Members Vito Corleone Posted February 20, 2012 Members Share Posted February 20, 2012 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. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BushmasterM4 Posted February 20, 2012 Members Share Posted February 20, 2012 All I know is that in the summer of 1978 at the age of 15 I went to a beach party that was BLASTING the VH1 album over a PA and I was like WTF is this !!!! I had never heard them before and or anything like that !!! It was one of those albums that changed the world !!!! Now if it was mixed different, would it have changed the world ? I say yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted February 20, 2012 Members Share Posted February 20, 2012 All I know is that in the summer of 1978 at the age of 15 I went to a beach party that was BLASTING the VH1 album over a PA and I was like WTF is this !!!! I had never heard them before and or anything like that !!! It was one of those albums that changed the world !!!! Now if it was mixed different, would it have changed the world ? I say yes. I had a similar experience. I was at the beach, and someone pulled up in a pickup truck in the parking lot. They pulled out these speakers that were so enormous that people on the beach started looking and talking about it. They then cranked "Eruption", then going into "You Really Got Me". That was the first time I ever heard that. Magical. Almost all of us had never heard anything like that before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted February 20, 2012 Moderators Share Posted February 20, 2012 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. For me, it's reverse engineering. I helps me, like Ken, to think this way. And I'll tell ya, I don't think this was a compromise job. I don't think it was serendipity. I think it was imagined, designed, implemented. Feels that way to me. I think it is a brilliant solution to a very real challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted February 21, 2012 Members Share Posted February 21, 2012 For me, it's reverse engineering. I helps me, like Ken, to think this way. And I'll tell ya, I don't think this was a compromise job. I don't think it was serendipity. I think it was imagined, designed, implemented. Feels that way to me. I think it is a brilliant solution to a very real challenge. I'm not going to argue with that too much, because it's a great result. But I DO think it was a bit of serendipity. Like was said in that article, they just went with the mic'ing techniques they had used earlier, and even back in the 70s I thought it was the same crappy drum sound they had on the Doobies records to a large degree, but yeah...it worked, so that's really all that matters in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted February 21, 2012 Members Share Posted February 21, 2012 2.) my assumption is that Landee and Templeman know what they are doing, Maybe. Then again, there's a temptation to look back at huge albums and think everyone involved must have been a genius, when the truth is you or I could have probably engineered the first VH album and it still would have been a big hit. In my view, Templeton and Landee needed VH as much in 1978 as VH needed them. They weren't exactly at the height of their game at that point. Case in point: the 1975 Doobie Brothers album "Stampede". Probably my personal favorite DB album from a songwriting and band-performance standpoint, but one that is very inconsistant from a production/engineering standpoint and one that is bit out-of-step with the times. One on hand, there's some great stuff on that album like the choice to do the orchestral arrangements at the end of "I Cheat The Hangman". OTHO, I think the weak and somewhat muddy mix--especially the way the vocals are too far in the back--of "Sweet Maxine" is a major reason why that single stalled in the lower end of the Top 40 instead of being a major hit. That album sounds, at best, like "Toulouse Street" from 1972. (Actually worse, IMO. I think "Toulouse Street" is a standout album from a production standpoint for 1972). And when compared and contrasted with what their pop-music contemporaries were doing in 1975--think Steely Dan & Roger Nichols doing "Katy Lied", or Gus Dudgeon doing "Captain Fantastic" or Maurice White doing "Gratitude" and "Spirit" and how far all of those people had progressed from what they were doing in 1972--- Templeman and Landee were a bit behind the curve. And didn't really get back on track until the rather serendipitous success in 1978 of VH1 and "Minute By Minute". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted February 21, 2012 Members Share Posted February 21, 2012 Oh and I did a mention that I will be trying out some new pedals on the latest tour? What kind of pedals will you be trying out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted February 21, 2012 Moderators Share Posted February 21, 2012 Maybe. Then again, there's a temptation to look back at huge albums and think everyone involved must have been a genius... You're gettin' all apples and oranges. Personally, I'm not talking about drums, bass, or DLR. I am specifically addressing the far left panning of EVH. And the balancing ambient spill opposite. Which is what the thread is adressing. "a temptation to look back at huge albums" The thing is, I'm not looking back at the album, I'm looking back at my reaction at 17 years of age. Even then I got what was happening. The sound jumped out like a crazy panned 60's record but they'd somehow managed to balance the potential lopsided result. The effect was of an unbalanced yet balanced record. Eddie was over there... cool! So I'm not looking back at the huge album and guessing. Thinking they somehow stumbled into a solution or maybe weren't even aware of the problem of the one guitarist issue... that might be overlooking some pretty potent evidence. It is very safe to say they recognized an issue and dealt with it beautifully. I don't think it's serendipity. Even at 17 years of age it was clear to me that it was not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted February 21, 2012 Members Share Posted February 21, 2012 Thinking they somehow stumbled into a solution or maybe weren't even aware of the problem of the one guitarist issue... that might be overlooking some pretty potent evidence.It is very safe to say they recognized an issue and dealt with it beautifully. I don't think it's serendipity. Even at 17 years of age it was clear to me that it was not. Obviously they were aware of the problem. Landee is quoted as saying "we panned the guitar because to send it down the middle would make the entire album sound mono" and that panning seemed to be "a reasonable choice". Which, apparently was the same thought process they used for choosing to hard-pan the bass guitar as well. That these were conscious choices by seasoned pros is obivious and not a point I'm debating. I think the choice for the guitar was a fine one. As I said at the outset, if you don't want to double-track the guitar or put a lot of delay on it, I don't really know how many other reasonable options you HAVE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeff da Weasel Posted February 21, 2012 Members Share Posted February 21, 2012 Eddie hated it. He got really angry because he'd ridden in many cars with the left speaker blown out (a valid point) and knew he's be basically absent from the whole song in those cases. Also -- IMHO -- despite stage positioning, you never really hear a live band with the sound as separated as it was on VHI. I wouldn't have been so heavy-handed, but then, I didn't record or mix that album which is a rock classic, so I don't have much cause or need to criticize it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BushmasterM4 Posted February 21, 2012 Members Share Posted February 21, 2012 I like that crazy ass panned stuff from the 60's. The Doors panned stuff like crazy. One song all the percussion is in your left ear and the next tune its in the middle. Shame eveything is so generic now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted February 21, 2012 Members Share Posted February 21, 2012 I just love old Dave era VH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted February 21, 2012 Members Share Posted February 21, 2012 I like that crazy ass panned stuff from the 60's. The Doors panned stuff like crazy. One song all the percussion is in your left ear and the next tune its in the middle. The only thing I like more is Rudy Van Gelder style. But I love "wall of sound" style stuff, too. I just love it all! Sex me up with some sweet vibrations! High frequency, man! [edit] So who thought this was some politics question? Too far to the left?! I didn't know that stuff still existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members girevik Posted February 21, 2012 Members Share Posted February 21, 2012 Random thoughts inspired by this thread: - Shoutout/gratitude for whoever wrote the advice to use panning to achieve good separation in a mix. I've had good feedback for my lil' ol' demo mixes and the only "trick" I used was never panning anything dead center except lead vocals. There's too many of you here who could have written that, so I simply thank you all. - There is simultaneously an ongoing debate on another forum about the brilliance of David Lee Roth as a lyricist. Some folks latched onto the words "brilliant" and "genius" like a vicious dog latches onto the mailman's leg, but imo, who wrote better lyrics for Van Halen than Diamond Dave? Sammy Hagar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted February 22, 2012 Members Share Posted February 22, 2012 Random thoughts inspired by this thread:- Shoutout/gratitude for whoever wrote the advice to use panning to achieve good separation in a mix. I've had good feedback for my lil' ol' demo mixes and the only "trick" I used was never panning anything dead center except lead vocals. There's too many of you here who could have written that, so I simply thank you all. But what I would still encourage you to do is check the mix in mono to make sure it sounds great that way too, but continue to make space by panning. You want to make sure you have the EQ and balances and phases right in mono for a variety of reasons, including that you might have your mix summed in mono, because someone who steps way from the stereo is essentially hearing your mix in mono, etc. - There is simultaneously an ongoing debate on another forum about the brilliance of David Lee Roth as a lyricist. Some folks latched onto the words "brilliant" and "genius" like a vicious dog latches onto the mailman's leg, but imo, who wrote better lyrics for Van Halen than Diamond Dave? Sammy Hagar? "Genius" may be going too far, but being fun and perfect and unique? Absolutely. And easily my favorite period of VH, especially the first two albums, which I *love*!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted February 22, 2012 Moderators Share Posted February 22, 2012 "Genius" may be going too far, but being fun and perfect and unique? Absolutely. And easily my favorite period of VH, especially the first two albums, which I *love*!!!!!!!! To me... to me... the cool thing is to be free enough to be yourself. DLR did that. He's boisterous and obnoxious and loud. And he's fun. To be able to bring all those traits that were part of him and part of his creation of him... to bring that to the table when it counted... that's cool. Genius? Of course not. But a model, in a lot of ways, on how to get what's happening in your world out to the world? Well, yeah, that's something to aspire to as an artist. To BE YO'SELF LOUDLY!!!! Once again, that's cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sillypeoples Posted February 24, 2012 Members Share Posted February 24, 2012 Great thread because of some very illuminating ideas. I think a few of us understand the challenges of a three piece, and a few understand what Eddie was trying to do to overcome that. I ponder less the technical aspects of what he did, but ponder the reasoning or theory behind him not hiring that extra rhythm guitar player, keys, etc, like other bands did. A recent talk with a friend who stated he would like to have a studio, where he recorded all parts of the band, that as I inquired as to the reasons, he simply stated he was so sick of people being unreliable and such, that he would rather do it all. Seems a far cry from the 'thinking' of an orchestra, where 'minimalism' and 'band drama' doesn't seem to be a motivation to having a small band. So I ponder bands that have members multitasking to the limits of their ability out of say extensive ability, or a desire to keep as many people off the stage as they can, to limit the people headaches. or maximize pay... Maybe I am thinking out loud, but it doesn't seem a stretch that if you could fill up the sound by adding three boxes in the racks instead of the extra band member.....for some, that's probably a no brainer, but maybe counter intuitive to bands that prefer to cram horn sections, triangles, kazoos, bongos, back up singers, etc.... I suspect there is a 'I'm good enough to do it all' type of value system involved here, possibly a healthy respect for those with small bands that sound big, vs a big band that sounds big. Again just thinking out loud, but I ponder if I ever had a beer with Eddie, he might say 'less people, less crap, and I am good enough to do what two or three guys can do, so why hire the extra headaches?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted February 24, 2012 Members Share Posted February 24, 2012 Great thread because of some very illuminating ideas. I think a few of us understand the challenges of a three piece, and a few understand what Eddie was trying to do to overcome that. I ponder less the technical aspects of what he did, but ponder the reasoning or theory behind him not hiring that extra rhythm guitar player, keys, etc, like other bands did.A recent talk with a friend who stated he would like to have a studio, where he recorded all parts of the band, that as I inquired as to the reasons, he simply stated he was so sick of people being unreliable and such, that he would rather do it all.Seems a far cry from the 'thinking' of an orchestra, where 'minimalism' and 'band drama' doesn't seem to be a motivation to having a small band. So I ponder bands that have members multitasking to the limits of their ability out of say extensive ability, or a desire to keep as many people off the stage as they can, to limit the people headaches. or maximize pay...Maybe I am thinking out loud, but it doesn't seem a stretch that if you could fill up the sound by adding three boxes in the racks instead of the extra band member.....for some, that's probably a no brainer, but maybe counter intuitive to bands that prefer to cram horn sections, triangles, kazoos, bongos, back up singers, etc....I suspect there is a 'I'm good enough to do it all' type of value system involved here, possibly a healthy respect for those with small bands that sound big, vs a big band that sounds big. Again just thinking out loud, but I ponder if I ever had a beer with Eddie, he might say 'less people, less crap, and I am good enough to do what two or three guys can do, so why hire the extra headaches?' So you think Van Halen was a three-piece simply because Eddie was too big of a dick or an ego-maniac to get along with other musicians? Projecting a bit perhaps, Tim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sillypeoples Posted February 24, 2012 Members Share Posted February 24, 2012 Dave - I am just floating some ideas, but I don't think it's a stretch that more then a few bands loathe the idea of having any more band members then they absolutely need. My guess is your not happy that Eddie the guitar player, did the keyboard parts..because, you know...he could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted February 24, 2012 Members Share Posted February 24, 2012 Dave - I am just floating some ideas, but I don't think it's a stretch that more then a few bands loathe the idea of having any more band members then they absolutely need. My guess is your not happy that Eddie the guitar player, did the keyboard parts..because, you know...he could. Again, you're projecting. I think it's great that Eddie did his own keyboard parts. I have no idea why they went in the format they did. I always presumed they were somewhat following the Led Zeppelin model, but I don't know for sure. I doubt many bands believe they have any more members than "they absolutely need". I would guess most bands think they have the exact right amount of members. Was Eddie the kind of guy who would be actively looking for ways to have as-few-as-possible just so he wouldn't conflict with anyone or so he could just hog all the soundspace? I'd like to give him a BIT more credit than that. But then maybe that's just ME projecting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted February 24, 2012 Moderators Share Posted February 24, 2012 Eddie was good enough. Imagine him showing the other guitarist some parts and him brainstorming and... oh {censored} it, I'll just do it. Why not? When I saw them live early on, Eddie owned the room. Even with DLR being the ringmaster, he still deferred to Eddie. Eddie walked and ran the whole stage. A huge {censored} eating grin and he more that commanded the stage, he owned the room and everyone in it. I was not a fan, I was an enemy in a skinny tie. I left totally awed. I wouldn't {censored} with that either. Mix him off to the side, spill some ambiance off to the opposite, choose careful overdubs and... don't screw this up. It's too good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members girevik Posted February 24, 2012 Members Share Posted February 24, 2012 But what I would still encourage you to do is check the mix in mono to make sure it sounds great that way too, but continue to make space by panning. You want to make sure you have the EQ and balances and phases right in mono for a variety of reasons, including that you might have your mix summed in mono, because someone who steps way from the stereo is essentially hearing your mix in mono, etc. Thanks for these tips! I'll keep them in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zooey Posted February 24, 2012 Members Share Posted February 24, 2012 I remember an old interview with EVH where he said something like, "don't you hate it when you're in your car and one of the speakers goes out and the guitar disappears?" Anyway, I don't get the Van Halen mystique, and I am just about the right age to be caught up in that nostalgia. Even when I hear the "classic" Van Halen tracks, all I can think is that there's too much vocal and snare drum, and not enough anything else. DLR lyrics are cringe-inducing, and they're always the loudest thing in the mix. Right up (down?) there with Anthony Kiedis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted February 24, 2012 Members Share Posted February 24, 2012 Anyway, I don't get the Van Halen mystique, Actually, there really ISN'T any Van Halen mystique beyond guitarists who revere Eddie. But, for the rest of the world, they're just another hair-metal band. For people like my 46-year old wife, who is as much of that era than anyone else, I don't think she thinks that much differently of Van Halen than of any other rock bands from that era. Except maybe they have FEWER songs she likes than many others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 144dB Posted February 25, 2012 Author Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 There is something special about early Van Halen... They aren't another hair metal band. I wouldn't put them in the metal genre at all. With DLR, they were like like show tunes on speed or Vaudeville on speed. They had swing. Just listen to "I'm the One" from Van Halen, or "Bottoms Up" and "Beautiful Girls" from Van Halen II, or "Sinner's Swing" and "So This is Love" from Fair Warning, or "The Full Bug" from Diver Down. Love 'em or hate 'em, they were quite different from other acts at the time. Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.