Mama's and Papa's. Why the poor audio?

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

..you can be as gutsy as a porcupine roadkill, and STILL produce vapid music and make a fool of yourself in the bargain.

Some people don't learn from their mistakes but people who are afraid to make mistakes never learn anything at all.

I've seen no signs that being a great musical performer is more than 10% "talent." I'm not a "star" entirely because I'm unwilling to do that much work. If I wanted it bad enough, I could probably have been one as could almost anybody. I've also seen no signs that it's only a matter of luck.

[joelpatterson]

It's a magic combination of all kinds of things-- first and foremost having the unmitigated nerve to make the attempt-- we agree about that.

It's the "charisma" factor that's so ineffable, some people can be talented and all, but they're still slightly "grating" on the viewer/listener, and then some people just don't have the voice, whatever they do. Stumbled onto an ad-hoc bluegrass jam on a streetcorner the other day-- fabulous when the guy/girl duo was singing, but when they motioned the third guy over to do a verse, it was uncanny, suddenly we were all suffering and waiting for him to get through it.

Amazing musician and dazzling solos on his instrument, but he just didn't have the whatever-it-is to take you through a complete verse.

So, again, the cruel fates at work-- the technology has advance to the point you can get the crispest, clearest 96/24 capture just standing there on the sidewalk in Anytown, USA, but something worth capturing... elusive!

[mslim]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

The EV 667 was a 666 that came with a transistorized eq. box.

When Peter Paul and Mary did an assembly at my high school they brought a 667 and a second 666 that they plugged into the 667 equalizer using a Y cord.

Electro-Voice 666, 666R, 667

[kennybro]

Just noticed this thread.
Yesterday by chance, a friend brought over a few M&P's albums. We put them on the table and enjoyed the fact that they felt like audio snapshots of a point in time. The unusual panning of the vocals in particular, gave the impression that I was hearing the group as I would if I were standing in front of them, unmolested by technology, for better or worse.

I like this about the era; before the recording mindset shifted from capturing an accurate audio snapshot of true talent; to posing the subject, light the subject, makeup, body double, Photoshop, etc, etc... The recording process itself has become as much, or even more of a player than the artist who is being recorded.

[oceantracks]

"The recording process itself has become as much, or even more of a player than the artist who is being recorded."

Boy is that ever true!

TH

[famousbass]

Originally Posted by oceantracks

"The recording process itself has become as much, or even more of a player than the artist who is being recorded."

Boy is that ever true!

TH

The interior designers have taken over the architecture!

[nomoreflakes]

I think the below should be a banner to replace the crass advertising at the top of this website:

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

I really question the common idea that it's too much "perfection." Music is all about the communication of a shared emotional experience expressed through sound. Ideally one would never play anything in an imperfect manner. When retaining the ability to fix mistakes or to save money is given a higher priority than the quality of what is being communicated, I'd argue we're missing the whole point of music.

[3rd&4thT]

Just found this thread.

Many of the rock recordings of the era were thin because the playback chains were so clogged and indistinct. Fuzzy midbass, no real bass, no top and no transients. That so many of these records sound great is a miracle. I started a thread on this called Beatles 1966 which is still fitfully alive.

I think the M&P vocals were made deliberately out of focus because they sang out of tune. Maybe it was all Michelle, but I heard "Monday Monday" and "California Dreaming" the weeks they came out on WABC in NY, and I winced at the harmonies then and I wince at them today - they are not perfect, they are often desperately out of tune.

And Bud Shank's flute solo is incredibly sharp - I can't believe he heard the bed he was playing over, because he's up at least a quarter tone.

That the songs are immortal is a great tribute to their power, because they are compromised not only in the engineering, but also in the musical execution.

Cheers,
3rd&4thT

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by 3rd&4thT

Just found this thread.

Many of the rock recordings of the era were thin because the playback chains were so clogged and indistinct. Fuzzy midbass, no real bass, no top and no transients. That so many of these records sound great is a miracle. I started a thread on this called Beatles 1966 which is still fitfully alive.

I think the M&P vocals were made deliberately out of focus because they sang out of tune. Maybe it was all Michelle, but I heard "Monday Monday" and "California Dreaming" the weeks they came out on WABC in NY, and I winced at the harmonies then and I wince at them today - they are not perfect, they are often desperately out of tune.

And Bud Shank's flute solo is incredibly sharp - I can't believe he heard the bed he was playing over, because he's up at least a quarter tone.

That the songs are immortal is a great tribute to their power, because they are compromised not only in the engineering, but also in the musical execution.

Cheers,
3rd&4thT

I don't think the vocals are "out of focus" ...however that photographic term may apply to music....at all. And everything is out of tune to a degree without Autotune. It's up to what your tolerance level is. The song is so strong it doesn't much matter, and the total sound of their voices was magic.

Frank Sinatra was out of tune on probably over half of this records and it didn't keep him from being an icon.

Just saw your other thread Beatles 66 thing...amazing need more threads like that. Hearing things in perspective of the time...scary good to hear song after song that doesn't depend on technology and an 808 kick drum cut and paste rhythm track.

TH

[Ephi82]

Originally Posted by 3rd&4thT

Just found this thread.

Many of the rock recordings of the era were thin because the playback chains were so clogged and indistinct. Fuzzy midbass, no real bass, no top and no transients. That so many of these records sound great is a miracle. I started a thread on this called Beatles 1966 which is still fitfully alive.

I think the M&P vocals were made deliberately out of focus because they sang out of tune. Maybe it was all Michelle, but I heard "Monday Monday" and "California Dreaming" the weeks they came out on WABC in NY, and I winced at the harmonies then and I wince at them today - they are not perfect, they are often desperately out of tune.

And Bud Shank's flute solo is incredibly sharp - I can't believe he heard the bed he was playing over, because he's up at least a quarter tone.

That the songs are immortal is a great tribute to their power, because they are compromised not only in the engineering, but also in the musical execution.

Cheers,
3rd&4thT

One could make the argument that the imperfections of the recording, and the imperfections of the intonation of the vocals and instruments are key ingredients in the totality of a what is a great, great listening experience.

[Bob Olhsson]

I don't agree that most of the recordings were thin. Part of my job at Motown was staying abreast of every single that went into the top 5 sound-wise. We had a dead-flat response turntable system and full range speakers. We used full range speakers because we knew it was what station program directors and DJs would be using to make their airplay decisions.

Unfortunately many pop albums of the era were cut regionally from copies of copies of the single master mix that had been compressed, and high-passed. Too many of these wound up as CD reissues that really aren't representative of people actually heard during their first encounter with the single. Stereo was even worse because it typically was done in a hurry to match the balance of the mono mix which had received most of the creative attention.

[3rd&4thT]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

I don't agree that most of the recordings were thin. Part of my job at Motown was staying abreast of every single that went into the top 5 sound-wise. We had a dead-flat response turntable system and full range speakers. We used full range speakers because we knew it was what station program directors and DJs would be using to make their airplay decisions.

Unfortunately many pop albums of the era were cut regionally from copies of copies of the single master mix that had been compressed, and high-passed. Too many of these wound up as CD reissues that really aren't representative of people actually heard during their first encounter with the single. Stereo was even worse because it typically was done in a hurry to match the balance of the mono mix which had received most of the creative attention.

Agreed, not most, but many. Motown recordings were regarded with awe at the time, but most of your competition was a lot more slipshod.

Many current CD reissues of recordings of this period, and this also goes for classical, jazz and everything else, are mastered by engineers who have no practical comprehension of the old delivery systems.

Cinematographers in the classic Hollywood era would often deliberately expose wrongly, knowing that in processing, the studio's lab would overcompensate in the other direction, producing a specific desired visual effect.

This principle also existed to a degree in analog sound recording, session decisions being made with the requirements of LP cutting in mind. Current CD mastering is often ignorant of this production process, and the result is a horrifying misrepresentation of what was intended.

Cheers,
3rd&4thT

[Ward Pike]

To my ears, you cannot categorize any or all 60s recordings... and after listening to a lot of 60s recordings for most of my life (born in the mid-60s), the sound that we're discussing formed my idea of sound recording.

Some of them were spectacular and rival anything done since... others seemed to have been done in a hurry and were distorted, over-compressed, a wall of noise etc. But overall, there was no auto-tune, beat detective, sample replacement etc done... Artists and session musicians had to be very skilled and well practiced. They crafted their art with skill and dedication.

That trumps everything.

[baskervils]

I am shocked that anyone thinks the Mama's and the Papa's records sound bad. They are some of my FAVORITE records ever, sound and all. I think they are pretty damn close to perfect. My only beef with some of the tunes is the wonky stereo mixes, but that is very minor.

Scott McKenzie was recorded at the same studio with the same team. Love this stuff

[oceantracks]

Yes and it's really hard for people today to understand that these records were meant to be heard in mono and meant to sound great on the CAR RADIO, not in Pro Tools on Adam speakers in 2012.

And they DID sound great on the radio!

[soundbarnfool]

If anyone truly doubts how great the Mamas & Papas masters sound, they need to go to a theater with a good sound system and see the Wrecking Crew film that Tommy Tedesco's son is trying to get released. Maybe it is still making the rounds at festivals: I hope so.

What Bob said in a previous post about CDs made from copies of copies is not to be undervalued!

Inglewood SoundBarn

[Bob Olhsson]

Everybody I know from the '60s is, to be very polite, unhappy about what was done to our records in reissues. The mono 45 was the "money" mix. The stereo albums were rarely as good and too many of the CDs have been train wrecks.

AM radio back then sounded better than most of what you'll hear on I-tunes. Listen to BBC Radio 3 high on I-tunes to hear what it could be. It ain't the technology, it's the stupidity.