How come they don't sound like that anymore???

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrettB
  • Start date Start date
BrettB

BrettB

Well-known member
I had a 'listening experience' today I want to share with you. I had it before and maybe you also had it often.

I am a free lance writer for a music magazine, and the editor called me yesterday to ask me if I could interview John Mayall this friday, over the telephone, about his latest album. As a blues fan, I accepted, and a friend of mine, who adores Mayals early work, was thrilled when he heared I can talk to him. My friend immediately came over to let me hear some old records of Mayall he had that I didn't hear yet.


We spend a whole evening listening to bluesrecords from late 60's, like The Bluesbreakers album with Eric Clapton, A Hard Road, and Blues From Lauryl Canyon. We were constantly talking to eachother how great those mixes sound, how powerful those hammonds, how cool those drums (pannend for the most part to the right on some records!) sounded.
the whole mix sounds warm and edgy at the same time, a unique atmosphere.

And than I realized: those recordings were made in the late 60's, with modest material (Blues From Lauryl Canyon was recorded in three days) and sound so good. How come today, with all our digital equipment and hitech stuff, most mixes don't sound that organic as those late 60's stuff. OK, maybe pop/rock and dance related everything sounds way more advanced today, but let us take this blues(rock) for example. I have quit a lot from the latest bluesreleases (due to reviews I have to write for the mag) and NONE of them sound that good to me than the early work from the late 60's, early 70's. Everything sound more clean, less organic and less creative. Few bands seem to use an original hammond, and everything sounds so.. I can't descirbe it .. lack of organic feel... The mixes don't grab me to the troath. They (off course, there are exceptions) don't sound like a few guys who put their soul in their music and their recordings/ but as a bunch of guys that want to make a clean sounding album that sell many albums.

Why is this? Is this because I have other soundstandards for a good sound/mix than someone else? When I listen to Mayalls new album, it sounds 'good', but doesn't have that 60's sound I admired, and it lacks the whirling hammonds and pumping guitar sound.

Or do I have to admit that the guys who say analog tape sounds much warmer are right? Or are we just grown custom to this new 'digital' sound, with far more advanced microphones? I don't want to sound as a old fashioned guy: I am excited by all new recording equipment and the evolution in possibilities is great. So why am I craving for that warm analog sound?

Is it just my emotional state or so? Is it in my head because the other recordings were from the sixties, so kinda of a psychological thing?
 
I don't know... not all that blues kinda guy. Jazz records still sound pretty much the same I guess. :)

I think some records still try to get that old vibe, and get pretty close at times. The first album of El Fish had that feel a little bit? (You know that one, right? Ofcourse. As a Belgian and a blues fan, you have to....)
 
"The Bluesbreakers album with Eric Clapton"

Great album! My favorite is "Steppin' Out" - Clapton at his best.
The thing I find fascinating is the number of Blues fans in Europe, many more than here, where it originated. A good friend of mine, Walter Trout (who also gigged with Mayall), is huge over there, selling out everywhere he plays. Here, there's not as much interest. Go figure.
I think the new technology doesn't help blues recordings, which always sound better a little muddy and with a lot of mic bleed.


Bob
 
Wow! Walter Trout is a friend of yours? Damn...

I saw him on a free concert once. It was on my birthday. There was a free festival in town, but all blues, so none of my friends went there. I asked a girl, a good friend that I really digged to come with me. So we were there, nobody knew it was my birthday, and I saw some feakin' good blues concerts. Best brithday I ever had..... Really...

(Funny thing was; my mom was on holiday, she called me to wish me a happy birthday, but after telling all she had to tell, she forgot. :D )
 
I saw Walter Trout a few years ago here in St. Louis at Riverport (A VERY large outdoor venue). He kicked some MAJOR ass.
 
BrettB said:
So why am I craving for that warm analog sound? . . .

Is it just my emotional state or so? Is it in my head because the other recordings were from the sixties, so kinda of a psychological thing?
Click to expand...

:D LOL. I think you pretty much answered your own questions:

Few bands seem to use an original hammond.

. . . They (off course, there are exceptions) don't sound like a few guys who put their soul in their music and their recordings/ but as a bunch of guys that want to make a clean sounding album that sell many albums.

. . . When I listen to Mayalls new album, it sounds 'good', but doesn't have that 60's sound I admired, and it lacks the whirling hammonds and pumping guitar sound.

Sounds to me like you're a big fan of the hammond. Which is cool. I love it too. I'm not so much of a blues fan as I am a classic rock fan, and I used to love Deep Purple's sound, with John Lord's vintage organ sound underneath everything and sometimes just whaling away on it's own.

Recording to analog tape isn't going to magically place a real organ and pumping guitars in to the mix. :) It just sounds like, over time, people have abandoned a lot of instruments and sounds that had great character for easier solutions like softsynths, midi, and the POD Pro, which is truly sad. :(
 
I have some Trout material. He is a really big name, so it's really impressive he's your friend! I don't like all of his stuff, he was I think at his best during his period with Mayall. Still an impressive guitarist though. Several blues artists are idd much more popular in Europ than in the states. Oh yeah, My favorite on the bluesbreakers album is 'Hideway'

Roel, the El Fish album is idd an exception, sounds really ok, I like the band.


chessrock, you have a point with 'easy solutions'. I really like new technology, but only as it is used on a creative way, not as a simple solution... Really adore the John Lord Stuff too. The Made In Japan stuff is great. The low Hammond on Black Night: Awesome.

And about Hammonds, let 's get one thing straight: A soundmodule NEVER can replace a good hammond. Sure, the digital hammond stuff is great, they sound awesome... But nothing beats a real B3 pumping his ass off....

Also many modern blues artists don't seem to bother writing songs anymore. While they used to write several creative stuff, now they just go: Let's use another 12 bar blues, and solo our ass off. Thank god there are exceptions, like our own El Fish, and I also like Lee Sankey (he's great!!!!, check his Cd, some great horns and harmonica on his album, lot's of jazz and funk influences). Omar And The Howlers are also quite good.

Oh, but I was talking about sound:). Please blues and rock fellows, let us get rid of that clean plastic sound and let ours hammonds and guitars roar again!
 
I love it when it when it's treated like a guitar and amped with tons of dirty distortion. :D

One of my buddies has one, and for shits and giggles, we decided to run it through a Big Muff Pie overdrive pedal. It was a very interesting . . . very cool sound to say the least.
 
To answer your question FWIW, they don't sound like that anymore because hardly anyone uses a B3 or tape or Suitcase Rhodes, or any of the old cool stuff anymore.

It's all sterile, digital, electronic, over processed, over produced,
overhyped, over compressed hollywood glitter commercial crap.

Rant mode off.


John Mayall huh? That should be an interesting interview. Let us know how it goes.
 
Yeah, I'm looking forward to the interview...


Sad evolution though, You can use digital equipment and modules and I know what on several occasions when it comes in handy, but it shouldn't be used as a standard. I mean, just play a few tunes on a real B3 and a Roland simulator: you'll hear the difference immediately.

And I'm also with the thread recentely that everything nowadays ssounds overcompressed to just sound as loud as possible. Loudness and compression doesn't equal quality.
 
Reminds me of a story. Trout and his band at the time (1976) were invited to my wedding after-party, but were working that night and said they couldn't make it. So the party goes on and on and on....until about 3 A.M. The wife and I are trying to graciously expel the hangers-on; we're wasted, tired, and have to work the next day. Finally the last one leaves, we start turning out lights, getting ready to crash. Pounding on the door. Hey, it's five hungry, thirsty bluesmen that just did 4 hours on the strip and are READY TO PARRRRRTTY!!! CRANK THAT SUCKER UP! They ate us out of house and home, smoked everything we had, drank everything in the house, and left about dawn. It was grand. Perfect ending to the best day in my life.
Funny thing is, I've always preferred his acoustic playing to his electric stuff. You should hear what he can do with a D-28!

Bob
 
FYI we ALL CRAVE that WARM ANALOG SOUND even digital thats y u see plugins like Tape saturator and H/w units like the fatso jr.
 
High!

Some of you might be astonished, but I am DYING for that old style blues sound. Why isn't it produced no longer? IMO it is the many possibilities of recording songs 'perfect' that weakens them.

Back then, the songs were really recorded live. The guys had to be well prepared, and had to accept minor 'faults' (from the solo track point of view). But they were really together. And they were not afraid of the 'minor faults', so they would much more easy give their soul... I cannot record the way they did, as I'm simply not good enough with my instrument (and perhaps too much used to the 'perfect' music ;) )...

That's why I prefer to write difficult articles/papers a.s.o. BY HAND! The feeling that I can correct everything later on make me write thoughtless..

Just my 2c

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