Members Frantag Posted February 20, 2006 Members Share Posted February 20, 2006 Originally posted by rasputin1963 You know, for all that is said of Phil Spector's Wall-Of-Sound (and I worship those records, don't get me wrong), in a way he was being celebrated for making a really "crappy" sound... at least "crappy" from the P.O.V. of orthodox "good" audio engineering of his day... (As a ludicrous f'rinstance: just imagine what you'd have gotten had "Lovin' Feelin'" first been optioned to Ray Conniff or Burl Ives or Henry Mancini or Enoch Light to arrange and produce...) He and Jack Nitszche effectively turned audio vices into virtues. Kind of like every producer who's created the next big thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members songrytr Posted February 20, 2006 Members Share Posted February 20, 2006 I picked up the Sly & the Family Stone greatest collection a year or so ago and was taken aback at just how weird and funky the tones were. They certainly work, but the overall impression is the notion of quality was secondary to capturing the vibe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nat whilk II Posted February 20, 2006 Members Share Posted February 20, 2006 Genesis' "Duke" album is very oddly produced. Very dead sound - like those old padded drum rooms in 70s stuidios. When digital techniques and gear were pretty new, a lot of albums suffered from a glassy/unfocused sound. At least to my ears, Peter Gabriel's "So" (which is also IMHO one of the great albums of the era) suffers a lot from the flaws of early digital. I am not a fan of the sound on a lot of Stevie Wonder's classic stuff like Innervisions and Songs in the Key of Life. Again, it's that muffled, dead, thumpy sound of the 70s. Old enough to remember the era, I recall that what people were after was a sound that was "tight". As opposed to the scratchy, loose, bangy sounds from the 60s, the 70s studio obsession was for "punchy", "tight", and for lack of a better word, "studio-ey". The later Steely Dan albums actually justified this obsession to some extent as they were some of the best sounding tracks from the era. But all too often all you got was the proverbial dull thud. Clapton's "Another Ticket" is an oddly muffled, tone-dead affair. Great album, 'tho. Compare to 461 Ocean Blvd which sounds miles better. Of course everyone knows the rap that George Harrison's All Things Must Pass has taken due to the Phil Spector treatment applied with a roofing mop. Lots of great material, 'tho. Leon Russell's "Masquerade" is really a miserable production - sounds like a Tascam 4-track. But another great tune from this underrated songwriter. Oddly, the lousy production kinda adds to the depressed, bluesy vibe of the tune. Sometimes the lo-tech production is the right thing for the material, like Springsteen's Nebraska. nat whilk ii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ernest Buckley Posted February 20, 2006 Members Share Posted February 20, 2006 As I read through the numerous songs listed here I am reminded of several things: 1. Its all about the song2. The performance is key3. Sample rates and bit depth means {censored}4. MP3s are here to stay5. Who needs surround? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rasputin1963 Posted February 20, 2006 Author Members Share Posted February 20, 2006 Yeah, nat, I know exactly that kind of "subterranean", "FM" sound you are referring to that those early-70's records had... Add to that list: "Young Americans" by David Bowie. "Rock On" by David Essex, "Tenth Avenue Freeze Out" by Bruce Springsteen. Frankly, I don't know how they created that sound, exactly... Little or no reverb; or if they did use reverb, it was a kind of very small room reverb. Lots of chorus. LOTS of gate. But it did seem "studied" to me, even as a young kid in the 70's, and I much prefer a jangly 60's treatment. This is perhaps why I very much took to the sound of those British STIFF RECORDS hits of the late-70's, early-80's. Yes, Mr. Buckley, I agree with you about surround. I'm also not so enamoured of it. For one thing, in a movie, I am usually keenly aware of it (the lovers talking in stereo in front of you, while a horse clops behind you to your left, and a goose squawks behind you to your right.) Only if I were stoned, I think, would I be able to totally "surrender" to the Surround effect. Otherwise, I'd be conscious of it. And didn't we sorta already experiment with that-- and drop it-- in the early 70's, with Quadrophonic sound? I remember seeing the movie TOMMY in 1975 in so-called "Sextaphonic" sound. My uncle actually purchased a Quadrophonic hardware setup... [Was it DAYS OF FUTURE PASSED?] and I don't recall being blown away by it at all. I agree that an artiste's choices should usually be respected, and that production values-- even lousy ones-- are ultimately part of the song's cachet and legacy... [As I mentioned above, "Sally, Go 'Round The Roses" has a VERY peculiar, "nobody's home" sound to the production... yet I wouldn't trade it for the world.] But I almost want to weep when I hear the late-1960's recordings of Dee Dee Warwick (sister of Dionne). Here you had a young woman with a dynamite soulful voice, at the absolute peak of her game, doing some great, worthy songs.... Yet the production of some of these literally sounds as though the whole ensemble were in somebody's garage, and the recordist simply inserted into their midst, two omni mikes. Left and Right. Period, end of story. I just lament that those lousy productions are the only record we have of a great-great underestimated soul singer... She deserved SO-O-O much more technical attention... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hard Truth Posted February 21, 2006 Members Share Posted February 21, 2006 For me production imperfections are part of the charm of older recordings. The flaws are part of the time and place the recording was made. Its a slice of history in a jar. In fact lately I find myself increasingly attracted to older music recorded in relatively primitive conditions where you can hear the state of the technology at the time. Rarely do the flaws interfere with my enjoyment of the music. However, the super dead (non-reverberant) thin recordings of much hard rock in the seventies (for example Black Sabbath, Blue Oyter Cult) does interfere with fully enjoying the power of these bands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members meccajay Posted February 22, 2006 Members Share Posted February 22, 2006 Originally posted by offramp "Zenyatta Mondatta"the album they spent the least amount of energy and effort on, yet was the biggest landmark for them. Was this the one that was supposedly done on an 8 track? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members flemtone Posted February 22, 2006 Members Share Posted February 22, 2006 Yes, records were mixed for the anticipated consumer and their probable listening venue. Record collectors comment on this stuff all the time, and many have alternate speaker setups in either their shops or their home which include 50's and 60's mono car radio speakers and a variety of transistor radios. I'd say one of the worst I heard (which really surprised me) was The Pretenders version of "Thin Line Between Love and Hate". The piano was badly distorted, and I mean REALLY badly. Most home recording enthusiasts wouldn't have let that one out of the can, ever. peace,Tim from Jersey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members offramp Posted February 22, 2006 Members Share Posted February 22, 2006 Originally posted by meccajay Was this the one that was supposedly done on an 8 track? Not that I've heard. If any of them, it'd be the first one that would have been done on an 8-track; ZM was recorded at Wisselord Studios in Hilversum, NL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.