Members offramp Posted May 24, 2007 Members Share Posted May 24, 2007 I It's a great exercise, and you can learn a heck of a lot by trying it. It's great for the listening / ear training skills. Exactly. You can, often, learn more about the "modern" way of doing things through this exercise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 As a follow-up, Phil, I did go out and buy UNDER THE COVERS, VOL.1 Wow...it's amazing. Now these covers-- I'm especially thinking of their "Monday, Monday" here--- have new, state-of-the art acoustics/production going on, but the way these two folks sing and deliver the song is amazingly true to the 1966 TM&TP recording... I'm glad to hear you liked the album. That's one thing that really impressed me about that album too - the sensitivity and respect they showed towards the original versions. True, the tones are not always identical, and the album's recordings do sound a bit more "modern", but overall, the sounds, and especially the performances (the most important thing IMHO ) are surprisingly similar to the original versions. It seems obvious to me that they really loved the original versions. It's a really good record IMO, that hasn't gotten the props it really deserved. It was pretty much all done at Matthew's home studio - I'd love to interview him regarding the approach and methods they used on that record! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevilRaysFan Posted May 24, 2007 Members Share Posted May 24, 2007 Nope, although I did session work for blues artists that tried. 'Vernacular' is the key word here: In the 50s, Electric guitar players played through tweed tube amps, bass players used upright basses and/or Fender P-basses, and guys dressed in lab coats ran reel-to-reel analog machines with tubes, and those basic mixers with tube pres...and these recordings were mothered to vinyl. Why? Because that was what was available then-that was state-of-the-art for the time they lived in. The artists werent trying to sound like anything but what they were at the time...and that was the captured emotion.No offense to anyone, but if someone is purposely trying to sound "vintage", that automatically tells me there will be a certain 'contrived' factor involved - that extra variable that earlier artists didn't do - and this will inevitibly affect the entire output, and thats all the difference it takes...or thats just how I see it, anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members elsongs Posted May 24, 2007 Members Share Posted May 24, 2007 I totally dig the Amy Winehouse album...I played the song "Love Is A Losing Game" like 4 times in a row on my iPod while walking around town this evening. I've never emulated a sound of a "Vintage" recording (well I tried some Motown type thing when I was a teenager but it sounded real lame) but I made a recent song of mine sound like it was recorded circa 1981: http://www.elsongs.com/mp3/elson_-_love_fall_down.mp3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members techristian Posted May 28, 2007 Members Share Posted May 28, 2007 A couple of women sang a 1940's like harmony duet at church today. I thought that a steep cutoff at 8 khz would make them sound more like a 1940's recording. It also helps if you have the same instruments that the original recordings were made with. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.