Cobain / Vedder vox mics

[Nu Mixer]

Anyone know what mics these guys used? I'm guessing something like a SM7, but I would love to know for sure. (referring to their biggest releases-- not early stuff or live.)

I'm starting a project and this singer has THE "alternative" voice. Actually sounds more like the guy from Live.

Thanks!

[giraffe]

there are about 1000 things wrong with this question, but i'll take a stab at it anyway.

know cobain used re20 and possibly u47 on vox on utero (may have forgotten/got that wrong)

eddie i hear is fond of the ksm 44 (again, not really sure of this)

the question is nearly meaningless in the end though.

[1monkey1]

i agree with the poster above.
if you want to refer to someone, i think the pre-amp and more importantly the mix (and the mastering!) matters a lot more than the mic.

there are a lot of moving parts to a record, even just the vocal component. focusing on one mic doesn't make much sense to me.

steven walcott
Engine Studios

[Raw-Tracks]

Originally Posted by 1monkey1

i agree with the poster above.
if you want to refer to someone, i think the pre-amp and more importantly the mix (and the mastering!) matters a lot more than the mic.

The preamp matters more than the mic? I couldn't be in more disagreement.

[Acoustic Cloud]

No mics made them sound like "them"..

But I would say, get a U-298!!

Should work.

[Drumsound]

Originally Posted by Raw-Tracks

The preamp matters more than the mic? I couldn't be in more disagreement.

Me too.

i think the singer is more important than either...

[lowfreq33]

I'm in shock that AllenCollins hasn't commented on this thread yet. Allen, I'm very impressed with your self control. I know you've got to be biting your tongue right now.

I'll jump in though. You could use the exact mic, pre, compressor, eq settings, room, band, iso booth, throw rug, pop filter, monitors, tampons, whatever that was used on those records, and it still wouldn't sound like them. Because you're not them. The most important thing in the signal chain is the source. If that's no good then it doesn't matter what follows it.

[Sqye]

.

the mic matters a LOT.

a LOT more than the pre.


try recording kurt cobain through a radio shack PZM and see what happens -

or courtney love thorugh a 4033...


or wing through a ribbon mic

WSample tracks from Wing's CDs Wing Music discography, CD sales, bio, events guide, news


i'm not saying those mics wouldn't work -

they'd just sound REALLY different from the original records


and good luck..


oh yeah, and ed DOES kick some serious ass - great singer....

.

[allencollins]

Originally Posted by Nu Mixer

Anyone know what mics these guys used?

I wish they had used broken ones

[cgarges]

Originally Posted by giraffe

tknow cobain used re20 and possibly u47 on vox on utero (may have forgotten/got that wrong)

According to Albini, it was an RE20 and/or a Lomo 19a9, depending on the song. Occasionally, a Neumann CMV 563 with M55k capsule was used an an ambient mic.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

[lowfreq33]

Originally Posted by allencollins

I wish they had used broken ones

I knew you couldn't resist!

[allencollins]

Originally Posted by lowfreq33

I knew you couldn't resist!

hey lowfreq
Ive been obedient the last couple weeks
give me some fuel and I cant' resist.
all in good fun.............


I saw a Tom Petty post that I'm having a hard time
avoiding. So far so good though.

[Raw-Tracks]

Originally Posted by Drumsound

Me too.

i think the singer is more important than either...

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. But, to me at least, to say a preamp is going to affect your recording more than the mic is just plain wrong.

[Marlowe]

Nevermind was a u67.

[Nu Mixer]

Ok, it is obvious that 90's alternative rock is not my speciality. Sorry I did not know know that Cobain and Vedder had completely different voices and styles. To my ears they were fairly similar. Obviously the singer is more important than the mic, but thanks for pointing that out.

Regarding pres, I have a 1073 and 737, so I hope that one of those would suffice.

The singer recorded a few covers at our studio a few months ago. I remember he did "Lightning Crashes" and he sounded spot on. I am not trying to emulate any of those singers, just trying to get an idea of what mics were used on some of those classic records.

<< Nevermind was a u67 >>

Thanks! The only useful piece of info in this thread. Maybe I should change my handle, because I am not so "Nu".

[roxxon]

You can get a pretty damn good mic sound with a great mic and even a budget pre...The mic itself matters far more than the pre does.

Of course having a good mic pre helps.
But:
You can record a CD's complete vox tracks with a Brick pre and it probably will sound pretty darn good, depending on, if the quality mic used matches well with the pre.
It would also depend heavily on exactly what kind of vocal sound that you are looking for.
Then there's the rest of the vocal chain...
Many variables to be considered here.

[lowfreq33]

Yeah, I guess the 1073 would do, you know, if that's all you've got...

[Matt Hepworth]

Originally Posted by Marlowe

Nevermind was a u67.

Yep, U67 into a 1073 into an LA-2A.

[allencollins]

Originally Posted by glitch

Yep, U67 into a 1073 into an LA-2A.

Wow I guess that proves the theory that
improperly used highend gear can yield poor results.

I wonder if one of those units was broken at the time?

[pootkao]

Hey, what year is it? 2007?

The '90s are done, folks. Nirvana. Done. Pearl Jam. Done. Yes, they were great. And in fact, they still are.

But its done. So please, for the love of god, could everyone just STOP trying to sound like them and do something original?

[Daniel Antix]

Originally Posted by pootkao

Hey, what year is it? 2007?

The '90s are done, folks. Nirvana. Done. Pearl Jam. Done. Yes, they were great. And in fact, they still are.

But its done. So please, for the love of god, could everyone just STOP trying to sound like them and do something original?

something original like the emo shite that's around atm? i find it really hard to get into most new bands. I don't see anything wrong with people having obvious influences from 90's music... there are plenty of bands around who obviously listened to 70's and 80's music. it's just the way things are.

edit: I'm not saying it's ok to go an completly copy some one elses sound but.

[herecomesyourman]

First off...wasn't there a post from an engineer who actually recorded Ed from Live further up that everyone here ignored?!?!

His handle is moracspace.

Secondly, Butch Vig recorded Nirvana live a lot of the time too...and during the live recordings for Nevermind a Sennheiser 421 was DEFINATELY used during those sessions for vocals, even during the redubs of some of those vocals, mainly because Cobain really benifited from a smoother tone of a Dynamic when he howled like Frank Black meets Paul Westerberg. (I think the U67 was used on songs like Something In The Way, where the vocals were dubbed afterward)

Nirvana was as inspired thing...The Pixies, The Replacements, The Beatles, Sonic Youth, The Raincoats, Dinosaur Jr, Husker Du, David Bowie, Devo, Led Zepplin (*If you're talking Dave Grohls drumming style) The Meat Puppets...The Melvins, The Ramones, Mudhoney, and several other great (though more often than not obscure) bands really influenced them over the years, and they crafted an intensely streamlined yet original sound from those influences that none of the other "Grunge" bands aside from the Pixies really ever touched on. (Until Bush decided to copy their style completely with 16 Stone, though not entirely unsuccessfully)

Live and Pearljam...Alice In Chains...Soundgarden...those bands are really different animals. I positively HATE it when people characterize singers as having this "Alternative" voice...(Like that asshole Daughtry, or that ****er from Creed) just because they can hit these deeper timbres...

These singers are all baritone with a controlled virbrato...and the capability of reaching for a tenor or a bass note with conviction when they have to.

Kurt Cobain was NOT a technical singer...he "spoke" more than he sang, and he really owed his vocal stylings to guys like Frank Black, J. Mascis and Paul Westerburg (As I stated earlier), since those guys had that kind of yowl and attitude long before Kurt was playing any big crowds. The difference is that Kurt really brought things down to a cynical and poetic lyrical level. Nine times out of ten his lyrics had a wry humor to them that really connected with the times. Or they acted as a narrative to what he was going through emotionally during the spontainious combustion that was Nirvana. (And I've always respected that side of his lyrics, because they come off as personal and human...read 'Serve the Servents' or 'Something In The Way' for an example)

No disrespect to the other bands of that era, but I think most of the other mainstream bands took the Loud, Quiet, Loud dynamic of the Pixies / Nirvana just copied that format with their more 70's hard rock inspired melodies / singers.

The Smashing Pumpkins are somewhere in the middle of those two extremes since they had a very diverse range of styles that even incorporated Fleetwood Mac, Queen, The Cure and Joy Division...but whatever...they're at least more unique in their choices, like Nirvana.

The new guys aping these sounds always come off as contrite and hackneyed to me. So if you want to assume the mantle of a REAL alternative band, you might want to have something smart and mindful to say for a ****ing change first.

[Daniel Antix]

Originally Posted by herecomesyourman

The new guys aping these sounds always come off as contrite and hackneyed to me. So if you want to assume the mantle of a REAL alternative band, you might want to have something smart and mindful to say for a ****ing change first.

i agree about having something to say, this is why i can't connect with most new bands, they don't seem to be singing about anything of any significants to me. htere are a few i've gotten into but i don't listen to as many new bands as i used to and i'm only 25... am i getting old?

[Shaft]

Originally Posted by herecomesyourman

First off...wasn't there a post from an engineer who actually recorded Ed from Live further up that everyone here ignored?!?!

His handle is moracspace.

Secondly, Butch Vig recorded Nirvana live a lot of the time too...and during the live recordings for Nevermind a Sennheiser 421 was DEFINATELY used during those sessions for vocals, even during the redubs of some of those vocals, mainly because Cobain really benifited from a smoother tone of a Dynamic when he howled like Frank Black meets Paul Westerberg. (I think the U67 was used on songs like Something In The Way, where the vocals were dubbed afterward)

Nirvana was as inspired thing...The Pixies, The Replacements, The Beatles, Sonic Youth, The Raincoats, Dinosaur Jr, Husker Du, David Bowie, Devo, Led Zepplin (*If you're talking Dave Grohls drumming style) The Meat Puppets...The Melvins, The Ramones, Mudhoney, and several other great (though more often than not obscure) bands really influenced them over the years, and they crafted an intensely streamlined yet original sound from those influences that none of the other "Grunge" bands aside from the Pixies really ever touched on. (Until Bush decided to copy their style completely with 16 Stone, though not entirely unsuccessfully)

Live and Pearljam...Alice In Chains...Soundgarden...those bands are really different animals. I positively HATE it when people characterize singers as having this "Alternative" voice...(Like that asshole Daughtry, or that ****er from Creed) just because they can hit these deeper timbres...

These singers are all baritone with a controlled virbrato...and the capability of reaching for a tenor or a bass note with conviction when they have to.

Kurt Cobain was NOT a technical singer...he "spoke" more than he sang, and he really owed his vocal stylings to guys like Frank Black, J. Mascis and Paul Westerburg (As I stated earlier), since those guys had that kind of yowl and attitude long before Kurt was playing any big crowds. The difference is that Kurt really brought things down to a cynical and poetic lyrical level. Nine times out of ten his lyrics had a wry humor to them that really connected with the times. Or they acted as a narrative to what he was going through emotionally during the spontainious combustion that was Nirvana. (And I've always respected that side of his lyrics, because they come off as personal and human...read 'Serve the Servents' or 'Something In The Way' for an example)

No disrespect to the other bands of that era, but I think most of the other mainstream bands took the Loud, Quiet, Loud dynamic of the Pixies / Nirvana just copied that format with their more 70's hard rock inspired melodies / singers.

The Smashing Pumpkins are somewhere in the middle of those two extremes since they had a very diverse range of styles that even incorporated Fleetwood Mac, Queen, The Cure and Joy Division...but whatever...they're at least more unique in their choices, like Nirvana.

The new guys aping these sounds always come off as contrite and hackneyed to me. So if you want to assume the mantle of a REAL alternative band, you might want to have something smart and mindful to say for a ****ing change first.

Amen. You get it. Kurt loathed the Pearl Jam comparison too. It was never valid.

[herecomesyourman]

Originally Posted by Daniel Antix

i agree about having something to say, this is why i can't connect with most new bands, they don't seem to be singing about anything of any significants to me. htere are a few i've gotten into but i don't listen to as many new bands as i used to and i'm only 25... am i getting old?

I know your pain. I'm 26 and I feel the same way.

It's not that we're getting old, it's that the formated terrestrial radio stations...the brand led marketing in place of real songwriters...and the faceless "younger, stronger, wealthier" mentality of the record industry and the current teenage population they market EVERYTHING to...is a mutated virus spawned from the sins of the kids who embraced boy bands and pop divas like religious figures.

It's sincerely ****ed that we're making it "American" to be classless and cultureless on a regular basis. (And letting people get rich writing about being nothing but mediocre or stupid in the process) I feel like people our age were at that precarious cutoff, where we got to see a bunch of incredible music made by real people come out, even sometimes in the mainstream, without every damn note being about making money for whatever coke and pepsi music concglomerate you're signed to.

Then some assholes in suits decided that brand led marketing was the only way to fly.

Yes people need to make a living, but art actually has to be a part of the process to. No "Voice" on earth can create art. You have to be a complete person, willing to put part of yourself into what you create.

And Shaft...yeah I ****ing can't stand people who compare Nirvana to Pearl Jam, it's not even the same ****ing planet.

[pootkao]

If you want to find new music, you will find it. All you have to do is LOOK. Its easier to find then ever before. And while yeah, there are a gazillion crappy emo bands that sound like all the other emo bands, there's even more bands that are flying just underneath the mainstream radar and can offer much more substance.

All you need to do is look and listen.

Just turn off the radio. Turn off the tv. Pick up a good music mag and connect to the good ol' internet.

MAGAZINES
Paste
Mojo
Exclaim
Uncut
Filter
The Wire
No Depression
Alternative Press

WEBSITES
Insound.com
Pitchforkmedia.com
Exclaim.ca
Radio3.cbc.ca
kcrw.com
...and many many many more

[herecomesyourman]

I look at that those mags and zines all the time. (And I do agree there's a lot of great info and new bands each month in all of them)

The problem is the wash of things the listening public is saturated with.

And the complacency of todays kids...when I was a young angry punk rocker who started to get into music seriously, that really meant something to me, and helped shaped my core values.

You can't tell me that any of the easy listening crap they try to pawn off as rock of late in top forty land has any weight to it.

I don't want people to copy Nirvana...or anyone else...I want people to demand that their favorite artists stand for something now and then.

[pootkao]

Well, then we are most definitely in agreement.

[skybluerental]

there is this:

http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/cla..._nevermind.php

no mic shots though.
or andy wallace.

[ddageek]

My first thought was to call Smart and ask Butch, Then I figured it would be more intresting talking about how cold it was in Madison and how I miss really good beer! and the old Harrison. Upstairs thats no more (well Maybe It should be called Andeson/ Harrison)
Why? Becuase unless you know what Kurt, Eddy et al sounded like without a mic knowing what was used is useless if your aiming for that sound with a different voice that gear ain't going to get you there! The voice is and thats why 99% of the wnt to be clonesare oh so close and oh so far away!

heck it might even be more important to ask what drugs they were using at the time!