Beatles Second Anthology "Good morning Good morning" How to achieve Drum/Bass sound

  • Thread starter Thread starter nik the barber
  • Start date Start date
N

nik the barber

New member
Beatles Second Anthology "Good morning Good morning" How to achieve Drum/Bass sound

I'm sure many of you are familar with The Beatles Second Anthology, and The song "Good morning Good morning." Well on the Stripped down version of the song. I've have came to notice that the Drums are much more louder, and the Bass is up too. But I also realized that they sound amazing. After every snare roll. Ringo hits the crash with the bass drum, and it sounds amazing. The Drum sound is perfect. It is so full, and the cymbals are so powerful but not so high crisp sounding, and The Bass guitar sounds incredible. At points in the song Paul will pluck the strings in a fast way. But every time he does this it makes the Bass almost sound as a tight bass drum. It has almost a thud click to it.
My question is how do you achieve this sound with recording. What would you recomend after listening to the Track. The sound of this Track is perfect is what I want to make some of our songs sound like. I have a feeling the Drums have something to do with compression and maybe some Eq. But I'm probaly wrong. As far as the bass goes I have no idea. SOME ONE PLEASE HELP!
 
Probably a Farchild compressor I'm sure is one of the main ingredients.
 
Is a farchild a type of a compressor I have a TDX anyone to simulate?
 
nik the barber said:
Is a farchild a type of a compressor I have a TDX anyone to simulate?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure there's a question in there somewhere. Hell if I can figure it out.
 
all you need is EMI and George Martin

as far as getting that sound from a home recording, I won't say it's impossible, just difficult. Of course you can get a great sound, but those tracks were recorded through EMI consoles, onto 2 inch tape, through (probably) Neumann U47's or M149's or some fantastic old large capsule condenser. Slammed onto the tape for great saturation and recorded in live rooms that were in part designed and manned by guys in white coats that had 10 years of mathematics and physics behind them all under the direction of George Martin (he's not chopped liver either !)... okay maybe an exageration. Anyway, for the bass.. i'd get a DI signal and an amped signal an mix it if you have the tracks.... then you can mix the two and even run the DI through Ampfarm or some emulator like that for a nice fat sound... I think Paul used a VOX amp ? And for the drums, you can't beat a great set of overheads in a nice sounding room (nice, not dead) :D
 
no matter what you have, give a 10 or 12" speaker a go. Set it up as a mic by attaching a 1/4" TRS. Run that into your tape machine/DAW/AW whatever it is you are running. This is a very common trick that was used many times at Abbey Road when recording Paul. You will be very, very surprised with the outcome... and its various uses. Think of it/treat it like a very large dynamic mic and you might have a new mic for a couple sources.
Combining this with a DI signal can give you a good balance for you to mix from.

best wishes

-Darrill
 
Last edited:
jakeislistening said:
as far as getting that sound from a home recording, I won't say it's impossible, just difficult. Of course you can get a great sound, but those tracks were recorded through EMI consoles, onto 2 inch tape, through (probably) Neumann U47's or M149's or some fantastic old large capsule condenser. Slammed onto the tape for great saturation and recorded in live rooms <snip happens>
Click to expand...

They were indeed recorded through EMI consoles [for the most part], but onto 1 inch tape... either 1" 4-track or 1" 8-track then bounced more than a few times before the end of the recording process. Neumann U-48's were primarily used for the vocals... I remember hearing than AKG D-25's were mainly used in front of the kit, and then "Reslo" ribbon mics were used for the rest... the M-149 was a good 25-30 years away from being the dastardly hunk of shit it is... that was back in the days when corners weren't cut to satisfy the buzz word oriented markets of today [where far too many people think that all you need to know is a few buzz words... like "toob" for instance, to be "knowledgable"]... and while it was indeed recorded in some great rooms, they weren't "slamming" anything onto the tape... the tape forumulations of that era couldn't handle getting "slammed"...

From what I've read and heard from some of the people that were there, a Fairchild 660 mono "Delta-MU" style limiter was employed on nearly every bounce so they could maximize their levels to tape to reduce the tape noise as much as was possible during the bounces. A "Delta-MU" style limiter is also known as a "remote shutoff" type limiter the way it works is by shutting down the plate voltage to the tube thus reducing the gain of the amplifier. The Fairchild 660 also has a very unique character of tone due to the capacitive and inductive networks in the unit... many of which can't be recreated today [EPA considerations they didn't have at the time]... matched sets of tubes [6386] of proper quality have also become a tad rarer than hen's teeth.

I hope this is of some assistance.
 
If you read the book 'The Making of Sgt Pepper by George Martin' you just might find the answer. I don't remember if it has this particular technique in it but it has quite a few good ones. Check out your local library, it should be there. This book also gives a good history of the Beatles and alot of the crap they had to go through. It makes for good reading.
 
ooopss...

but onto 1 inch tape... either 1" 4-track or 1" 8-track then bounced more than a few times Neumann U-48's were primarily used for the vocals... they weren't "slamming" anything onto the tape... the tape forumulations of that era couldn't handle getting "slammed"...

Well, If I'm going to get called out , I guess i'm honored that it was by Fletcher.
I assumed (ass out of "u" and "me" ) a little too much... for example the U47 I guess should have been U48 although from some pictures it was hard to tell...
but as far as tape "slamming" I thought for sure that by 67' when they did that, lots of ppl were pushing tape really hard. I mean bias was more than 20 years old, and slapback and stuff like that had been around for more than a decade. I firgured that even using fairchilds, they would gain it out as much as they could.
But I of course haven't spoken with anyone that was there...(god I wish...).
:o
 

Attachments

  • john&mic copy.webp
    john&mic copy.webp
    9.1 KB · Views: 351
Wow thanks for all the info. But I'm still having troubel understanding. What is a TRS, and Does it pretty much boil down to the mics that where used, and recording to tape, and then coming back years later using a compressor with a high threshold, because Like I said The cymals almost know everything out when they are hit, and the bass has this incredible drum like sound.
 
TRS is Tip, ring, sleeve... a cable. Like when you look at a headphone plug you see the two black lines right? but when you look at a gtr lead just the one right? two conductors no separate ground, thats TR or tip ring. TRS has two conductors and then a ground wire also, so you get a separate ground connected to the sleeve of the cable for sheilding etc.. for the 10 or 12 inch speaker thing nlmd311 suggested you want positive and negative, like a microphone. XLR has three pins right. hot, cold, ground. If you wire a speaker up to a 1/4 TRS you can use it like a mic.(kinda)
 
It's such a simple question

I realize that a lot of us pride ourselves on knowing exactly what equipment any given recordist used for any given sound, but on a homerecording website, what in the world are you doing saying you need a U-47 or a Fairchild limiter for? or going on and on about the guys in lab coats or getting Ringo to play the drums. Why don't you get to the point???

When I listened closely to "good morning good morning" on the Anthology 2, I heard two things: compression on everything and a gate on the snare. now get a compressor and a gate and fool with it until you think it sounds similar. It sounds as if the snare is loose as hell. try using fewer mics on the drums--consider dynamic overheads or a cheap chinese ribbon mic (which by the way used as a mono overhead will give you a very large drum sound, although you'll probably want to boost the highs a little.) throw a mic under the snare, reverse the phase, gate it and bring it up in the mix to add more "snare" to the overhead. compress the kick a lot. as for the bass sound--paul often used a pick and it sounds as if he's using flatwound strings. he often used a rickenbacker bass and geoff emerick said that he would often use a c-12 in figure 8 to mic it. but assuming you can't afford a C-12, try another large diaphragm condenser on the bass- maybe even in figure 8. compress it. also, hitting the tape hard will bring you closer to the desired effect--if you're using tape. it may or not be exactly what the beatles did, but so what--it SOUNDS like what they did.--In my humble opinion, that is.

Of course it will be difficult to reproduce the sounds of the records exactly, but this will get you a little closer! And by the way...the original poster didn't ask anyone what their opinion of Ringo's playing or his drum sound. Only how to get a similar sound!
 
nathan barsness said:
I realize that a lot of us pride ourselves on knowing exactly what equipment any given recordist used for any given sound, but on a homerecording website, what in the world are you doing saying you need a U-47 or a Fairchild limiter for? or going on and on about the guys in lab coats or getting Ringo to play the drums. Why don't you get to the point???

When I listened closely to "good morning good morning" on the Anthology 2, I heard two things: compression on everything and a gate on the snare. now get a compressor and a gate and fool with it until you think it sounds similar. It sounds as if the snare is loose as hell. try using fewer mics on the drums--consider dynamic overheads or a cheap chinese ribbon mic (which by the way used as a mono overhead will give you a very large drum sound, although you'll probably want to boost the highs a little.) throw a mic under the snare, reverse the phase, gate it and bring it up in the mix to add more "snare" to the overhead. compress the kick a lot. as for the bass sound--paul often used a pick and it sounds as if he's using flatwound strings. he often used a rickenbacker bass and geoff emerick said that he would often use a c-12 in figure 8 to mic it. but assuming you can't afford a C-12, try another large diaphragm condenser on the bass- maybe even in figure 8. compress it. also, hitting the tape hard will bring you closer to the desired effect--if you're using tape. it may or not be exactly what the beatles did, but so what--it SOUNDS like what they did.--In my humble opinion, that is.

Of course it will be difficult to reproduce the sounds of the records exactly, but this will get you a little closer! And by the way...the original poster didn't ask anyone what their opinion of Ringo's playing or his drum sound. Only how to get a similar sound!
Click to expand...
Not that there's anything wrong with posting....But you do realize you just responded to a 3 year old thread, right???
 
D20 was the typical kick mic. D19 overheads then coles 4038 ribbons on overheads. U48 for vocals, Redd 37 tube console with Telefunken V72S mic preaps. Not V72,v72A V72B. Only the V72S micpreamps! This was until the "Abbey Road" album and then the solid state TG console( TG12345 I believe) ,fairchilds later in the recording career, I'm thinking 67? Paul used to record bass d/i with the boys then later overdub with again d/i and also by himself mic'd with u47 about 10-12 feet away from cabinet in center of room ( studio 2 in most cases).I remember reading that speaker "trick" for bass/kick drum was created by Geoff E. at Abbey Road but I dont believe it was used all that commonly.
 
Nik...
remember a lot of it has to do with 'THEM" I m convinced over the years that truely gifted people like the Beatles just had a "sound" .They will sound like they sound. Ringo had a particular sound, the way he hit his snare, his kick, his bit of lagging behind from the beat. Pauls attack on his bass with his pick.It all adds up to the end result you hear. Vocals were the U48 for sure as Fletcher said, from pics they look just like a 47..dont know what the real difference is? Some may be the placement of the band members in the studio. Possibly to capture room sounds in the studio a particular way. From all the old photos of their setup(mostly in studio 2) there seems to be a specific method. They are not just tossed in a room to "go where they want".All of it adds up to their sound.
 
nik the barber said:
I'm sure many of you are familar with The Beatles Second Anthology, and The song "Good morning Good morning." Well on the Stripped down version of the song. I've have came to notice that the Drums are much more louder, and the Bass is up too. But I also realized that they sound amazing. After every snare roll. Ringo hits the crash with the bass drum, and it sounds amazing. The Drum sound is perfect. It is so full, and the cymbals are so powerful but not so high crisp sounding, and The Bass guitar sounds incredible. At points in the song Paul will pluck the strings in a fast way. But every time he does this it makes the Bass almost sound as a tight bass drum. It has almost a thud click to it.
My question is how do you achieve this sound with recording. What would you recomend after listening to the Track. The sound of this Track is perfect is what I want to make some of our songs sound like. I have a feeling the Drums have something to do with compression and maybe some Eq. But I'm probaly wrong. As far as the bass goes I have no idea. SOME ONE PLEASE HELP!
Click to expand...


The stripped down version was probably a generation before the final version. The album was recorded on 2 4-track machines. There are several safety tapes from every reduction mix still existing. Everytime you mix and bounce down to another machine, you lose some of the headroom (there is more to squeeze into the same 2 buss mix) and the instruments lose the empty space they used to have. A full mix of a song has less space to fit every instrument into. A single instrument takes up all of the available headroom and space giving a much fuller sound.
 
I had the pleasure of interviewing Geoff Emerick, engineer for the Pepper sessions (as well as Revolver, part of White Album and Abbey Road, btw). Geoff said he actually used a C12 on omni six or eight feet away from Paul's bass amp, which he pulled out into the middle of the studio. At least that's what he did on the overdubs. Now, on the track you're referring to, I don't know whether the bass track was played "live" with the drums or if it was overdubbed...

Paul was playing his Rick 4001 on the Pepper sessions almost exclusively, I think.

U47s and U48s were used on vocals at the time...

Also, drums were recorded with mics very close to each drum, which was a departure in those days. Fairchild on the drums for sure, perhaps on bass too. And Ringo has said he de-tuned his toms, really loosened the skins. Plus Emerick has said he stuffed a Beatle four-headed sweater into the bass drum.

But really, in the end, it was the players more than anything - don't you think?
 
jmorris said:
Nik...
remember a lot of it has to do with 'THEM" I m convinced over the years that truely gifted people like the Beatles just had a "sound" .They will sound like they sound. Ringo had a particular sound, the way he hit his snare, his kick, his bit of lagging behind from the beat. Pauls attack on his bass with his pick.It all adds up to the end result you hear. Vocals were the U48 for sure as Fletcher said, from pics they look just like a 47..dont know what the real difference is? Some may be the placement of the band members in the studio. Possibly to capture room sounds in the studio a particular way. From all the old photos of their setup(mostly in studio 2) there seems to be a specific method. They are not just tossed in a room to "go where they want".All of it adds up to their sound.
Click to expand...

George Martin tells the story of how Ringo and Steve Gadd had kits set up next to each other when they were all participating in the recording of Paul McCartney's 'Tug Of War' in the early '80s'.

Martin said he was "shaken" by how Ringo started to play Gadd's kit, and....sounded exactly like Ringo. (This, from a man who had recorded The Beatles for eight years straight - you'd think he'd have known that by the 80's).

Brian May said that he, too, was shocked when Hank Marvin picked up May's famous guitar and sounded exactly like Hank Marvin.

On the other hand, if you get a Rickenbacker, and play the parts similarly to John Lennon or George Harrison, you'll sound quite like The Beatles' early records.

So, it's a mixture of the performance, instrument, recording environment, and equipment which will give a particular sound.

By the way, in response to early postings, The Beatles used the speaker-as-mic. technique for 'Paperback' writer, but the mastering engineer at Abbey Road had such a hard time cutting the track that they never used it after those sessions, despite McCartney's attraction to that sound.

People might be interested in Geoff Emerick's autobiography and Kehew and Ryan's 'Recording The Beatles' (which took 10 years to write, and is the most in-depth anaylsis of The Fabs recording equipment, recording techniques, microphones, instruments and studio design ever undertaken).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top