| | | |
.jpg)
Bob Elliott
|
2/29/2008 11:47:26 AM
Gonna Get Hijacked by the Velvet Underground Now
I was listening to the album "Loaded" while walking to work. Wow. I know when I hear something that's gonna absorb me for a couple of months, and I know I'm about to be hijacked. Right before the Underground came on my ipod, "Fixing a Hole" by the Beatles was on, and in both cases I was thinking that the engineering on both of these records, the mixes would not even be considered a good job by much of the current home recordist world, by much of today's engineering world, but these albums just keep giving, what like, 40 years on? It's not that the songs and performances overcome the way they are produced, at least it doesn't seem that way to me. I think this slightly amatuerish production seems to make the music work well. Sounds like human beings.
Anyway, that Lou Reed is something else, all jacked up and into it. Reminds me of Dylan in his lyrics and delivery, and I love the way the band plays with abandon. Not real tight, not real accomplished, just good ideas, and human sounds. Mixtures of distorted guitars with acoustic guitars and pianos. Drum beats are not exactly the same measure by measure, they change. Sometimes they have a drum track in one ear and another in the other ear playing nearly the same thing. Who would do that now? But it works great.
Great album.
|
|
|
2/29/2008 12:00:39 PM
An interesting side note. Jim Carroll, renowned poet and underrated rock genius, who has a page on IAC, actually held the microphone for the recording of VU's legendary Live At Max's Kansas City.
|
|
Steve Ison
|
2/29/2008 1:30:56 PM
Yeh Bob..I love LOaded too..New Age is my favourite there i think, such an incredibly evocative track-but i agree,i love the sound too..
I love all their albums (except for white light/white heat) and the posthumous 'VU' is just brilliant too..
If you've never heard them before,i envy you-you can discover the music afresh!
Its funny you making that comment about the timeless nature of the sounds on 60s records-I've just been thinking about that loads recently-and how so often i really don't like modern productions..
There's something very cold n sterile about them so often-those old albums in contrast sound so warm and atmospheric..They have space to let you BREATHE..
It scares me abit now i'm learning Cubase that unless i can become a BRILLIANT sound engineer(impossible really as i don't have a love for it),the best i can hope for is the cold,sterilised digital sound.
Dosn't exactly inspire me,if i'm honest..
Yeh,good ideas and playing with spirit is what its all about for me too.
Like i was saying on the other thread-with people getting so used to ruthlessly quantised beats,sequenced music and auto-tuners that wonderful liberating HUMAN quality will probably be less n less appreciated..
Or maybe they'll be a complete reaction against it-and the SPIRIT of the music might become more important again...
One can only hope...
|
|
Hugh Hamilton
|
2/29/2008 1:45:40 PM
Part of what I adore about Beatle stuff is that it's SO HUMAN. I'm with you on that...
Last fall I attended the AES show in NYC (Audio Engineering Society) and was able to attend a presentation by Geoff Emerick. In a way I'd rather be in the studio with Geoff rather than with a Beatle...I'd probably freeze up completely and make a FOOL of myself with a Beatle, or with George Martin...but it would actually be FUN to work with Mr. Emerick, I think...
I wouldn't call any of that stuff "amateurish" - though I know you don't mean it as an insult and I do know what you mean (I think). Confucious say, "Please to remember, Ancient Beatle recordings were cutting-edge-ahead-of-their-time when they were made..."
LOL!
;)
H
|
|
Hugh Hamilton
|
2/29/2008 1:46:52 PM
P.S. So far the Velvet Underground hasn't grabbed my attention. Or Lou Reed. I have a feeling a few folks around here could introduce me to their charms...
|
|
Bob Elliott
|
2/29/2008 2:37:24 PM
Well, the album "Loaded" seems a pretty great place to start.
Steve, I don't know what you were recording with before, but I have been using the Roland 1680 for awhile now, and it's digital, but to me the last album I did on it seems to sound analogish and warm. The two first efforts I did with it always seemed to me to be a little bit brittle and digital sounding. So if you think the sound I was getting was more toward analog, and you're interested, here's some of what I think made it turn out that way:
First off, a lot of the instruments were moving real air. I mean I would favor a not so great but real piano over a good piano sample because it's just a one of a kind movement of a real instrument in a real room. My piano is not so great, and I own a board with a good piano modelling, and I would almost always rather record the real piano.
I used real drums. I won't do everything with real drums in the future, but I would very likely mix SOME real percussion in on top if I used some electronic thing.
I would try to get an acoustic in a lot of the tracks even if it were background on a rock track (Something done a lot by the BEatles and the Underground, actually), but I would not put effects on the acoustic. You start electronicizing your organic elements very much, and they don't have much capacity to bring organics to the sound.
I bought two inexpensive compressors I like a lot. The Pro VLA is very sturdy and to me it sort of imitates the reaction of tape. Limited, and that is actually a good thing. Plus it has two channels that can be used separately. Cost about 200. THe other was the Really Nice Compressor RNC. This I have only found useful for vocals so far, but it is perfect for vocals, you don't hear it, but it fixes things. These tools seemed to help make the studio work like tape.
Also, I bought and English mixing board, an Allen and Heath. It's analog and has two sweeps on every channel and it's just very nic. Not cheap, 700 for 12 channels, but it sure helps.
Plus I used an analog synth, a 1984 Roland JX8P, and they sell used for less than 300.
When these more analog elements were combined with the digital, it really seemed to make everything way less brittle. Plus I left a lot of headroom as I recorded. I mean the dynamics on the tracks could be quite wide. Later the compressors lowerd the dynamics some, but nothing even close to what is common practice today. I graph of my dynamics on the recording looks very much like the graphs I've seen of that older music, nothing like what I've seen of heavily compressed newer stuff. The breathing of dynamics to me seems to be the whole reason why I don't feel digitized. I can feel it in the rise and fall, and I think that is probably the main point.
No one has ever accused me of being an engineer, so I'm not a tech head giving you advice. You seem very capable already. I'm just a writer like you that is probably seeking similar recording qualities, and I only just now began to discover some things that help. I had been thinking I was gonna return to tape, but I don't think that's necessary anymore.
|
|
Bob Elliott
|
2/29/2008 2:49:09 PM
Hugh, I think as regards the Beatles it was just done different and in a way no one did really before or after them. They do things people would usually advise against. Especially in the panning department, though I know that wasn't really their idea.
But the way they play is almost casual, especially by today's view. Love Ringo for that. An example being say using the hi hat where the snare might usually be as the two beat, and leaving the snare mostly out.
Most drumming nowdays has to be so standard: bump bump smack bump bump smack. THat's what it is if it can be because, you know, that's the rock beat. RIngo did all kinds of simpler things or different things that served the music better.
I don't know how to describe the difference, but the Underground and the Beatles have it, and it sounds more like nromal people being creative, not superpro people, the difference seems more about being real humans at play in creativity.
And it's the songwriting. We all need a sign in our studios that reads:
It's the writing, Stupid.
|
|
Steve Ison
|
3/1/2008 1:21:03 PM
Thanks for the recording tips Bob..Will keep them in mind :)
Yeh,i always use real piano if i can too for the same reasons..Both Lou Reed and Girl On The Train are real piano(multi-tracked 'cos of lack of ability lol)
I so agree with your point about Ringo's drumming..
People are so obsessed with and conditioned to the 'groove' now over everything-Its an insidious machine mechanised disease in music i think..
The Beatles played around with tempo n rythm changes in their songwriting (like alot of 60s bands)..It was just more interesting, much looser and as you say-'human..'
The 'super-pro' element you mention has never been what i've enjoyed about music-Its always been about the songs,the humanity,the atmosphere and the creativity.
The super-pro's are winning out tho as far as so much modern music goes tho in mainstream AND indie from what i hear.
The obsession with ruthlessly efficient 'tightness' from rock bands like foo fighters and green day...
The super-pro element in the producer-led, super-sequenced,quantised machine world of modern dance-pop (the last 20 years!) goes without saying..
|
|
Hugh Hamilton
|
3/1/2008 1:26:56 PM
Recorded a new one with lots of human foibles in it today...lol...can't seem to help it...cool thread, Bruthas-in-Toonz...keep it up...
:0
H
|
|
| |
©2015-16 IndieMusicPeople.com All Rights
Reserved
| |