Bad recordings in 1970

[Larry F]

As I go down memory lane these days, I notice how crummy many of the pop recordings are, starting around 1970 and ending with disco. Dry, up front drums, mush guitars, plectrum bass with lots of treble, and weird, just weird vocals that are double-tracked like crazy.

In contrast, I was just listening to Herman's Hermits, the Monkees, and the Hollies. Instruments were clearly defined and balanced.

My theory is that old school engineers were involved with the earlier bands. After that, wannabes with little experience got behind the board. Do you think this is true, or is there some other reason?

[Murphy Slaw]

Boston did it for me. (I mean, undid it....) I loved the old Lynyrd recordings. It just got too compressed, and over produced. Styx, Kansas, ect. (I'll pass) While these bands made a ton of money, and own their place, to me (ymmv) it's over produced and I prefer Machine Head, Double Aught, Skynyrd, Allman Bros, ect.

More, isn't always more.........

Pick yer poisen.

Murph.

[Telarkaster]

I always thought the early Beatles and Stones LPs sounded great, wonder how much the equipment in the studio had to do with it, not to mention the engineers.

Led Zep's first album was super clear, then II and III sounded a bit muddy to me, cleaing up with Zoso.

Black Sabbath's first 4 LPs sounded good (not really clean though) but Sabbath Bloody Sabbath sounded muddy and over produced, too many tracks, they lost their "sound"...

Some 70s bands sound great in the studio, depends on the album...

[Tim Armstrong]

I think part of that was the transition to solid-state electronics, particularly in the mixing boards, along with the multitrack tape machines with of 8 then 16 tracks (which often meant narrower heads and somewhat reduced dynamic range). Geoff Emerick (engineer at Abbey Road Studios for most of the Beatles work) and Bob Ohlsson (mastering engineer at Motown in the 60s) have both written about the sonic degradation that occurred as their respective studios "upgraded" to more modern gear in the late 60s.

All this was leading away from live stereo recording using very careful microphone placement and the absolute need to get it right the first time. And, ultimately, to today's world of Beat Detective/Autotune/snap-to-grid/fix it in the mix...

I sometimes wish I could get my hands on some nice 1963 recording gear!

Cheers, Tim

[Big John]

Originally Posted by Tim Armstrong

I think part of that was the transition to solid-state electronics, particularly in the mixing boards, along with the multitrack tape machines with of 8 then 16 tracks (which often meant narrower heads and somewhat reduced dynamic range).
Cheers, Tim

I think thats right, we are listening to the technology, listen to Hank Williams from the 50's, the songs are glorious, bona fide classics although the actual sound of them is often awful.
Same with the 60's, i think of Don Rich as sounding big, deep, clean and twannnngy, listen to those originals, some of them are positively weedy compared to how i think they sounded.

You still can't beat a good tune though !

[Guran]

Sure we are hearing technology and its limitaitons, but also periods of certain sound aeshtetics.

The eighties produced some god-awful recordings where everything was sounding machine-like. Drums were almost down to heavily processed klick-kick and that gated reverb snare. The guitars... Oh, just forget it!

Then somewhere around 1990 some new aesthetics came along. We were now sitting inside the kick AND inside the snare. At the same time we were also sitting inside the bass amp. The guitars... Nah, just forget it!

I see that as time typical aesthetisc, some of it driven or inspired by technology though.

[Mid Life Crisis]

Originally Posted by Larry F

As I go down memory lane these days, I notice how crummy many of the pop recordings are, starting around 1970 and ending with disco. Dry, up front drums, mush guitars, plectrum bass with lots of treble, and weird, just weird vocals that are double-tracked like crazy.

In contrast, I was just listening to Herman's Hermits, the Monkees, and the Hollies. Instruments were clearly defined and balanced.

My theory is that old school engineers were involved with the earlier bands. After that, wannabes with little experience got behind the board. Do you think this is true, or is there some other reason?

I think I know what you mean. I was listening to the radio the other day and they played "Runaround Sue" by Dion, a song from the 50s, and it struck me how good the quality of the recording was, and that even with all the advances in technology since then it was hard to think how the actual output of recorded sound has improved since then.

Some 70s recordings do sound crappy; with the drums in particular sounding really muffled and flat, yet high in the mix as you say.

[Telemarkman]

I recently bought the CD/DVD box set "Jersey Beat - The Music Of Frankie Valli & The 4 Seasons". They were (one of) my early 60's biggest favorites - still is in fact - and I thought their sound was fantastic.

The original tapes may have been cleaned and remixed for all I know, but to my ears (and memory) it sounds just the way it did when I first heard it: great punch - like a "Fist of Sound" as opposed to Phil Spector's "Wall of Sound".

The producer Bob Crewe worked very close with the band and co-wrote most of their hits with keyboard player Bob Gaudio, and their sound was still great in the 70's, even if their popularity was declining.

[byrdbrain]

Many producers suddenly felt the need to isolate/separate every single
instrument and sound. That sort of thing can kill the vibe when overdone.

[maestrovert]

Originally Posted by Tim Armstrong

I think part of that was the transition to solid-state electronics, particularly in the mixing boards, along with the multitrack tape machines with of 8 then 16 tracks (which often meant narrower heads and somewhat reduced dynamic range). Geoff Emerick (engineer at Abbey Road Studios for most of the Beatles work) and Bob Ohlsson (mastering engineer at Motown in the 60s) have both written about the sonic degradation that occurred as their respective studios "upgraded" to more modern gear in the late 60s.

All this was leading away from live stereo recording using very careful microphone placement and the absolute need to get it right the first time. And, ultimately, to today's world of Beat Detective/Autotune/snap-to-grid/fix it in the mix...

Originally Posted by byrdbrain

Many producers suddenly felt the need to isolate/separate every single instrument and sound. That sort of thing can kill the vibe when overdone.

yup !
i agree with your theory Professor, "wannabes with little experience behind the board....", an' the responses quoted above are part of the reason why....

But as i recall, "old school engineers" for the most part didn't like rock n' roll at all, an' weren't always -shall we say- doin' their best, an' even if the studio/tracking work was up to snuff, the mastering engineer(s) could still botch it up for ya....

Still, i'm amazed at how good Jimi Hendrix' "Axis:Bold As Love" sounds even today....

[Larry F]

I recall reading that Phil Spector controlled the frequency window of a sound through mic choice and placement, rather than EQ, which was the trend in the 70s and later. I have ruined many recordings with EQ myself.

Another thought: echo chambers. Not much written about these, but some of the most significant studios had their own echo chambers. These were underground, in the bathroom, in the garage next door, and in the ceiling. The first purported use of reverb in a pop song was in the Harmonicats' "Peg-o-My Heart." This was recorded in Chicago. The mix was sent to a speaker in a men's room and miked back into the board.

Additionally: a certain kind of drug. Joe Boyd, in his excellent book, "My White Bicycle," said that, in his experience, no good music was made once this drug came out in the studio. The sounds became very shrill as a result.

[dhdfoster]

I agree. Some of the pop music in the 70s sounded awful. Really small and dry drum sounds. I wonder if they deliberately mixed the pop hits for AM radio. In the early 70s, wasn't mono AM radio still the main format for the pop charts?

What stuns me is how absolutely amazing something like Frank Sinatra's Come Fly With Me album sounds. It was recorded in the mid-50s, and the sound is huge and very natural. I think the Capital records building had/has an echo chamber in the basement that they'd use for ambiance on those recordings.

[Skully]

I think the Capital records building had/has an echo chamber in the basement that they'd use for ambiance on those recordings.

They still have 'em, but they're being threatened. Check out this article from the LA Times: Capitol says recording quality at its Hollywood building is at risk.

People have mentioned "Runaround Sue" as a great sounding older recording. I've taken notice of this myself. From the same era, "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" also sounds great. Conversely, Phil Spector's recording don't sound so hot as far as audio quality goes. It's important to note that, while the records he made may be considered artistic masterworks, his recording techniques were already considered rather primitive when he was cutting all those big hits back in the '60s.