awesome stuff guys, thanks
in terms of the recording equipment, i have heard that before from Peter. and it makes a lot of sense, especially when you listen to some of the older recordings done in this fashion
New Big Bands Recordings vs. Original Recordings
Moderators: Mr Awesomer, JesseMiner, CafeSavoy
My rare post to this board because I stumbled upon this topic -
I just want to qualify what I'm saying by saying that I'm most definitely -not- as knowledgeable a DJ as most people here, but I -do- know about microphone and recording techniques, especially for swing, as I've been recording various live bands all around LA for the last two years or so.
I think what Julius said about psychoacoustics is right on, with one exception. I think it matters even MORE than what Julius said. It's a LOT more prevalent in people's appreciation of music than we'd like to think.
We don't know what live music sounded like at all back then. We know what recorded live music sounded like on the recording technology of the day. But we have very little idea what the actual dancers on the floor were actually hearing with their actual ears. What we do have are these recordings, and when we think of the old music, we think of the recordings, and when you hear a modern recording or even a live show, you rarely get the sense that this is what it sounded like back then, because your frame of reference as to what it sounded like includes the crappy frequency response and dynamic range of the old recordings.
We don't associate deep drums, full frequency range, good dynamics, we don't associate any of that with the sounds of the 30's. But interestingly enough, when you add that crap back in, it sounds great. Consider that LCJO song where they actually did the recording on the wax cylinder. It sounds INDENTICAL to an old recording, the drive and energy is there. You're just so used to associating that drive and energy with scratch and hiss that without the scratch and hiss and tinny instruments it doesn't sound the same.
On another note, I'd like to say that while I in principle agree with room mikes, I don't believe at all that they are good enough to work on their own. Certainly an acoustic balance is a lovely thing to record, but when you have to rely on acoustics, especially with a small group (Jon, I'm sure you can elaborate), your drums and stuff have to be sent into the corner and shuffled away. I like the close crack of the drumset in my recordings.
And you have to close mike every instrument anyways in a live show because a room mike gets nothing but crowd and dancing noise. When I recorded Showdown I was lucky enough to get total control over the sound, and I used it. You can do wondrous things with separated tracks IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. That's the other problem. Most bands go to a venue that has their own sound man, and the sound man is basically trained on rock stuff, uses lots of compression, artificial reverb, so forth, knows how to mike a drum for Dream Theater, not for BESO.
What am I boiling down to? Not much. Psychoacoustics, technology, it all plays a role in determining what's gonna sound like what. Also remember that a recording session is now a very stratified and tough process. You don't just go in and play a few tunes and pick the best two and put out a record that is sold for not much money. The mentality is one of albums and hard work and meticulousness. As such recorded studio content ALWAYS sounds less energetic than live content (which is basically what 30's recordings were). Listen to the Binge CD or something and compare that energy to 30's energy, and you'll see what I mean. They don't sound at all alike, but they have the energy and drive.
I just want to qualify what I'm saying by saying that I'm most definitely -not- as knowledgeable a DJ as most people here, but I -do- know about microphone and recording techniques, especially for swing, as I've been recording various live bands all around LA for the last two years or so.
I think what Julius said about psychoacoustics is right on, with one exception. I think it matters even MORE than what Julius said. It's a LOT more prevalent in people's appreciation of music than we'd like to think.
We don't know what live music sounded like at all back then. We know what recorded live music sounded like on the recording technology of the day. But we have very little idea what the actual dancers on the floor were actually hearing with their actual ears. What we do have are these recordings, and when we think of the old music, we think of the recordings, and when you hear a modern recording or even a live show, you rarely get the sense that this is what it sounded like back then, because your frame of reference as to what it sounded like includes the crappy frequency response and dynamic range of the old recordings.
We don't associate deep drums, full frequency range, good dynamics, we don't associate any of that with the sounds of the 30's. But interestingly enough, when you add that crap back in, it sounds great. Consider that LCJO song where they actually did the recording on the wax cylinder. It sounds INDENTICAL to an old recording, the drive and energy is there. You're just so used to associating that drive and energy with scratch and hiss that without the scratch and hiss and tinny instruments it doesn't sound the same.
On another note, I'd like to say that while I in principle agree with room mikes, I don't believe at all that they are good enough to work on their own. Certainly an acoustic balance is a lovely thing to record, but when you have to rely on acoustics, especially with a small group (Jon, I'm sure you can elaborate), your drums and stuff have to be sent into the corner and shuffled away. I like the close crack of the drumset in my recordings.
And you have to close mike every instrument anyways in a live show because a room mike gets nothing but crowd and dancing noise. When I recorded Showdown I was lucky enough to get total control over the sound, and I used it. You can do wondrous things with separated tracks IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. That's the other problem. Most bands go to a venue that has their own sound man, and the sound man is basically trained on rock stuff, uses lots of compression, artificial reverb, so forth, knows how to mike a drum for Dream Theater, not for BESO.
What am I boiling down to? Not much. Psychoacoustics, technology, it all plays a role in determining what's gonna sound like what. Also remember that a recording session is now a very stratified and tough process. You don't just go in and play a few tunes and pick the best two and put out a record that is sold for not much money. The mentality is one of albums and hard work and meticulousness. As such recorded studio content ALWAYS sounds less energetic than live content (which is basically what 30's recordings were). Listen to the Binge CD or something and compare that energy to 30's energy, and you'll see what I mean. They don't sound at all alike, but they have the energy and drive.
-
Bob the Builder
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 6:53 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Here is an interesting Site I came across around recording history.
Link
I have been doing some reading on recordings, and I was very interested in around the 1927 period. A lot of changes took place in the recording technology.
Before that date, I discovered the drummers could not use their Bass drums as they would cause to much interference.
Brian
Link
I have been doing some reading on recordings, and I was very interested in around the 1927 period. A lot of changes took place in the recording technology.
Before that date, I discovered the drummers could not use their Bass drums as they would cause to much interference.
Brian
