Could YOU produce it?

[stringy_]

Would you be able to produce and engineer an album that sounds like Hendrix's "Electric Ladyland?" The Beatles' "White Album?" How about Rolling Stones' "Exile on Main St." or Zep's "House of the Holy?" Cream's "Disrealie Gears?"

I'm really trying to bust out of my musical ruts that I've worked myself in, and I broke out my rock 'n' roll albums, and it got me thinking.

With today's obsession with high sampling rates, sidechaining and gating drums, AD/DA converters, Pro Tools, etc. etc....is it even possible to make a record that sounds like older stuff?

I've listened to newer rock bands on the radio that have a bit of a "vintage" sound like Wolfmother or the Killers...and they still have super clean recordings.

What if a client told you he wanted to his album to sound like older Beatles. What would you do?

What are your thoughts on today's obsessively prefect recordings compared to older stuff?

 

[Genius Gone Insane]

What if a client told you he wanted to his album to sound like older Beatles. What would you do?

I'd tell him God couldn't make him sound like the Beatles.

 

[Nebulous]

If you aren't going for a clinical "modern" sound, then don't use the modern technology. Book the client in a studio with reel to reel, a nice old console and go from there...

 

[TheDude]

Would you be able to produce and engineer an album that sounds like Hendrix's "Electric Ladyland?" The Beatles' "White Album?" How about Rolling Stones' "Exile on Main St." or Zep's "House of the Holy?" Cream's "Disrealie Gears?"

Yes, of course. I'm old

 

[stringy_]

I'd tell him God couldn't make him sound like the Beatles.

Haha, good point!

If you aren't going for a clinical "modern" sound, then don't use the modern technology. Book the client in a studio with reel to reel, a nice old console and go from there...

Is it the equipment though? I think the techniques have more to do with it then the equipment.

 

[Ben Johnson]

It's not impossible to get that sound with digital, it's just much more difficult.

 

[Nebulous]

Haha, good point!



Is it the equipment though? I think the techniques have more to do with it then the equipment.

Uh, you mentioned the equipment, so i thought you were looking at it from that POV.

 

[stringy_]

Uh, you mentioned the equipment, so i thought you were looking at it from that POV.

Sorry. Yes, I was a bit misleading.

I shouldn't have said an obsession with new modern equipment, but an obsession with perfection.

Screw the equipment side, I don't want to debate analog vs. digital for the 100000th time. Lol!

API, Neve, Studer, etc. these manufacturers have been around since those early recordings, and in many cases they're still in use today...but we're seemingly getting very different results from them. So, I think it has more to do with the techniques.

Would a major label promote, today, an album that sounds like those older recordings?

Eh, I don't know. I guess I just found myself marveling at the production on these albums, and then asking myself, "Why? These are actually bad." But...they're not.

Hmmm...

 

[Nebulous]

I think the techniques used nowdays are ones that make things appear louder. A good example is our very own metal. Listen back to older Testament albums, then listen to The Gatehring. The recording and mixing is such that it makes it seem louder, or more in your face. It tries to grab your attention. IMO that's where modern recordings stemed from, the fact that when every recording seemed all "warm" and "fluffy", any band (no matter what the style) that came along and had a sharper sound stood out of the pack.

 

[elmuchoescadawg]

The first thing that come to mind thats different is that these days, especially with rock music there is quite an emphasis on spot micing drums, stripping silence and then using things like beat detective and drumagog. In the olden days (in some instances) less mics were generally used and the other techniques didnt exist. Its was more about the combination of a great kit in a great space with a performance to match rather than making sure the kick cuts through the wall of guitars.

I remember talking to another engineer I know as saying what did we do before digital editing, autotune and sound replacement? The answer was we learned to play our songs properly.

Just my opinion

 

[TheDude]

The first thing that come to mind thats different is that these days, especially with rock music there is quite an emphasis on spot micing drums, stripping silence and then using things like beat detective and drumagog. In the olden days (in some instances) less mics were generally used and the other techniques didnt exist. Its was more about the combination of a great kit in a great space with a performance to match rather than making sure the kick cuts through the wall of guitars.

I remember talking to another engineer I know as saying what did we do before digital editing, autotune and sound replacement? The answer was we learned to play our songs properly.

Just my opinion

+1

 

[-Gavin-]

I remember talking to another engineer I know as saying what did we do before digital editing, autotune and sound replacement? The answer was we learned to play our songs properly.

Just my opinion

+2

When i record, i never edit timing or such.

I do blend in replacement kicks and snares and occasionally v-vocal a slightly out of tune bend in an otherwise perfect solo take but i never do anything that makes me sound like a "better" player.

My stuff goes out warts and all and i only replace what bugs the fuck out of me, hahahaha

 

[Torniojaws]

I remember talking to another engineer I know as saying what did we do before digital editing, autotune and sound replacement? The answer was we learned to play our songs properly.

But then again, back then in the 60's and early 70's there was no high-speed, detail filled extreme music with every instrument striving for attention Songs were generally much more minimalistic compared to modern stuff and left more room for "mistakes" that wouldn't go through the ears of producers today.

 

[stringy_]

The first thing that come to mind thats different is that these days, especially with rock music there is quite an emphasis on spot micing drums, stripping silence and then using things like beat detective and drumagog. In the olden days (in some instances) less mics were generally used and the other techniques didnt exist. Its was more about the combination of a great kit in a great space with a performance to match rather than making sure the kick cuts through the wall of guitars.

I remember talking to another engineer I know as saying what did we do before digital editing, autotune and sound replacement? The answer was we learned to play our songs properly.

Just my opinion

Yeah, that's more along the lines of what I was talking about. That minimalistic approach to drums still sounds GOOD though, to my ears at least.

There are a few Jimmy Page guitar tones (Dancing Days comes to mind) that could have benefited from compression, EQing, differing mic'ing, etc. but it still sounds GOOD even if it does kill your ears. I know those tracks would probably have been thrown away by engineers today. Listen to Revolution by the Beatles. What is up with that guitar tone!?

These albums still sounded great though.

I'm starting to sound like Bob Rock and St. Anger. Look how well that approach turned out for them, lol!

 

[Kazrog]

I love the sound of Led Zeppelin's recordings in particular. A lot of it was the miking techniques used, and working around the limitations of the equipment at the time. I also think that on average, the musicians were far better back then, and generally had many more hours of time to practice together than artists do now. Just watch any John Bonham live footage - he sounds just like he does in the studio, even on the poorly recorded Icelandic "Danmarks Radio" performance on the Led Zeppelin DVD, his drum tone was because of his technique primarily.

I think only a small part of the sound had to do with the actual analog tape, that's a feel that can be easily simulated in digital.

I recently got a very cool book called "Recording the Beatles." It's an obsessively detailed tome going through every possible detail of how the Beatles records were made (mics, preamps, mic positions, amps, etc.) I highly recommend it.

 

[stringy_]

I love the sound of Led Zeppelin's recordings in particular. A lot of it was the miking techniques used, and working around the limitations of the equipment at the time. I also think that on average, the musicians were far better back then, and generally had many more hours of time to practice together than artists do now. Just watch any John Bonham live footage - he sounds just like he does in the studio, even on the poorly recorded Icelandic "Danmarks Radio" performance on the Led Zeppelin DVD, his drum tone was because of his technique primarily.

I think only a small part of the sound had to do with the actual analog tape, that's a feel that can be easily simulated in digital.

I recently got a very cool book called "Recording the Beatles." It's an obsessively detailed tome going through every possible detail of how the Beatles records were made (mics, preamps, mic positions, amps, etc.) I highly recommend it.

Holy buckets, thanks for the tip on that book!

 

[elmuchoescadawg]

But then again, back then in the 60's and early 70's there was no high-speed, detail filled extreme music with every instrument striving for attention Songs were generally much more minimalistic compared to modern stuff and left more room for "mistakes" that wouldn't go through the ears of producers today.

Granted and this is exactly why this technlogy exists IMHO. As music has evolved and been pushed further the technological requirements have also needed to be pushed. If the beatles did some of their early stuff on a 4 track they would have had to play more with mic placement and ambience that a modern band with 96 odd channels of play back to try and mix.

Different time, different sound and different approach.

At the risk of trotting out another anecdote some friends of mine recorded their third album last year with a name producer from the states who refered to pro tool as pro fools. They asked him how many layers of guitar he planned to record and he said how many guitar players do you have cos thats your answer. he worked on the attitude of if you cant play your songs all the way through then dont waste my time.

The album sounds fantastic in my opinion, very big sound but also quite classic in a way although current.

 

[HeadCrusher]

At the risk of trotting out another anecdote some friends of mine recorded their third album last year with a name producer from the states who refered to pro tool as pro fools. They asked him how many layers of guitar he planned to record and he said how many guitar players do you have cos thats your answer. he worked on the attitude of if you cant play your songs all the way through then dont waste my time.

The album sounds fantastic in my opinion, very big sound but also quite classic in a way although current.

What's the name of that band cos I'm really interested in hearing that!!

 

[elmuchoescadawg]

What's the name of that band cos I'm really interested in hearing that!!

Its In my blood by Breed 77, I totally love this band but even if its not your thing just check it out from a production point of view. Its not one of these sounds where you can pin point it to an era. It doesnt sound modern or vintage it just sounds good.

 

[HeadCrusher]

From the previews you can hear @iTunes it sounds great!
If that's really only two guitars then I guess it's really a lot about finding the ideal sound before going to tape...