Have you ever achieved "that sound" ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter grimtraveller
  • Start date Start date
grimtraveller

grimtraveller

If only for a moment.....
Very often I see threads in which the questioner asks how to get a certain sound, referencing a particular artist, be it a singer or instrumentalist. Members then weigh in with suggestions.
But we never find out if the one with the question was successful !
Have you ever wanted to emulate a voice, instrument or sound and actually managed to do so ?
Exactly how did you do it ?
 
I get sounds I'm happy with. So much of a "sound" on records are a function of player/instrument, mic/room, etc. Once I figured that out I stopped sweating it.
 
Thinking about the wave of instrumentalists in both the UK and USA that emerged during the first five or six years of the 60s, they had been influenced by those they heard during the 40s and 50s in rock'n'roll, jazz, R&B, C&W and blues. But what's interesting is that it's not the sound that many of these players went for. They tended to go for the way a player played or sang rather than how they sounded.
 
I don't even know what "that" sound is, let alone how to achieve it. I try to achieve good sound, sometimes I even achieve this, but I'm not terribly fussed to sound like anything, or anyone, in particular.
 
This might not be totally related to the original question, but maybe a bit.

I've always wondered this: Why is it that people always talk about "vintage" stuff as being the best (Old Gibsons, Fenders, mixing consoles, vintage compressors, etc......)....but I've never heard an old recording that actually sounds good. I mean, I know there are great recordings "for the time", but nothing from the 50's or 60's actually sounds great by today's standards. The best recordings of those eras sound great considering when they were made, but wouldn't cut it today. Who's guitars sounded good? Pete Townsend? No. George Harrison? Not really. Maybe SOME Hendrix and Clapton???? Not really much to choose from. Same with drum sound, especially. Overall mixes? Not much I can think of other than some trend setters, but in general, nothing sounded as amazing as the equipment should have made it sound if it was that good.
 
RAMI said:
I've always wondered this: Why is it that people always talk about "vintage" stuff as being the best (Old Gibsons, Fenders, mixing consoles, vintage compressors, etc......)....but I've never heard an old recording that actually sounds good. I mean, I know there are great recordings "for the time", but nothing from the 50's or 60's actually sounds great by today's standards. The best recordings of those eras sound great considering when they were made, but wouldn't cut it today. Who's guitars sounded good? Pete Townsend? No. George Harrison? Not really. Maybe SOME Hendrix and Clapton???? Not really much to choose from. Same with drum sound, especially. Overall mixes? Not much I can think of other than some trend setters, but in general, nothing sounded as amazing as the equipment should have made it sound if it was that good.
Click to expand...

I don't know, but I suspect it's not a black and white thing of "vintage" gear being better/worse... I think it's big track counts and editing capabilities that have had the biggest impact on recording tech. And I think the analog vs. digital tone debates are mostly fueled by erroneous comparisons- Studer 2" 24-track vs Zoom interface, etc. But I also think there are grains of truth about the tonal qualities of equipment- older tube amps, a real Fender Rhodes vs a digital sample. Doesn't mean every guitar made in the 60s was decent or even usable. But those vintage recordings were mostly before my time. Jimi's guitars could have sounded like rainbows shooting out of a unicorn's eyes, but because of the limits of the tech, a whippersnapper like me will never know.
 
fat_fleet said:
I don't know, but I suspect it's not a black and white thing of "vintage" gear being better/worse... I think it's big track counts and editing capabilities that have had the biggest impact on recording tech. And I think the analog vs. digital tone debates are mostly fueled by erroneous comparisons- Studer 2" 24-track vs Zoom interface, etc. But I also think there are grains of truth about the tonal qualities of equipment- older tube amps, a real Fender Rhodes vs a digital sample. Doesn't mean every guitar made in the 60s was decent or even usable. But those vintage recordings were mostly before my time. Jimi's guitars could have sounded like rainbows shooting out of a unicorn's eyes, but because of the limits of the tech, a whippersnapper like me will never know.
Click to expand...
Ok, so in other words, you don't know either. Thanx. :D
 
RAMI said:
This might not be totally related to the original question, but maybe a bit.

I've always wondered this: Why is it that people always talk about "vintage" stuff as being the best (Old Gibsons, Fenders, mixing consoles, vintage compressors, etc......)....but I've never heard an old recording that actually sounds good. I mean, I know there are great recordings "for the time", but nothing from the 50's or 60's actually sounds great by today's standards. The best recordings of those eras sound great considering when they were made, but wouldn't cut it today. Who's guitars sounded good? Pete Townsend? No. George Harrison? Not really. Maybe SOME Hendrix and Clapton???? Not really much to choose from. Same with drum sound, especially. Overall mixes? Not much I can think of other than some trend setters, but in general, nothing sounded as amazing as the equipment should have made it sound if it was that good.
Click to expand...

I think if yesterday's recordings were being done today they would hold up and sound good because they would be done with more current methods/goals. I also wouldn't say that all modern approaches to recording are generally better....as I don't see what current "standards" there are that are necessarily better....???
If it's about the compression/loudness and that intense "HD", cut-with-a-razor detail, and a lot of generally bright/edgy tones....mmmmm....I don't always like that. It doesn't work for everything, IMO.

AFA the guitar sounds....ahhhhh.....there's a lot of current guitar sounds that are awful. All that super high-gain shred crap sounds like a lot of buzzzzzzzzzz to me....so I wouldn't say that current guitar tones are the best ever, IMHO....but I guess it's all about what we individually like and what gets under our skin during a particular decade. :)

The other thing is....many of the current bands and production styles are trying to chase after the more "vintage/retro" flavors. They're just doing it more with that up-front, in-your-face style, which again, I don't always think sounds best for every chosen style....but it seems that's becoming the norm with both TV and music.
It's all extremely over-focused, razor-sharp, and intense throughout....which IMO, can become a bit tedious when it's all always like that.
I watch some of the Palladia TV concerts...and every act, every song is just banging away at a 100 miles per hour with blazing sonic intensity. There's no....hate to say it....dynamics. Not talking about the loudness, I like things with some punch to it... but more about the constant straight-line approach to the delivery...be it a mix or a performance.
 
miroslav said:
I think if yesterday's recordings were being done today they would hold up and sound good because they would be done with more current methods/goals. I also wouldn't say that all modern approaches to recording are generally better....as I don't see what current "standards" there are that are necessarily better....???
If it's about the compression/loudness and that intense "HD", cut-with-a-razor detail, and a lot of generally bright/edgy tones....mmmmm....I don't always like that. It doesn't work for everything, IMO.

AFA the guitar sounds....ahhhhh.....there's a lot of current guitar sounds that are awful. All that super high-gain shred crap sounds like a lot of buzzzzzzzzzz to me....so I wouldn't say that current guitar tones are the best ever, IMHO....but I guess it's all about what we individually like and what gets under our skin during a particular decade. :)

The other thing is....many of the current bands and production styles are trying to chase after the more "vintage/retro" flaovors....their just doing it with that up-front, in-your-face style.
Click to expand...
For sure there are a lot of shitty sounding guitars out there, etc....Don't get me wrong, 90% of the music I listen to is considered "very old", so I'm certainly not putting down older records, or praising the newer crap. I just don't hear anything in those old records that really sounds that awesome, either individual instruments or overall mixes. It's the music itself that I find awesome.

Drums alone is a whole conversation by itself. Until...I don't know....1969 and John Bonham (am I forgetting someone else?) drums sounded shit. Even The Beatles, who were supposed to be the big innovators and the first to close-mic drums, don't really have any great drum sounds. There are a lot of INTERESTING sounds, but nothing that really stands out as outstanding.
 
Yeah...drums were pretty subdued back in the 50s, 60s, 70s....with some exceptions.

I always use to love the older Allman Bros stuff because they had the two drummers, and their sound punched out...though they never really made them in-your-face. It just gave the drum sound more definition.

In a lot of today's music, the drums are way punched up way too much for some songs/mixes, IMO....but it's like everyone is doing it.
There's a point in any mix where they either sit right with plenty of definition...or they are just too loud, to much in-your-face.
I know you drummer's might not agree about ever pulling them back a bit... :D
 
Record producers and engineers in the 60's would've probably broke your wrists while snatching todays recording equipment out of your hands, if you could've showed them. They were all out to capture the best possible sound and used what technology could supply. The idea that that old gear is better is in the ear of the user/enthusiast.

As for the original question. I don't look for a particular sound, I just play what I think/feel sounds nice. I have no idea if the masses of people asking "How do you get X Sound?" ever found it. Probably not. They're all still searching......

:thumbs up:
 
The name of my next band-"THAT". Then I will automatically get that sound every time I listen. :)

Sorry for the thread jack...
 
Chasing that sound sounds like something that would make me frustrated and pissed off so no I've never bothered.
 
I'm more interested in getting my sound to sound good than chase rainbows
 
Chasing production is a lot like chasing guitar tone. I'm guilty of it.

In the early 1970s I wondered how they got records to sound the way they did, like the Stones "Sticky Fingers" or Steely Dan "Cant by a Thrill" I knew there was an art to it.

After many years of learning how to record I know now, for the most part how it was done. Overall, I don't look to exactly copy any one sound or production, but I still listen to a lot of music to see what peaks my interest.
 
i have gotten the guitar tone i wanted many times over using the eleven rack. i have successfully copied many artist's tone close enough to fool many people. with today's technology anything is possible if you have some time to dial it in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top