Does anybody know......

  • Thread starter Thread starter Redshoes
  • Start date Start date
R

Redshoes

New member
any one who has recorded a beatles tribute band, or tried to emulate the sounds produced by sir george martin, geoff emerick and co? I am studying recording techniques used by/for the beatles and im just interested in the techniques used by people more recently to capture the same sounds.
 
Playback, a DVD documentary of the life of Sir George Martin, has moved into post-production and there are some books that will give you a good idea firsthand.
 
I found a bunch of books.. they are kinda helpfull, but most seem to care more about john and paul and how fantastic they were rather than the actual recording side of things. Theres a book written called 'Recording the Beatles' but apparently its been ready for release for more than a year but just hasnt come out. heard anything about this? Id just like to hear peoples opinion on how to get that sound nowadays. cheers though
 
Read the book 'The Making of Sgt Pepper by George Martin' and you'll find lots of his techniques. Also, do a search for George Martin with the search tool here and you'll find lots on the subject.
 
Redshoes...

It just so happens that I work for a Beatles tribute band here in Wisconsin, The Britins , and I have produced 2 CD's of live performances. You can hear some samples on the "Songs" link on the Britins website.

The one thing I have learned about making a Beatles song sound like the Beatles, is the band using the appropriate instruments. A 60's Ludwig drum kit has a distinct sound to it. Likewise a Gretsch Country Gentleman played thru a Vox AC30. If your band uses authentic equipment, your more than halfway there.

Of course, the toughest thing is gonna be the vocals. No matter how good some singers are, they just aren't Lennon or McCartney - two of the more unique voices in music. The best you can do is try to do the songs in the original recorded key and tempo, and hope for the best.

Until the Revolver, the vocals where quite dry and unaffected. They frequently used ADT (Automatic Double Tracking) on the early to mid era songs. From Revolver on, flanges, chorus, echos and overdriving channels where common place. And not just on the vocal tracks. When we do "I Am the Walrus" live, I bring down the fader on the lead vocal, raise the gain to nearly all red, totally cut the lows and midlows, and add an effect on the Lexicon MPX1 called "Call Waiting". It gives it the thin, overdriven, off in the distance, dry effect you hear on the record.


I hope this helped. And if you have any more questions, I could talk about Beatles stuff all day.
 
thats great. as i may have sed at the beginning i gotta look into this as im doing it for my major project in uni. so any tips really, id be very great full. thank you.
 
hey guys sorry for keeping on about this beatles stuff.. but has anybody read

The Complete "Beatles" Chronicle
George Martin (Foreword), Mark Lewisohn

or

"Beatles" Gear
Andy Babiuk

Do they have much information in them about the recording side of things?
 
Mark Lewison's "Chonicles" is the definative tome on the when and who of Beatles recordings - but not the How.

Babiuk's "Beatle Gears" has great information about the guitars, drums, keyboards and just about anything the Beatles used. It does not go into detail about specific recording techniques.

Your best best to get information about recording is from George Martins book "All You Need is Ears". But even then, there's not a lot in that book either.

Frankly, when the Beatles recorded, no one ever thought that anyone would be interested in how they did what they did, so they didn't really make that many notes.
However, they did pioneer many of todays recording techniques. They produced things manually that we take for granted, they processed tape in ways that had never been done before.
 
From what I've seen in documentaries and what not, it appears they just all set up and tracked everything live in one room. Vocals were usually doubled. In the earlier days, they were very limited by the amount of tracks they had available to them, so they obviously made very judicious use of their tracks. Vocal mics were mostly Telefunken ELA and Neumann U-47 from what I can tell from pics.

As far as recording technique, a lot of it was simply the era. Most bands of that time played live in the same room ... working with the bleed rather than doing intricate multi-tracking and complex arrays of room mics, etc. That right there will play the largest factor in terms of recording technique. Then again, I suppose some of it would depend on whether your talking about pre or post Sgt. Pepper Beatles.

Like MichaelST mentions, the key to their sound is going to be using the right instruments. I've heard people play some hollow-bodied Richenbachers that sound very convincing. If a VOX is a little rich for your blood at the moment, then there are still some reasonably-priced 30-watt tube amps that will give you an approximation. Peavey Classic 30 would be an excellent choice. Seems to do a decent enough imitation of the older amps. Good luck.
 
cheers It looks like I might need it. Ive read all you need is ears. and it hardly touches on the technical side. one of the most helpfull books has been the complete recording sessions but still its nice to find out more. thank you.
 
Ya know, it's always kinda' puzzled me why so many people are interested in the recording techniques on the Beatles' albums.

It's not like I've ever listened to a Beatles record and said to myself: "Wow. What amazing microphone technique! I gotta' know how those mics were placed. Listen to the tracking technique on that guitar. I must know whether that was recorded in a large or small room, doubled, etc."

I mean it's not like their productions were overly advanced or mysterious. Yea, John Lennon's voice was sped up on I am the Walrus and Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. Wow. Amazing. How the hell did they pull that one off? Whoooo!

The beauty was very obviously in the sheer genius of their songwriting and performance. The way those guys could each sound so distinct as solo vocalists ... yet blend so well together on the harmonies. The way they could just come up with catchy hook after catchy hook. They way they managed the demands of being perhaps the biggest mega-superstars on the planet, yet still remain so artistically creative and hungry and motivated.

Who cares about how they were tracked or produced? It's not like we're talking about Pink Floyd or something. :D

Please forgive my ranting (and apparent blasphemy). I'm just going off on another one of my silly tangents. Ignore me.
 
I agree completely. in my opinion its not the best sounding stuff, but hey Im doing it for uni so i just gotta go along with it. not that i think its crap. but as you say its not pink floyd.
 
I could talk about Beatles stuff all day.
Click to expand...
Michaelst, thanks for the info about the tribute band. Very interesting.

I think Lennon/McCartney wrote some of the finest art songs of the 20th century. The Beatles, including George Martin (as is often said, the 5th Beatle), had a really unusual combination of qualities. Their songs have alwyas had a huge impact on me, on many levels.

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