[atlantaprog] Re: another aspect

WHOA WHOA WHOA!  Hold on a minute there.  Make these statements to pro
audio engineers and you'll get some funny looks to say the least!

Don't confuse the recording quality with the quality of reproduction, or
just poorer mixing/mastering techniques!

Most serious producers these days still prefer the OLD medium of analog
tape over anything modern.  You still see 70's Studer decks in lots of
studios, and they are proud of them.  The most sought after mixing
boards are Neve boards from the 60's & 70's.  Some of these sell for up
to the million dollar mark.  An individual mic preamp from one of these
boards will bring you $5000 because they are so sought after.

My comments are interspersed below...

> -----Original Message-----
>=20
>=20
> What about the recording quality of commercial radio music as=20
> compared to that of the 70s?  While the variety of 70s FM=20
> radio was "a damn sight better" than today, you've got to=20
> admit that a huge amount of it had passages or sections that=20
> were unclear at best or barely audible at worst. Some of the=20

Well if you are talking vocals, listen to the first few REM records.
Decades of technology didn't help us understand Michael Stipe any
better!  :-)

Seriously, there are any number of reasons for this.  It could be that
the mixing was done poorly.  It could be that the mastering was done
poorly.  It could be that *reproduction* processes back then were not as
stringent and so crappy (thin vinyl) records were pressed.  A LOT of it
could have been the quality of end-consumer stereo equipment back then.
Now, consumer-level stereo equipment has been GREATLY improved since the
70's, but not necessarily recording techniques and quality.


> greatest and most influential recordings of that era were=20
> incredibly shitty in quality, like Cream's Disraeli Gears,=20
> the Beatles White album, almost all of Jimi Hendrix, almost=20
> all of Bob Dylan, etc. Granted, these are 60s albums, but the=20

Quite possibly the single greatest recorded drum track  in rock n roll
history was also recorded in that time period (1971)...  It was recorded
with on 2 mics, and in a big foyer, not in a recording studio.  It was
about as low-tech as you can get.  It was the drum track for "When the
Levee Breaks" by Led Zeppelin.

You wana know why Are You Experienced? Was not the greatest recording
quality?  Because it was recorded in several studios over weeks and more
at a time, but only a few hours at a time as Jimi could afford to do it.
Jimi would go into one studio one day and get in 4 hours of recording,
getting down some basic tracks.  Then 2 weeks later he would go back and
do overdubs.  This would continue on and one so you have VERY
inconsistent recording procedures the whole time - different setups,
etc.  Then, after Hey Joe is released as a single and makes him some
more money Jimi takes it all into Olympic Studios in London, records a
few more tracks, and mixes them all including the hodge-podge tracks
that he had before that.  This is a mastering engieers nightmare!  And I
think that the White Album sounds great!  Sgt. Peppers was recorded
before that and is a frickin master piece!  Listen to the Beach Boy's
Pet Sounds!  Really great stuff there.  Just about every record that is
recorded today rides on the shoulders of the techniques pioneered on
those 2 albums.  Not only is the technique amazing, but the SOUND is
great too.  There is no digital delay, and there is no pristine reverb
added in the overall mix like a lot of people do today, so a lot of it
was "upfront" and not so spacious, but that was the style back then,
nothing more.


> that was the majority of early 70s radio that I remember. =20
> Even Kiss's recordings really sucked by today's standards,=20
> they sound to me like demos.  The worst drums I have ever=20
> heard were in Jimi Hendrix and Cream recordings.  Ever listen=20
> to those through headphones and then compare it to something=20
> more modern? The difference is absolutely huge. =20

Ever listen to them and then listen to the MCA released remasters of
them?  You might change your mind on the sound.  Eddie Kramer didn't
even remix them, he only remastered them.  He stated that some of the
tapes were in really bad shape.  With this in mind, it makes it sound
EVEN BETTER.

Listen to the Band of Gypsies Live at the Fillmore (the MCA release from
a few years ago).  Listen to it on headphones.  Incredible sound!
Listen to the original Cry of Love CD, and then listen to "First Rays of
the New Rising Sun" (which is essentially a remaster of Cry of Love).
The difference is HUGE HUGE HUGE!  Same tapes, same recording, same mix
even.  You just had Eddie Kramer mastering the stuff RIGHT and the
quality of the original recording starts to really come through!

> hear this on rock radio when they play old and new songs back=20
> to back. Not everything in the 80s was vastly improved=20
> either, but it did get a lot clearer. =20

I think that this is because of style differences in many ways.  In the
60's & 70's guitar players tended to use fuzzes.  A fuzz is gonna sound
muddy.  Use distortion or overdrive, or just natural tube overdrive, and
things are gonna start to clear up more.  There was not a lot of real
heavy distorted guitar stuff in the 80's that sounded vastly different
from the stuff in the 70's.  What there was was a penchant for not using
fuzz boxes anymore.  Pure solid state distortion became vogue.  And with
it you got increased clarity and decreased tone.  Producers started
adding reverbs to the overall mix & master to get a bigger yet still
clear sound.  These are personal preferences, and techniques that were
"in vogue" at that time.  Notice how so-called "modern" recordings like
Soundgarden (Loud Love is a good example) didn't use reverbs in the
overall mix, and got a more in your face, older 70's kinda vibe?  It's
technique, not equipment ot technology.


> I consider Yes's 90125 to be the best 80s album ever, but you=20
> have to really strain to hear some of the instrumentation. =20
> Compare that to what they do now and it's that huge=20
> difference in quality again.  I don't really like the songs=20

That is most likely just a bad mix.  Happens allthe time, and really
does not have much todo with technology or recording equipment.

> than 90125.  Compare Metallica's Kill 'Em All with the Black=20
> album.  Same thing, no matter whether you like the songs or=20

Compare the budget too.  Recording on to a 1/4" tape vs recording on a
2" tape makes a big difference.  I would also bet that a lot of the
equipment used for the Black album (mixing board, tape machine, etc.)
was actually OLDER than the stuff used for Kill 'em All.  This would
argue that the older equipment sounded better.

> standard of sound for commercial recordings.  Compression and=20
> other processing was still not totally effective without=20
> producing a lot of noise, as I understand it.  Today you can=20
> get a $100 digital compressor to do the job of an old giant=20
> comrpessor with almost no noise, so there's a huge=20
> improvement in making every musical element audible.  That is=20

Absolutely positively NOT.  The opposite is true.  The older compressors
sound a lot better.  However, there are some REALLY good ones being made
these days that are on par (but not really better than) the older ones.
None of those is $100.  They are more like $3000+

Go hang out on prosoundweb.com and listen to some of these guys talk
about their compresors.  Compression and using compressors is an art
almost unto itself.  Any of these guys will tell you that the
compressors made today that are under $1000 can't even think to hold a
candle to the vintage compressors.

> flavor and texture.  The "younger generation" hears an old=20
> song where the audio is slightly muffled and obscured by=20
> comparison, and they are potentially turned off becuase the=20

The ProTools generation!  Like I said, a lot of the "muffled" aspect is
either mixing technique ( or lack thereof), or personal stylistic
preference (raw, unaffected sound vs massaged, perfected). =20

> So did everyone REALLY like everything played on the radio in=20
> the 70s? Even REO Speedwagon and Molly Hatchet?  There was=20
> quite a bit of crap on the radio back then, just as there is=20
> today in my opinion.  In fact, the wide programming variety=20

Now here, you are absolutely correct.  The big thing that we all forget
(myself included) is that it's hard to maintain a certain perspective.
We remember the great songs from the 70's, but we forget the Van McCoys
and the Disco Tex's of the day.  I think top 40 radio back then was just
as crappy as top 40 radio now.  Rock radio (r AOR) WAS better then
though.  These days there really is not that much difference between a
CHR (Top 40) and an AOR (rock) radio station. =20


> I would still channel surf all the time.  The homogenization=20
> of radio has it's good side for the people that like it that=20
> way.  It stops people from channel surfing when they hear the=20
> one thing they like best all day long.  Atlanta really just=20

You can hear the same song on 99X, 96 Rock, 96.7, and Star 94 here in
Atlanta, and people still station hop all the time.  It doesn't keep
people from changing the station, it just makes the stations all sound
the same.  If people want to hear their new favorite, they will switch
between the 4 stations until they hear that song because they know
sooner or later it will be on one of those 4 stations.

> doesn't have enough FM stations.  In other cities I've been=20
> in, the FM dial is much more saturated and you have a better=20

I think we have enough FM stations, we just don't have enough really
DIFFERENT FM stations.  As much as I dislike Atlanta Radio, whenever I
go back home to visit my parents in Wash, D.C. I LONG for Atlanta Radio.
Radio in Washington is horrible. 2, maybe 3 rock/top 40/classic rock
stations MAX.

> stand for a while.  I don't think radio programming is all=20
> because of the control of an evil empire.  It's partly=20
> because it fills a demand, and only partly because of=20
> coporate monopoly. =20
>=20

But the demand borders on an artifical demand created by the monopolies
and the way that they force down the public's throats what they believe
that they want to hear, and the public reacts like lemmings.

> While there's "no direct path" to commercial success, my=20
> whole point to begin with was that since the standards have=20
> obviously changed, we should adapt, or die.  I can already=20


Only to a certain extent.  I will not adapt if it in any way involves me
compromising my music.  I will take what is current and maybe little
aspects of it will influence me, or my recording techniques or whatever,
but I will not go out of my way to adapt.  I have to be true to myself,
not someone else.  I am not going to ignore current trends either.  I
will remain open to them and pay attention to them, but just take what I
like, and leave the rest (which I am betting is what you were getting to
anyway :-=DE ).

Alex F/Brain21

Other related posts: