Recording the old way....

[ultra motion]

I'm just curious, if anyone out there still records their music the old way just like it was done in the 70's & 80's with techniques like distant/ambient mike placements and so on...?

[stevep]

Yea , Every session


I am blessed with an Awesome sounding room though.


Without room sound you have to use reverbs or ddls to get the sound


not the same as real reverb




.

[vernier]

Anyone making good recordings is using old proven techniques. I can't think of one exception.

[wwittman]

I don't know what's a "new" technique (unless you mean brick wall software limiting)

basically I just do what I do without thinking about what's new and what's "old"

[ultra motion]

by Old Way I mean the way it was done in 70's/80's (the miking, stereo effects, etc) (albums like Led Zeppelin - Presence, Aerosmith - Rocks, Black Sabbath - Sabotage, Skid Row - S/T, Warlock - True As Steel, Accept - Russian Roulette, etc). These albums are good examples of recording the old way.

and by New Way I mean the way it is done NOW. Albums like Nevermore - Dead Heart In A Dead World, In Flames - Colony, Fear Factory - Obsolete, Nickelback - All The Right Reasons, Keane - Under The Iron Sea, Korn - Follow The Leader, Evanescence - Open Door, The Killers - Hot Fuss, etc are just some of the many examples of how most recordings in modern music are recorded all the time.

[kats]

The old way was a few room mics and positioning the talent around them accordingly in a great room.

The recording techniques of the 70's & 80's are pretty much the same today, the difference you are hearing is in the processing.

[danasti]

Originally Posted by kats

The old way was a few room mics and positioning the talent around them accordingly in a great room.

The recording techniques of the 70's & 80's are pretty much the same today, the difference you are hearing is in the processing.

Correct.

To elaborate on this. The old way was before multitrack. It was direct to vinyl - you had one shot with an entire song. Next came stereo and stereo tape. Tape was the biggest change for recording engineers, IMO. Stereo recording was much more widely embraced that something like 5.1 is today.

Tape led into multitrack recording and overdubbing which led to engineers being able to make creative decisions later, in a more relaxed environment. Even though there was some overdub possible on vinyl it wasn't very available or used. Multitrack tape led to the modern sound in recording we have today from the 1960s til now.

Today engineers use digital recording like they would use tape. So I think tape and multitrack is really what defined recording technique today.

Re: Old way to New way -

I don't see how the bands you mentioned from both eras really differ that much in how they actually put down the tracks.

[Drumsound]

I think of the way I work are steeped in the old school, but not stuck there. I like room mics. I really try to base the records I do on performance. First from the players and then from myself. I try to record the whole band and then sweeten it with whatever else the song asks for. I work the same way on digital as analog. If a chord is missed, I punch, if a take sucks its re-done.

[vernier]

and by New Way I mean

No way to know how the newer projects were recorded. The engineer or producer must mention ProTools in the magazine interview, but he doesn't need to mention the 2" Studer and Neve console they also used on the project.

[max cooper]

As I sit here listening to old Stevie Wonder LP's, I gotta think that the New Way of super-hyped, L2'd, Pro Tooled, Beat Detectived and AutoTuned "extreme" production is really a reflection of the way the world is.

We live in a noisier place today. Someone pointed out that in Mozart's time the town crier would go up in a tower and could be heard by the whole neighborhood. Imagine that...

There's so much media and it's all screaming for attention.

[AdamLazlo]

Originally Posted by ultra motion

I'm just curious, if anyone out there still records their music the old way just like it was done in the 70's & 80's with techniques like distant/ambient mike placements and so on...?

I KINDA get where you're coming from... but the question is pretty vague.

There are plenty of recording techniques that are tried and true as they were back then... and 70/80's isn't all that long ago, even in approach.

Most of the ambient techniques came a lot earlier than that due to less tracks, big rooms, and a desire to represent a "live" sound.

I've heard plenty of possible rumors where the younger music buyers prefer the hottest/loudest mix/mastering than wide open mix/mastering (in a control-group setting).

There are plenty of recordings that have ambient room mics in a mix and/or reverb. Sure, these days it might get squashed and processed all to hell but that's not completely the fault of the tracking. I've had things I've recorded where I filled a whole 2" 24-Track with close, mid, and far mic'ing and down the line, if I wasn't mixing or mastering the session, got lost in translation.

In those cases it wasn't up to me or the band, ultimately. The band liked how it sounded as we were tracking cuz it had the feel of hugeness without ultra-limiting-crispiness, only to be let down, post (again, not OUR decision).

Yes, you'll find a bevy of people here that approach sessions with as much natural tone as possible... sometimes to be lost later in processing.

The worst is in the 80's when it was the early hype utilizing gates (to death) with a trail of outboard reverb.... ugly ugly times. There are exceptions that work with what a very specific band is trying to pull off but when it became the norm for EVERY band (outside of the underground basement stuff) I wanted to puke.

During that time tho I do like the Brit and American punk stuff... I'll even give credit to Bob Rock for the massive sounds he produced like The Cult and Motley Crue (the latter becoming a little more self contained, sonically, but the song-writing is where it shined).

I prefer, or at least what I was brought up on and have a natural tendency to go toward, early CCR, Buddy Holly, Elvis (including the fat-Elvis era), early Circle Jerks, Minor Threat, Tom Waits, and on and on.

Like I said, you'll find a lot of people on this board that prefer natural (big) tones.

I know a few that worked (in their prime) during the heavy use of gating/verb/limiting days and they're hard pressed to back-track. But at the same time they're kinda relieved they've been able to do new things with less manipulation.

The thing that makes it easier, as an engineer/producer, is the right ear, great sounding room, excellent musicians, the right mics, great mic pre's, the right mix, and the exec's that'll let it fly.

-- Adam Lazlo

[AmekGuy]

Originally Posted by ultra motion

I'm just curious, if anyone out there still records their music the old way just like it was done in the 70's & 80's with techniques like distant/ambient mike placements and so on...?

Some labels like Chesky use a lot of ambient micing for their artists, so the techniques have not changed, only the equipment, the technology and how the sound is processed.

[Jim Williams]

The only thing that's changed around here is the storage medium, HDR. The rest is as it always has been, analog. The computer is used for mastering only.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[wwittman]

If you look at the track sheets for Rocks, for example, i don't think you'll find a single room mic or ambience track.


or at MOST you'll find ONE drum room mic


the only consistent difference between the records you mentioned and "new" records is that they tended to be recorded on much fewer tracks with things premixed together, rather than all spread out

but there's not MUCH in common between the way Aerosmith was recorded and the way Led Zep was

other than both were made by good engineers in good studios and certainly with the band cutting basic tracks live

[Roland]

Most of the 70's 80's recordings were not much about room sound at all, particularly the 70's. Many really dead sounding studio's with close miked everything, to be honest the getting the room back into the recording is something that has become more fashionably in the last 15-20 years (originally fashionable in the 40's 50's and 60's, though this in those days was more out of necessity as they didn't have the same channel count we are used to now). Certain engineers like Glyn Johns kept alive the "less is more" approach and their results often speak for themselves, however it has to be born in mind that that way of working is great with the likes of the bands they worked with, useless for a lot of the "average talent" then and "modern talent" now.

Roland

[lemix]

Recording the old way....
IMHO..there are only two ways ; the good & the bad.
Too many variables involved to stick with one at all times.

later,

[ultra motion]

Originally Posted by AdamLazlo

I KINDA get where you're coming from... but the question is pretty vague.

k. I'll try my best to elaborate on this one. By recording the old way, I'm not necessary talking about how recording has been put down on tape in the past or whatnot... I mean the whole process, especially and especially how it's been engineered and produced in the past.

There is a vast and significant difference between the sound of most 70's/80's albums and modern albums, simply because of the main reason - how it's been engineered/produced and the difference of average record RMS levels. For examples, see the albums I mentioned above.

Hence why you see terms like 70's production, 80's production and of course modern production being used.

[wwittman]

Originally Posted by Roland

... Certain engineers like Glyn Johns kept alive the "less is more" approach and their results often speak for themselves, however it has to be born in mind that that way of working is great with the likes of the bands they worked with, useless for a lot of the "average talent" then and "modern talent" now.

Roland

THIS I disagree with

the "talent" doesnt determine the recording method.
Unless you mean trying to make someone who can't play or sing sound 'acceptable'
but that's NEVER going to be great.

and it's rarely if ever WORTH DOING

I think for MOST people, it's a rationalisation.

Are you saying that you, with your "modern methods", would make the people YOU record sound better than Glyn would?
I doubt it.
(I don't mean just you, personally, Roland)

I think a lot of "modern" technique, is wheel spinning... that is, someone doesn't know where to put ONE mic to make it sound good so they end up needing strategies for 4 mics, and so on.

not that it's ALWAYS the case.
but often

[AmekGuy]

Originally Posted by wwittman

I think a lot of "modern" technique, is wheel spinning... that is, someone doesn't know where to put ONE mic to make it sound good so they end up needing strategies for 4 mics, and so on.

I've noticed that a lot of acoustic and nylon string gtrs (with active electronics) are being recorded direct, rather than miced. Frankly, I prefer the old way of doing things, with mics.

[Roland]

Originally Posted by wwittman

THIS I disagree with

the "talent" doesnt determine the recording method.
Unless you mean trying to make someone who can't play or sing sound 'acceptable'
but that's NEVER going to be great.

and it's rarely if ever WORTH DOING

I think for MOST people, it's a rationalisation.

Are you saying that you, with your "modern methods", would make the people YOU record sound better than Glyn would?
I doubt it.
(I don't mean just you, personally, Roland)

I think a lot of "modern" technique, is wheel spinning... that is, someone doesn't know where to put ONE mic to make it sound good so they end up needing strategies for 4 mics, and so on.

not that it's ALWAYS the case.
but often

Sorry William, but I think you are reading me wrong. Glyn was/is a great engineer, but those techniques IMHO only work with the best of the best. Great drummer, great kit, great room 3-4 mics knock yourself out. You only had to watch Live 8 to see the difference between the old classic acts like Floyd and The Who, Stevie Wonder etc and compare them with some of the newer bands. Maybe its not their fault, possibly its the generation they have grown up with, but with 3-4 mic's on their kits they are going to (for a large part) sound like Sh*t. Multi-mic them, gratuitously replace their drum sounds with samples, pro-tooled and they start to sound reasonable. I was helping my wife in the kitchen on Saturday evening and for some reason the TV was switched to the X factor and I hadn't bothered to turn it off, the few kids that could sing spent their time effecting their voice with what could only be described as an annoying warbling/yodeling copied from the autotune effect on numerous chart singles. I fell about laughing because I knew they were copying it from records that they heard, (correction MP3's)! The truth is, most chart records are not made they way they were 20 years ago, Stock Aitkien and Waterman pushed the main market a different way, hence the closure of so many larger, professional facilities. I had a 22 year old lad who came to a mastering session I was doing for some friends of his band. He worked for a heavyweight songwriter as his assistant/engineer. Nice guy, but hadn't got a clue, hardly suprising as he'd only been at it a couple of years, however his CV read like a who's who, certainly would read better than mine, several top 10 UK hits that year, unfortunately you would have been stuffed if you wanted him to record a kit for you, their acts didn't have live drums...

Regards


Roland

Sorry it developed into a rant, but we all know the problems in the industry, it's just like films these days, no money punted on low budget good idea's, plenty thrown at formulaeic gonzo fodder. I think films were never the same when they started adding numbers after the title...

[Roland]

Originally Posted by AmekGuy

I've noticed that a lot of acoustic and nylon string gtrs (with active electronics) are being recorded direct, rather than miced. Frankly, I prefer the old way of doing things, with mics.

Yes, but recording an acoustic guitar (well) isn't the easiest thing, and using the internal pick-up stuff it in a DI box and away you go.

Ok in a live (gig) situation, I would probably opt this way, but in a studio I would automatically look to the mic cupboard (unless their was a specific sound I need the bug sound for).

Regards


Roland

P.S. fortunately bug's these days are much better than they were 20 years ago.

[Jay Kahrs]

Originally Posted by wwittman

the only consistent difference between the records you mentioned and "new" records is that they tended to be recorded on much fewer tracks with things premixed together, rather than all spread out

but there's not MUCH in common between the way Aerosmith was recorded and the way Led Zep was

other than both were made by good engineers in good studios and certainly with the band cutting basic tracks live

Right....

The "art" of cutting a band live to multi-track is dying me thinks...being replaced in favor of the "one-at-a-time, get it all MEGA-fukking-ultra strobe tuned" at every possible step "pefect" recordings.

When I think of "old ways" of recording, I think of a band cutting live.

That's still a different thing then a "modern sound", whatever the hell that is at any given moment...

[Lynn Fuston]

Originally Posted by Jay Kahrs

The "art" of cutting a band live to multi-track is dying me thinks...being replaced in favor of the "one-at-a-time, get it all MEGA-f***ing-ultra strobe tuned" at every possible step "pefect" recordings.

When I think of "old ways" of recording, I think of a band cutting live.

Oh, the "old way" as in "the Nashville way," with a room full of musicians all playing at the same time? That's part of the reason that I love living and recording here. No one ever convinced us that recording one part at a time was better. Because it isn't.

There's no substitute for having hundreds of years of musical experience and talent all sitting in the same room and interacting with other live musicians. It's an incredible experience. Maybe people will eventually figure that out. The only way to get the chemistry of people playing together is to have them "playing together." Duh.

[Bob Olhsson]

Records made prior to 1965 virtually never used headphones and punching in was not available. In many cases the vocal mike was out in the middle of the musicians with no baffles. Limiting was only used on the backup recorder as a safety net in case the mixer missed riding something. Some of the best engineers always patched around or disabled the limiters.

When musicians can hear each other's real dynamics as an ensemble, you don't need "glue" to make it all fit together.


Artists signed before the early '70s had to be capable of recording this way as a condition of getting a "deal."

[kats]

No one ever convinced us that recording one part at a time was better. Because it isn't.

Man, it's not even debatable. I always knew this - but boy was it re-enforced in my head like a sledgehammer yesterday.

I was at a symphony rehearsal yesterday watching them work with a new young conductor who's star is rising fast. I was amazed on how much liberty was taken with the tempo (more than you'd think - but it's so musical and fluid you don't even realize it).

Actually that's what they were rehearsing the most, little parts here and there. And in the conductors words to the orchestra - imagine this part as reaching the top of a roller coaster just before going down, and then he motioned with his arm enacting the feeling of rush going down the roller coaster.


Anyhow, you can't do this on a grid. And if you remember that the emotion of the notes come from dynamics and tempo - we're in deep KaKa here with some modern trends of recording to a grid and then squishing out the dynamics. It's kind of funny really, a few decades from now people will listen to some of this stuff wondering what the hell everyone was thinking

[Jay Kahrs]

Originally Posted by Lynn Fuston

Oh, the "old way" as in "the Nashville way," with a room full of musicians all playing at the same time? That's part of the reason that I love living and recording here. No one ever convinced us that recording one part at a time was better. Because it isn't.

There's no substitute for having hundreds of years of musical experience and talent all sitting in the same room and interacting with other live musicians. It's an incredible experience. Maybe people will eventually figure that out. The only way to get the chemistry of people playing together is to have them "playing together." Duh.

LOL

I've been kicking ideas around for the new companies name...

Right now the top contendor is "Just fukking play it! Productions"

But that doesn't always work with some of these bands...'cause they CAN'T play.

When I was coming up, the kids who had really scarwy chops & could play were the ones who stayed home from the parties & practiced for hours & hours...they're the ones who make us look good.

[Bob Ross]

Originally Posted by ultra motion

by Old Way I mean the way it was done in 70's/80's (the miking, stereo effects, etc) (albums like Led Zeppelin - Presence, Aerosmith - Rocks, Black Sabbath - Sabotage, Skid Row - S/T, Warlock - True As Steel, Accept - Russian Roulette, etc). These albums are good examples of recording the old way.

and by New Way I mean the way it is done NOW. Albums like Nevermore - Dead Heart In A Dead World, In Flames - Colony, Fear Factory - Obsolete, Nickelback - All The Right Reasons, Keane - Under The Iron Sea, Korn - Follow The Leader, Evanescence - Open Door, The Killers - Hot Fuss, etc are just some of the many examples of how most recordings in modern music are recorded all the time.

Wait, I think I get it:

Old Way = good music
New Way = shitty music

That's what you meant, right?

[ultra motion]

Originally Posted by Bob Ross

Wait, I think I get it:

Old Way = good music
New Way = shitty music

That's what you meant, right?

No. see my detailed explanation above, which is a response to AdamLazlo quote.

[Drumsound]

Originally Posted by Jay Kahrs

LOL

I've been kicking ideas around for the new companies name...

Right now the top contendor is "Just fukking play it! Productions"

We have a Winner!