Vintage Vocal Technique?

[csonmike]

How is it that the old Zeppelin, Stones, Who records had this vocal sound to them, which was very natural and roomy; unlike the very clear and upfront vocals nowadays?

Is this a microphone thing? a positioning thing? a room thing?

 

[chessrock]

It was because Led Zep, Stones, Doors, etc. ... all used one of the earliest Pro Tools systems running on an Apple G-2 when they recorded their albums. Something about the very slow processor imparted a sense of spaceousness to the vocal tracks.
.

 

[TuoKaerf]

I would say less compression, and more focus on the room.

 

[Robert D]

Is this a microphone thing? a positioning thing? a room thing?

I think it's a fashion thing. The current trend is clear dry up front vocals with very little reverb. Back in the day the trend was for much wetter vocals.

-RD

 

[Robert D]

It was because Led Zep, Stones, Doors, etc. ... all used one of the earliest Pro Tools systems running on an Apple G-2 when they recorded their albums. Something about the very slow processor imparted a sense of spaceousness to the vocal tracks.
.

Right Chess, and don't forget the G-2 used tubes back then, so that really gave it a much warmer sound.

 

[BigRay]

It was because Led Zep, Stones, Doors, etc. ... all used one of the earliest Pro Tools systems running on an Apple G-2 when they recorded their albums. Something about the very slow processor imparted a sense of spaceousness to the vocal tracks.
.

 

[olfunk]

It was because Led Zep, Stones, Doors, etc. ... all used one of the earliest Pro Tools systems running on an Apple G-2 when they recorded their albums. Something about the very slow processor imparted a sense of spaceousness to the vocal tracks.
.

quite funny, but to be fair to the guy he did ask a serious question, and deserves a serious answer. my 2 cents is that the mic was probably positioned further away, giving more of the room sound, the trend was also to perform in fairly live rooms compared to today's standard, so as well as the mic allowing more room sound anyway, there was more of it to allow.

 

[chessrock]

quite funny, but to be fair to the guy he did ask a serious question, and deserves a serious answer. my 2 cents is that the mic was probably positioned further away, giving more of the room sound, the trend was also to perform in fairly live rooms compared to today's standard, so as well as the mic allowing more room sound anyway, there was more of it to allow.

Read RobertD's first response, and all will be revealed.
.

 

[soundchaser59]

With all due respect, the guy asked HOW they got that sound, not if it was trendy or fashionable. (No offense, Robert!)

I wish I knew, but I suspect the actual method hasn't really changed all that much. I would guess what has changed, besides the rooms and studios they build, is the amount of "voodoo" they do to the tracks after they are recorded.

But I'm just a basement banger, so I know about as much as you paid to read this post...... which aint much!

 

[Robert D]

With all due respect, the guy asked HOW they got that sound, not if it was trendy or fashionable. (No offense, Robert!)

No offense taken. I'll elaborate...........they turned the reverb send a little further....... clockwise.


Really, I don't think those bands used a lot of Voodoo on the vocals, just some plain old reverb, mostly good old fashioned plates back in the day, some delay, EQ and compression.

Ooh, I used fashion again, must be some latent metro-sexual streak coming to the surface. I'm gonna go use my chain saw.

-RD

 

[soundchaser59]

I agree, I suspect the amount of voodoo is a lot greater now than it ever was back then. Back then you had to be a good singer to sound good. Now all you need is good voodoo......

 

[Red Dog Studios]

i've heard of some of the older bands re-wiring some headphones and singing into the ear hole, as if it was a mic....and no i'm not jokin lol. Does anyone else remember hearing about this trick? i think some people made some threads about it a long time ago. This is prolly not what all the bands used everytime back then, but it is interesting.

 

[cello_pudding]

you don't need to rewire anything.

mics and headphones are transducers. you can both talk into some headphones and record it...or listen to something through a microphone.

i've done both

 

[goldtopchas]

I think they used room acoustics much more to their advantage back then.
Now it seems the trend is to track it bone dry, and process the crap out of it.
One of the Beatles tunes was sung by Paul , on his back, lying on the floor of the restroom. A friend of mine tracked some stuff many years ago on reel to reel, that he sang in a boiler room with all these big metal tanks and pipes. It has no compression or reverb on it and it sounded AMAZING!! (Didn't hurt that he was a pretty damn good singer too.)

 

[Nakatira]

I think some bands recorded theire vox with several mix, placing one mic upfront and positioned others in the room.
I know David Bowie used some fancy mic techniques on Hero`s.

I`ve also seen some pics from the vox recordings of War of the worlds, were the singer had several mics put in front of him with various distances.

If you only use on mic I supose steeping a bit further away from the mic could give you nice results.

 

[CyanJaguar]

imo, the main reason the vocals sound different is that back then they did not care for vocals to be AIRY. they preferred natural.

todays vocal mike all hype the heck out of the high end, making them sound very unnatural and very 90s.

also, the ambience on those records was not concert stage or large hall, it was more chamberish in nature, so use a reverb with quicker decay and use more of it.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I know David Bowie used some fancy mic techniques on Hero`s.

That was Tony Visconti that set that rig up. They recorded Heros in an old factory or warehouse just off the Berlin Wall. (Just about the same place and time as Iggy Pop's "Lust For Life" was done, BTW.)

This industrial building was a huge reverbery structure, so what they did was set up three vocal mics for Bowie; one "normal", one about 20ft. away, another one about 40ft. away, etc. (my numbers may not be exact.) They then put gates on each of the distance mics so that they would only kick in when Bowie's singing reached a certain loudness.

We're all familiar with how that song - and Bowie's voice - builds in intensity as the song moves on. Well as he starts singing lounder, the first distance mic kicks over the gate and adds it's version of warehouse reverb; louder, the second also kicks in with really deep reverb. Sum the three together and you have a massive buildup of sound.

Then you add in a percussion section that includes everybody and their girlfrineds banging the tempo on ash trays, garbage cans, whatever they can find, and you have the sound of "Heros".

The German version is still better though

G.

 

[Dani Pace]

Rooms, mics, gear, all important but lets not forget the voice itself. Some singers just have a certain quality in their voice which makes them really stand out. Larger places to record with more room ambience may have well played a larger part in some of those recordings than many people realize. Also mics with huge diaphrams were fairly common back in those days, I'm not sure if that made a lot of difference but it might have.

 

[Red Dog Studios]

One of the Beatles tunes was sung by Paul , on his back, lying on the floor of the restroom. QUOTE]


you dont recall what song it was do you?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

One of the Beatles tunes was sung by Paul , on his back, lying on the floor of the restroom. QUOTE]


you dont recall what song it was do you?

I don't know, but it sounds like "She Came In Through the Bathroom Window" to me.

Happy Holidays, everyone!!!

G.