Vintage philosophy

[Swamp Thing]

I know this is a bit trippy, but I just can't get this off my mind.

I was thinking the other day about todays vintage fanatics (and I'm talking soun/productionwise here, not just gear). (I guess I'm one of 'em myself since I've said things like "the best records ever made was all recorded between 1965 and 1978".)

After listening to a couple of modern album said to be recorded with a vision to get "the vintage sound" (mostly hevier rock and psychedelica), i reconed that most of them sounded good but not at all old. It was like they sounded more like the 60's/70's wanted to sound like. Like when listening to Electric Wizard, it was more like they sounded as heavy as Sabbath felt like when they started out in the 60's, but way heavier and fatter. I know that this probbly is 'cause the common perception of "heavy" has changed thru the years and all, but anyways.

So my question is: Is the vintage ideal more a way of thinking and approaching the music, rather than the actual sound?

Sorry if i wasted your time.

[guitarwolle]

They were rebels at the time - trying new things, beeing different - it wasnt all dictated by money. Were are todays rebels??

In addition to that, for me its how songs were recorded - all together live, maybe several overdubs to add a little extra but thats it. And, as they had just a few tracks - they had to rely on a very good understanding to get things done and sound right with just a few mics.

So, it had to have a good vibe, as either playing nor recording were as perfect as they are today - and todays problem is to go back to imperfection with pride.

For me the Stones are one of the very few bands who achieve that - Keith Richards had never ever tuned his guitar correct in his life - thats one of the unique features of his sound. It took decades for me to recognize their realy genius as a live playing band.

[toneguru]

Today, getting a good vintage sound may have as much to do with what you don't do as much as what you do.

For instance, no computers. No over compression.

[PRobb]

Everything is a product of it's time. The records made in 1969 sounded like they did in part because it was 1969. Records made today are made in 2012, inspired by 1969 and are going to sound like it. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, it's just the way it is.

The closest is probably Daptone Records.

[jdsowa]

Vintage sound has little to do with tape/mics/tubes/preamps/etc and more to do with the following factors:

Low end: records in the 60s and 70s just had less bass. I think this was in part to accommodate the vinyl format (through low-passing or significant cuts at the mastering stage), and partly due to unrefined technique and fashion. If you're recording and mixing a song for the radio, you make it sound as close to the previous radio hit, but try to go one step further. So the engineers of the late-60s made their records bassier than the records of the early 60s--but there was no way for them to know just how far they could ultimately take it.

Panning: seldom anything but hard panning
Instrumental technique: some styles of drumming or bass playing simply didn't exist before, say, 1974.
Mics/Drums: you had heavily-miked kits like Ringo, but they were in mono; you had stereo kits like Bonham, but they were under-miked;
Chamber reverb
Mono plate reverb returns

A lot of modern attempts at a vintage sound have tons of signal below 120Hz, they have things panned all over the stereo spectrum, they use digital stereo plate reverb to simulate a mono chamber, etc.

[Papanate]

I am of the opinion that a 'vintage' sound is a combination of many factors.
Time, Culture, Gear and Workflow.

Time: in 1965 the average yahoo band didn't get but 3 or 5 days to record.
If the producer figured out they couldn't get that done the band was replaced by guys who could. The point is that the focus on getting everything in 1 or 2 takes cause a specific kind of sound to be created.

Culture: Studio's and Staff were not thought of as 'glamorous' and were more workman like. There were some producers that had 'names'...but for the most part a studio complex like Capitol had staff engineers and producers. They learned to work together in a certain fashion and that 'team' created sounds.
Also by the sheer number of people needed to get a recording done - there was a lot more relationships built in relatively short periods. And that comadarie IMO affected recordings...all for one and one for all and that sort of crap.

Gear: As we all know gear of the mid 60's had a 'sound'. Whether people knew how to use that 'sound' or not is on record (literally). But the way gear worked, the rewind times, the spooling times, the record and playback times etc...and that downtime indirectly produced reflection time. Plus many musicians/producers had neither the budget nor the patience to put up with
more than 3 or 4 takes....which with everything the way it was could actually take 4 or 5 hours start to finish. So decisions were made at the moment...instead of sitting on tracks for months and then tweaking the living crap out of them for months at home. The immediate decisions tended to improve the 'sound' of recordings.

Workflow: Touched on it above - but if a studio in the mid 60's was to be profitable they had to maximize productivity. Consequently everyone from the Producer to the Songwriter to the Arranger to the maintenance guys had to be spot on their game all day every day. Things had to be right...if a musician was hot everyone would not get 500 takes...they would get 3 or 4 - and they had to be right (tape aligned, spooled, eq'd etc...) Everyone had to work within the flow for a session to be successful. Of course that isn't to say that the Tape Op was bored out of his skull 90% of his day...just that during the 10% of real work he had to be a genius at ops. That 'forced' level of professional work I think created a 'Sound' that came from using the best people possible to record the best music possible.

Now the sweet thing about this is that most of the reasons for a 'retro' type tone can easily be done. Computer or Tape it doesn't matter - but the way you work, the way you record, and the editing you allow will dramatically alter the 'sound' of a recording. Pros doing a Professional job with pride and a hard core work ethic having fun and creating quality work - that will give you a 'retro' sound IMO. YMMV.

[Unique]

2 interviews with Andy Johns:

Andy Johns Interview: The Man Behind the Sound of Rock n Roll : Guitar Interviews

Engineer Andy Johns Discusses the making of The Rolling Stones Exile On Main Street | Goldmine Magazine

[olliejohn]

When threads like this come up, they always inevitablly get someone saying that it doesn't matter if you use tape or a DAW when trying to get a vintage sound. I agree, but, having used both, I have to say it's a whole lot EASIER to get a vintage sound from tape than a computer.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by olliejohn

When threads like this come up, they always inevitablly get someone saying that it doesn't matter if you use tape or a DAW when trying to get a vintage sound. I agree, but, having used both, I have to say it's a whole lot EASIER to get a vintage sound from tape than a computer.

If you want to make a recording whose sound is typical of 60s recordings, then, for sure, using the gear -- and, crucially, the studio techniques and practices -- of the 60s will be a big help. That will act as a 'filter' that imposes some of the familiar aspects of nostalgic favorites.

If you want to record music that has the vibe of the best recordings of the era, you'll need to find talent that can match the style and vibe of the era and that can work within the minimal overdub/live ensemble 'limitations' of the era.


Certainly, one can try to capture the former (sonic) aspects in a modern studio by applying various 'tricks' or the spot use of vintage-style gear... but I have to say that at least a few aspects of what I think of as the 'modern' sound seems to come from applying so-called vintage style gear in ways that it wasn't applied back in the day. Think of the super-up-front/squashed vocals favored by many 'nostalgia'-driven acts... they're using pres and compressors based on classic circuit designs, but they're using them in ways that are often very different from how similar gear was used in the past -- and the result, not surprisingly, doesn't sound much like previous eras.

[vincentvangogo]

Originally Posted by Swamp Thing

I know this is a bit trippy, but I just can't get this off my mind.

I was thinking the other day about todays vintage fanatics (and I'm talking soun/productionwise here, not just gear). (I guess I'm one of 'em myself since I've said things like "the best records ever made was all recorded between 1965 and 1978".)

After listening to a couple of modern album said to be recorded with a vision to get "the vintage sound" (mostly hevier rock and psychedelica), i reconed that most of them sounded good but not at all old. It was like they sounded more like the 60's/70's wanted to sound like. Like when listening to Electric Wizard, it was more like they sounded as heavy as Sabbath felt like when they started out in the 60's, but way heavier and fatter. I know that this probbly is 'cause the common perception of "heavy" has changed thru the years and all, but anyways.

So my question is: Is the vintage ideal more a way of thinking and approaching the music, rather than the actual sound?

Sorry if i wasted your time.

A lot of it comes down to the bands themselves- how tight/heavy they play and their subtle modern influences (musical/lyrical.) Then there's their gear- amps, guitars, pedals (digital?) skins, cymbals, drum kit (as well as how they tune it.) When all that's authentic you can start thinking about recording techniques and gear.

[baskervils]

Air recorded Moon Safari in a home studio (mostly) in 1998. It definitely sounds 70s to me.

I think that they used a Mackie but mixed on a Harrison. I think that you can get a vintage sound on the computer, but it's hard to get the right mix without some tape and a mixer / console.

Future Music Magazine (#68, April 1998): by Derek O'Sullivan

"I bought my TB-303 for 40 pounds and a 909 for two hundred"

"Remarkably, Moon Safari was recorded on an 8 track machine, with a purposely restricted array of gear."

"To a nucleus of traditional instruments like a grand piano, pianola and Nicolas' guitars, they brought their full compliment of creaky analogues: "We were using old Roland drum machines, Moogs, old Korg stuff, ARP synths and the Rhodes electric piano," Nicolas expands, "and we also a lot of guitar effects: distortions and flangers in particular. We like the Electro Harmonix effects. The distorted organ lead lines on album opener La Femme D'Argent demonstrate this creative use of stomp boxes perfectly. "If I want a flanged sound, I put a guitar box into the inserts on the mixer and I can control it manually," Nicolas continues. "It's more spontaneous that way. I don't like to have to push buttons on a rack." "many elements are flukes. We're not very good technicians, and the kind of effects and equipment we sue are such that you're often obliged to hit them! So accidents play a part in our music. All the time."

"We have four vocoders... but we can't tell you what they are, it's a secret! If you find one that we've got, you'll be able to make a record like Air," he chuckles

"We have no rules when we write songs. We play ping pong with the ideas, so it's a regular exchange between us."

Kit List:

Casiotone
Clavinet
Glockenspiel
Guitars
Harmonica
Korg MS20
Mellotron
MiniMoog
Piano
Solina String Ensemble
Wurlitzer
Akai DR16 digital recorder
Yamaha 02-R (No outboard converter)
AKG C414 (2)
Avalon 737
Genelec 1031
Lots of stompboxes (mostly EH)
Vibrophones
Memorymoog (the best synth they think)
Baldwin electric harpsichord
Hammond L100 (no leslie)
Pleyel 1/2 queue
Mellotron samples
Linn 9000 (only for its kick)
Mackie 32/8 for monitoring
old 60s drum kit recorded with 8 mics
Boss VT-1 for the voice

[vincentvangogo]

A bit of Moon Safari came on in the cafe I go today. Sounds as fresh as the day they laid it.

[donnylang]

hmm, I think most of the 'sound' doesn't come off as old (like the '60s records) because the groups/producers don't really go all the way. Most bands will say something like "vintage with a modern edge", "retro with a modern twist", "inspired by the '60s", etc. I think people are afraid to be like, "we're trying to recreate the sound of '60s exactly" for fear of being labeled as a re-hash or copycats or something.

also, I don't think it can be done on computer ... at least I've never heard a digital recording that actually sounds old.

Personally, I've been working really hard for the last several years with getting my own recordings to actually sound like they were recorded in 1968 ... I'm probably about 90% there, closer than most others I've heard with a few exceptions.

Hmm, the answer is fairly simple but you have to go all the way to get it ... i don't think there are any shortcuts.

first of all, you are not going to make a record that truly sounds like the '60s because it's not the '60s. the way that people write songs is different, the way the bands play is different, the times are not the same; people think differently.

drummers and guitar players particularly do not play in a manner that makes a record sound like a '60s record. Because everyone has heard Led Zeppelin. and Led Zeppelin ruined everything. musicians in the '60s were influenced by jazz standards, lawrence welk, etc (i don't think many of them were intentionally influenced, but this is what was "standard" ... part of playing music is accepting what music is. or what we perceive to be acceptable). so, yes, the great ones were pushing the envelope. but the envelope itself was something very different.

but you can probably get close ... there are groups and musicians/producers who have come close; they are the ones who are going all the way, dedicating themselves and having a certain kind of vision.

so assuming you get past this challenging hurdle of getting a group of musicians, or at least someone with vision and a bunch of people who are good at adapting to his vision, then you can begin looking at the techinical details.

i think the "record everyone in the same room" stuff is kind of overstated. a lot of '60s records have a shit ton of overdubs. i think that recording live was more a '50s-early '60s thing, then it got to overdubbing in groups, and then into overdubbing individual elements by the time you get to 8-track. and comping, bouncing, etc.

the simplicity of getting a '60s sound is setting up the same kind of limitations. and it's super great because setups in the '60s were very simple. this means 4-track or 8-track with limited EQ, a good reverb, a tape delay and an old-type compressor. get some old electro voice mics and maybe one large condenser. use a simple, straightforward mixer that doesn't have too many capabilities. and use a tape machine! there were no computers in the '60s and the concept of a computer sort of goes against the spirit of the times.

let the limitations of the equipment set the stage for you. everything else will fall into place if you have the vision.

Donny

[Liquid360]

Originally Posted by toneguru

Today, getting a good vintage sound may have as much to do with what you don't do as much as what you do.

For instance, no computers. No over compression.

Agreed. If you use the tools of the era, you will achieve a similar sound.

[jdsowa]

Originally Posted by donnylang

also, I don't think it can be done on computer ... at least I've never heard a digital recording that actually sounds old.

Donny

Here
are some 60s sounding instrumentals I did on the computer in Logic, using just SM57s and an M-Audio Fasttrack USB box. The general approach I used was to cut 10kHz on a lot of tracks, hard panning, limit the crap out of everything, and hi-pass a lot of the tracks too. Other than that, if you have the right instruments, and you play them in a 60s fashion, and you get the mic positions just right, I don't think tape/tube pres/etc are necessary.

[Enlightened Hand]

Originally Posted by Swamp Thing

...So my question is: Is the vintage ideal more a way of thinking and approaching the music, rather than the actual sound?...

It's exactly that: an ideal.

And an ideal by definition cannot be achieved; it exists in the mind. So yeah I would say it's indeed a way of thinking as opposed to an actual sound.

I think that if they (back in the day) had what we have today in terms of equipment they'd have made higher fidelity records and everyone would be okay with higher fidelity and non-destructive editing as a means to get the job of transferring emotions done. I suspect their "ideal" at the time wasn't to do anything but transfer emotions from a live performance to a record.

I suspect that's why they made better quality records, despite the lack of fidelity. Because they didn't have a "vintage" ideal. They had a "get the feeling right" ideal and what they had to work with was whatever was available and they just got on with it. I can't help but feel like today's popular "vintage" ideal is about something else, something probably stupid.

[donnylang]

Originally Posted by jdsowa

Here
are some 60s sounding instrumentals I did on the computer in Logic, using just SM57s and an M-Audio Fasttrack USB box. The general approach I used was to cut 10kHz on a lot of tracks, hard panning, limit the crap out of everything, and hi-pass a lot of the tracks too. Other than that, if you have the right instruments, and you play them in a 60s fashion, and you get the mic positions just right, I don't think tape/tube pres/etc are necessary.

hey, weird ... I've actually heard your stuff before when searching for '60s pysch' or something on youtube.

your stuff sounds really good; amazing! excellent playing and recording skills. However, I don't think I would mistake it for a '60s recording. the 'bedroom recording - '60s pysch' sounds the most convincing. but your stuff sounds as close as any digital recording I've heard! Actually sounds more '70s sonically in my opinion. Or maybe how the '60s stuff actually sounded in the room. but once you start bouncing, boosting EQ as they had to to keep the impact, the sound starts getting all weird, which is a hallmark of the '60s sound. I wouldn't change anything since you're getting good results, but I bet tape would take you over the edge!

Really enjoyed listening to your music. Your recordings are much better and more 'hi fi' than mine, but I think recordings in the '60s were kind of dirty for the most part.

but shit, that's some seriously good stuff you've got, especially that harpsichord 'baroque' track ... i've wanted to do something like that with a guitar for awhile but ... well, when you're working on 4-track and 8-track ... it is a challenge!

Donny

[brassmoose]

Papanate, great post! One of the best I've read regarding "vintage".

Gabe Roth from Daptone says he isn't against digital production...he just likes to work with tape as a medium. It's his preference. And I think that's key...the sounds you like to get and how you prefer to get them. Not something that's simply fashionable.

[donnylang]

Originally Posted by brassmoose

Papanate, great post! One of the best I've read regarding "vintage".

Gabe Roth from Daptone says he isn't against digital production...he just likes to work with tape as a medium. It's his preference. And I think that's key...the sounds you like to get and how you prefer to get them. Not something that's simply fashionable.

he says that but it wouldn't even be possible to for some of his techniques to work with digital.

[Ben Logan]

Originally Posted by jdsowa

Here
are some 60s sounding instrumentals I did on the computer in Logic, using just SM57s and an M-Audio Fasttrack USB box. The general approach I used was to cut 10kHz on a lot of tracks, hard panning, limit the crap out of everything, and hi-pass a lot of the tracks too. Other than that, if you have the right instruments, and you play them in a 60s fashion, and you get the mic positions just right, I don't think tape/tube pres/etc are necessary.

Wow. Sounds super. Can't believe this was done with 57s and muadio pres. Keep up the great work.

[Roman]

and the only modern production that actually fooled me into thinking it was from 1969 was Sharon Jones and the Dap Kings.
There is a pdf interview with the producer/bass player Gabriel Roth called 'shitty is pretty'.
I think their methods and gear are fairly purist.

[Swamp Thing]

Thanks for you thoughts, guys! My mind is a bit clearer now!

[Darius van H]

You can ape the sounds of the 60's & 70's, but what about the musicians, the culture, the feeling in the air, the people's state of mind? There's more to it then just mix and recording techniques!

[Bob Olhsson]

I can add a few points:

1. Gear was chosen first for reliability as opposed to "sound." The cost of gear going down during a string session could literally be thousands of dollars. A lot of it did sound better because of better power supplies and more headroom. I've grown to believe tubes were incidental because they were rarely being run anywhere near saturation like a guitar amp.

2. I think musicians paid lots more attention to the sound of their instruments and playing.

3. Because lots of musicians were being played at the same time, arrangements needed to be great because there was no time to fix anything in the mix. You could often walk out into the studio and literally hear the sound of the record right there in the room acoustically. Most musicians were not using headphones.

[zealy]

. It was like they sounded more like the 60's/70's wanted to sound like. Like when listening to Electric Wizard, it was more like they sounded as heavy as Sabbath felt like when they started out in the 60's, but way heavier and fatter. I know that this probbly is 'cause the common perception of "heavy" has changed thru the years and all, but anyways.

Electric Wizard have that sound not so much because of the equipment they use; but because on a creative level, they have managed to plug into the entire 'Zeitgeist' of the 1970's.

They are big 70's horror movie fans and are occultists.

They always record live too which makes their albums sound a lot different to most other recorded bands, which are often sterile, and pro tooled to death.

[brassmoose]

Originally Posted by Roman

and the only modern production that actually fooled me into thinking it was from 1969 was Sharon Jones and the Dap Kings.
There is a pdf interview with the producer/bass player Gabriel Roth called 'shitty is pretty'.
I think their methods and gear are fairly purist.

The Monophonics self-recorded this great track and it drips with "vintage" and begins to rival Daptone.
Monophonics - Bang Bang (Instrumental) - YouTube

[Kiwi]

Originally Posted by guitarwolle

They were rebels at the time - trying new things, beeing different - it wasnt all dictated by money. Were are todays rebels??

Probably outside trying to steal your car.

The problem with older guys wanting to know why todays youth aren't rebels just like they were, is because every generation rebels against the last. It's just the way it works. The fact that they are different and you don't like it IS the rebellion you are looking for.

There are plenty of young rebels trying new things and making new music that the older generation don't like. Like Dubstep for example.

[motone]

interesting thread ... I think when it comes to authentic 60's or 50's sound there's way too much focus put on recording techniques (mics, tube consoles, tape etc) and one crucial element is pretty much overlooked:
the instruments sounded VERY different back then ...
1) guitars - in the 50's and for a good amount of the 60's electric guitarists used flatwound strings, NOT roundwounds .... and way thicker gauges (no skinny 009ths sets or so, with a few notable exceptions like James Burton, who actually used Banjo strings on his tele because skinny sets just weren't available). both of these (flatwound strings and really heavy gauges) have an enormous impact on the sound, so it's no surprise things sounded fat back then. I even assume that a lot of what's attributed to the tweed amps of the time and early AC30's (warmth and fatness) has to do with the strings and guitars chosen, more than with the amps.

2) electric bass - same here, flatwound strings .. often played with a pick so that's where the nice attack comes from .. no subbass frequencies, the early ampeg 'fliptop' or fender bass amps of that time just don't generate anywhere near the low bass amount that became en vogue in the 70's with the ampeg svt monsters or so.
speakers in bass amps were usually the same as in guitar amps, which results in basically no significant response below 80 Hz.

3) drums - I'm no expert here, but all I can say is whenever I hear a genuine 60's (or older) Slingerland or Gretsch kit it sounds completely different to any new kits (even if the we're talking new 'vintage' style kits with small bass drums and toms). and this includes the cymbals and especially the hihats which just weren't voiced as bright back then.

4) organ / keys: most always played through amps, no direct 'line' recording .. results again in way less bass and high end, much more midrange grind, and more spaciousness.


so I always find it funny when a band shows up in the studio wanting their music to sound like some early 60's surf band or whatever and bringing the completely wrong instruments - no vintage recording gear / mics / tape / tape echoes etc will ever turn an 80's Yamaha drumkit into something that sounds remotely like on a Phil Spector production from 1962.

[PRobb]

motone- great points about guitars and basses.
I'd be interested to hear a drummer talk about drums. I think they had very different heads, and I think they generally tuned higher.

[Bob Olhsson]

The strings were a big deal. By the late 1970s guitarists I know were complaining about no longer being able to obtain the really heavy, great sounding strings of a decade earlier. The post Beatles amateur market had thrown the entire musical instrument industry into mass production, corporate buy-outs and the end of manufacturing products that didn't sell very well no matter how much the older pro musicians loved them.

Drums all had springs in the lugs. Getting a great drum sound was about taking the drum apart, damping the springs (I found matchbook covers wadded up inside Motown's drum lugs!) and sanding the rims smooth so the head would stretch evenly. Remo Ambassador or Diplomat heads were all we had. Typically we removed the mechanical dampers inside the snare drums because they rattled. Then we'd wad up just enough tissue to keep each tom from ringing sympathetically when another drum in the kit was struck. Kits typically only employed one rack tom and a floor tom so we never had a dozen drums roaring at the same time. Almost everybody put a wallet on the snare drum. During the '70s mass-produced drums were introduced that had plastic damped lugs and smoother rims. I never found any you could make sound nearly as good as a fully treated set of Gretsch. Unfortunately they sounded good enough that setting drums up for recording became a lost art whereas during the '60s setting up the studio kit had been part of every recording engineer's job.

Something a lot of people today don't understand is that we were always trying our darnedest to make records that sounded exactly like the sound out on the studio floor.