Classic Ignorance

OK, over the past few weeks, i've been listening to a lot of recordings from the late 50's early 60's... This is probably my youth speaking (and i use youth relatively, since i dont feel young) but, I don't get it.  you got some really catchy songs that even by today's standards are GREAT songs... but all my ears focus on is the insane amount of distortion on just about everything I'm listening to.  The vocals on just about every "agressive" (i use that term loosely) Beatles song I've heard sounds like its either hit the tape with the ferocity of a charging bull elephant, or the pre was so far in the red, the clip indicator is still cooling off some 50 years later... and they could never quite straighten the needle on the meter ever again from hitting the stop...  And its not only the beatles.  (which brings me to another discovery... that everyone from that era was just trying to clone that sound without even trying for something different)

So is this the "sound" that everyone is looking for? Distorted, loose performance, noisy?  I understand that the style of music was new and engineers of the day were still experimenting with techniques and pushing new technology to its limits and in that, I can hear it as a great history lesson.  But I just hear it differently I guess, since to me, it wasn't something so radically new.

i'm right there with you, some of the iconic rolling stones stuff comes to mind.  it's a BRUTAL listen.  motown is a bit of a mixed bag, but a lot of it was recorded very cheaply and the shift to digital hasn't been kind to the original eq.  i've heard some of the same equipment used more kindly and imo to better effect, so i put my objections more on engineering than electrons.

The only classic stuff that I absolutely love the sound of is the way instrumental jazz in the 50's and 60's was recorded.  It's really difficult to find anything that was clipped or distorted.  Pretty much all of the stuff produced by Orrin Keepnews sounds flawless, in terms of an errorless recording chain. 

+1

My father was a recording engineer (RCA NYC) back then, he died in the 50s. He recorded artists like Perry Como and Harry Belafonte (that I know of). I haven't listened to any of his stuff in decades but I suspect it was reasonably clean while it may have more hiss than modern recordings (no Dolby or dbx in the '50s).

OTOH I recall a lot of pop music from the 60s that was distorted (to my ears) even back then.  We forget how much studio technology has improved over the decades. I suspect some popular music from obscure artists was recorded on a pretty low budget. Even the stones and beetles started out as just another band back in the day. 

JR

Malcolm Chisholm
http://malcolm.bignoisybug.com/
Was very much about signal to noise...
I imagine there was a technical approach or formula that most engineers developed and adhered to back in the day.
Get the best s:n and balance with minimal mics.

Loud bands were still mostly a new phenomenon, and engineers were not yet in the habit of padding inputs.  Even up to 1970 you have the story of The Stones at Mussel Shoals and the engineer (who?) being very glad he had one inline pad he could use on Keith.  Loud was just not the norm, sessions weren't long, etc. 

I think even today most people don't recognize any of that as distortion; distortion to them is what we get out of metal bands and strident teen anthems, pushed to the obvious. 

Well, to me (and many others) there are a few definitions of "distortion".  The distortion of metal bands etc. is an intentional tonal decision.  When a recording of a voice starts to take on those characteristics, when the situation clearly could do WITHOUT that, I call it bad practice.  (and im speaking about recording today not 50 years ago)  Back then, i totally understand that there may not have been much choice (or technique) to avoid that kind of thing from happening.  What I don't understand is what is so "magical" about that phenomena that people are trying to emulate it.  The same argument goes for tape...  engineers back in the day did all they could to minimize the noise, hiss, hum and all the (at the time) un-desirable attributes of the media they were recording to...  Makes you think that if digital came first, those same "purists" would say how that "new tape stuff" sounds noisy and cant match the good old crystal clean digital format. lol

Little Richard

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there were engineers and producers back then pushing for that effect. the whole rebel without a cause mentality. Makes it sound more agressive, and without all the bells and whistles of today, gave thier records a blatently different sound that the old jazz records their parents were listening to. (good stuff though it is)
I have to turn my ears off and just enjoy the music, try to at least, and I think the distortion while sometimes over the top, makes the songs sound good in their own way and fits the attitude. Like some of the more distorted  motown songs to me it almost  makes the song more emotional, and wouldn't have the same impact if it was record on pro tools HD.

Still, has much changed? How many "tape" and "distortion" plugins are there on the market


PS some of those records do sound like junk, but I woudn't just blame just the distortion.

And therein lies the rub, the soul of it all.

ill agree, its not always the productions fault... But perhaps its that engineers hear songs differently than most people... when i hear that clipping, i just think red lights... lol

The distortion of old could be acceptable to a certain level (meaning essentially inaudible), and then suddenly objectionable once copied to a dub master, or in the cut, etc. I find this true when using antique tube gear; fine on tracking, maybe more noticeable after dynamics processing in the mix, maybe much more noticeable after mastering.

You also have to remember how poor monitoring tended to be, and how loudly it was set.  I'd bet the speakers farted a lot when there was nothing wrong with the tracks. 

sr1200 said:

Well, to me (and many others) there are a few definitions of "distortion".  The distortion of metal bands etc. is an intentional tonal decision.  When a recording of a voice starts to take on those characteristics, when the situation clearly could do WITHOUT that, I call it bad practice.  (and im speaking about recording today not 50 years ago)  Back then, i totally understand that there may not have been much choice (or technique) to avoid that kind of thing from happening.  What I don't understand is what is so "magical" about that phenomena that people are trying to emulate it.  The same argument goes for tape...  engineers back in the day did all they could to minimize the noise, hiss, hum and all the (at the time) un-desirable attributes of the media they were recording to...  Makes you think that if digital came first, those same "purists" would say how that "new tape stuff" sounds noisy and cant match the good old crystal clean digital format. lol

Click to expand...

Go listen to some Buddy Holly tracks. Plenty of clean hiss free recording there.

Cheers

Ian

The Chess brothers recorded Muddy Waters vocals hot intentionally.  They sound great, and capture the spirit of the performances wonderfully. 

Regarding loose performances-yes rock, soul, and blues performances could be loose.  No clicks, no aligning to grid, etc.  Younger ears have lost the ability to hear bands really go for it hard, without any regards for perfection.

Excellent point about not know how to handle loud.  Most of the loud bands from the mid-60's (when they were REALLY starting to push volume) sound terrible.  Think Cream or Blue Cheer.  Back to Chess again, the early Stones records there sound incredible.

Craig

I was watching a video (wish I could remember the name of it) about some of the "cutting edge" recording going on in the 50/60's and saying how this one recording engineer would intentionally overdrive the equipment . Got to also remember around this time bands were also intentionally over-driving guitar amps and didn't have any distortion pedals...probably the same idea. "Make it sound LOUD man!"

Also I totally hear what you are saying in the first post. It never used to bother me, I didn't even really notice the clipping, until I got into recording more. Then it would drive me nuts, now I almost like it (to an extent) Maybe now adays, with digital clipping, we wouldn't even think of using something that clipped digitally...maybe not even so much because of the sound but maybe because clipping digital is a big faux pas  and it means your a bad recording engineer.

Like listen to the long version of "Won't get fooled again" after the interlude when Roger daultry come back in. Like seriously?? couldn't they just overdub that scream/yell again? And this was in the 70's!

Its interesting, I doubt you would ever hear blatant clipping like that now-a-days. Must mean its the next big thing. Theres no rules in art and war.

I dunno about that, groups like the whitestripes and the vines go for that aggressive (shall we say) sound with overloaded everything.  They're doing it as an artistic expression (well that and if you've ever seen an interview with them... you'd probably want to smack them... kinda like a bafoon that piles dirt in a museum and calls it art... i digress)

If anyones got anymore suggestions of some things to listen to id love to round myself out a bit more from era's long before my time.

sr1200 said:

kinda like a bafoon that piles dirt in a museum and calls it art... i digress)

Click to expand...

I too digress. Are you talking about this? http://www.diaart.org/sites/page/52/1365 I like it and consider it art.

abechap024 said:

Like listen to the long version of "Won't get fooled again" after the interlude when Roger daultry come back in. Like seriously?? couldn't they just overdub that scream/yell again? And this was in the 70's!

Click to expand...

I bet that when they recorded it, Daltrey and Townshend realized that the performance was pretty great, likely as good as they'd get without Roger blowing his voice doing alternate takes.

Look, one of the greatest rock records is the Stooges' Raw Power, and fer fsck's sake, it sounds like it was recorded on a transatlantic phone call.

-a

Listen to The Sonics.  Maybe the best example of a band they played at atomic bomb volume in the mid '60's. 

Digital clipping is the norm in rap, right on through the mastering.  I have one (ex)client who vastly prefers digital clipping over compression to attain loudness.  He's now a busy producer/engineer locally.

No, gold,  i was referring to the yoko ono "exhibit" in NYC....
LOL andy i think i know what youre talking about
ill check the stuff out thanks