Recording the Beatles

[STEVETERRY]

Since I rarely venture outside the Lighting forum, this may be old news to the audio side of CB. However, if you're an audio history geek or know what a Neumann U47 or an Altec 604E is, you might enjoy this amazing book as much as I did:

Recording The Beatles (Deluxe Edition)

You will not believe the technical detail and research that went into this beautiful piece of work. While a hundred bucks for a book seems a lot, this one is so worth it.

ST

 

[BNBSound]

I studied under some cats who were in the recording scene in the 60s and 70s. You wouldn't believe the stuff they had to work with. It's hard to figure how recordings from that era sound so good.

I guess when every kid on the block has Pro-Tools you find out what having an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink platform does for production values. I learned the ropes on analog two and four track machines, there's no better way to hone your skills than in a very limiting environment. You learn to make choices and find solutions.

 

[STEVETERRY]

I studied under some cats who were in the recording scene in the 60s and 70s. You wouldn't believe the stuff they had to work with. It's hard to figure how recordings from that era sound so good.

I guess when every kid on the block has Pro-Tools you find out what having an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink platform does for production values. I learned the ropes on analog two and four track machines, there's no better way to hone your skills than in a very limiting environment. You learn to make choices and find solutions.

That is so true. Occasionally, I like to cement my status as an audio old fart by asking young sound guys if they know what "bouncing" is, or what the sync function on a multi-track machine was for and how it worked. You'd be surprised how quickly that arcane knowledge has evaporated in the presence of digital production techniques.

ST

 

[derekleffew]

Perhaps Jonathan Deans should write a book titled Playing Back The Beatles?

 

[3dB]

... if they know what "bouncing" is, or what the sync function on a multi-track machine was for and how it worked...
ST

...or perhaps if they have ever had the pleasure of splicing together a 20' tape loop - then standing there holding the loose end with a pencil while it all whirs round and round...

Digital looping is a very good thing!

Thanks for the book link, Steve.

Regards,
Mark

 

[DuckJordan]

with new technolodgy comes new technicues. its not just the new kids who don't know junk about the old technolodgy i've met several "veterans" who could not for the life of them figure out how to run a sound computer. Nothing is bad on either side but its just a different generation learning on a different platform, since I've used a computer (from CD's, and before that tape decks) i can say i would much rather work with a computer as i can make a computer do a lot more work at a faster rate with often times better sound quality. how they recorded back then is what a lot of schools are still doing in areas where money is still poured into the "technology" fund and spent on some of the dumbest things such as tablet pc's for students in the class room. (sorry i just found out today we have no chance of getting new speakers for our black box for at least 5 years, because of the new tablet pc's they want to get) /end rant.

Recording is some of the best thing I've done in our auditorium space, nothing wakes you up more than having to record 8 different people with 2 microphones.

 

[SHARYNF]

Having been around for a while ;-( I think that one of the things was also the artists view on the recording session. In the old days there was very little "fix it in post" and a small number of tracks. To day with Protools etc some things are a lot easier, but it tends to remove the stimulation to really get it right the first time

Most of the early recording were closer to live, the band members tended to record together, and there is something to be said about just the energy that can take over a really tight close to live recording session.

Sharyn

 

[FMEng]

In the old days, there was no pitch correction applied to singing. They actually had to have good voices to get the gig. Some singers now are totally reliant on the machine to hit the notes. They could scare small children by singing solo. This is a case of just because we can, does not mean we should.

A lot of recording has improved with mostly digital signal paths, but there is one thing that is getting much worse. The prevalent use of heavy limiting and clipping in mastering is reprehensible.

It's a real shock to listen to the same album from different releases. The vinyl LP or CD mastered 20 years ago can sound open, clean, and brilliant. A newly re-mastered release will sound like absolute crap in comparison.

The dynamic range is being crushed by the drive toward loudness. It just beyond my comprehension. Maybe it's good enough for an i-Pod? But the last I checked even i-Pods have volume controls.

By the way, I don't miss aligning reel to reel tape decks much. They disappeared just about the time I got really good at maintaining them. On the other hand, they were a lot more reliable than computers. When you hit record, you knew you'd have something on the tape when you were done, which you can't always say for computers. Hmmm.... Maybe aligning tape machines is better than dealing with a hard drive crash.

 

[ScottT]

I would jump at the chance to record with a 4-track or splice film together. Digital is nice, but sometimes it feels like there is something missing...

 

[3dB]

...with new technolodgy comes new technicues. its not just the new kids who don't know junk about the old technolodgy i've met several "veterans" who could not for the life of them figure out how to run a sound computer. Nothing is bad on either side but its just a different generation learning on a different platform...

Very well said and so very true in a world where rapid technology advances are the norm and the learning curve is near-vertical...

Regards,
Mark

 

[museav]

I think that in many cases some of the older technology forced you to learn the basics a bit more and to focus on getting it right the first time. Modern technology is incredibly powerful but in making that power much more readily available to many also too often becomes a replacement for knowledge and creativity. For example, when you had no way to easily clean up and adjust a recording in post-production, you really learned how to use mics properly and creatively to get the desired sound in the first place.

It's fun to see some people finally realize where terms like a "cut" or "splice" in production or "layers" in AutoCAD (anybody remember pin-bar layering backgrounds and other drawings to create a composite print?) really come from and why they make sense.

 

[arshan]

I agree with everything said about short cuts in tech meaning less and less actually learning solid methodology.

On the whole though, this ease of diving in is a double edged sword: True, the ease of making *something* means a lot more crap out there. However, it also means that those few talented, tasteful, intuitive folks who would never have had the time/resources/foresight to learn everything the older way can bring what they have to the table.

Granted, as in most fields:

amount of crappy product > amount of genius

But maybe its worth all the crap to get those few gems we wouldn't have otherwise.

-Arshan