something nice to focus on like a pretty girl dancer or singer. cut to other interesting things but give me time to adjust. i learned a long time ago that strobe lights are cool but you dont want to look at them for a long time.

:)
 
I have to agree with jeap on video presentation. This need to cut from scene to scene at 100 mph (1 sec. or so per view) doesn't even allow me time to focus my eyes. I can't tell you how many music videos I've watched where I waited through the whole thing for one view of the guitarist's axe or fingers, and never got it, not even once. This is true of even live music video. The producers seem to think that all I want to see is the singer's face, which actually interests me very little. I'd trade it all for one good, long look at their gear!-Richie
 
I`ve got and old old sm57 that has mic'd everything from a violins to beer burps. I think it would survive a plane crash and still be faithful and true. Of course it don`t pick you scratching the leg of your jeans from 4 ft away like the vocal booth condensers but it will do a lot with placement adjustments and a homemade pop (spit) filter.
 
Richard Monroe said:
Oh well. As an old psychedelic fogey, I was (and remain) influenced by some really obscure music.-Jefferson Airplane, It's a Beautiful Day, Saloom, Sinclair, and the Mother Bear, The United States of America, Country Joe and the Fish, as well as some not-so obscure stuff, The Beatles, The Who, The Eagles.
Click to expand...

Richie, if Jefferson Airplane and Country Joe & the Fish are now considered obscure bands, than I must REALLY be getting old! :(
 
and the music video thing is nothing new.

i collect jimi hendrix concert vids and sometimes the camera dudes seem to want us to see up jimi's nose.

great hot solo goin on and we get to see a closeup of jimi's nostrils!

woooooooo!!!

i always want to see a view like i would see at a concert with a good seat and then the closeups would be like im using the binoculars i always bring.


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