Old School recordings

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dumby
  • Start date Start date
Dumby

Dumby

Bummed Spammer
Does anyone have a genereal idea on how the Beatles would have recorded their earlier stuff or the Kinks for that matter? Even the Ventures. As far as set-up and gear. Thanks!
 
Apparently the Beatles recorded some of their first albums with a four track recorder of some sort.

Thats just what I remember at least--I may be wrong.

And I think Jimi Hendrix recorded his studio albums live.
 
I have on good authority that both the Beatles and the Kinks recorded their stuff at a studio. And they used a lot of microphones ... and everything ran in to a mixing console of some kind.

I'll see what more info I can get for ya.

.
 
Read in a magazine somewhere that everything was done using a 4-track. I heard in an interview with a guy on the radio that they were always trying to find more effects to make it sound differently (like the guitars sound like sitars before they played sitars). I have no idea what specific effects though.
 
The Beatles used some obscure comedy record maker, The Kinks abused each other & razored speakers whilst Jimi used osmosis diluted with groupie oil.
 
can i ask why you care? i wont share my opinion of the beatles, but the actual production isnt what i'd call spectacular, by todays standards of course. im sure whatever they did back then was amazing for those days.. if your looking for a vintage sounding recording, just make a good recording and send it out to be made into a vinyl, or add a noise generating plugin of some sort.

im lucky i wasnt a 60's kid because i'd hate music and play sports or something instead... well thats not true, i just dont like beatles.. cream is much better and they are the same era...
 
TragikRemix said:
can i ask why you care? i wont share my opinion of the beatles, but the actual production isnt what i'd call spectacular, by todays standards of course. im sure whatever they did back then was amazing for those days.. if your looking for a vintage sounding recording, just make a good recording and send it out to be made into a vinyl, or add a noise generating plugin of some sort.

im lucky i wasnt a 60's kid because i'd hate music and play sports or something instead... well thats not true, i just dont like beatles.. cream is much better and they are the same era...
Click to expand...

silly fool. go play some soccer.
 
TragikRemix said:
can i ask why you care? i wont share my opinion of the beatles, but the actual production isnt what i'd call spectacular, by todays standards of course. im sure whatever they did back then was amazing for those days.. if your looking for a vintage sounding recording, just make a good recording and send it out to be made into a vinyl, or add a noise generating plugin of some sort.

im lucky i wasnt a 60's kid because i'd hate music and play sports or something instead... well thats not true, i just dont like beatles.. cream is much better and they are the same era...
Click to expand...

By way of your post, one could easily surmise you're trolling the board if it wasn't for your (puzzling) high rep count. :rolleyes:

I'm all for opinions but you are pretty misinformed.
 
I'd say that the recording medium was much less important than the other gear they used. The mic's, pre's, rooms and balance engineers were pretty spectacular. Oh yeah, and whatever one thinks of their songwriting (I'm a fan myself) they were maybe one of the best rehearsed bands ever during their early recording years because of the hundreds if not thousands of live shows they did as a working club band starting out. The "Beatles 1" CD is a great representation of their sound IMO.

Tim
 
Timothy Lawler said:
I'd say that the recording medium was much less important than the other gear they used. The mic's, pre's, rooms and balance engineers were pretty spectacular. Oh yeah, and whatever one thinks of their songwriting (I'm a fan myself) they were maybe one of the best rehearsed bands ever during their early recording years because of the hundreds if not thousands of live shows they did as a working club band starting out. The "Beatles 1" CD is a great representation of their sound IMO.

Tim
Click to expand...

Good point. One doesn't need to be a Beatles fan to appreciate the unparalleled talent, not only of the musicians but the sound enginner and production value.

Btw, this is coming from someone who isn't neccessarily a die hard fan of the Beatles songwriting.
 
cjacek said:
By way of your post, one could easily surmise you're trolling the board if it wasn't for your (puzzling) high rep count. :rolleyes:

I'm all for opinions but you are pretty misinformed.
Click to expand...

no im just young, disrespectful and ignorant :)

seriously though, you can listen to a beatles recording (not song) and say its awesome quality??? of course for the time, it was probably the best.

and the rep thing hurt my feelings!!! :(

im trying to recover me self esteem as we speak though :o
 
TragikRemix said:
seriously though, you can listen to a beatles recording (not song) and say its awesome quality??? of course for the time, it was probably the best.
Click to expand...

"Awesome quality" as in production and sound quality ? Sure, a Beatles recording that has been faithfully transferred from the tape source to vinyl or digital, sounds, at least to my ears, better than anything made available commercially today.
 
yes thats what i meant. i think maybe its because my ears are biased one way and yours are another way... i dont know... i better stop posting about this topic before i anger people.
 
TragikRemix said:
seriously though, you can listen to a beatles recording (not song) and say its awesome quality???
Click to expand...
Are we talking about "Please Please Me" or "Abbey Road"?
 
TragikRemix said:
yes thats what i meant. i think maybe its because my ears are biased one way and yours are another way... i dont know... i better stop posting about this topic before i anger people.
Click to expand...

I think alot of it may have to do with what you're accustomed to hearing. Personally, when I listen to the Beatles, I don't think about production quality. That's the way I like it. Even IF.......the production was bad, the talent would still shine thru, no doubt in my mind. I think alot of cats forget that "production" and "mixing" include the emotion and interest that a song has. It's not all about pristine clean tracks and a spectacular stereo field. For me, it's definately not about getting that commercial in sound. I think that may be where alot of opinions split on production quality. I know it can be a difficult concept for some people but a mix does'nt have to be made in a mold...........stereo drums, left/right guitars, vocals dead center and up front, absolutely no warts whatsoever, etc.

Look what Elliot Smith or Guided by Voices did with 4/8 track cassette machines and radio shack mics......gear that most people on this board would'nt touch with a 10 ft. pole. When I listen to that stuff, the technical aspects of production quality just are'nt a factor. The writing, arrangement, performance, personality etc. just pushes all the technical stuff aside. I think that's a pretty fucking magical thing. Those recordings hold my attention just as much or more (depending on the song) as any commercial recordings.

Don't get me wrong. I strive for clean and balanced recordings to the best of my ability but I'll never sacrifice personality for super clean mixes. You always have to pick your priorities in anything you do. There will always be compromise. Where those compromises are made is my idea of production quality.

Btw, don't just drop a subject in fear of pissing a couple of people off. You have an opinion, express it. Alot of good things come from conflict. We can be civil around here, :D ...........................sometimes.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I'm not really a Beatles fan - I preferred the Stones & grubbier stuff though I was hooked on the pitiful cartoon show - but I can appreciate their talent.
I wouldn't let sound quality determine my taste. Some of the best music I own is relatively lo fi - VU at Max's, any Sebodah, early Kinks, most Ozzy era sabbath, the Stooges stuff, Queen's 1st 3 records & it's not a 60's thing.
Going by your criteria you should loathe, as I do, MP3 & any compressed media. You should champion chrome cassettes over MP3 players as the quality of a home recorded chrome is far better than a downloaded MP3. You will also, except for nostalgia value, loathe anything that is currently available once the digital era is superceded.
I hope that your bias to early recordings will become tempered by your appreciation of the MUSIC & let's face it - the media is merely an archive for a performance.
I record to tape & then transfer it to digital. My stuff isn't lo fi nor is it hi fi. It does, however, fairly faithfully capture an analogous representation of a performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top