Atlantic article: The Technical Constraints that made Abbey Road So Good

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Robin L, Oct 24, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Robin L

    Robin L Musical Omnivore Thread Starter

    Location:
    Fresno, California
    Obviously of interest to the Hoffman forum:

    " . . . For melodic pop music, Studio Two has physical, tonal qualities which transcend its humble appearance. “It emphasizes the midrange,” Kehew says, ”and has a warm, short reverb unusual for a room its size.” These reverberant qualities are so well known that Abbey Road’s rental contract actually prohibits any sampling of its distinctive acoustic signature. As I stood in the room, I could hear the echoes of the vocals and kick drums on some of my favorite recordings of all time.

    To my left was a collection of vintage recording equipment arrayed in the corner (courtesy of theEMI Archive Trust). The first item on display was a gramophone, circa 1925, and the collection progressed chronologically through a series of tape recorders, effects, and microphones before arriving at mixing desks used into the 1980s. If you included the modern mixer across the room being used to run the PA system, the gear present provided a fairly complete historical timeline of the last 90 years of recording science.

    In many ways, this exhibit at Abbey Road Studios embodies both the history of music recording culture and so many of the changes which have transformed it in our modern era. EMI Studios, as it was originally called, was renamed Abbey Road Studios in 1970 after the Beatles album which made it famous. In the intervening years, its producers have had to navigate massive economic shifts in its industry. Their challenge: Find a way to use cutting-edge technology while, at the same time, stay true to the studio’s historical roots. . ."

    http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...straints-that-made-abbey-road-so-good/381820/
     
  2. Atmospheric

    Atmospheric Forum Resident

    Location:
    Eugene
    I've certainly found this to be true in my own work. And no, I still haven't created anything worthwhile. I'm still making junk.

    To let character and roughness and lack of polish exist. I can bet most people spend more time polishing something than writing or creating the substance of it. The only cure is to work faster, more often, so you don't treat every damn thing as being so precious that 'It Must Be Perfect For All Time.'
     
    Robin L likes this.
  3. Robin L

    Robin L Musical Omnivore Thread Starter

    Location:
    Fresno, California
    My sister is a painter, she's creating worthwhile stuff right now. I'm also a painter, I'm getting closer. Toni says you have to work every day, you have to keep the engine running, and she's right.
     
    Atmospheric likes this.
  4. Atmospheric

    Atmospheric Forum Resident

    Location:
    Eugene
    My personal issue is that writing/recording are things I tend to do when I am not learning material and rehearsing for live gigs. So for example right now, I am heads down doing that (and developing my voice so that I sing a few songs with this new band). So by the time I get back to writing/recording, I've lost a serious amount of momentum. It's probably a very good predictor of my overall success (not good). I suppose if I had more of a hunger to write/record, I'd be more successful at it. Yes, these are are all "me problems." If being a genius writer were easy, everyone would do it.
     
  5. ampmods

    ampmods Forum Resident

    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    This is definitely a good point. I've been involved in recording projects that lasted a year... one that lasted over 2 years! It is too long. In the recent past I've been involved in 2 projects that were recorded very quickly. One a song we recorded and mixed in a single day. The other a 6 song ep that we recorded and mixed in 2 days. Both of those projects sounded much better... even with their flaws... than the projects that I spent so much time on. We plan to do a full album this time and we're going to keep the timetable short as well.

    Also I was just reading an interview with the Zombies that said that in their first session (which was only a few hours long) they recorded/mixed 4 songs including "She's Not There."
     
    Atmospheric and Robin L like this.
  6. Robin L

    Robin L Musical Omnivore Thread Starter

    Location:
    Fresno, California
    I remember a conversation back in the mid-1990s with an engineer/producer who used to work in Muscle Shoals. He'd note how recordings would go all to hell when there were 16 tracks to play with, the band felt an obligation to fill every track with something, and how there would be endless punch-ins of solos in the often vain attempt to get a "perfect" take. Would drive the producers crazy and the budgets out to the stratosphere.
     
    Atmospheric likes this.
  7. ampmods

    ampmods Forum Resident

    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    I know it's crazy. Reading about the various Eagles sessions sounds like a nightmare as well!

    Everything I've been involved with personally has been small time obviously. But I have a bunch of experience recording. And I've been involved in some incredibly painful projects.

    One was in the late 80s where I was playing bass in sort of hair metal band. These guys planned to record a full length album at this 24 track studio that was about $65 an hour. It was a great studio and they had great engineers and everything. We recorded the basic tracks for about 10 songs in a weekend. Ok... so far so good. But then the overdubs came. And multiple guitar tracks where the lead guitarist kept playing the same bad note take after take after take. And he would double-it and triple-it. I kept saying 'that note is wrong.' But nobody listened. An entire day was spent doing that. And then they listened at home and decided I was right. So they went back and did it again spending a whole day recording one guitar solo. And then another whole day recording 1 vocal. And then another day re-doing that same vocal. As you can imagine this took months and months and months. And then they wanted to fix the drums on the basic tracks for a couple songs. Etc., etc. To be honest I was mostly involved in the project because they were older than me and could buy me beer (I was underage). Eventually I just said "I can't go into the studio with you guys anymore." I just couldn't take it. As much as I loved recording and as I much as I loved beer... no dice! So what do they do? They get a new bass player and decide to re-record all my parts with him. Oof. They must have spent close to $10,000 recording this album.

    Another long painful project was completely my fault. I kept recording things in small 16 track studios that were around $35 an hour and that went ok (except when I'd try to play every instrument myself which is a whole other topic). But my drummer was a techie and had a fairly decent home computer recording setup. So we started at his place and got decent enough sounds. But he was frequently unavailable to do overdubs/mixing/etc. So I got my own set up at home and had to learn that. And deal with the technical problems. etc., etc. Anyway when I finally had everything up, I spent about a year recording overdubs and a year mixing. I must have done 80 takes of vocals for each song and none of them sounded completely right in the end. Some songs had as many as 115 tracks on them all playing at once! I was trying for perfection but it was impossible and most of the energy was sucked right out of the tunes. I was happy with how things sounded on about half of it... but by then I was sick of the songs!

    oof!
     
    Robin L likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine