Getting drums at the 'back' of the mix

[miroslav]

Spoken like a true drummer!

I agree, the way drums were recorded back in the '50s...they were truly WAY BACK in the mix!
Though back then, I think there were some limits imposed by the technology of the day, and things like drums and electric guitars were just starting to take on a prominent roll in the overall sound of music.
Back then it was mostly about the melody and the vocals.

While each style calls for a different approach, and there certainly are a few styles where the drums almost have to be right in your face, I think sometimes these days that in-your-face drum sound is overdone with music styles that really don't call for such a strong position with the drums.
It's either because of wrong recording techniques, or maybe it might have a lot to do with the use of the "EZDrummer" types if apps, instead of recording drums yourself. The sample drums are often done in a big-n-bold style, so that the individual samples each stand out...but they may end up being too bold for the rest of the tracks.

Again...it's a per song, per style choice. I don't think there's any one drum sound that should be used on everything...which I think you will agree with.


AFA reverb on drums...I mostly let the room sound come through from my OH mics....and about the only drum I will add/boost reverb on some occasions, is the snare...again, if the song calls for it.

 

[MG Eddie]

Lower the fader is just not going to work. You can have a sound super soft AND in your face. It is all about perception, transients and ambience/direct sound ratio.

Do you mean lowering? I'm telling you a simple approach to an easy question, you can get blue in the face telling him otherwise all you want.

 

[miroslav]

He means that it's not just about the volume/level of the fader...and he has a point.

If you record up-close...it still sounds that way when you lower the fader, it's just softer, but it still feels up-front/close.

Now I do get your point, that sometimes just lowering the level/fader will make things drop down in the mix...it's a valid point...but it's not quite the same as recording with more distance, which is naturally going to make things sound further back.

Likewise, if you have distant room mics...you can raise their levels/faders, and they will sound louder, but still *feel* like they are distant.

So there are two things at play...the level, and the distance. You might need to use both to achieve the "further back in the mix" desired effect, and really there's nothing complicated with that concept...mic further away, and it feels further away, and then also lower the level, and it drops deeper in the mix.

 

[grimtraveller]

you'll never hear my drums buried in the back of a mix like it's 1955.

Spoken like a true drummer!

I agree, the way drums were recorded back in the '50s...they were truly WAY BACK in the mix!
Though back then, I think there were some limits imposed by the technology of the day, and things like drums and electric guitars were just starting to take on a prominent roll in the overall sound of music.
Back then it was mostly about the melody and the vocals

On some of those 50s and even 60s recordings, it seems like the only people that get to hear the drums.......are the band on the actual session !
Melody, vocals, then piano and saxes were the early kingpins of rock'n'roll. But also in the 50s, many of the drummers on those early rock records were jazz drummers who regarded rock'n'roll as an inferior species and sought to bring their deft intricacies to this new dumb kid music. The development, let alone the acceptance, of the hard hitting rock drummer was still a long way off.
And you're right; it has nothing to do with the question so I'll just be off now.......

 

[RAMI]

I don't know if the "rules" were the same in American studios in the 50's, but in England, studio technicians wore lab coats, and close micing a drum would get you fired and blackballed. I don't think anyone close-miced a drum until the Beatles did it for Revolver or Sgt. Pepper (or maybe neither of those....the White Album???? I don't remember).

So, if we're talking about drums in the fifties, it's probably just one mic somewhere above or in front of the kit while the whole band is playing......and then mixed lower than should be legal.

 

[grimtraveller]

I don't know if the "rules" were the same in American studios in the 50's, but in England, studio technicians wore lab coats, and close micing a drum would get you fired and blackballed. I don't think anyone close-miced a drum until the Beatles did it for Revolver or Sgt. Pepper (or maybe neither of those....the White Album???? I don't remember).

So, if we're talking about drums in the fifties, it's probably just one mic somewhere above or in front of the kit while the whole band is playing......and then mixed lower than should be legal.

All very true. During "Revolver", not only did Geoff Emerick experiment by close miking the drums, he also did things like stuffing the bass drum {with a 4 headed jumper !} and putting tea towels on the toms and snare {as well as major innovations in the recording of bass, vocals, backwards stuff, sitar, tablas, string sections, brass, so much more really}. Although easy to laugh at, reading about the making of the album is a fascinating trek through a quantum leap forward in the marriage between technology, creativity and practice.

It's rather ironic given the OP's question that drums were recorded with one mike and mixed right back in the early days of recording.

 

[ecktronic]

I don't know if the "rules" were the same in American studios in the 50's, but in England, studio technicians wore lab coats

Ahh the good old UK scientist Engineers.

G

 

[Bristol Posse]

I don't know if the "rules" were the same in American studios in the 50's, but in England, studio technicians wore lab coats, and close micing a drum would get you fired and blackballed. I don't think anyone close-miced a drum until the Beatles did it for Revolver or Sgt. Pepper (or maybe neither of those....the White Album???? I don't remember).

So, if we're talking about drums in the fifties, it's probably just one mic somewhere above or in front of the kit while the whole band is playing......and then mixed lower than should be legal.

Yeah EMI actually had a rule that mics must be AT LEAST 18" away from the drums. Emerick got a lor of flack from the suits at Abbey road for doing what he did with smashing through those rules and had revolver not been so successful he probably would have been shown the door

 

[Beat Poet]

I don't know if the "rules" were the same in American studios in the 50's, but in England, studio technicians wore lab coats, and close micing a drum would get you fired and blackballed. I don't think anyone close-miced a drum until the Beatles did it for Revolver or Sgt. Pepper (or maybe neither of those....the White Album???? I don't remember).

I remember some interview in Rhythm magazine with Bobby Elliott of the Hollies, where he had massive trouble convincing the engineer that a second mic on the kick would improve the sound infinitely. The guy wouldn't budge, so I think Bobby got him drunk or something and bang, the kick was miked I can't remember what album it was for though.

 

[Beat Poet]

I don't know if the "rules" were the same in American studios in the 50's, but in England, studio technicians wore lab coats, and close micing a drum would get you fired and blackballed. I don't think anyone close-miced a drum until the Beatles did it for Revolver or Sgt. Pepper (or maybe neither of those....the White Album???? I don't remember).

I remember some interview in Rhythm magazine with Bobby Elliott of the Hollies, where he had massive trouble convincing the engineer that a second mic on the kick would improve the sound infinitely. The guy wouldn't budge, so I think Bobby got him drunk or something and bang, the kick was miked I can't remember what album it was for though.