Old School recordings

[TragikRemix]

I can't imagine what flaw "biased ears" can uncover that my tin ones don't.

the flaw is;

i dont want to hear it sound good. i want to be able to criticize it.


thanks for the neg.... and i am entitled to my opinion. if you think your going to affect me, think again and get a life.

 

[cephus]

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...

I disapproved. Sorry.

Comparing Cream to the beatles is like comparing Tera Patrick to your mom.

I asked for the flaw that you see, that's all. I think you're just talking shit, but I could accept the fact that I am wrong. Or maybe I just hate you for having an opinion and being 16. Regardless, if you are unable to appreciate at least the execution of Beatles recordings, then I gotta give you a red chicklet - if only so I can change your life.


Just kidding. You're full of shit.

 

[blueroommusic]

let's turn this into a Digi hating thread right..about...meow.

Down with capitalism
Down with monopolies
Hooray for socialism

 

[cjacek]

I get a kick out of the guy on this BBS (sorry, can't recall who right now) who has the tag line about how if you can't make a hit record on a Tascam or Fostex, you're not going to make one on a Studer or Otari.

"Beck" used to have the tag line which originated from sound on sound online magazine. I think it rings true and it was meant to illustrate how recording technique is more important.

 

[TragikRemix]

I disapproved. Sorry

Comparing Cream to the beatles is like comparing Tera Patrick to your mom.

I asked for the flaw that you see, that's all. I think you're just talking shit, but I could accept the fact that I am wrong. Or maybe I just hate you for having an opinion and being 16. Regardless, if you are unable to appreciate at least the execution of Beatles recordings, then I gotta give you a red chicklet - if only so I can change your life.


Just kidding. You're full of shit.

im full of shit that the beatles recordings suck? no no no, your just in denial..

-The beatles were big, theres no doubt. They were so big that they could have their own studio. They hired engineers an all that jazz.. am i right so far??
is it a lie that john lennon was a nut and liked to experiment in the studio? they could do whatever they wanted. they could fart into a mic and make it a platinum hit. they didnt have to produce the best possible quality in the studio and they didnt.

so im 16 and your 39. you're just jealous that im a little shit and you're an old fart...

 

[cjacek]

I could be wrong but I don't think anyone is talking about one's taste in the Beatles music but rather in the way many of their records (specifically the later ones) compare sonically to everything else. Many of their songs are breathing, living masterpieces which were engineered in ways which surpass anything past or present.

Doesn't matter if you're a fan of their music or not (writing, singing etc .... ) but one cannot deny the fact that many people want but still can't get their instruments and mixes to sound "as good as the Beatles" despite having tons more options in the digital domain.

 

[RAMI]

Besides the fact that their song-writing, vocal harmonies and arrangements, and "sound" still stand up today and, in fact, are still being copied today. I think what happens when a band is copied THAT much is that someone who comes around a couple of decades later hears them and can't hear what the big deal is because they've heard a million other bands with the same sound. The difference is, all those other bands copied them...They were TOTALLY original and innovative, but it's hard to hear that when you were born 20 years after they broke up.

And also, as mentioned earlier in this thread, and still left un-answered: Are we talking "Please Please Me" or "Abbey Road"??? It's like night and day. And if you don't know the difference, you shouldn't be so quick to throw out an un-informed opinion.

I don't mean any dis-respect, TRAGIC, because for 16 years old, your comments are actually very mature and for the most part, well-informed. But there might be more to the Beatles than what you think you know.

 

[cephus]

so im 16 and your 39. you're just jealous that im a little shit and you're an old fart...

Fair enough.




But you know you're full of shit, too.



As am I.

Abbey road has definitely always been what I consider the pinnacle of the art of recording. But don't overlook some other records. I think that Revolution 1 off the white album is a great recording. It's so fat and clean and deep. I like the opening guitar sound. I like the horns sneaking in. the background vocals. All that stuff.

But then listen to revolution off the other album that sounds like shit. What is it "Hey, Jude" or something? I forget that album. It had Lady Madonna on it too (great recording).

The reason i brought up the shitty recorded version is to show that there is nothing so great about the song. It's just 3 or 4 chord rock and roll, right? But on the White Album it was reworked into something different (and much better). THAT is production.

 

[ermghoti]

let's turn this into a Digi hating thread right..about...meow.

Did you just say "meow?"

 

[RAK]

-The beatles were big, theres no doubt. They were so big that they could have their own studio. They hired engineers an all that jazz.. am i right so far??

Well, they didn't have their own studio. They had eventually had their own publishing company (Northern Songs Ltd) and their own label (Apple) but Abbey Road Studios was around long before the Beatles ever were. Which brings up another point I think is valid about the rooms playing a big part in the early days. Having the physical space of an Abbey Road, Chess, or Motown is something that can't be recreated in a bedroom or basement.

is it a lie that john lennon was a nut and liked to experiment in the studio? they could do whatever they wanted. they could fart into a mic and make it a platinum hit. they didnt have to produce the best possible quality in the studio and they didnt.

John Lennon was pretty nutty(that's putting it mildly), but I'm not sure what that has to do with production quality. Trust me they all cared about putting out the best quality product that was available at the time (and they created a lot of what became available). They may not have always suceeded, in everyone's opinion (including their own). And who doesn't like to experiment in the studio? Especially when the manual hasn't been written yet, all you can do is experiment.

How much do you know about George Martin? I think he's pretty much a genious and The Beatles wouldn't have been The Beatles without him. Geoff Emerick too. Pick up a copy of "All You Need is Ears," it may not make you like the music, but it will give you some insight into what they were doing and what the standards were for the time.

I think it's pretty safe to say that this message board wouldn't exist without The Beatles.

 

[RAK]

But then listen to revolution off the other album that sounds like shit. What is it "Hey, Jude" or something? I forget that album. It had Lady Madonna on it too (great recording).

Dude, seriously? "Hey Jude" is not the name of an album. In fact if I'm remembering correctly off the top of my head, it's not on any albums, it was just a single (not counting later releases of "best of's" like the Blue album)

Also, I'm pretty sure Lady Madonna was only a single also.

It sound like maybe you're thinking about the blue album: The Beatles 1967-1970

 

[Harvey Gerst]

Having the physical space of an Abbey Road, Chess, or Motown is something that can't be recreated in a bedroom or basement.

Uhh, Motown WAS in a basement. Chess was in an old old automobile parts warehouse.

 

[RAK]

Uhh, Motown WAS in a basement. Chess was in an old old automobile parts warehouse.

Yes I know, I've been to both multiple times (well Chess only once). I just meant they don't make basements like they use to. Plus if you take the tour, they love to sell you on the great "echo" chambers in there. It's a lot of marketing though. Granted neither of them compare to the space of rooms at Abbey Road, but they still had something special. I'll be the first one to admit though it was the studio musicians who really made those rooms amazing, not the rooms themselves. But the musicians would probably tell you there was something to the space as well. Thankfully I've been able to work with a few of them and make great recordings, and that was in a basement too.

It was just a figure of speech.

 

[TragikRemix]

I don't mean any dis-respect, TRAGIC, because for 16 years old, your comments are actually very mature and for the most part, well-informed. But there might be more to the Beatles than what you think you know.

why would that be disrespectful??? thanks.

this thread has inspired me to listen to some more beatles, even though i'm a tad reluctant. i must google they're engineers too..

didnt hendrix also like to do weird experiments in the studio??

what was this thread about?

 

[Superhuman]

Did you just say "meow?"

Just meow? I think he did... "all nimbly pimbly like"

 

[RAK]

why would that be disrespectful??? thanks.

this thread has inspired me to listen to some more beatles, even though i'm a tad reluctant. i must google they're engineers too..

didnt hendrix also like to do weird experiments in the studio??

what was this thread about?

Hendrix liked to do acid.
Pretty much everything with record was an experiment in those days. I bet Harvey would be a great resource for you to learn more about it.
It's good to learn where the standard practices' we take for granted today came from.

You know Disney invented a lot of things for the recording/film sound industry, like the pan-pot. (at least the've been credited for that)

 

[Harvey Gerst]

Hendrix liked to do acid. Prett much everything with record was an experiment in those days. I bet Harvey would be a great resource for you to learn more about it. It's good to learn where the standard practices' we take for granted today came from.

I showed Jimi Hendrix a trick to use vibrato on just the high strings, while the bass strings played straight. He immediately started rolling tape and cut some tracks, although I don't know if they ever made it to the public.

I remember the night Albert King discovered how to control feedback; that was wild.

 

[travelin travis]

Besides the fact that their song-writing, vocal harmonies and arrangements, and "sound" still stand up today and, in fact, are still being copied today. I think what happens when a band is copied THAT much is that someone who comes around a couple of decades later hears them and can't hear what the big deal is because they've heard a million other bands with the same sound. The difference is, all those other bands copied them...They were TOTALLY original and innovative, but it's hard to hear that when you were born 20 years after they broke up.

well said. the beatles were one of my earliest musical experiences and maybe that plays a big part in why i really dig them. my parents spun alot of vinyl when i was a kid and the beatles were played often.

I don't mean any dis-respect, TRAGIC, because for 16 years old, your comments are actually very mature and for the most part, well-informed. But there might be more to the Beatles than what you think you know.

Alot of things come with age. As old as ol Harvey is, I'd imagine he's some kind of super being or something. Harvey I'm 28 going on 50. What magical things do I have to look forward to in my golden years?

Dude, seriously? "Hey Jude" is not the name of an album. In fact if I'm remembering correctly off the top of my head, it's not on any albums, it was just a single (not counting later releases of "best of's" like the Blue album)

Also, I'm pretty sure Lady Madonna was only a single also.

It sound like maybe you're thinking about the blue album: The Beatles 1967-1970

fyi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hey_Jude_(album)

 

[RAK]

fyi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hey_Jude_(album)

Here's the first line from that entry:

Hey Jude (original title: The Beatles Again) was a 1970 collection of non-album Beatles' singles and B-sides,

So it was just a "greatest hits" collection, not really an album. But I don't want to get into a definition thing about what an "album" is. But what I meant originally was that it was only a single except on "collections"

 

[Harvey Gerst]

Alot of things come with age. As old as ol Harvey is, I'd imagine he's some kind of super being or something. Harvey I'm 28 going on 50. What magical things do I have to look forward to in my golden years?

Mainly memories. After 50, it's pretty much all downhill from there. Your body starts giving out; you stop caring as much about the way you look or dress, and you can't remember why you walked into a room.

My advice is to try and do as much as you can, while you can. Those things you don't do, you'll regret later on in life. Get out and experience as much life as you can. Security is way overrated.