Moderators Lee Knight Posted February 20, 2012 Moderators Share Posted February 20, 2012 ...Templeman and Landee weren't exactly the most aggressive or innovative production team during the 70s. Until VH 1. That mix/placement choice was huge. It was bold. Like some 60's stuff... but to get the delay into verb and place it opposite as they did... It had been done before of course, but not in that manner. Not in a way that allowed a hot shot guitarist to totally shine, off to one side by himself (very much as he did live in clubs) and still have some logical balance on the other. It was totally premeditated and well thought out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted February 20, 2012 Members Share Posted February 20, 2012 Which doesn't challenge anything I said. I don't know why you're arguing with me. Obviously they wanted the guitar to sound that way. And obviously the way they wanted it to sound was as natural as possible. Anything available in 1978 to create a stereo soundfield with a single guitar would have detracted from that natural tone. Much more so than the more - subtle options available today. Like what? That's why I'm "arguing" with you. You seem to be implying that if they'd done the record today they would've done something different to create a stereo sound field that wasn't available then. What other "subtle options" are you referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted February 20, 2012 Members Share Posted February 20, 2012 Until VH 1. That mix/placement choice was huge. It was bold. Like some 60's stuff... but to get the delay into verb and place it opposite as they did... It had been done before of course, but not in that manner. Not in a way that allowed a hot shot guitarist to totally shine, off to one side by himself (very much as he did live in clubs) and still have some logical balance on the other. It was totally premeditated and well thought out. It's a great and classic sound, to be sure. Just for some reference I was listening to a bit of VH 1 this morning. From the Steve Hoffman mastered DCC disc which is probably about as close to "how the original tapes sound" as you're gonna get. The guitar sounds awesome. And (to my ear anyway) the drums and bass guitar sound very weak, especially in comparison to the guitar. And then, isn't it on "VH II" where most of the Eddie-philes hate the guitar sound? Only to love it again on "Fair Warning"? So, for whatever reason, their "totally premediatated and well thought out" guitar sound (which I don't doubt it was) was also inconsistant. Personally, I've always had a bit of love/hate relationship with Templeman/Landee. They obviously made some great records. And I'm a BIG Doobies fan. But they also made a lot of (what I consider to be anyway) odd choices that were sometimes detrimental to the end product. And (again in my opinion) there was a period of time in the mid-70s where they were a bit behind the curve, making records that sounded a bit dated while so much of the rest of the industry was rocketing forward. But I think some of their later stuff is awesome. "If That's What It Takes" is as good a sounding album as anything else recorded during that time, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted February 20, 2012 Members Share Posted February 20, 2012 Actually I question how much thought they put into it. Based on the interviews quoted here, they put quite a lot of thought into it and tried different things, some of which were used on individual songs. But they kept coming back to the panned single guitar thing, for 6 years. Maybe it's not your personal taste, but it's pretty clear that they wanted it that way even after trying other things. That's all personal opinion, of course, but even if you really LIKE their sound I don't think anyone can say they were pushing the boundaries with technology, micing techniques, production and the such. When you have great music to record, all you need to do is 'get it on tape', I suppose. "Getting it on tape" and getting it to sound raw and natural is, itself, an art form that requires a lot of mastery. It also requires you to stay on top of current technology, because technology tends to take away from rawness and naturalness unless you take the time to gain control of it. You will not really succeed in "just getting it on tape" and have it get across to the listener if you don't really know what you're doing - in fact it's easier to hide technical incompetence with effects and editing and so forth than it is when you're going for a natural aesthetic. Maybe you don't like the results, but it would be wrong to suggest that people aren't working hard or pushing boundaries if they make an aesthetic choice not to leave an obvious production footprint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted February 20, 2012 Members Share Posted February 20, 2012 Based on the interviews quoted here, they put quite a lot of thought into it and tried different things, some of which were used on individual songs. But they kept coming back to the panned single guitar thing, for 6 years. Maybe it's not your personal taste, but it's pretty clear that they wanted it that way even after trying other things."Getting it on tape" and getting it to sound raw and natural is, itself, an art form that requires a lot of mastery. It also requires you to stay on top of current technology, because technology tends to take away from rawness and naturalness unless you take the time to gain control of it. You will not really succeed in "just getting it on tape" and have it get across to the listener if you don't really know what you're doing - in fact it's easier to hide technical incompetence with effects and editing and so forth than it is when you're going for a natural aesthetic. Maybe you don't like the results, but it would be wrong to suggest that people aren't working hard or pushing boundaries if they make an aesthetic choice not to leave an obvious production footprint. I never meant to imply I don't like the results. I think the guitar sounds great. I have no issue with the panning. I'm DEFENDING the choice to not leave an obvious production footprint. And, according to that one linked article anyway, Landee is agreeing with me by saying that, unless they wanted to send it down the middle and have it sound mono, the hard-pan was "a reasonable" choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted February 20, 2012 Moderators Share Posted February 20, 2012 I have lots of issue with the Templeman sound, the point is, they came up with an elegant solution to the 1 guitarist promlem. Regardless of how you might not like the drums or whatever. I'm not even particularly a fan, but I'll tell ya, I reference that Eddie mix trick all the time. It was a big ussue, and they solved it nicely. That's one hell of a warm slash they created opposite the guitar, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted February 20, 2012 Members Share Posted February 20, 2012 Also, Templeman and Landee were notorious "hard panners". Guitars were hard-panned often on those old Doobies recordings, and the hard-panned vocals on "Black Water" is one of the most famous hard-pans of all time. IIRC, the bass and more of the drums are panned to the right side on VH, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted February 20, 2012 Members Share Posted February 20, 2012 I have lots of issue with the Templeman sound, the point is, they came up with an elegant solution to the 1 guitarist promlem. Regardless of how you might not like the drums or whatever. I'm not even particularly a fan, but I'll tell ya, I reference that Eddie mix trick all the time. It was a big ussue, and they solved it nicely. That's one hell of a warm slash they created opposite the guitar, Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted February 20, 2012 Members Share Posted February 20, 2012 IIRC, the bass and more of the drums are panned to the right side on VH, right? Yes. The bass is hard panned to the right for the entire album, I believe. As is most of the drum sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted February 20, 2012 Members Share Posted February 20, 2012 I have lots of issue with the Templeman sound, the point is, they came up with an elegant solution to the 1 guitarist promlem. Regardless of how you might not like the drums or whatever. I'm not even particularly a fan, but I'll tell ya, I reference that Eddie mix trick all the time. It was a big ussue, and they solved it nicely. That's one hell of a warm slash they created opposite the guitar, He doesn't have the greatest drum sound, but for some reason, it seems to work for those albums. As does the panning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted February 20, 2012 Members Share Posted February 20, 2012 Like what? That's why I'm "arguing" with you. You seem to be implying that if they'd done the record today they would've done something different to create a stereo sound field that wasn't available then. What other "subtle options" are you referring to? Geez, this has gotten out of hand. Sorry that my first post was poorly worded, but all I was saying in response to the question of "why is panned to one side" is that, sans the usual single-guitar recording techniques of either double-tracking or stereo delay--which you wouldn't use if you were wanting to record the guitar to sound as natural as possible--, panning it like they did was pretty much the only option they had to not make the guitar--and by extension the entire album-- to essentially be in mono. And yes, I implied that there are modern techniques for splitting the signal that would better create a stereo-effect without over-processing the natural sound, but if you want to tell me there isn't anything available now to do such a thing that didn't exist in 1978, I'll believe you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted February 20, 2012 Members Share Posted February 20, 2012 Geez, this has gotten out of hand. Sorry that my first post was poorly worded, This is what threw me and Lee and other people off, but apparently you didn't word it correctly: My guess would be that without stereo delay or doubling, there weren't a whole lot of options to create a stereo soundfield with a one-guitar, no keyboards band back in the analog days. They were probably just trying to do the most with what they had. ...which makes it sound like in 1978, they were making concessions and didn't have stereo delay or doubling. In your subsequent posts, it's clearer what you meant, I think. but all I was saying in response to the question of "why is panned to one side" is that, sans the usual single-guitar recording techniques of either double-tracking or stereo delay--which you wouldn't use if you were wanting to record the guitar to sound as natural as possible--, panning it like they did was pretty much the only option they had to not make the guitar--and by extension the entire album-- to essentially be in mono. As I mention, it's a little clearer what you are saying now, but you can see where your initial post wouldn't make much sense and throw people off into thinking that you felt that there wasn't stereo delay or doubling or other techniques available when by '78, studios had quite a lot of technology at their disposal where stereo effects, etc. are concerned. And yes, I implied that there are modern techniques for splitting the signal that would better create a stereo-effect without over-processing the natural sound, but if you want to tell me there isn't anything available now to do such a thing that didn't exist in 1978, I'll believe you. I don't think there are very many stereo techniques that exist now that weren't done then. I can't think of any off the top of my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JeffLearman Posted February 20, 2012 Members Share Posted February 20, 2012 My guess would be that without stereo delay or doubling, there weren't a whole lot of options to create a stereo soundfield with a one-guitar, no keyboards band back in the analog days. They were probably just trying to do the most with what they had.Tell that to Phil Specter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JeffLearman Posted February 20, 2012 Members Share Posted February 20, 2012 Like what? That's why I'm "arguing" with you. You seem to be implying that if they'd done the record today they would've done something different to create a stereo sound field that wasn't available then. What other "subtle options" are you referring to?Pitch-shift doubling -- oh wait, they did have that in 1980. Heck, I got one around 1982, cheap, because nobody seemed to want it. I'm still irked that a "friend" moved out of town and took it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted February 20, 2012 Members Share Posted February 20, 2012 Pitch-shift doubling -- oh wait, they did have that in 1980. Yeah, the Eventide Harmonizer has been around since the mid 70s. And people used to do pitch shifting effects before that by using an additional tape machine and recording the double with the machine vari-speeded to the pitch you wanted. A lot of people don't realize that stereo recording was actually a technique that matured very early on. All the really important work was done in the 1930s! At that time there wasn't such a thing as stereo consumer playback systems, though, so most music was mixed in mono - but movie soundtracks were stereo, and movie theaters had stereo sound systems. By the time consumer hifi systems became cheap enough for the masses, in the 60s, stereo techniques were well known, and some people used stereo techniques even in mono recordings because they could "trick" the listener's ear into creating a greater sense of space and depth. Of course, multitrack recording threw a wrench in the works temporarily, so there are a lot of 60s recordings that have really bad stereo technique. But that was pretty well sorted out within a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted February 20, 2012 Members Share Posted February 20, 2012 As to wording correctly, I almost moved this thread to the HCPP because I thought it was referring to EVH's political views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted February 20, 2012 Members Share Posted February 20, 2012 This is what threw me and Lee and other people off, but apparently you didn't word it correctly: Yep. Poorly worded. Instead of saying "My guess would be that without stereo delay or doubling," I really meant to say "My guess would be that without WANTING TO USE stereo delay or doubling..." I made the mistake of thinking that the knowledge that these technologies existed in 1978 and that the sound achieved on the VH1 guitar is what they wanted were presumed by all. I wasn't trying to be critical of the guitar sound AT ALL. The drums and bass however.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted February 20, 2012 Members Share Posted February 20, 2012 I don't think there are very many stereo techniques that exist now that weren't done then. I can't think of any off the top of my head. I'm sure you're right. I've presumed there are better techniques/technologies for "widening" a single track by splitting the EQ signals and such than there were back then. But I'm not a studio engineer. Simply a musician who's done a fair amount of studio recording and a recorded-music fan. I'll defer to the experts on the technical points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted February 20, 2012 Members Share Posted February 20, 2012 The drums and bass however.... On the one hand, if one listens even somewhat critically, you have to think, "That's not the greatest drum sound I've heard." And the bass is frequently not well-defined. On the other hand, taken as a whole, these recordings leap out of the speakers and just sound so damn good. So is it a combination of that Templeman and Landee had their eye on the end result and realized that what was truly important was the whole thing, realizing that the drums and bass were not perfect but served the whole recording well? Or is it that we've grown so accustomed to the recordings that it simply is what it is, and it's great to us? Or is it that the drums/bass don't really sound all that great but the performances are so wonderful that we subconsciously think, "Well, the recording's clear and you can hear everything, so it's all good?" Or is it that they get out of the way and support what Eddie and Dave are doing so well? Or some odd combination of this or some other aspect? They really do have this "leap out of the speakers" quality that a lot of recordings don't have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted February 20, 2012 Members Share Posted February 20, 2012 On the one hand, if one listens even somewhat critically, you have to think, "That's not the greatest drum sound I've heard." And the bass is frequently not well-defined. On the other hand, taken as a whole, these recordings leap out of the speakers and just sound so damn good. So is it a combination of that Templeman and Landee had their eye on the end result and realized that what was truly important was the whole thing, realizing that the drums and bass were not perfect but served the whole recording well? Or is it that we've grown so accustomed to the recordings that it simply is what it is, and it's great to us? Or is it that the drums/bass don't really sound all that great but the performances are so wonderful that we subconsciously think, "Well, the recording's clear and you can hear everything, so it's all good?" Or is it that they get out of the way and support what Eddie and Dave are doing so well? Or some odd combination of this or some other aspect? They really do have this "leap out of the speakers" quality that a lot of recordings don't have. I think that both in terms of performance and the mix, the decision was to keep the drums and bass out of the way so that the guitar and vocals could really sound huge. Obviously everyone knew that EVH was the band's greatest asset, and DLR has a HUGE voice, so those were the obvious things to capitalize on. And when you do that, something has to take a back seat. People tend to think of AC/DC records sounding huge, and they're right, but the guitars are actually not very huge. They're a bit thin sounding, which allows the huge drums to come through. That makes the overall effect sound gigantic, including the guitars. I've had an interesting time, sometimes, with my own band and these types of decisions. As you know, we're a 3 piece. And in the past, I've been able to get that quality from my guitar sounds - where the guitar is really leaping out at you. But the thing is, as you also know, I'm crazy about drums. And these days I tend to work with drummers who are really "busy" and we write songs that can highlight really prominent drum parts. And, whaddayaknow, it's a lot harder to get my guitar to stand out amongst all the drumming awesomeness, than it was in times past when I worked with drummers who played more stripped-down stuff. I can live with it, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted February 20, 2012 Members Share Posted February 20, 2012 This is a big area of consideration for us too, Lee, and from band to band when I record. And if I had to guess - and it is a guess since I don't have any special insight into the recording of Van Halen's first two records - I would agree and say that the decision was to keep the drums and bass out of the way so that the guitars and vocals could really sound huge. Part of this too is because 1.) I've heard another recording by Templeman where the drums sounded fuller, 2.) my assumption is that Landee and Templeman know what they are doing, and 3.) it *does* sound really good that way. I like your recordings quite a bit, so whatever decisions you are making are very good, in my opinion!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted February 20, 2012 Members Share Posted February 20, 2012 So is it a combination of that Templeman and Landee had their eye on the end result and realized that what was truly important was the whole thing, realizing that the drums and bass were not perfect but served the whole recording well? Or is it that we've grown so accustomed to the recordings that it simply is what it is, and it's great to us? Or is it that the drums/bass don't really sound all that great but the performances are so wonderful that we subconsciously think, "Well, the recording's clear and you can hear everything, so it's all good?" Or is it that they get out of the way and support what Eddie and Dave are doing so well? Or some odd combination of this or some other aspect? Who knows at this point? It's nearly pointless to second-guess such classic recordings so many years later because we've all learned to love them for what they are, regardless of HOW they ended up that way. Personally, I've ALWAYS thought the drums could be "meatier" and I would have sent the bass straight down the center, but obviously those decisions certainly didn't detract from what is great about the record and, who knows, maybe even enhanced it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted February 20, 2012 Members Share Posted February 20, 2012 BTW, I meant to have quotes around the word "perfect" in this sentence: So is it a combination of that Templeman and Landee had their eye on the end result and realized that what was truly important was the whole thing, realizing that the drums and bass were not "perfect" but served the whole recording well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted February 20, 2012 Members Share Posted February 20, 2012 Who knows at this point? It's nearly pointless to second-guess such classic recordings so many years later because we've all learned to love them for what they are, regardless of HOW they ended up that way. Personally, I've ALWAYS thought the drums could be "meatier" and I would have sent the bass straight down the center, but obviously those decisions certainly didn't detract from what is great about the record and, who knows, maybe even enhanced it. Pointless or no, it makes me think and learn as a recording engineer, and I feel like I never stop learning, so that's why these thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted February 20, 2012 Members Share Posted February 20, 2012 BTW, I meant to have quotes around the word "perfect" in this sentence:So is it a combination of that Templeman and Landee had their eye on the end result and realized that what was truly important was the whole thing, realizing that the drums and bass were not "perfect" but served the whole recording well? Probably. Then again they were presumably working within the typical budget limitations of a band's first LP. How much time did they really have to spend mic-ing up the drums and trying out various guitar-micing techinques? As the article says, they went largely with what they had done before. Sometimes, even with the greatest achievements, there is as much serendipity involved as there is careful planning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.