ATTENTION! If anyone makes art and would like to make my boring white background a little more appealing please send me a DM on Instagram @nicorinehart Id love to show off your work in the background of my videos and shout you out in the video and description! Cheers!
I am 77 and have been a guitarist, keyboard player and sometimes singer doing only original music since 1968. Been there, got the T-shirt. In those days I was on the phone with Dave Smith of Sequential Circuits back when he was obsessed with a new thing he was working on that became MIDI. Within 2 years I had the first IBM PC and early sequencer software as I new it was a given that synths and sequencers' would remove all but a very tiny amount of recorded work from players. I was 100% correct. In 10 years A.I. will make do the same thing but to a more draconian level. music will belong to the machine. Tech should serve the user but it the user serves the tech. We have music where the tail is wagging the dog. Modern music is designed to remove any emotional element. In the 70's 3 verses in a tune were in effect 3 different performances with all the nuance and emotion left in tact. Because if this one can discover something new on every listen. Today's Pop is all but totally disposable. The human element has been deliberately removed. A.I. will get rid of the last of such intrusions and replace it with parody. Welcome to the music of '1984' merely delayed but soon to arrive.
AI is not used in studios but "machine learning" is. This confusion is very common and YTubers mentioning it have a duty to define their terms. That said, being of a similar age to you and having had the privilege of working with BBC engineers and attending performances by outstandingly talented and creative musicians across several genres YOU ARE RIGHT, sir, in your general assertion that 'tail wags dog'. Fancy shaping and editing equipment, especially plug-ins, help to conceal the stark fact that there is a dearth of talent and musicianship, at least in western countries. When studio time, LP length, tape time per reel and session charges imposed urgency, those being recorded had damned well be ready, tuned and have Plan B off-ramps if a section, solo or interlude went wrong because there was no more chance of re-takes in even grungy music than there would be in a symphony recording. The myth of recording sessions being like videos of late Beatles relaxed mucking about is truly a myth. Even in those (notably self-conscious) cameos, the tracks most likely to be released had been completed. And, like such as The Beatles or not, it cannot be denied that each was a truly professional musician.
Appreciate your thoughts. Built my first DAW for a top pro 25 years ago. I would like to add the leap from binary code to quantum computing is coming closer and it's effects on our lives will be immeasurable. Computing and music production is the great equalizer. I agree there is much dispensable music being produced, but it is to our older ears and experiences. I am parenting teenagers later in life so I get to see the joy "their" music brings to them. My kids have had access to guitars, basses, keyboards and amps in our household. They had mics and harmonizers in their rooms, but in the end it was FL Studio that gained more traction. I am always appreciative of those with great musical talent and commitment to the art. But so many without natural talent want to create. An iPad and a MIDI keyboard does more than create dispensable music, it opens the world of music creation to all of us.
I have to disagree with your stance on MIDI. It CAN remove all human elements, but it doesn't have to. It's a tool that can be used tastefully or used destructively. I record at home and don't have the space or the proper room to record acoustic drums, but I guarantee my MIDI drums are indistinguishable from real recorded acoustic drums. The trick is to make them imperfect with purpose. Make sure each hit isn't perfectly on the grid, use dynamics in velocities, and think like a drummer plays. It's tedious and slow going, but I consider it an art in itself.
Hi Paul. I hear you 100% I am 65 and got my first guitar back in 1969 when I was about 10 years old. From 1969 - around 2021 there were always music stores in my hometown (Swansea South Wales UK - the birthplace of Dylan Thomas and Catherine Zeta Jones). Now in 2024 there are no music shops. Is this because young people are no longer learning musical instruments or are they simply buying them online? Technology has the potential to elevate music (Think Pink Floyd and the VC3 synth used for "On the run" or Giorgio Moroder's sequence on Donna Summer's "I feel love"). On the other hand it also has the potential to destroy music, e.g. Autotune/Melodyne and AI vocals. My late brother bought some amazing albums in the 1970s, including "Superbad" a wonderful soul/funk promo album with Sly and the Family stone, Marvin Gaye and a whole plethora of great black artists. I think Barry White had his first hit there. The sound was analogue, so warm and rich. Thank God Vinyl is now back (in the UK anyway not sure about overseas).
As this video started, I made a mental list: 1. Close mics with more dynamic range. 2. Direct boxes. 3. Aggressive isolation. 4. Totally dead room acoustics. 5. Aggressive compression. 6. Maturity of EQ as art form. 7. Minimal effects, kept very dry. 8. Layering, with careful definition between front and back. 9. Avoidance of novelty instruments. 10. Fashion. I'm old enough (born 1963) to have lived this era, and it's worth saying that the "70s sound" was not everywhere, and not necessarily one specific sound, but an evolution marked by RESTRAINT. Psychedelic excesses were gone. Experimentation was a bit out of style. Technologies were mature. Studios were evolving with a focus on neutrality of sound. And the songwriting, singing (especially harmonies) and instrumental performances very much became the focus. Multitrack technology had matured to the point where no one was really worrying about running out of tracks anymore (even though 24 sounds very limiting to us today). And artists were still skeptical about synthesizers, thinking they might just be a passing fad (like the farfisa, mellotron, and electric harpsichord before them). The focus was on guitars, drums, acoustic and acoustic/electric (Fender Rhodes) instruments, with a "neutral" sound letting the songs and performances shine.
Also because noise needed to be as reduced as possible when recording on tape, as well as phase issues that we... don't actually actually really need to deal with anymore (see my comment above)
I love the Farfisa and the Mellotron. I really love that era, the early 70's with all those electro-mechanical instruments. I don't think they were fads. They were the state of the art during their time. Just like the Yamaha DX7. It sounds incredibly dated now but in the 80's it was a thing to behold. I think there's much truth to what you say but the state of technology does sound various ways during various times. There were plenty of bands who weren't exactly known for their restraint. But one thing is clear. You had to be a good artist. You couldn't rely on studio trickery or auto tuning, bells and whistles etc. Pink Floyd used synths, sound effects, voiceover, heavy effects and all that but they didn't have to. They could already write a good song. And synthesizers definitely started to come in more and more throughout the 70's. I think people might not realize just how much The Who utilized synthesizers. They're not a band you associate with synths really but if you listen for it, there's synth almost all through Quadrophenia. Who's Next had its fair share. Even Led Zeppelin used them, eventually. Look at Hendrix for example. Unfortunately we'll never get to know how his sound would develop but in his time, he used all the most modern things as they came out and that's one of the things that made him special. He was fearless. Hendrix sounded like Hendrix and he didn't care about what people might like to hear and I'd say it was anything but subtle or restrained. It seems to that the most influential bands of the time were the ones who did things no one had done before. People liked to hear things that sounded new and different. I guess you might say that's a very rock centric point of view and that's fair enough. That's what I like. Maybe it doesn't represent all the recording done in the 70's. That's just one guy's point of view. I guess there was plenty of restrained artists too but when I think "sound of the 70's" that's what I think.
There's some good points in your post, it does seem to be rather 'rock centric' though. You are aware people such as Stevie Wonder, Parliament/Funkadelic/Sly and the Family Stone and a whole lot more, were using synths from the early days? I do agree with much of your post though. A HUGE part of the issue these days is the lack of musicians and musicianship. It seems there are very few people under their late 40s to 50s that can actually play to a really decent degree, they seem to get as far as being able to play oasis/killers/foo fighters etc and then give up. Then there's the whole 'DJ culture' thing, more about attention seeking than the music.
Yeah... the dead rooms back then as well as the thought that drums should not resonate are trademarks of the 70s sound. Minimal effects came from the fact that you only really had either tape slap or a plate (or spring) reverb for effects, so the song really had to shine.
As a recording engineer in the 1980s working with a 24 track tape machine, the drums were allocated more than one track. The kick had its own track, the snare one track (either just a top mic, or top and bottom mics mixed together at the time of recording). The toms would group to a stereo pair, the cymbals to another stereo pair. Sometimes the hi-hat would get its own track. So 6 or seven tracks in total for the drums, leaving 17 or 18 tracks for everything else.
Yeah single track drums were more a thing in the early '60s in the days of four track. It was typical from drums to only have two mics on them (kick and overhead) until I guess eight or sixteen track came along.
Another significant part of the 70s sound (and the years leading up to it) was the fact that the limited number of tracks meant that the songs needed to have actual arrangements. This made it possible to make the most efficient use of the available tracks and ensured that the songs would be well planned out before committing them to (very expensive) tape. The songs were also rehearsed before recording so the actual recording was tight and required little editing and not nearly as much mixing as they often do today. And since outboard gear was so expensive and consoles and DAWs didn’t have dynamics on every track, the sounds were shaped by mic placement and careful riding of the console faders. This yielded a much more punchy and dynamic sound. Good players + engineers with good ears = great sounding music.
I've been writing, performing and recording since 1968. I'v e been through all the changes....the single biggest mindset difference between then and now is that back then, the engineer's were recording the band in a live setting.....it was the players making the sound. If somebody screwed up, the whole band had to re-record the entire song. These days, I'm a producer for singer/songwriters and most of the time I'm helping them construct the tune, one track at a time. It's not an entire band playing and me recording the band.....a lot of times, I am the band with digital drums and digital plug-ins to re-create certain tonal qualities for the artist. But I view this way of writing and recording just as valid as back then. I believe musician ship was better back then, but I also believe everyone has a few songs in them and I help them bring out those tunes to share with the world. The truly great stuff rises to the top. The average or mediocre just sort of hangs around open mics and home studios.....there's still alot of enthusiasm and fun to be had writing and recording music at home and sharing at your local open mic......make more music, It's goods for the planet!
A lot of people find the ease of access to music creation now a reason they find music less appealing now. I disagree. Music being more accessible and more people being able to express themselves is only a good thing. There is still music for everyone being made nowadays there’s just more of it which means you’re more likely to find something you don’t vibe with. And that’s ok. Good insight man!
@@nicorinehart you could dub on 2 in tape....editing loops meant actually cutting tape...ive seen it done in person on one of my recordings....2' tape is a great way to record
At 48 years old, for me it’s more about the talent than the gear. I’ve heard great sounding digital recordings and crappy analog recordings, and vice versa. The greatest difference to me is the music itself and the artists. Mainstream music today is mostly forgettable.
I like that you added mainstream instead of saying a blanket “modern music sucks” because there are a lot of really talented musicians making amazing art. Maybe you don’t see what you like on the charts but that doesn’t mean it ain’t there. Cheers!
@@nicorinehartDefinitely. Underground and independent artists are still making great stuff, the mainstream music is mainly homogenized plastic here today gone next week kind of stuff. And honestly every era has had some of that but the cream of the crop was at the forefront. Back in the day you heard really good music in the mainstream. Today I think it’s completely the opposite now.
One of the biggest things about the 70s, especially the early to mid 70s, is that most of the tape machines had DISCRETE, CLASS A, ELECTRONICS. This lent itself to a much more open and airy sound. The mics weren't these 'wannabe' mics, but great Neumanns and AKGs (when they were still priced reasonably even in 1970s dollars), with a great variety of dynamics from Shure and ElectroVoice. Then, to top it all off, most of the working engineers of the day had been tutored by other great engineers who learned the art and craft of engineering a recording at a time when decisions needed to be made on the fly, so to do this the engineer had to have a concept of what he wanted the end product to sound like. Today, with unlimited tracks no one needs to learn how to make these decisions. In the 70s, a record had an overall sound because the engineer gave it that sound. This was something that I noticed in my teen years, and was confirmed when I read "Chairman at the Board," Bill Schnee's book. I worked with an engineer who came up through the 60s and 70s and was tutored by two great engineers. Mic placement, knowing how to cut to tape, and always mixing (because there was no automation when he developed his chops) were things that I learned from him. Oh yeah... and until the mid 70s (when MCI went into a more full production) most all consoles were also discrete class A electronics. Then MCI came in with IC based electronics and the sonics began to suffer... less because of the ICs themselves, and more because there were more electronic stages in a console, with more coupling capacitors and the resulting phase distortion smear that they brought with them. Okay... rant over!
@@nicorinehart You're welcome! The sound of the early 70s from LA was the sonic signature of an API console recorded on a Studer (in the case of Sunset Sound Factory), or an API console to an AMPEX machine. Then there were studios in LA that had Neve consoles, but both Neve (the 80 series... like 8068, 8078) and API were discrete circuitry. The East coast was more defined by Neve consoles and API. API was made on the East coast and Neves came from the UK. Ampex was made in California. Studios often bought gear that they could easily get support for, so they often bought what was made nearby unless they had a full time tech staff. Sunset Sound in LA started out with Sound Techniques from England, but soon made their own consoles in house based on API circuitry with their own modifications.
@@greenberet84 Since Motown had its start before the other two, and in the late 50s or very early 60s, many studios at the time used original broadcast based consoles with rotary faders and started out with Ampex 3 track recorders. Two of the tracks were for recording the track... in the days of Mono, the track was more than likely split into two parts, and the third track was for the vocals. Once 4 track entered on half inch tape, followed closely by 8 track on one inch tape, things changed drastically. However, much of the original 60s Motown material was more than likely recorded on either two or three track quarter inch tape. Since both Stax and FAME started a bit later, Stax began with a 16 track machine (who knows the make) and some console. Since at that time a reasonable amount of boutique console builders were coming into being, who knows which console was used, but it could have been an MCI since they were built in Florida and were priced quite well... especially if you bought a package that included one of their MCI tape machines. It wasn't long before they also used Dolby A type noise reduction. I've seen ads with Isaac Hayes in a photo with a rack of Dolby 361s (single channel units) behind him mounted in a rack. They were used to reduce tape hiss as adding more and more tracks together would result in a rather disturbing buildup of noise fighting with the music. I don't know if Stax ever upgraded to 24 track, but my guess was that they did not. As for FAME, I've seen videos with what looked like a Harrison console, and again, my guess was that they were also 16 track. At the time, on a 16 track one would at most dedicate 4 tracks to the drums (K, SN, OHL, OHR), bass on its own track, leaving 11 tracks for the rest of the parts of the song. If more tracks were needed, you could 'bounce' two or three tracks together premixing them to another single track so as to open up a few more tracks. At other times, as the song arrangement permitted, a single track could be used to record multiple parts in the song as long as one didn't overlap the other. In the mix each of these parts would be split out on the console, creating more for the engineer to concentrate on in the mix since there was no automation then... mixes were a performance and at times one would mix a song in sections, then edit those sections together on the master mix tape. Engineers were incredibly skilled then and the best of them had minds like the best doctors and attorneys.... photographic memories. I hope this gives you a better picture of the industry at that time. Oh... the console manufacturers back then were API, MCI, Harrison (it's founder was the designer of the original MCI 400 series console), Quad Eight, Sphere, Spectra Sonics, Langevin, and a few others. Quad Eight, Sphere, Langevin, and Spectra Sonics were all based on discrete op amp designs that were hand built from discrete transistors so they had a very open sonic signature that went well with all of those old tube mics (that had a minimum parts count in them, so very little to get in the way of the sound. Listen to an early Carpenter's record... the vocal is so intimate. That's the sound of a discrete console with a tube mic... NOTHING BETTER in my opinion.
Great content young man!👏 Attested by the amount of intelegant comments. It blows me away that nowadays there are thousands of online tutorials on 'How to' and 'Why your mixes suck' tutorials instructing people on 'How its done to acheive a homoginised product which then by a majority of the masses gets listened to on an iphone.I feel for the generation of bedroom musicians whose only gig is online tutorials. Live bands and venues are fading with the past. Yep give me the rawness of 70's with expression, creativity, listening to a complete album and experiencing an album for the first time with friends rather than isolated with an iphone and earbuds.
I like giving advice on how to think about production so you reach a conclusion yourself because there will never be a “this is how to do it” when it comes to your art. Only you can make that decision
What made the 70s sound? The whole band playing in the studio at the same time. They all had to play and work together to get a great take. Plus, there was no automated mixing. Everyone had to squeeze in behind the console and move the faders as the song got mixed in real time. Perfection is the enemy of excellence. In this era of technical perfection, a lot of excellent, human performances are ignored. Autotune need not apply.
Certainly made an era of sound. With new technology music has changed a lot sonically. Some like it some don’t but we can all agree it’s different and i personally believe that’s really exciting! Cheers!
> "What made the 70s sound? The whole band playing in the studio at the same time. " Nothing evokes the 1970s sound like a Steely Dan record, and they certainly were not all playing at the same time! I'm not a fan of perfectionism or click tracks or auto-tune, but recording different parts separately goes back a long time, and was pretty common in that decade.
Almost everything you wrote is either wrong or applies to like a few early years only. In the 70's pitch was corrected, musicians played separately and lots of overdubs were done, console automation (fade and mute VCA automation) was used, separate takes were edited together, and perfection was always the goal. It's kinda impressive you got so much wrong. It sounds like you're mad someone used beat detective/elastic audio to fix your sloppy playing. Or hired a session musician to replace you (which was super common in the 70's).
Thank you Nico for talking little about gear and much about all the rest that matters... Great! I'm 55 and did a lot of studio work as a bass player. Fender Bass with flats 🙂
I really appreciate that you can see the magic of an era of music, yet I really appreciate you highlighting the fact that one era being great is not come at the exclusion of others being great as well, i’m really someone who has found beauty in examples of every sub genre And every decade over the last 90 years. Great video and thank you.
Analog tape was always a compromise in that what you heard on the tape wasn’t exactly what was recorded in the frequency range. Top end was always a problem. When digital came along there was no limit to top and very little background noise. It was more accurate and realistic but analog has a punchy charm that’s hard not to like. I’m a fan of great music so I don’t really care whether it was analog or digital. People like to go back to analog from time to time thinking it was hip but there’s lots of poor analog recordings too.
I love how everyone clean forgot that before the loudness war, you had the war on muddy sound. Too much low mids? MUD! Too much track bouncing? MUD! EQing a track played off the tape instead of EQing on the way to tape? MUD! Too many pieces of equipment in the signal chain? MUD! Dolby noise reduction? MUD! Radio Shack anything? MUD MUD MUD MUD!! And by the way, most cassettes you bought in the store of your favorite bands were recorded at the plant with Dolby B noise reduction encoded, and every walkman, boom box and living room tape unit had that Dolby switch that literally NOBODY turned on because when they did, it sounded like mud. So the sound of cassettes as everyone knew it was that shushy squished top end. I knew singers who were so used to it that they would imitiate it with their voices when they sang, without even knowing it.
You're so lucky to have a dad that influenced you and no doubt given you some of his skills as a producer. I'm the first musician in my entire family. Thankfully, my parents were always BIG into music - collecting all kinds of vinyl and CDs in all kinds of genres since I was a kid. Being British as well, we had so many awesome new styles emerging in the 80s as well, like electronic, rock, dance, punk, metal etc.. it was awesome. I'm mostly self taught in the past 20 years when it comes to production and mixing and I've always loved the history of studio equipment - so you've earned yourself a new subscriber, as this was a fantastic dive into the 70s sound! Personally, from a 'sound' perspective, my favourite flavour of mixes is from the 80s. I believe that this is because it was where the solid state and great analogue equipment has been around long enough for people to learn and master it, multi-tracking was the best - allowing a lot of re-takes, new synths , drum machines and electronic stuff was improving the sound and influencing an increase in the bass in mixes, removing a lot of the imperfections and mis-timing.. The worst time in sound was probably the early 90s where digital came in, nobody understood how to get good mixes from it. We lost a lot of analogue warmth (it would take a decade or more before people started to crave the analogue saturation and go back to hybrid studios). Probably why there is so many remasters issued of great 90s albums.,
The 70's was the YOUNG decade where almost everything was perfect . We have DE-EVOLUTE since then, it would be great to return to the 70's tastes in EVERY aspect of our lives (cars...music...fashion...hair.....records.....etc..)
I worked in a studio in the 70's and some of your assumptions are right. Even in 70's drums were stereo, we did some bouncing down, but more of what I would say went on was planning. Groups in general were more prepared when they came into the studio in part because studio time was expensive. Producers in general worked with a group pre-session to workout the music and arrangements before hitting the studio. That saved money for studio time, but the songs flowed better than being assembled from edits. Yes we edited tape, the big producer for a time back then Richard Perry was said he average 40 edits per song. Playing the tape from a Richard Perry track it looked like tiger stripes from all the editing tape flying by. I'm getting back into recording for fun now for fun and insane how different todays recording world is. The one thing that amazing me is all the outboard gear studios have now, racks and racks full of it. But I worked at a now famous studio in the 70's and we had one rack about five feet high and I don't think it was ever full. Reverb we had on live room and that is also where we stored our EMT plate. We did get lent for a month one of the first digital delay units. Mic's we did have some old some like Neumann tube U67. RCA 44 and 77 but most was typcial assortment of Shure's. EV's, but got a Shure SM7 when it first came out and some Beyer small ribbon mics. I think then you had a lot more producer/engineers so understood the whole project from all views. Also unlike today engineers did everything except master usually mastering was separate engineer because mastering for vinyl was taken more seriously then. Rooms in studio started to vary in the 70's from totally dead rooms, to started to have more hard surfaces to liven up the room a bit. I think the 70's a lot of stuff was better because of the limitations forced more thought to be put into making albums. Today's digital world and so much cheaper people don't put as much thought into the music and the recording process. It's all about speed, I see in come case that is a benefit, but in most aspects it a not. Totally different mindset from musicians to production then and now.
On the mindset thing, Nico - the bass instrument, be it a bass guitar or a synth wasn't approached as a thing to generate fat bottom end in the mix, but as an instrument supplying a melodic and rhythmic idea in a low octave. It was about notes and note placement, not the BOOM.
This idea is SOOO important !! Essentially, what is happening is a plethora of producers are trying ever so hard to make tunes that don't have notes. Prime examples are hip hop & techno. These producers are looking for ways to fill the space, but without even thinking about pitch/notes. They just slap a sample or choose an instrument/sound that sounds cool .... >> make that repeat / or / make it part of a 2 or 4 or 8 bar loop.
This is a really cool video! I don’t usually see much talk about production in the 1920s-50s so seeing that you were potentially interested at the end was cool to hear. Random fun fact: in the early 1920s you couldn’t mix the music due to the recording method. So you had to position the members of the band in a specific way. Loud players at the back, quieter players at the front. And they’d all be playing as loud as they could into a giant horn.
the thing I really love about the 70s sound is the way the drums sounded dampened, or flat, but yet sounded so warm and natural. Wings used it to great effect. So did 10cc.
A super summary with a good concept. „Smart it is !“ (Yoda) Compact in a convenient way (so left- out...? Who cares, can‘t avoid that) plus, as an individual perspective, there is no reason to argue about slight judgements here and there. Realy nice presentation. Enjoyed the effort you layed in.
At the end of the video you asked if you had missed anything to comment. So here I go. In the 70’s they are making recordings for vinyl. This is a very limiting playback device. The industry standard eq floor was 50 hz. The industry standard eq ceiling was 15 kHz. But often times the floor is even higher because the more 50 hz levels you have the fewer songs will fit on the record. There were some compilation records of various artists’ hits that were filter cut to 100 hz just to fit more hits on the record and those records still sounded good on most peoples sound systems. So the recordings were very low mid heavy. Producer Greg Wells went to mix with the masters in France and looked at Chris Lord Alges’ mixes and said that he filter cuts most things below 60 hz and he tends to mix on Yamaha NS10’s. He’s doing this to create louder recordings. The more headroom a mixer places in their mixes the louder the recordings can be. Most modern mixers make 20 hz their floor. Most 70’s producers were partially mixing on Aurotones which are more mid frequency than NS10’s. So low mids are very dominant in these recordings. Also tape would tend to lose its top end as more of the silver oxide particles would fall of the tape. So much of the ceiling would be at between 10 kHz and 12 kHz. The less high end in a recording the more glued together it will be. Twenty first century music sounds harsher and more separate because producers are often times keeping 20 kHz in their recordings. Higher end will make things harsher but also aliasing occur above 15 khz so that modern digital artifact will add to that harshness and will tend to also not sound like the 70’s. Those producers were not working with digital so those digital artifacts did not exist in those recordings…but also don’t have to exist today if recording are filter cut high enough to eliminate those artifacts. Also the loudness wars is one of the largest differences between the sound of recordings today and the 70’s. Most recordings today have 6 db to 10 db of dynamic range. The 70’s had 14 db to 19 db of dynamic range. This will affect the depth and width of the recordings. The 70’s dynamic range will produce a deeper and wider sound than todays loudness wars recordings. Also because of the limitations of vinyl the low end between 150 hz to 250 hz and sometimes even higher (300 hz to 400 hz) would have to be placed in the center of the mix through elliptical eqing. On digital recordings the low end can be placed out of the center but does have a different stereo sound than the 70’s. If any of these practices are not applied to digital recordings they will not sound like those 70’s recordings.
This is exactly the kind of the technical stuff I love learning thank you so much for your comment. How could I forget to talk about what mediums the records were mixed for?! Crucial. Planning on making another video about 70s recordings. Do you mind if I use your comment as a talking point? I’ll credit ofc. Thank you!
@@nicorinehart I have no problems with you commenting on this. I am an indie singer songwriter who wants to make recordings that sound like vinyl records in the digital medium so I’ve thought about these things a lot and enjoyed hearing your take on it in your video.
@@nicorinehart I’m sorry I have 1 more thing to add since you are thinking about making another video on the 70’s. The mastering of records did not use brick wall limiters because that instantaneous high level of compression could destroy the expensive cutting lathes. The Master tape was the limiter. It can be emulated in the digital world by using a compressor set with a fast attack and slow release which would lengthen the stereo tracks sounds which audio engineers often define as fatness. That fatness lengthening would occur in the tracking and mix buss transfer stages to tape as well. The ratio settings I’ve heard are around 1.8 : 1. Tape will sound different than a compressor. But you will have more control with a compressor and I believe that the tape emulations are not that good at getting that tape lengthening sound. Plus you have to decide how much of the lengthening you want for each track. Producers would decide how hard they wanted to push sounds into the tape so the lengthening process would vary from choice to choice. There was also tape saturation as well but the modern day plugin saturators sound harsher to me than analog tape saturation. Maybe it’s from the aliasing that can be filter cut off but often times isn’t cut off in the modern era. It could be that the modern day saturation is either applied too loud or should be reduced to only up to a frequency point like 5th order harmonics on a multi-band saturator. I have yet to figure out saturation. I like the theory of it but it always sounds worse to me when looking at online videos. It always sounds to me like fingernails on a chalkboard. I always question if couldn’t I just get a better sound with well thought out eq. I keep looking for someone to show me saturation without that fingernail chalkboard sound thing but have not yet found the video. Also tape imparts a tape bump of about 1.8 db to 2 db with a Q width of between 30 hz or less around each sides of that bump somewhere between 60 hz to 80 hz. That bump varies on the tape machine. So there is no exact answer to that low end bump value. I think in modern recordings the bump in various stages could be ignored or added. It was definitely an artifact that the 70’s engineers had to react to and therefore affected their final product. Kind of a fighting against the artifact process for a finished song. That fighting against process could certainly affect the master. But I’m sure it affected all of the production process. There’s one more thing that is probably just some flakey thing I am imagining in my head but I thought I had heard that it was designed in the tape machines and had seen it in the eq curves of the tape machines that there was a 3 shelf non adjustable eq settings where the low self is about .4 db to 1 db louder than the mid shelf and the mid shelf was about .4 db to 1 db louder than the high shelf. These shelf points looked like they were around 500 hz and 5 khz but could vary slightly from tape machine. If I’m right about this being in the machines. They were designed into the tape machines to create warmth and bigness. If this is true most engineers would not have fought that artifact and it would just have been part of the sound of that time. One final thought in how I think about production. I like to think about what makes each instrument track magical. Do I add chorus or flagging or phasing to keyboards. Do I place a guitar sound on 1 side and the delay of that sound on the other. Do I create a fast attack and slow release compressor for fatter background vocals or a fast attack and fast release compressor for bigger vocals in order to get that Beatles or Queen background vocals magic. All the way through all of the tracks. Mixing is certainly setting levels but it can also be thought of as a magic show with production magic tricks that make the listening to recordings an event. If you can see yourself as a production magician when mixing and collecting mixing tricks it can make you sound very different from the producers of this time. It’s sort of a production philosophy. Any production philosophy will lead you in a direction. I also think about my quality standards for a mix. What do I want in my mixes. My list I aim for: body…reduce harshness…width…movement…tracks blending together…vinyl floor…vinyl ceiling…elliptical eq…make mids speak w/o harshness…make mix translate to small speakers…use a frequency analyzer at end to see if I can fill in holes in the eq spectrum without it hurting the recording ( sometimes this will hurt the song and should not be done)…if appropriate add 2 to 3 db around 5 kHz to the master to make more present. Sort of a checklist of what quality standards you are aiming for in your mixes. It will vary from song to song. But it’s a way to maintain a standard of production work. So I will look for production tricks that can create those mixing checklist goals in order to have them in my mix when appropriate. So your building magic tricks for the tracks and magic tricks for the overall recording. That’s how I think about things as I study mixing online.
Yet however, in the late 70s, digital sound was on the rise. The 80s had digital recordings, can't elaborate on that since VWestlife made a video about that.
Nothing sounds like a mighty STUDER A820 "Gold" 24-track tape machine proudly made in Regensdorf / Switzerland. Even todays 129 KHz / 24bit digital recordings can hardly beat this amazing analog technic. Please note: "Nothing sounds like tape". Professional recording enginers always taped the drums with up to 6 cahnnels back then. they really knew what they have to do.
Also, it went from being a full band all together in a live sounding room, to everyone sectioned off with gobos (or booths) in DEAD sounding rooms. Shag pile carpet on the floor, and maybe the walls too, haha, as well as lots of other acoustic treatment. And the advent of the Kepex noise gate meant that all the bleed could be removed from each of the drum close mics, removing even more room ambiance. Drummers started tuning their drums lower, and dampening them. Kepex gates have their own sound. I love them. Some people hate them, haha, as they definitely give their own attack to the sound. Then there was Dolby noise reduction, meaning that you didn't have to push the level hard onto tape to keep the tape noise low enough to deal with, so sounds were cleaner. With Dolby, the tape noise was effectively removed, and you could add top end to make things sound sparkly and crisp, without making the tape hiss too noticeable. So, dead, low tuned, dampened and gated drums (often with the bottom heads removed from the toms), Dolby, more isolation in the deadened rooms, through transistor consoles, onto 24 track 2" tape. And also all the stuff that you said. :)
Nailed it. It was what was going on in the world and what musicians wanted to say about it. And it was the fact that you couldn’t fake it. You had to be playing your instrument 8+ hours a day, and playing with other people at least a few times a week, or you would never make it to the studio. That started to change with the 4-track cassette recorder.
A few of other things that were key to the '70s sound. While compressors were used, the overall sound was not super compressed as music is today. As a result, recording volumes were lower in the '70s. Also, the kick drum wasn't the only drum. In modern music, the bass from the kick drum is elevated and in your face. In the '70s, the level of bass was lower and supported the melody and singer. When there was a drum solo, the other drums weren't drowned out but the kick drum thump. As you said, it was about everybody in the moment supporting each other to be a band. Beyond that, the chord choices in the '70s were unique to the decade. The music was heavier because of those chord and key choices. In the '80s, the music lightened up. Even the metal was brighter than say AC/DC in the '70s. There was a lot of stuff going on in the world in the '70s and it impacted the music. In the '80s everyone wanted things to be happy, bright, and light and it showed in the music.
It really is cool that how the music sounded really reflected the culture at the time. Also, I agree music today is very squashed. The mastering engineers are squashing the mix for more "Loudness" and it can really hurt the transients and overall dynamics. Again these are over generalizations for both the 70s and the state of music today but also both very apt observations. Thank you for your input! I plan to dive deeper into more specifics at a later point. Cheers!
There's a point in the late 70s when certain artists were no longer content with the dead cardboard box drum sound and began to push it. I'm thinking the Eventide harmoniser on the drums for Bowie's 'Low' ("It fucks with the fabric of time" said Tony Visconti). Or Martin Hannett giving each drum its own impossible digital space with Joy Division in 1978. Poor old Steve Morris had to record each drum separately, pre-empting the 80s separated, bleed-free drum machine sound.
I am 63 now and started recording on tape back in the days. I agree that live band recording in the studio (regularly without click grid) has contributed a lot to the musical quality and sound that evolved in that era. Track number limitations to 24, 16 or even 8 required early commitments from the engineers with direct mixdowns of instruments or instrument groups. Yes, and a lot of nice gear was developed back then. But do I still want to record like that today? No way - at least from a technical perspective. Calibrating tape machines and Dolby units always was a pain in the butt, same with editing processes and mute automation (or even manual muting with up to four or five people at the console) to avoid noise buildup in the mixdown. If you want tape saturation today, just use a plugin. In terms of live band recording it is quite funny that similar limitations still apply today. But it is not the tracks in the DAW, you will need enough analog inputs and converters. Even many professional producers and studios do not offer more than 16 parallel channels, which in many cases is not enough for a basic live band recording. In most home recording situations the situation is even worse with eight or less inputs. Most of these guys are neither used to early commitments nor to live recording any more. Thus they will go track by track or instrument by instrument instead which usually will reduce the liveliness of the recording.
The 70s was the pinnacle of music, no matter what genre of music it was. The early 80s still had that 70s sound as it transitioned into more electronic and synthesized sound. 1970-1985 RIP.
24-Track machines also introduced the need for noise reduction. The Dolby A system also made a big impact on the 70's sound, making it drier and punchier, with extended dynamic range and no hiss. I bought a Dolby-rack for my machine, and it worked miracles. I had to pay for it though.
Dolby A is a Compander System. It compresses the signal on its way in (to the tape machine) and decompresses on its way out. Followed up by Dolby SR. There‘s also telcom c4 which is on par with SR but has the advantage of easier setup and was used in European broadcast. Check also the „Dolby A trick“, compressing only the upper frequency bands but not decompressing them. Very nice video!
Dolby A was not commonly used for rock in the 70s. It is a encode/decode noise reduction system. Encoded to tape and decoded on playback. For effect, some engineers would record a vocal ( for instance) with Dolby and playback with the decode bypassed or” unstretched” giving a multiband compressor with HF frequency boost for effect. I think that this is what this comment is saying. Dolby should have no effect - besides noise reduction when used as intended.
Analog is the elephant in the room here. No apple computers, no samplers, no drum machines (except in a couple of weird situations). No digitizing of real sound output, or using plugins to imitate actual electronic devices handling sound waves. I know this, I've lived through this change, full stop.
At the end of the day, it really comes down to musicians that sounded great and were recorded well It’s natural to look at all the other factors, but in the end, it really comes down to this simple reality
I don’t think music of the 70s was better than contemporary music, but when I really listen to those old recordings I can’t deny that it’s very evident that we’ve lost some things that I wish we could get back to.
Certainly there are many differences from then to now. There are things I prefer about the 70s and things I prefer about now. It’s just different and I like that we have iconic eras.
As someone who was bitten by the music bug over 30 years ago, I can remember the older people telling me the music I liked, listened to and created was crap, only for it to be celebrated today in its own right, so I hope that encourages you to take much of the criticism from my generation of your favorite music of today with a grain of salt, as I have realized the elders' inherent disdain for modern pop music is part and parcel to the progression of pop music. I say that to also express my appreciation for someone so young still being able to enlighten me on things I didn't know! Thanks, bro!
Bless you, young man, for studying all this. I'm a musician, b.1963, who was "there" in the 70's. Musical production-wise, it seems that the goal of 70's Pop (including R&B, Disco, Rock and Country) was warmth and *INTIMACY*. It was a feeling of, "I know you, you know me, so let's kick back and have some fun with this music. Life can be SO pleasurable and amusing." Today, in 2024, the message so often appears to be: "I don't know you, You don't know me, so fuck you. Life's a bitch, and I'm unhappy, and I'm gonna throw a meanspirited vibe at you, designed to make you unhappy, too. Specifically, I'm gonna show you how I have more money than you, and am getting more sex than you, 'cause I'm just hot and gangsta and badass that way. Sucks to be you."
I love how they were worried about synths taking over classic rock even during the 70's: "All this machinery making modern music can still be openhearted"
Our garage band in the 70s was the main creative focus of my life. We only had music, television, radio, a single house phone, and books then. Lots more time to jam, and listen to long album sides on repeat. Our recording gear was primitive and we squeezed everything on to 2 tracks in one take. Later in the 80s we got to use reel to reel 8 track recorders and 4 track cassette decks. We were under pressure to get everything right in one take with a few overdubs. It's amazing how that pressure can make some great performances. Nice to see that a young fella like you is keen on that 70s sound. I liked the 90s sound too.
You don’t understand how much I appreciate messages like this. I love what I do, and I love makingcontent. It’s my dream to be able to sustain myself financially by doing what I love. Please tell me what kind of content you would like to see again thank you so much for your kind message. I hope to see you again!
Nice video. One thing to add from a recording aspect: if punching and splicing is possible, but only practical in moderation, you tend to graviate towards less complex, but arguably more impactful lines/parts to play because you are expected to deliver on the spot in a lot of sitations. That in combination with more multitracking options changes the way to approach arranging and recording. Earth Wind and Fire is a prime example of that. Lots of parts, but not many super hard to play, but extremely impactful. Recording 20 or more tracks of a performance and then splicing it together just wasnt an option. As a result, vocal tracks or solos were more designed as having an arc and less as coming up with as many different ideas as possible to give a lot of chices. Imo the music greatly benefitted from that.
Excellent! I don’t know how you summed it up so well. When you mentioned working together as a band and focusing and committing those tracks, you hit the nail on the head. It was the genius of collaboration and artists being able to envision ideas with a lot less useless noise than exists around us today.
Great vid from a professional musician and fellow 70s music lover. One thing I’d emphasize is that the styles of the 70s went far beyond later Motown and Pfunk and fender Rhodes. This is also the era where minimoogs and ARP2600 synths started coming into widespread appeal and Prog music was born (listen to Yes’ Close to the Edge’ or any of the classic early Genesis records fo ref). It was also the era of thd Ramones, Sex Pistols, Clash etc who hated the aforementioned and purposely made the most minimalistic aggressive music as possible. And disco and Kraftwerk and the birth of 4-to-the-floor electronic music, eventually becoming EDM and much of today’s pop. Etc etc The 70s in short was a time of wildly restless musical creativity whose shadows we still live within today
Cool stuff. I love watching documentaries about how bands recorded back in the day. They're always a lot of fun. People like to complain about music today, but they just aren't looking hard enough. Every era has crap. The 60s was full of one hit wonder throw away songs that were essentially created by marketing teams and performed by people with minimal talent, which is the same complaint people make today. Do we think the 60s sucked for music? Hell no. I'm more than twice your age and like to think I have decent taste in music. I'm a musician. I routinely listen to stuff from today back to the 50s. I think a lot of people get stuck thinking a certain period had the "best" music, but when you look closely you'll notice that period usually holds nostalgic value for them, like teenage years and early 20s. It's easy to get stuck in that mindset but people miss so much when they do that. Stop complaining that there's nothing out there and start looking, people. Or better yet, make something yourself, it's fun!
Apart from dry closed mic drum sound, I think two related aspects defined the 70s: tracking & instrumentation. And they both related too scale / complexity. One was that 24-tracks felt like a huge amount of space to stretch out. And that was part of what led to the psychedelic sound because they could experiment with recording techniques. Layering became important than in the late 60s, and records generally got denser and more intricate, with instrumentation. So you started get ever more artistic, following on in the footsteps of The Beatles. Records that come to mind for artistic recording are David Bowie's Hereos & Low. The other factor that shaped the 70s sound was the range of instruments they had increased beyond the older guitars/drums, Musicman Stingrays for funk & disco, Fender Rhodes, Moogs, Arps/Solinas. Records I think of like that are Stevie Wonders Innervisions or James Mason's Rhythm of Life. But, what they didn't have easy cheap access to was ... affordable samplers (Fairchild CMI was 1979 and initially pretty unobtanium), more modern sounding analogu or digital drum machines (Linn LM-1 & TR-808 were both 1980 which is significant). Digital reverb (especially stereo) though the EMT 250s did start to appear late 70s, modern clean digital delays and digital multitracks and digital editing. Bass rigs really caught up with guitar stacks in the 70s too, with things like the Ampeg SVT. And the bass generally became a more prominent important instrument, where in the 60s it was more relegated to background support (though again, The Beatles were ahead of that curve). Large live music concerts changed the sound too, with the advent of huge general purpose P.A. systems and ... stadium rock. Again, a change in scale ... and also increasingly sharpened commercialism.
Balance and clarity in the mix! I grew up in the 70s and the music of that period has lasting impact on how i set up audiophile rigs and live sound. Bass and drums as clear support instruments rather than the overpowering thumpty thump engineers mix these days, regardless of genre. That and the musicianship and song writing was unreal from disco to jazz to progressive.
yooo im a 2006 guy too! majoring in music tech rn :) i hope to get into studio stuff as well. one of my hobbies is making music and i try to get that "vintage" sound with saturation and stuff, though i def got a ways to go. thanks for all the info bro 👍 super interesting
From my experience, I have to say that the Hammond B3 has to be added into the instruments that helped shape the sound of the 70s. This was a well done video. Great job!
what you said is almost all true and, for me, you have found the solution to your questions. in the 70s you felt the soul of the musicians in the music you listened to. and the music that gave you vibrations was much less commercial in relation to the products of the time. now, according to my humble interpretation, the music seems almost entirely commercial. nice video anyway.👍🏻
Highly produced and polished tracks are all over the top charts today. I can definitely see how this can be very unappealing. However there are a lot of modern musicians making music that is incredibly high quality with heart and soul. You should listen to Lizzy McAlpine, Stephen Sanchez, or Noah kahan. Great stuff
@@nicorinehart when I'm feeling down I listen to 'selling england by the pound' or 'overnite sensation'. but I also appreciate macklemore and red hot chili peppers and the Muse and Bruno Mars etc etc. I also listen to all modern music on the radio but I feel very few vibrations, imho. I listened to the three songwriters you recommended and they sing well and I like them. if you like that kind of genre you could try listening to Nick Drake, and I think you might like it.
i start to record at the middle of the 80s - gear was expensive, rare and the first midi stuff comes up - it was very noisy, and delays or reverbs was not easy to realize in good quality until the SPX90 Yamaha FX could get ( for the amount of money a used car costs ).... Today with the DAW all the limitations were gone ! Seems, many people does not know, what they got there....
When I was taking audio courses in the early '00s, the instructor talked about how engineers needed to be mindful of the limits of consumer playback methods. He said that he could have recorded and mixed drums that sounded modern to us (we were mostly in rock and metal bands) but they would cause a needle to pop out of a record groove.
Fun video, great topic! Our first (and only) album was recorded at EMI Studios, Wellington NZ in 1977. Neve, Studer 2 inch 24 Tk. and honestly can't remember what 1/4 inch - pretty standard quality rig. Moved to HK in 82 and for several years we worked at a studio with Neve 'Flying Faders' desk, Studer 2 inch and a couple of Studer 1/4 inch machines (which actually allowed us to do the ADT hands on 'wobble' thing. Something about the economy of 24 tracks played a major part in avoiding the excess, 'too many choices overload' that you sometimes see these days . . . we started early '70s with 8 track, then 16 so 24 was something of a luxury. I miss those days - Steinway with Neumanns thru a 12 foot long plate reverb . . . yeah 😅
I’ve been listening to Rock on by David Essex this week. A favorite from the 70s. But listening to it from the perspective of recording techniques and mixing. Just basically dissecting it. I loved it as a kid and still do. But now from this perspective I realize what a recording gem it is.
Not to say money is the only reason why music was better produced in the 70's, but money has a lot to do with it. People had to buy their music back then. Now, everyone listens to music for free. There is no budget for albums anymore. So, everyone just makes hokey songs with software.
I think the paradigm shift is going to be "direct to consumer" ... As a not perfect or even ideal example: Imagine that artists make their own website. Sell & stream *their music on that website. This would push people to find music >> and >> I REALLY REALLY think what is lost is listeners seeking artists. The whole myspace thing was heading in the right direction... You could make a custom looking page & allow people to listen from there. ALL that idea needed was $$$ exchange. Bandcamp is kinda there. I feel like its the best we have rt now. Ultimately tho, we need to have our own terms of sale / terms of use ...
Some very good insights here - but what I didn't hear is the difference in HOW people were LISTENING to music back in the 70s. I was in college in '76 - and even before then - we were mostly listening to music on pretty good quality stereo systems that could really highlight the best recording techniques of the period. Even car stereos of the time were undergoing a quality revolution. Recordings of the time took advantage of this - and some of the best things I've ever heard were produced back then, including direct-to-disc recordings by Telarc. We'd listen to awesome music by Steeley Dan, Genesis, Weather Report, Yes, and Pink Floyd - admiring the quality of the recordings and the effort producers put into getting the very best sound. No Walk Mans, no MP3s or ear buds. The listening experience is very different today and I think the sound engineering reflects that.
I’ve always thought that the biggest jumps in recording differences is when the medium in which it is consumed changes great points! I’m definitely detailing that in my 1950s video I’m working on right now.
I'm so happy to be born in 1962... That golden period between 1973 and 1979 shaped my future and, even today, adds more rainbows than I could describe here. For just one astonishing recording... listen to More Than A Woman by the Bee Gees. The weight of the bass is SO perfect, I think today's producers and mixers (me included!) should eat it every day for breakfast (in America) - Love from the UK - Richard x
nice video , i was an engineer in the 80s 90s, the bands had practised and gigged for ages , and big studios had nice sounding rooms , so the house engineer would know where to place the instruments, also older drum kits had hide skins and big clangy cymbals adding to the warm tone ,thanks
also songs had to be radio friendly ,most people had mw radios so squash em to avoid peaks, then people associated that squashed sound as the real sound?
I was born in the 60s so grew up with 70s sounds, now even though I use protools i still record like them days ...minimalist tracks and get the sound right at the microphone....
Couldn't agree more with this video, and I've only just started watching it! Music nowadays, regardless of the style, all has the same "ProTools" style sound to it. Even when its ProTools through a half million $$ desk, it still sounds like ProTools! And all the drums have that overcompressed sound to them as well. This is the reason why an album like Daft Punk's Random Access Memories was so acclaimed and well-regarded. The actual _sound_ of the recording is absolutely incredible. Daft Punk rewound the clock back to the days of Steely Dan and their pursuit of music recordings that not only did you like the music on, that you actually wanted to LISTED to and be immersed in. Sadly, I suspect those days are well gone now, never to return.
When I hear 60s music, it's often recorded in mono, plus there is a lot of tape hiss. Not sure if that's the correct term, but there is a noticeable hiss in the background. All those problems were corrected in the 70s.🎙
Those problems where still very much there. In fact, when my dad first started working was when the first 24 tracks consoles were custom-ordered in Europe, and when the first Neumann appeared as well. They still only had Urei limiting amplifiers, Pultech EQs, and spring reverb. And that was ALL they had outside of the board itself. And the EQs would by default introduce phase distortion. So the techniques mentioned above were developed mostly to reduce tape hiss. By being so meticulous, recording in such dead room, etc, you don't have to EQ your master as much and pretty much only use a bus compressor so the phase is perfect. Linear phase EQ was not really a thing back then, and only digital EQ produced little to no phase distortion. Basically multiple bands would make the sound source slower or faster on one side or the other at their crossovers (this is why graphic EQs are never used in studios btw). In the 60's, the same tape was used but limited to 4 tracks, and people didn't really mind the hiss. As the home stereos progressed, the average consumer started noticing, and as the loudness level started going up, radios would use an inordinate amount of compression, resulting in even more need to reduce the hiss!
This reminds me of a mission I need to do >> to take my session & make it stems, then output those stems to a console/mixer in a way that I can have my hands on all the levels. The goal is to be able to record dynamics/levels that move with the song. I think a big thing with tracks nowadays is that we rely on the DAW so much that the levels are basically flat. There might be a change for each major section of the song(hook/verse/Brdge/intro/outro), but I bet not too many mixers gradually change levels as the song goes along. This is the blessing & curse of automation via mouse. "in the box" . I think also the loudness war thing has us SO reliant/dependent on maxing that we essentially ride the compressor & have to stay near the threshold, to ride that knee. that limits the freedom of working the whole fader. hence flat dynamics.
I'm 63.....what makes the 70's music is 1) you lived through it, and 2) it's a feeling and sound that's in you. When I went back to school, my final project was to compose a track. I composed a 70's Funk track, but I didn't give any hints, or details to my instructor. He listened and instantly loved it and said it was a Funky 70's vibe. I got the desired effect because I improved my inter-planetary Funksmanship. Mission accomplished.
The Clavinet ! It had a short life span (71-79) and a very specific sound. With a wah pedal, it sounded like guitar. Bernie Worrell used a phase 100 and Wah on Frantic Moment.
Great job! I love the '70s. I built a home studio for bass tracking purposes and came to many of the same conclusions. As for bass, I use a Neve running into a Pultec, then Mercury 66 (Fairchild). To my ears, this captures the '70s vibe. I also run another setup, Lachappell preamp into a Pultec into a Retro Sta-Level. Everything I use is analog up to the tracking device, which is my DAW.
Back then they didn't know what they were missing so they couldn't miss all the amazing stuff we have thanks to digital. Some VST plugins can mimic there hardware counterparts very well, I think the sound of the 70's had some great moments and highlights but that was then so why bother chasing something that had it's moment, So true though there are no real rules in sound and music design if a 70's vibe is what you need it's easy to get close cost effectively with plugins these days, can just imagine how much a DAW and all the plugins would equate to actual hardware 🤩
Something which I don't think has been mentioned is that on tape, tracks are always mono. On a DAW you can record a stereo signal and call that a single track, but on tape you need to use two tracks to record a stereo signal - the mixing desk determines how the tracks are panned, not the deck. Hence, if you were going to submix the drums on a 16 or 24 track system because you've run out of space, you'd bounce it to a stereo pair. If working on 8-track you might bounce to a pair of tracks on another 8-track machine to avoid losing the original version entirely. There's also a trick you can do where the drums are recorded in mono, but you give them a kind of "fake stereo" effect during the mix using a stereo reverb (usually a plate, as mentioned).
I sure would like more details about the use of the old Hammond Organ with the actual tone wheel generator and ported Leslie Speaker with the motor driven horn and 15 inch transducer aimed down in to a spinning cylinder drum
The acoustics of it always intrigued me. My dad has a Leslie and i remember just watching it not even playing anything. The warm rich tones you get from that cabinet are unmatched
Another old guy here (72) In the 70s, yes, instruments, audio recording equipment, tape, and music style - but perhaps the biggest influence on the sound was the playback equipment. In 1970 the highest fidelity playback for consumers was a vinyl record. To create a record took another engineer to compress and sculpt the eq for optimal playback on a turntable. Too low of a tone and the stylus would bounce off the grooves, too high and the thin grooves would start to wear and cause hiss. If you were listening to a song on the radio, that’s another set of compression and tonal restrictions. Audio engineers had to be masters at creating a finished product that could maximize their limitations to produce a great sounding song.
The playback medium is such a big factor. Think of the eras where the most popular medium changed. Those are the biggest sonic changes. Vinyl, cassette, CD, Streaming.
You have just explained why I collect mostly 70’s records while I’m born in 76.Santana,Pink Floyd, Alan Parson, and of course some Emerson Lake and Palmer.My best sounding record is Pictures at an exhibition,sounds so real 😊.same for some LED ZEP live I have … Jean-Michel Jarre the same.
@@nicorinehart Well, ofcourse I speak for myself, but the sound of an era depends heavily on the mindset of that era and what came before. Same thing in the current time. You see many crossovers/mixed genres because of "our musical history", but to find and put your identity in the music you make, is what people are less inclined (don't dare) to do. Scared of not being liked by the public. Standing out of the crowd isn't easy, it takes courage, but it's hard to continue when no one listens ... Am I being to cryptic? ;-) "I am my public, therefor I make hits every time" ~ me 😎
The number 1 thing people are forgetting, all music was performed "live to tape " u had to know your song and be able to play it from start to finish live! Not cut and paste ...i bet most people cant record this way...u get depth and real human sound when doing this! You cannot replicate !
I really enjoyed this. There is a magic of the 70s sound for sure growing up during that time period. I've heard excellent recordings from now as well. I think the overall sound from both eras are a little bit different for the most part. Tape is definitely naturally punchier in my opinion. You can do it digitally as well. The one thing that I find to be really interesting is I have an old Tascam MSR 16, 16 track machine from the late '80s that gives a really nice tape sound. When I go directly into my DAW from the board vs going into the tape machine into the DAW, the sound is a little different, but still really good. However, if I record it to tape and then pull it into the computer, the computer will capture the sound of the tape. I just find that really fascinating that they don't sound about the same.
I learned to limit myself in the number of tracks used per song for my music these days. 10 to 12 mics on drums, 1 acoustic, 2 main electric guitar parts, 1 guitar for ear candy (maybe). 1 to 2 tracks for bass. 1 main vocal, and 1 for doubles(maybe). 3 tracks for back vocals. 1-2 for other instruments (piano or other). Focus more on performance and try to not comp tracks even though sometimes it necessary. Being prepared and well practiced makes it go smoothly So 26 tracks or so is what I try to stay at
I lived through this and I think the biggest thing that shaped the sound of the 70s was that it followed the 60s and preceded the 80s. The 60s saw creativity enter recording: engineering was no longer just about capturing a performance - it became part of the creative process. The 60s laid the groundwork for experimentation, but in the 70s it was still new enough that artists could stand out without having to get into the "much more is only a little bit more" mindset of the 80s onward - you could be a world class guitar hero by playing a blues scale a bit quickly! Records were selling, you could have a successful single and buy a house off the earnings. A big one. Budgets bought talent to the studios - if you needed a horn section you'd fly one in; need a guitarist, get Page. Biggest of all, there were record companies like Atlantic that genuinely supported music as art, not just as a commodity . Take all this and a simple limitation enforced approach to recording and you get the 70s. Oh - and if you add-in 50 years between then and now you have enough time for all the dross to be forgotten about.
Great insight on the culture. The mindset and culture is half the battle to a recording. The mindset shaped those records. You can use vintage gear but you cant recreate the vibe in the room when Fleetwood Mac was recording.
Great video so let me help you along a bit on your journey! The 70s were defined by 3 main things, 1st, you couldn't be a bad player (you had to be well rehearsed and prepared) no amount of editing could really save a recording. 2nd the lack of equipment compared to studios in the 80s is stark so you had to know when to use something and when to not use something. A less is more approach. 3rd DRY Rooms were how they achieved those tight sounds. This is why a decade later music did a 180 degree turn to avoid sounding like the 80s and then in the 90s they went back to a more dry sound. I started in the mid 1990s as a teenager and some of the studios that were built in the late 60s early 70s in Nashville had CARPET on the floor. Tea towels on the drums to stop the ringing and isolation booths. It was a new way of working compared to the 1960s. This is why a ton of music recorded at home today fails to meet the goals of a modern LARGE roomy recording. They want a big sound yet they are recording in carpeted houses. It an aesthetics thing. Work within the paradigm you have. If your room sounds small and dry work to make it more transient heavy and use panning to achieve width and depth. If the room is full and bloomy like a gymnasium then use that to your advantage. But its nearly impossible to make them interchangeable. You can't make a little room big and you can't make a gymnasium sound like a bathroom without major detrimental sacrifices to the audio. Learn the strengths of the room and make the space work for the recording.
Lots of great points thank you! Sessions musicians whose entire jobs were to play the instrument they mastered on a track to support the track is definitely a big factor. You hear about the great session players of the day but I don’t hear much of them now.
@@nicorinehart So true budgets are so small today that producers like myself will end up working with a client and playing almost every instrument, another good example of this is youtuber Warren Huart. So you have to be more agile today just to make money. I remember the good days of the 90s when money was easy to make in a studio and there was room to hire a session drummer, but now days I do most of the session work myself. You basically need to be a one man band to help artists out to get the work. Its changed so drastically since I began but I still love the job. Just spend as much time working on your instrumentation skills as your recording an mixing skills and that will lead to actual work that can pay your bills! Great job!! Keep up the channel you are good at it, but make the bed next time or get it out of the shot Cheers!!
ATTENTION! If anyone makes art and would like to make my boring white background a little more appealing please send me a DM on Instagram @nicorinehart Id love to show off your work in the background of my videos and shout you out in the video and description! Cheers!
I am 77 and have been a guitarist, keyboard player and sometimes singer doing only original music since 1968. Been there, got the T-shirt. In those days I was on the phone with Dave Smith of Sequential Circuits back when he was obsessed with a new thing he was working on that became MIDI. Within 2 years I had the first IBM PC and early sequencer software as I new it was a given that synths and sequencers' would remove all but a very tiny amount of recorded work from players. I was 100% correct. In 10 years A.I. will make do the same thing but to a more draconian level. music will belong to the machine. Tech should serve the user but it the user serves the tech. We have music where the tail is wagging the dog. Modern music is designed to remove any emotional element. In the 70's 3 verses in a tune were in effect 3 different performances with all the nuance and emotion left in tact. Because if this one can discover something new on every listen. Today's Pop is all but totally disposable. The human element has been deliberately removed. A.I. will get rid of the last of such intrusions and replace it with parody. Welcome to the music of '1984' merely delayed but soon to arrive.
AI is not used in studios but "machine learning" is. This confusion is very common and YTubers mentioning it have a duty to define their terms. That said, being of a similar age to you and having had the privilege of working with BBC engineers and attending performances by outstandingly talented and creative musicians across several genres YOU ARE RIGHT, sir, in your general assertion that 'tail wags dog'. Fancy shaping and editing equipment, especially plug-ins, help to conceal the stark fact that there is a dearth of talent and musicianship, at least in western countries.
When studio time, LP length, tape time per reel and session charges imposed urgency, those being recorded had damned well be ready, tuned and have Plan B off-ramps if a section, solo or interlude went wrong because there was no more chance of re-takes in even grungy music than there would be in a symphony recording. The myth of recording sessions being like videos of late Beatles relaxed mucking about is truly a myth. Even in those (notably self-conscious) cameos, the tracks most likely to be released had been completed. And, like such as The Beatles or not, it cannot be denied that each was a truly professional musician.
Appreciate your thoughts. Built my first DAW for a top pro 25 years ago. I would like to add the leap from binary code to quantum computing is coming closer and it's effects on our lives will be immeasurable. Computing and music production is the great equalizer. I agree there is much dispensable music being produced, but it is to our older ears and experiences. I am parenting teenagers later in life so I get to see the joy "their" music brings to them. My kids have had access to guitars, basses, keyboards and amps in our household. They had mics and harmonizers in their rooms, but in the end it was FL Studio that gained more traction. I am always appreciative of those with great musical talent and commitment to the art. But so many without natural talent want to create. An iPad and a MIDI keyboard does more than create dispensable music, it opens the world of music creation to all of us.
Music by robots for robots. Sound-based entertainment, not music.
I have to disagree with your stance on MIDI. It CAN remove all human elements, but it doesn't have to. It's a tool that can be used tastefully or used destructively. I record at home and don't have the space or the proper room to record acoustic drums, but I guarantee my MIDI drums are indistinguishable from real recorded acoustic drums. The trick is to make them imperfect with purpose. Make sure each hit isn't perfectly on the grid, use dynamics in velocities, and think like a drummer plays. It's tedious and slow going, but I consider it an art in itself.
Hi Paul. I hear you 100% I am 65 and got my first guitar back in 1969 when I was about 10 years old. From 1969 - around 2021 there were always music stores in my hometown (Swansea South Wales UK - the birthplace of Dylan Thomas and Catherine Zeta Jones). Now in 2024 there are no music shops. Is this because young people are no longer learning musical instruments or are they simply buying them online? Technology has the potential to elevate music (Think Pink Floyd and the VC3 synth used for "On the run" or Giorgio Moroder's sequence on Donna Summer's "I feel love"). On the other hand it also has the potential to destroy music, e.g. Autotune/Melodyne and AI vocals. My late brother bought some amazing albums in the 1970s, including "Superbad" a wonderful soul/funk promo album with Sly and the Family stone, Marvin Gaye and a whole plethora of great black artists. I think Barry White had his first hit there. The sound was analogue, so warm and rich. Thank God Vinyl is now back (in the UK anyway not sure about overseas).
As this video started, I made a mental list: 1. Close mics with more dynamic range. 2. Direct boxes. 3. Aggressive isolation. 4. Totally dead room acoustics. 5. Aggressive compression. 6. Maturity of EQ as art form. 7. Minimal effects, kept very dry. 8. Layering, with careful definition between front and back. 9. Avoidance of novelty instruments. 10. Fashion.
I'm old enough (born 1963) to have lived this era, and it's worth saying that the "70s sound" was not everywhere, and not necessarily one specific sound, but an evolution marked by RESTRAINT. Psychedelic excesses were gone. Experimentation was a bit out of style. Technologies were mature. Studios were evolving with a focus on neutrality of sound. And the songwriting, singing (especially harmonies) and instrumental performances very much became the focus. Multitrack technology had matured to the point where no one was really worrying about running out of tracks anymore (even though 24 sounds very limiting to us today). And artists were still skeptical about synthesizers, thinking they might just be a passing fad (like the farfisa, mellotron, and electric harpsichord before them). The focus was on guitars, drums, acoustic and acoustic/electric (Fender Rhodes) instruments, with a "neutral" sound letting the songs and performances shine.
Very good points taking notes for further videos!
Also because noise needed to be as reduced as possible when recording on tape, as well as phase issues that we... don't actually actually really need to deal with anymore (see my comment above)
I love the Farfisa and the Mellotron. I really love that era, the early 70's with all those electro-mechanical instruments. I don't think they were fads. They were the state of the art during their time. Just like the Yamaha DX7. It sounds incredibly dated now but in the 80's it was a thing to behold. I think there's much truth to what you say but the state of technology does sound various ways during various times. There were plenty of bands who weren't exactly known for their restraint. But one thing is clear. You had to be a good artist. You couldn't rely on studio trickery or auto tuning, bells and whistles etc. Pink Floyd used synths, sound effects, voiceover, heavy effects and all that but they didn't have to. They could already write a good song.
And synthesizers definitely started to come in more and more throughout the 70's. I think people might not realize just how much The Who utilized synthesizers. They're not a band you associate with synths really but if you listen for it, there's synth almost all through Quadrophenia. Who's Next had its fair share. Even Led Zeppelin used them, eventually. Look at Hendrix for example. Unfortunately we'll never get to know how his sound would develop but in his time, he used all the most modern things as they came out and that's one of the things that made him special. He was fearless. Hendrix sounded like Hendrix and he didn't care about what people might like to hear and I'd say it was anything but subtle or restrained. It seems to that the most influential bands of the time were the ones who did things no one had done before. People liked to hear things that sounded new and different.
I guess you might say that's a very rock centric point of view and that's fair enough. That's what I like. Maybe it doesn't represent all the recording done in the 70's. That's just one guy's point of view. I guess there was plenty of restrained artists too but when I think "sound of the 70's" that's what I think.
There's some good points in your post, it does seem to be rather 'rock centric' though.
You are aware people such as Stevie Wonder, Parliament/Funkadelic/Sly and the Family Stone and a whole lot more, were using synths from the early days?
I do agree with much of your post though.
A HUGE part of the issue these days is the lack of musicians and musicianship. It seems there are very few people under their late 40s to 50s that can actually play to a really decent degree, they seem to get as far as being able to play oasis/killers/foo fighters etc and then give up. Then there's the whole 'DJ culture' thing, more about attention seeking than the music.
Yeah... the dead rooms back then as well as the thought that drums should not resonate are trademarks of the 70s sound. Minimal effects came from the fact that you only really had either tape slap or a plate (or spring) reverb for effects, so the song really had to shine.
As a recording engineer in the 1980s working with a 24 track tape machine, the drums were allocated more than one track. The kick had its own track, the snare one track (either just a top mic, or top and bottom mics mixed together at the time of recording). The toms would group to a stereo pair, the cymbals to another stereo pair. Sometimes the hi-hat would get its own track. So 6 or seven tracks in total for the drums, leaving 17 or 18 tracks for everything else.
Yeah single track drums were more a thing in the early '60s in the days of four track. It was typical from drums to only have two mics on them (kick and overhead) until I guess eight or sixteen track came along.
Exactly
That's basically the way I still like to track them (I'll use two kick mics though).
Facts
then we would cut a vocal slave...thank you to Lynx. ah the memories.
Another significant part of the 70s sound (and the years leading up to it) was the fact that the limited number of tracks meant that the songs needed to have actual arrangements. This made it possible to make the most efficient use of the available tracks and ensured that the songs would be well planned out before committing them to (very expensive) tape. The songs were also rehearsed before recording so the actual recording was tight and required little editing and not nearly as much mixing as they often do today. And since outboard gear was so expensive and consoles and DAWs didn’t have dynamics on every track, the sounds were shaped by mic placement and careful riding of the console faders. This yielded a much more punchy and dynamic sound. Good players + engineers with good ears = great sounding music.
I've been writing, performing and recording since 1968. I'v e been through all the changes....the single biggest mindset difference between then and now is that back then, the engineer's were recording the band in a live setting.....it was the players making the sound. If somebody screwed up, the whole band had to re-record the entire song. These days, I'm a producer for singer/songwriters and most of the time I'm helping them construct the tune, one track at a time. It's not an entire band playing and me recording the band.....a lot of times, I am the band with digital drums and digital plug-ins to re-create certain tonal qualities for the artist.
But I view this way of writing and recording just as valid as back then. I believe musician ship was better back then, but I also believe everyone has a few songs in them and I help them bring out those tunes to share with the world. The truly great stuff rises to the top. The average or mediocre just sort of hangs around open mics and home studios.....there's still alot of enthusiasm and fun to be had writing and recording music at home and sharing at your local open mic......make more music, It's goods for the planet!
A lot of people find the ease of access to music creation now a reason they find music less appealing now. I disagree. Music being more accessible and more people being able to express themselves is only a good thing. There is still music for everyone being made nowadays there’s just more of it which means you’re more likely to find something you don’t vibe with. And that’s ok. Good insight man!
@@nicorinehart you could dub on 2 in tape....editing loops meant actually cutting tape...ive seen it done in person on one of my recordings....2' tape is a great way to record
Born in 2006?!? You're a baby!!!
A great future for you, young man. ⭐️🚀
I appreciate this comment so much! Excited to learn more the more videos I make.
Right? Bros going off like a young Steve Albini
@@cranklabexplosion-labcentr8245 I'll try to stay humble after that comparison haha
@@nicorinehartYou're as young as my brother and I'm nine years older than him lol.
That made me feel so f-ing old. I was 26 in 2006.
Best producer of the 70s.. Alan Parsons. Just brilliant.
At 48 years old, for me it’s more about the talent than the gear. I’ve heard great sounding digital recordings and crappy analog recordings, and vice versa. The greatest difference to me is the music itself and the artists. Mainstream music today is mostly forgettable.
I like that you added mainstream instead of saying a blanket “modern music sucks” because there are a lot of really talented musicians making amazing art. Maybe you don’t see what you like on the charts but that doesn’t mean it ain’t there. Cheers!
@@nicorinehartDefinitely. Underground and independent artists are still making great stuff, the mainstream music is mainly homogenized plastic here today gone next week kind of stuff. And honestly every era has had some of that but the cream of the crop was at the forefront. Back in the day you heard really good music in the mainstream. Today I think it’s completely the opposite now.
There has always been disposible Pop in every decade.
One of the biggest things about the 70s, especially the early to mid 70s, is that most of the tape machines had DISCRETE, CLASS A, ELECTRONICS. This lent itself to a much more open and airy sound. The mics weren't these 'wannabe' mics, but great Neumanns and AKGs (when they were still priced reasonably even in 1970s dollars), with a great variety of dynamics from Shure and ElectroVoice. Then, to top it all off, most of the working engineers of the day had been tutored by other great engineers who learned the art and craft of engineering a recording at a time when decisions needed to be made on the fly, so to do this the engineer had to have a concept of what he wanted the end product to sound like. Today, with unlimited tracks no one needs to learn how to make these decisions. In the 70s, a record had an overall sound because the engineer gave it that sound. This was something that I noticed in my teen years, and was confirmed when I read "Chairman at the Board," Bill Schnee's book. I worked with an engineer who came up through the 60s and 70s and was tutored by two great engineers. Mic placement, knowing how to cut to tape, and always mixing (because there was no automation when he developed his chops) were things that I learned from him. Oh yeah... and until the mid 70s (when MCI went into a more full production) most all consoles were also discrete class A electronics. Then MCI came in with IC based electronics and the sonics began to suffer... less because of the ICs themselves, and more because there were more electronic stages in a console, with more coupling capacitors and the resulting phase distortion smear that they brought with them.
Okay... rant over!
Amazing technical insight thank you for letting me learn!
@@nicorinehart You're welcome! The sound of the early 70s from LA was the sonic signature of an API console recorded on a Studer (in the case of Sunset Sound Factory), or an API console to an AMPEX machine. Then there were studios in LA that had Neve consoles, but both Neve (the 80 series... like 8068, 8078) and API were discrete circuitry. The East coast was more defined by Neve consoles and API. API was made on the East coast and Neves came from the UK. Ampex was made in California. Studios often bought gear that they could easily get support for, so they often bought what was made nearby unless they had a full time tech staff. Sunset Sound in LA started out with Sound Techniques from England, but soon made their own consoles in house based on API circuitry with their own modifications.
@@jimrogers7425 Hello!! Great insight!! :) What was the case with Motown, Stax, Hi and FAME studios?
@@greenberet84 Since Motown had its start before the other two, and in the late 50s or very early 60s, many studios at the time used original broadcast based consoles with rotary faders and started out with Ampex 3 track recorders. Two of the tracks were for recording the track... in the days of Mono, the track was more than likely split into two parts, and the third track was for the vocals. Once 4 track entered on half inch tape, followed closely by 8 track on one inch tape, things changed drastically. However, much of the original 60s Motown material was more than likely recorded on either two or three track quarter inch tape.
Since both Stax and FAME started a bit later, Stax began with a 16 track machine (who knows the make) and some console. Since at that time a reasonable amount of boutique console builders were coming into being, who knows which console was used, but it could have been an MCI since they were built in Florida and were priced quite well... especially if you bought a package that included one of their MCI tape machines. It wasn't long before they also used Dolby A type noise reduction. I've seen ads with Isaac Hayes in a photo with a rack of Dolby 361s (single channel units) behind him mounted in a rack. They were used to reduce tape hiss as adding more and more tracks together would result in a rather disturbing buildup of noise fighting with the music. I don't know if Stax ever upgraded to 24 track, but my guess was that they did not.
As for FAME, I've seen videos with what looked like a Harrison console, and again, my guess was that they were also 16 track. At the time, on a 16 track one would at most dedicate 4 tracks to the drums (K, SN, OHL, OHR), bass on its own track, leaving 11 tracks for the rest of the parts of the song. If more tracks were needed, you could 'bounce' two or three tracks together premixing them to another single track so as to open up a few more tracks. At other times, as the song arrangement permitted, a single track could be used to record multiple parts in the song as long as one didn't overlap the other. In the mix each of these parts would be split out on the console, creating more for the engineer to concentrate on in the mix since there was no automation then... mixes were a performance and at times one would mix a song in sections, then edit those sections together on the master mix tape. Engineers were incredibly skilled then and the best of them had minds like the best doctors and attorneys.... photographic memories.
I hope this gives you a better picture of the industry at that time.
Oh... the console manufacturers back then were API, MCI, Harrison (it's founder was the designer of the original MCI 400 series console), Quad Eight, Sphere, Spectra Sonics, Langevin, and a few others. Quad Eight, Sphere, Langevin, and Spectra Sonics were all based on discrete op amp designs that were hand built from discrete transistors so they had a very open sonic signature that went well with all of those old tube mics (that had a minimum parts count in them, so very little to get in the way of the sound. Listen to an early Carpenter's record... the vocal is so intimate. That's the sound of a discrete console with a tube mic... NOTHING BETTER in my opinion.
@@jimrogers7425 Thank you very much for your explanation!!! :)
I've always said that by 1979 we had everything we needed to make an amazing record.
Great content young man!👏
Attested by the amount of intelegant comments. It blows me away that nowadays there are thousands of online tutorials on 'How to' and 'Why your mixes suck' tutorials instructing people on 'How its done to acheive a homoginised product which then by a majority of the masses gets listened to on an iphone.I feel for the generation of bedroom musicians whose only gig is online tutorials.
Live bands and venues are fading with the past. Yep give me the rawness of 70's with expression, creativity, listening to a complete album and experiencing an album for the first time with friends rather than isolated with an iphone and earbuds.
I like giving advice on how to think about production so you reach a conclusion yourself because there will never be a “this is how to do it” when it comes to your art. Only you can make that decision
What made the 70s sound? The whole band playing in the studio at the same time. They all had to play and work together to get a great take. Plus, there was no automated mixing. Everyone had to squeeze in behind the console and move the faders as the song got mixed in real time.
Perfection is the enemy of excellence. In this era of technical perfection, a lot of excellent, human performances are ignored. Autotune need not apply.
Certainly made an era of sound. With new technology music has changed a lot sonically. Some like it some don’t but we can all agree it’s different and i personally believe that’s really exciting! Cheers!
> "What made the 70s sound? The whole band playing in the studio at the same time. " Nothing evokes the 1970s sound like a Steely Dan record, and they certainly were not all playing at the same time! I'm not a fan of perfectionism or click tracks or auto-tune, but recording different parts separately goes back a long time, and was pretty common in that decade.
Autotune should be made a criminal offense.
@@georgelewis3047 "it must happen when the GOP wins the vote." - admin シンジョ
Almost everything you wrote is either wrong or applies to like a few early years only. In the 70's pitch was corrected, musicians played separately and lots of overdubs were done, console automation (fade and mute VCA automation) was used, separate takes were edited together, and perfection was always the goal. It's kinda impressive you got so much wrong. It sounds like you're mad someone used beat detective/elastic audio to fix your sloppy playing. Or hired a session musician to replace you (which was super common in the 70's).
Thank you Nico for talking little about gear and much about all the rest that matters... Great! I'm 55 and did a lot of studio work as a bass player. Fender Bass with flats 🙂
Gorgeous warm sound
I really appreciate that you can see the magic of an era of music, yet I really appreciate you highlighting the fact that one era being great is not come at the exclusion of others being great as well, i’m really someone who has found beauty in examples of every sub genre And every decade over the last 90 years. Great video and thank you.
Analog tape was always a compromise in that what you heard on the tape wasn’t exactly what was recorded in the frequency range. Top end was always a problem. When digital came along there was no limit to top and very little background noise. It was more accurate and realistic but analog has a punchy charm that’s hard not to like. I’m a fan of great music so I don’t really care whether it was analog or digital. People like to go back to analog from time to time thinking it was hip but there’s lots of poor analog recordings too.
Benifits to both exactly!
I love how everyone clean forgot that before the loudness war, you had the war on muddy sound.
Too much low mids? MUD! Too much track bouncing? MUD!
EQing a track played off the tape instead of EQing on the way to tape? MUD!
Too many pieces of equipment in the signal chain? MUD!
Dolby noise reduction? MUD! Radio Shack anything? MUD MUD MUD MUD!!
And by the way, most cassettes you bought in the store of your favorite bands were recorded at the plant with Dolby B noise reduction encoded, and every walkman, boom box and living room tape unit had that Dolby switch that literally NOBODY turned on because when they did, it sounded like mud. So the sound of cassettes as everyone knew it was that shushy squished top end. I knew singers who were so used to it that they would imitiate it with their voices when they sang, without even knowing it.
You're so lucky to have a dad that influenced you and no doubt given you some of his skills as a producer. I'm the first musician in my entire family. Thankfully, my parents were always BIG into music - collecting all kinds of vinyl and CDs in all kinds of genres since I was a kid. Being British as well, we had so many awesome new styles emerging in the 80s as well, like electronic, rock, dance, punk, metal etc.. it was awesome.
I'm mostly self taught in the past 20 years when it comes to production and mixing and I've always loved the history of studio equipment - so you've earned yourself a new subscriber, as this was a fantastic dive into the 70s sound!
Personally, from a 'sound' perspective, my favourite flavour of mixes is from the 80s. I believe that this is because it was where the solid state and great analogue equipment has been around long enough for people to learn and master it, multi-tracking was the best - allowing a lot of re-takes, new synths , drum machines and electronic stuff was improving the sound and influencing an increase in the bass in mixes, removing a lot of the imperfections and mis-timing..
The worst time in sound was probably the early 90s where digital came in, nobody understood how to get good mixes from it. We lost a lot of analogue warmth (it would take a decade or more before people started to crave the analogue saturation and go back to hybrid studios). Probably why there is so many remasters issued of great 90s albums.,
The 80s, yeah
The 70's was the YOUNG decade where almost everything was perfect . We have DE-EVOLUTE since then, it would be great to return to the 70's tastes in EVERY aspect of our lives (cars...music...fashion...hair.....records.....etc..)
I worked in a studio in the 70's and some of your assumptions are right. Even in 70's drums were stereo, we did some bouncing down, but more of what I would say went on was planning. Groups in general were more prepared when they came into the studio in part because studio time was expensive. Producers in general worked with a group pre-session to workout the music and arrangements before hitting the studio. That saved money for studio time, but the songs flowed better than being assembled from edits. Yes we edited tape, the big producer for a time back then Richard Perry was said he average 40 edits per song. Playing the tape from a Richard Perry track it looked like tiger stripes from all the editing tape flying by. I'm getting back into recording for fun now for fun and insane how different todays recording world is. The one thing that amazing me is all the outboard gear studios have now, racks and racks full of it. But I worked at a now famous studio in the 70's and we had one rack about five feet high and I don't think it was ever full. Reverb we had on live room and that is also where we stored our EMT plate. We did get lent for a month one of the first digital delay units. Mic's we did have some old some like Neumann tube U67. RCA 44 and 77 but most was typcial assortment of Shure's. EV's, but got a Shure SM7 when it first came out and some Beyer small ribbon mics. I think then you had a lot more producer/engineers so understood the whole project from all views. Also unlike today engineers did everything except master usually mastering was separate engineer because mastering for vinyl was taken more seriously then. Rooms in studio started to vary in the 70's from totally dead rooms, to started to have more hard surfaces to liven up the room a bit. I think the 70's a lot of stuff was better because of the limitations forced more thought to be put into making albums. Today's digital world and so much cheaper people don't put as much thought into the music and the recording process. It's all about speed, I see in come case that is a benefit, but in most aspects it a not. Totally different mindset from musicians to production then and now.
On the mindset thing, Nico - the bass instrument, be it a bass guitar or a synth wasn't approached as a thing to generate fat bottom end in the mix, but as an instrument supplying a melodic and rhythmic idea in a low octave. It was about notes and note placement, not the BOOM.
This idea is SOOO important !! Essentially, what is happening is a plethora of producers are trying ever so hard to make tunes that don't have notes. Prime examples are hip hop & techno. These producers are looking for ways to fill the space, but without even thinking about pitch/notes. They just slap a sample or choose an instrument/sound that sounds cool .... >> make that repeat / or / make it part of a 2 or 4 or 8 bar loop.
This is a really cool video! I don’t usually see much talk about production in the 1920s-50s so seeing that you were potentially interested at the end was cool to hear.
Random fun fact: in the early 1920s you couldn’t mix the music due to the recording method. So you had to position the members of the band in a specific way. Loud players at the back, quieter players at the front. And they’d all be playing as loud as they could into a giant horn.
music pre-50s is definitely something im very interested in! Subscribe and stay tuned!
@@nicorinehart will do! 💜
the thing I really love about the 70s sound is the way the drums sounded dampened, or flat, but yet sounded so warm and natural. Wings used it to great effect. So did 10cc.
A super summary with a good concept. „Smart it is !“ (Yoda)
Compact in a convenient way (so left- out...? Who cares, can‘t avoid that) plus, as an individual perspective, there is no reason to argue about slight judgements here and there.
Realy nice presentation. Enjoyed the effort you layed in.
At the end of the video you asked if you had missed anything to comment. So here I go.
In the 70’s they are making recordings for vinyl. This is a very limiting playback device. The industry standard eq floor was 50 hz. The industry standard eq ceiling was 15 kHz. But often times the floor is even higher because the more 50 hz levels you have the fewer songs will fit on the record. There were some compilation records of various artists’ hits that were filter cut to 100 hz just to fit more hits on the record and those records still sounded good on most peoples sound systems. So the recordings were very low mid heavy. Producer Greg Wells went to mix with the masters in France and looked at Chris Lord Alges’ mixes and said that he filter cuts most things below 60 hz and he tends to mix on Yamaha NS10’s. He’s doing this to create louder recordings. The more headroom a mixer places in their mixes the louder the recordings can be. Most modern mixers make 20 hz their floor. Most 70’s producers were partially mixing on Aurotones which are more mid frequency than NS10’s. So low mids are very dominant in these recordings. Also tape would tend to lose its top end as more of the silver oxide particles would fall of the tape. So much of the ceiling would be at between 10 kHz and 12 kHz. The less high end in a recording the more glued together it will be. Twenty first century music sounds harsher and more separate because producers are often times keeping 20 kHz in their recordings. Higher end will make things harsher but also aliasing occur above 15 khz so that modern digital artifact will add to that harshness and will tend to also not sound like the 70’s. Those producers were not working with digital so those digital artifacts did not exist in those recordings…but also don’t have to exist today if recording are filter cut high enough to eliminate those artifacts. Also the loudness wars is one of the largest differences between the sound of recordings today and the 70’s. Most recordings today have 6 db to 10 db of dynamic range. The 70’s had 14 db to 19 db of dynamic range. This will affect the depth and width of the recordings. The 70’s dynamic range will produce a deeper and wider sound than todays loudness wars recordings. Also because of the limitations of vinyl the low end between 150 hz to 250 hz and sometimes even higher (300 hz to 400 hz) would have to be placed in the center of the mix through elliptical eqing. On digital recordings the low end can be placed out of the center but does have a different stereo sound than the 70’s. If any of these practices are not applied to digital recordings they will not sound like those 70’s recordings.
This is exactly the kind of the technical stuff I love learning thank you so much for your comment. How could I forget to talk about what mediums the records were mixed for?! Crucial. Planning on making another video about 70s recordings. Do you mind if I use your comment as a talking point? I’ll credit ofc. Thank you!
@@nicorinehart I have no problems with you commenting on this. I am an indie singer songwriter who wants to make recordings that sound like vinyl records in the digital medium so I’ve thought about these things a lot and enjoyed hearing your take on it in your video.
@@nicorinehart I’m sorry I have 1 more thing to add since you are thinking about making another video on the 70’s. The mastering of records did not use brick wall limiters because that instantaneous high level of compression could destroy the expensive cutting lathes. The Master tape was the limiter. It can be emulated in the digital world by using a compressor set with a fast attack and slow release which would lengthen the stereo tracks sounds which audio engineers often define as fatness. That fatness lengthening would occur in the tracking and mix buss transfer stages to tape as well. The ratio settings I’ve heard are around 1.8 : 1. Tape will sound different than a compressor. But you will have more control with a compressor and I believe that the tape emulations are not that good at getting that tape lengthening sound. Plus you have to decide how much of the lengthening you want for each track. Producers would decide how hard they wanted to push sounds into the tape so the lengthening process would vary from choice to choice. There was also tape saturation as well but the modern day plugin saturators sound harsher to me than analog tape saturation. Maybe it’s from the aliasing that can be filter cut off but often times isn’t cut off in the modern era. It could be that the modern day saturation is either applied too loud or should be reduced to only up to a frequency point like 5th order harmonics on a multi-band saturator. I have yet to figure out saturation. I like the theory of it but it always sounds worse to me when looking at online videos. It always sounds to me like fingernails on a chalkboard. I always question if couldn’t I just get a better sound with well thought out eq. I keep looking for someone to show me saturation without that fingernail chalkboard sound thing but have not yet found the video. Also tape imparts a tape bump of about 1.8 db to 2 db with a Q width of between 30 hz or less around each sides of that bump somewhere between 60 hz to 80 hz. That bump varies on the tape machine. So there is no exact answer to that low end bump value. I think in modern recordings the bump in various stages could be ignored or added. It was definitely an artifact that the 70’s engineers had to react to and therefore affected their final product. Kind of a fighting against the artifact process for a finished song. That fighting against process could certainly affect the master. But I’m sure it affected all of the production process. There’s one more thing that is probably just some flakey thing I am imagining in my head but I thought I had heard that it was designed in the tape machines and had seen it in the eq curves of the tape machines that there was a 3 shelf non adjustable eq settings where the low self is about .4 db to 1 db louder than the mid shelf and the mid shelf was about .4 db to 1 db louder than the high shelf. These shelf points looked like they were around 500 hz and 5 khz but could vary slightly from tape machine. If I’m right about this being in the machines. They were designed into the tape machines to create warmth and bigness. If this is true most engineers would not have fought that artifact and it would just have been part of the sound of that time. One final thought in how I think about production. I like to think about what makes each instrument track magical. Do I add chorus or flagging or phasing to keyboards. Do I place a guitar sound on 1 side and the delay of that sound on the other. Do I create a fast attack and slow release compressor for fatter background vocals or a fast attack and fast release compressor for bigger vocals in order to get that Beatles or Queen background vocals magic. All the way through all of the tracks. Mixing is certainly setting levels but it can also be thought of as a magic show with production magic tricks that make the listening to recordings an event. If you can see yourself as a production magician when mixing and collecting mixing tricks it can make you sound very different from the producers of this time. It’s sort of a production philosophy. Any production philosophy will lead you in a direction. I also think about my quality standards for a mix. What do I want in my mixes. My list I aim for: body…reduce harshness…width…movement…tracks blending together…vinyl floor…vinyl ceiling…elliptical eq…make mids speak w/o harshness…make mix translate to small speakers…use a frequency analyzer at end to see if I can fill in holes in the eq spectrum without it hurting the recording ( sometimes this will hurt the song and should not be done)…if appropriate add 2 to 3 db around 5 kHz to the master to make more present. Sort of a checklist of what quality standards you are aiming for in your mixes. It will vary from song to song. But it’s a way to maintain a standard of production work. So I will look for production tricks that can create those mixing checklist goals in order to have them in my mix when appropriate. So your building magic tricks for the tracks and magic tricks for the overall recording. That’s how I think about things as I study mixing online.
Thank you for all this info!
Yet however, in the late 70s, digital sound was on the rise. The 80s had digital recordings, can't elaborate on that since VWestlife made a video about that.
Nothing sounds like a mighty STUDER A820 "Gold" 24-track tape machine proudly made in Regensdorf / Switzerland. Even todays 129 KHz / 24bit digital recordings can hardly beat this amazing analog technic. Please note: "Nothing sounds like tape". Professional recording enginers always taped the drums with up to 6 cahnnels back then. they really knew what they have to do.
I use a Studer A80 24 track with SSL 4000 G console
@@DanyLeeRoth Great, you know exactly what's going on.
Also, it went from being a full band all together in a live sounding room, to everyone sectioned off with gobos (or booths) in DEAD sounding rooms. Shag pile carpet on the floor, and maybe the walls too, haha, as well as lots of other acoustic treatment. And the advent of the Kepex noise gate meant that all the bleed could be removed from each of the drum close mics, removing even more room ambiance. Drummers started tuning their drums lower, and dampening them. Kepex gates have their own sound. I love them. Some people hate them, haha, as they definitely give their own attack to the sound. Then there was Dolby noise reduction, meaning that you didn't have to push the level hard onto tape to keep the tape noise low enough to deal with, so sounds were cleaner. With Dolby, the tape noise was effectively removed, and you could add top end to make things sound sparkly and crisp, without making the tape hiss too noticeable. So, dead, low tuned, dampened and gated drums (often with the bottom heads removed from the toms), Dolby, more isolation in the deadened rooms, through transistor consoles, onto 24 track 2" tape. And also all the stuff that you said. :)
Nailed it. It was what was going on in the world and what musicians wanted to say about it. And it was the fact that you couldn’t fake it. You had to be playing your instrument 8+ hours a day, and playing with other people at least a few times a week, or you would never make it to the studio. That started to change with the 4-track cassette recorder.
A few of other things that were key to the '70s sound. While compressors were used, the overall sound was not super compressed as music is today. As a result, recording volumes were lower in the '70s. Also, the kick drum wasn't the only drum. In modern music, the bass from the kick drum is elevated and in your face. In the '70s, the level of bass was lower and supported the melody and singer. When there was a drum solo, the other drums weren't drowned out but the kick drum thump. As you said, it was about everybody in the moment supporting each other to be a band.
Beyond that, the chord choices in the '70s were unique to the decade. The music was heavier because of those chord and key choices. In the '80s, the music lightened up. Even the metal was brighter than say AC/DC in the '70s. There was a lot of stuff going on in the world in the '70s and it impacted the music. In the '80s everyone wanted things to be happy, bright, and light and it showed in the music.
It really is cool that how the music sounded really reflected the culture at the time. Also, I agree music today is very squashed. The mastering engineers are squashing the mix for more "Loudness" and it can really hurt the transients and overall dynamics. Again these are over generalizations for both the 70s and the state of music today but also both very apt observations. Thank you for your input! I plan to dive deeper into more specifics at a later point. Cheers!
There's a point in the late 70s when certain artists were no longer content with the dead cardboard box drum sound and began to push it. I'm thinking the Eventide harmoniser on the drums for Bowie's 'Low' ("It fucks with the fabric of time" said Tony Visconti). Or Martin Hannett giving each drum its own impossible digital space with Joy Division in 1978. Poor old Steve Morris had to record each drum separately, pre-empting the 80s separated, bleed-free drum machine sound.
You forgot to add that cocaine had a big effect on how music sounded in the 70s.
Haha on my paper I was taking notes on I had DRUGS underlined. My expertise is on audio however, not drugs.
Cocaine has been a key component in all art for over a hundred years. Don’t put too fine a point on it.
The 80's had more coke in the sound I reckon.
True that!!! 80s =
cocaine, 70s = every other drug
@@psychesonic1 definitely a build up.
I am 63 now and started recording on tape back in the days. I agree that live band recording in the studio (regularly without click grid) has contributed a lot to the musical quality and sound that evolved in that era. Track number limitations to 24, 16 or even 8 required early commitments from the engineers with direct mixdowns of instruments or instrument groups. Yes, and a lot of nice gear was developed back then. But do I still want to record like that today? No way - at least from a technical perspective. Calibrating tape machines and Dolby units always was a pain in the butt, same with editing processes and mute automation (or even manual muting with up to four or five people at the console) to avoid noise buildup in the mixdown. If you want tape saturation today, just use a plugin. In terms of live band recording it is quite funny that similar limitations still apply today. But it is not the tracks in the DAW, you will need enough analog inputs and converters. Even many professional producers and studios do not offer more than 16 parallel channels, which in many cases is not enough for a basic live band recording. In most home recording situations the situation is even worse with eight or less inputs. Most of these guys are neither used to early commitments nor to live recording any more. Thus they will go track by track or instrument by instrument instead which usually will reduce the liveliness of the recording.
I highly enjoyed your video. Your interest in production values and interning at a studio are admirable.
I appreciate that!
The 70s was the pinnacle of music, no matter what genre of music it was.
The early 80s still had that 70s sound as it transitioned into more electronic and synthesized sound.
1970-1985 RIP.
Certainly my personal favorite
1968-1985 RIP.
24-Track machines also introduced the need for noise reduction. The Dolby A system also made a big impact on the 70's sound, making it drier and punchier, with extended dynamic range and no hiss. I bought a Dolby-rack for my machine, and it worked miracles. I had to pay for it though.
Ooh this is interesting! Is the Dolby A system a reel to reel tape machine? What is a Dolby-rack? I'm trying to learn more about 70s recording tech.
Dolby A is a Compander System. It compresses the signal on its way in (to the tape machine) and decompresses on its way out. Followed up by Dolby SR. There‘s also telcom c4 which is on par with SR but has the advantage of easier setup and was used in European broadcast. Check also the „Dolby A trick“, compressing only the upper frequency bands but not decompressing them. Very nice video!
Dolby A was not commonly used for rock in the 70s. It is a encode/decode noise reduction system. Encoded to tape and decoded on playback. For effect, some engineers would record a vocal ( for instance) with Dolby and playback with the decode bypassed or” unstretched” giving a multiband compressor with HF frequency boost for effect. I think that this is what this comment is saying. Dolby should have no effect - besides noise reduction when used as intended.
@@Soso-km8er my father talked about this! He has a modified unit to do the same thing but without the need of a tape machine. Thank you!
@@Soso-km8er The vocal stressor mod. I have the instruction schems, but haven't tried it yet.
Analog is the elephant in the room here. No apple computers, no samplers, no drum machines (except in a couple of weird situations). No digitizing of real sound output, or using plugins to imitate actual electronic devices handling sound waves. I know this, I've lived through this change, full stop.
At the end of the day, it really comes down to musicians that sounded great and were recorded well
It’s natural to look at all the other factors, but in the end, it really comes down to this simple reality
I don’t think music of the 70s was better than contemporary music, but when I really listen to those old recordings I can’t deny that it’s very evident that we’ve lost some things that I wish we could get back to.
Certainly there are many differences from then to now. There are things I prefer about the 70s and things I prefer about now. It’s just different and I like that we have iconic eras.
As someone who was bitten by the music bug over 30 years ago, I can remember the older people telling me the music I liked, listened to and created was crap, only for it to be celebrated today in its own right, so I hope that encourages you to take much of the criticism from my generation of your favorite music of today with a grain of salt, as I have realized the elders' inherent disdain for modern pop music is part and parcel to the progression of pop music. I say that to also express my appreciation for someone so young still being able to enlighten me on things I didn't know! Thanks, bro!
comments like this keep me going
Bless you, young man, for studying all this. I'm a musician, b.1963, who was "there" in the 70's. Musical production-wise, it seems that the goal of 70's Pop (including R&B, Disco, Rock and Country) was warmth and *INTIMACY*. It was a feeling of, "I know you, you know me, so let's kick back and have some fun with this music. Life can be SO pleasurable and amusing."
Today, in 2024, the message so often appears to be: "I don't know you, You don't know me, so fuck you. Life's a bitch, and I'm unhappy, and I'm gonna throw a meanspirited vibe at you, designed to make you unhappy, too. Specifically, I'm gonna show you how I have more money than you, and am getting more sex than you, 'cause I'm just hot and gangsta and badass that way. Sucks to be you."
I love how they were worried about synths taking over classic rock even during the 70's: "All this machinery making modern music can still be openhearted"
Our garage band in the 70s was the main creative focus of my life. We only had music, television, radio, a single house phone, and books then. Lots more time to jam, and listen to long album sides on repeat. Our recording gear was primitive and we squeezed everything on to 2 tracks in one take. Later in the 80s we got to use reel to reel 8 track recorders and 4 track cassette decks. We were under pressure to get everything right in one take with a few overdubs. It's amazing how that pressure can make some great performances. Nice to see that a young fella like you is keen on that 70s sound. I liked the 90s sound too.
Did you own a ports studio or whatever the 70s equivalent was called?
i didn’t even notice how small your channel is, the quality is great dude you deserve way more attention
You don’t understand how much I appreciate messages like this. I love what I do, and I love makingcontent. It’s my dream to be able to sustain myself financially by doing what I love. Please tell me what kind of content you would like to see again thank you so much for your kind message. I hope to see you again!
Nice video. One thing to add from a recording aspect: if punching and splicing is possible, but only practical in moderation, you tend to graviate towards less complex, but arguably more impactful lines/parts to play because you are expected to deliver on the spot in a lot of sitations. That in combination with more multitracking options changes the way to approach arranging and recording. Earth Wind and Fire is a prime example of that. Lots of parts, but not many super hard to play, but extremely impactful.
Recording 20 or more tracks of a performance and then splicing it together just wasnt an option. As a result, vocal tracks or solos were more designed as having an arc and less as coming up with as many different ideas as possible to give a lot of chices. Imo the music greatly benefitted from that.
Great point
Excellent! I don’t know how you summed it up so well. When you mentioned working together as a band and focusing and committing those tracks, you hit the nail on the head. It was the genius of collaboration and artists being able to envision ideas with a lot less useless noise than exists around us today.
It’s rarely so much the gear as the mindset and culture. Thats what makes music the gear is just the medium. Glad you enjoyed!
As someone who grew up in the 70s…I love this!!!! Great job Nico…you are genius!!❤
What decade would you be most excited to see next?
Good overview. And i agree. The nagic that happens when people pkay and record together in realtime is palpable. And noticeable. Its the jam, man!
It was a dry, in-your-face, thunderous sound ...
Wonderful!
Great vid from a professional musician and fellow 70s music lover.
One thing I’d emphasize is that the styles of the 70s went far beyond later Motown and Pfunk and fender Rhodes. This is also the era where minimoogs and ARP2600 synths started coming into widespread appeal and Prog music was born (listen to Yes’ Close to the Edge’ or any of the classic early Genesis records fo ref). It was also the era of thd Ramones, Sex Pistols, Clash etc who hated the aforementioned and purposely made the most minimalistic aggressive music as possible.
And disco and Kraftwerk and the birth of 4-to-the-floor electronic music, eventually becoming EDM and much of today’s pop. Etc etc
The 70s in short was a time of wildly restless musical creativity whose shadows we still live within today
Great points!
Cool stuff. I love watching documentaries about how bands recorded back in the day. They're always a lot of fun.
People like to complain about music today, but they just aren't looking hard enough. Every era has crap. The 60s was full of one hit wonder throw away songs that were essentially created by marketing teams and performed by people with minimal talent, which is the same complaint people make today. Do we think the 60s sucked for music? Hell no.
I'm more than twice your age and like to think I have decent taste in music. I'm a musician. I routinely listen to stuff from today back to the 50s. I think a lot of people get stuck thinking a certain period had the "best" music, but when you look closely you'll notice that period usually holds nostalgic value for them, like teenage years and early 20s. It's easy to get stuck in that mindset but people miss so much when they do that. Stop complaining that there's nothing out there and start looking, people. Or better yet, make something yourself, it's fun!
Couldn't say it better myself. working on a video right now about this modern day criticism
Pink Floyds time and comfortably numb had that really smooth dry bass kick, i love it so much.
Apart from dry closed mic drum sound, I think two related aspects defined the 70s: tracking & instrumentation. And they both related too scale / complexity. One was that 24-tracks felt like a huge amount of space to stretch out. And that was part of what led to the psychedelic sound because they could experiment with recording techniques. Layering became important than in the late 60s, and records generally got denser and more intricate, with instrumentation. So you started get ever more artistic, following on in the footsteps of The Beatles. Records that come to mind for artistic recording are David Bowie's Hereos & Low. The other factor that shaped the 70s sound was the range of instruments they had increased beyond the older guitars/drums, Musicman Stingrays for funk & disco, Fender Rhodes, Moogs, Arps/Solinas. Records I think of like that are Stevie Wonders Innervisions or James Mason's Rhythm of Life. But, what they didn't have easy cheap access to was ... affordable samplers (Fairchild CMI was 1979 and initially pretty unobtanium), more modern sounding analogu or digital drum machines (Linn LM-1 & TR-808 were both 1980 which is significant). Digital reverb (especially stereo) though the EMT 250s did start to appear late 70s, modern clean digital delays and digital multitracks and digital editing. Bass rigs really caught up with guitar stacks in the 70s too, with things like the Ampeg SVT. And the bass generally became a more prominent important instrument, where in the 60s it was more relegated to background support (though again, The Beatles were ahead of that curve). Large live music concerts changed the sound too, with the advent of huge general purpose P.A. systems and ... stadium rock. Again, a change in scale ... and also increasingly sharpened commercialism.
Balance and clarity in the mix! I grew up in the 70s and the music of that period has lasting impact on how i set up audiophile rigs and live sound. Bass and drums as clear support instruments rather than the overpowering thumpty thump engineers mix these days, regardless of genre. That and the musicianship and song writing was unreal from disco to jazz to progressive.
I love the '70s sound - you can hear every instrument in its own space, and there are many dry drums, too.
The clarity of the 70s is truly remarkable
love this! Thanks for making it. You got a new subscriber!
Thanks for the sub!
So much came down to the engineers and assistants who knew the gear and rooms so well (and often were repairing it)!
Very true! Repairing and calibrating equipment was my dads job in the powerstation.
An incredibly interesting piece. Thank you for sharing your insights :)
Glad you enjoyed it!
yooo im a 2006 guy too! majoring in music tech rn :) i hope to get into studio stuff as well. one of my hobbies is making music and i try to get that "vintage" sound with saturation and stuff, though i def got a ways to go. thanks for all the info bro 👍 super interesting
From my experience, I have to say that the Hammond B3 has to be added into the instruments that helped shape the sound of the 70s.
This was a well done video. Great job!
How could I forget! Good point
what you said is almost all true and, for me, you have found the solution to your questions. in the 70s you felt the soul of the musicians in the music you listened to. and the music that gave you vibrations was much less commercial in relation to the products of the time. now, according to my humble interpretation, the music seems almost entirely commercial. nice video anyway.👍🏻
Highly produced and polished tracks are all over the top charts today. I can definitely see how this can be very unappealing. However there are a lot of modern musicians making music that is incredibly high quality with heart and soul. You should listen to Lizzy McAlpine, Stephen Sanchez, or Noah kahan. Great stuff
@@nicorinehart when I'm feeling down I listen to 'selling england by the pound' or 'overnite sensation'. but I also appreciate macklemore and red hot chili peppers and the Muse and Bruno Mars etc etc. I also listen to all modern music on the radio but I feel very few vibrations, imho. I listened to the three songwriters you recommended and they sing well and I like them. if you like that kind of genre you could try listening to Nick Drake, and I think you might like it.
I’ll check it out thanks!
i start to record at the middle of the 80s - gear was expensive, rare and the first midi stuff comes up - it was very noisy, and delays or reverbs was not easy to realize in good quality until the SPX90 Yamaha FX could get ( for the amount of money a used car costs ).... Today with the DAW all the limitations were gone ! Seems, many people does not know, what they got there....
When I was taking audio courses in the early '00s, the instructor talked about how engineers needed to be mindful of the limits of consumer playback methods. He said that he could have recorded and mixed drums that sounded modern to us (we were mostly in rock and metal bands) but they would cause a needle to pop out of a record groove.
Fun video, great topic! Our first (and only) album was recorded at EMI Studios, Wellington NZ in 1977. Neve, Studer 2 inch 24 Tk. and honestly can't remember what 1/4 inch - pretty standard quality rig. Moved to HK in 82 and for several years we worked at a studio with Neve 'Flying Faders' desk, Studer 2 inch and a couple of Studer 1/4 inch machines (which actually allowed us to do the ADT hands on 'wobble' thing. Something about the economy of 24 tracks played a major part in avoiding the excess, 'too many choices overload' that you sometimes see these days . . . we started early '70s with 8 track, then 16 so 24 was something of a luxury. I miss those days - Steinway with Neumanns thru a 12 foot long plate reverb . . . yeah 😅
I’ve been listening to Rock on by David Essex this week. A favorite from the 70s. But listening to it from the perspective of recording techniques and mixing. Just basically dissecting it. I loved it as a kid and still do. But now from this perspective I realize what a recording gem it is.
Not to say money is the only reason why music was better produced in the 70's, but money has a lot to do with it. People had to buy their music back then. Now, everyone listens to music for free. There is no budget for albums anymore. So, everyone just makes hokey songs with software.
I think the paradigm shift is going to be "direct to consumer" ... As a not perfect or even ideal example: Imagine that artists make their own website. Sell & stream *their music on that website. This would push people to find music >> and >> I REALLY REALLY think what is lost is listeners seeking artists. The whole myspace thing was heading in the right direction... You could make a custom looking page & allow people to listen from there. ALL that idea needed was $$$ exchange. Bandcamp is kinda there. I feel like its the best we have rt now. Ultimately tho, we need to have our own terms of sale / terms of use ...
Some very good insights here - but what I didn't hear is the difference in HOW people were LISTENING to music back in the 70s. I was in college in '76 - and even before then - we were mostly listening to music on pretty good quality stereo systems that could really highlight the best recording techniques of the period. Even car stereos of the time were undergoing a quality revolution. Recordings of the time took advantage of this - and some of the best things I've ever heard were produced back then, including direct-to-disc recordings by Telarc. We'd listen to awesome music by Steeley Dan, Genesis, Weather Report, Yes, and Pink Floyd - admiring the quality of the recordings and the effort producers put into getting the very best sound. No Walk Mans, no MP3s or ear buds. The listening experience is very different today and I think the sound engineering reflects that.
I’ve always thought that the biggest jumps in recording differences is when the medium in which it is consumed changes great points! I’m definitely detailing that in my 1950s video I’m working on right now.
My man, you are wise beyond your years. Keep that spirit. Put it in your art. It will carry you.
Best words I can hear. Really love researching recording history and making videos like these. Many more to come!
I'm so happy to be born in 1962... That golden period between 1973 and 1979 shaped my future and, even today, adds more rainbows than I could describe here. For just one astonishing recording... listen to More Than A Woman by the Bee Gees. The weight of the bass is SO perfect, I think today's producers and mixers (me included!) should eat it every day for breakfast (in America) - Love from the UK - Richard x
nice video , i was an engineer in the 80s 90s, the bands had practised and gigged for ages , and big studios had nice sounding rooms , so the house engineer would know where to place the instruments, also older drum kits had hide skins and big clangy cymbals adding to the warm tone ,thanks
also songs had to be radio friendly ,most people had mw radios so squash em to avoid peaks, then people associated that squashed sound as the real sound?
I was born in the 60s so grew up with 70s sounds, now even though I use protools i still record like them days ...minimalist tracks and get the sound right at the microphone....
2006? I envy your early enthusiasm. Great video! Subscribed.
Couldn't agree more with this video, and I've only just started watching it!
Music nowadays, regardless of the style, all has the same "ProTools" style sound to it. Even when its ProTools through a half million $$ desk, it still sounds like ProTools! And all the drums have that overcompressed sound to them as well.
This is the reason why an album like Daft Punk's Random Access Memories was so acclaimed and well-regarded. The actual _sound_ of the recording is absolutely incredible. Daft Punk rewound the clock back to the days of Steely Dan and their pursuit of music recordings that not only did you like the music on, that you actually wanted to LISTED to and be immersed in.
Sadly, I suspect those days are well gone now, never to return.
When I hear 60s music, it's often recorded in mono, plus there is a lot of tape hiss. Not sure if that's the correct term, but there is a noticeable hiss in the background. All those problems were corrected in the 70s.🎙
The jump from 60s to 70s was an explosion of fidelity for sure
Those problems where still very much there. In fact, when my dad first started working was when the first 24 tracks consoles were custom-ordered in Europe, and when the first Neumann appeared as well.
They still only had Urei limiting amplifiers, Pultech EQs, and spring reverb.
And that was ALL they had outside of the board itself.
And the EQs would by default introduce phase distortion.
So the techniques mentioned above were developed mostly to reduce tape hiss. By being so meticulous, recording in such dead room, etc, you don't have to EQ your master as much and pretty much only use a bus compressor so the phase is perfect. Linear phase EQ was not really a thing back then, and only digital EQ produced little to no phase distortion. Basically multiple bands would make the sound source slower or faster on one side or the other at their crossovers (this is why graphic EQs are never used in studios btw).
In the 60's, the same tape was used but limited to 4 tracks, and people didn't really mind the hiss. As the home stereos progressed, the average consumer started noticing, and as the loudness level started going up, radios would use an inordinate amount of compression, resulting in even more need to reduce the hiss!
This reminds me of a mission I need to do >> to take my session & make it stems, then output those stems to a console/mixer in a way that I can have my hands on all the levels. The goal is to be able to record dynamics/levels that move with the song. I think a big thing with tracks nowadays is that we rely on the DAW so much that the levels are basically flat. There might be a change for each major section of the song(hook/verse/Brdge/intro/outro), but I bet not too many mixers gradually change levels as the song goes along. This is the blessing & curse of automation via mouse. "in the box" . I think also the loudness war thing has us SO reliant/dependent on maxing that we essentially ride the compressor & have to stay near the threshold, to ride that knee. that limits the freedom of working the whole fader. hence flat dynamics.
Great video Nico! 😁
I'm 63.....what makes the 70's music is 1) you lived through it, and 2) it's a feeling and sound that's in you. When I went back to school, my final project was to compose a track. I composed a 70's Funk track, but I didn't give any hints, or details to my instructor. He listened and instantly loved it and said it was a Funky 70's vibe. I got the desired effect because I improved my inter-planetary Funksmanship. Mission accomplished.
The Clavinet ! It had a short life span (71-79) and a very specific sound. With a wah pedal, it sounded like guitar. Bernie Worrell used a phase 100 and Wah on Frantic Moment.
Great job! I love the '70s. I built a home studio for bass tracking purposes and came to many of the same conclusions. As for bass, I use a Neve running into a Pultec, then Mercury 66 (Fairchild). To my ears, this captures the '70s vibe. I also run another setup, Lachappell preamp into a Pultec into a Retro Sta-Level. Everything I use is analog up to the tracking device, which is my DAW.
dream setup! hope I will one day have the means to get analog gear like that
@@nicorinehart thank you!
its the sound of a band going through a nice console onto tape
Back then they didn't know what they were missing so they couldn't miss all the amazing stuff we have thanks to digital.
Some VST plugins can mimic there hardware counterparts very well, I think the sound of the 70's had some great moments and highlights but that was then so why bother chasing something that had it's moment,
So true though there are no real rules in sound and music design if a 70's vibe is what you need it's easy to get close cost effectively with plugins these days,
can just imagine how much a DAW and all the plugins would equate to actual hardware 🤩
Something which I don't think has been mentioned is that on tape, tracks are always mono. On a DAW you can record a stereo signal and call that a single track, but on tape you need to use two tracks to record a stereo signal - the mixing desk determines how the tracks are panned, not the deck. Hence, if you were going to submix the drums on a 16 or 24 track system because you've run out of space, you'd bounce it to a stereo pair. If working on 8-track you might bounce to a pair of tracks on another 8-track machine to avoid losing the original version entirely.
There's also a trick you can do where the drums are recorded in mono, but you give them a kind of "fake stereo" effect during the mix using a stereo reverb (usually a plate, as mentioned).
Damn! That intro quality sounds nice! 😮
I sure would like more details about the use of the old Hammond Organ with the actual tone wheel generator and ported Leslie Speaker with the motor driven horn and 15 inch transducer aimed down in to a spinning cylinder drum
The acoustics of it always intrigued me. My dad has a Leslie and i remember just watching it not even playing anything. The warm rich tones you get from that cabinet are unmatched
Nice angle. Something to think about even in the digital age.
Another old guy here (72) In the 70s, yes, instruments, audio recording equipment, tape, and music style - but perhaps the biggest influence on the sound was the playback equipment. In 1970 the highest fidelity playback for consumers was a vinyl record. To create a record took another engineer to compress and sculpt the eq for optimal playback on a turntable. Too low of a tone and the stylus would bounce off the grooves, too high and the thin grooves would start to wear and cause hiss. If you were listening to a song on the radio, that’s another set of compression and tonal restrictions. Audio engineers had to be masters at creating a finished product that could maximize their limitations to produce a great sounding song.
The playback medium is such a big factor. Think of the eras where the most popular medium changed. Those are the biggest sonic changes. Vinyl, cassette, CD, Streaming.
You have just explained why I collect mostly 70’s records while I’m born in 76.Santana,Pink Floyd, Alan Parson, and of course some Emerson Lake and Palmer.My best sounding record is Pictures at an exhibition,sounds so real 😊.same for some LED ZEP live I have … Jean-Michel Jarre the same.
Nico, keep up the good work. I'll sub, because it was time well spent, eventhough ... it was kinda obvious 😇
Hahah thank you but I’m wondering what you mean?
@@nicorinehart Well, ofcourse I speak for myself, but the sound of an era depends heavily on the mindset of that era and what came before. Same thing in the current time.
You see many crossovers/mixed genres because of "our musical history", but to find and put your identity in the music you make, is what people are less inclined (don't dare) to do. Scared of not being liked by the public. Standing out of the crowd isn't easy, it takes courage, but it's hard to continue when no one listens ...
Am I being to cryptic? ;-)
"I am my public, therefor I make hits every time" ~ me
😎
This was awesome! Thanks for reminding us that less is definitely more!
More to come!
Musicians playing in the same room, talking and exchanging emotions.
The number 1 thing people are forgetting, all music was performed "live to tape " u had to know your song and be able to play it from start to finish live! Not cut and paste ...i bet most people cant record this way...u get depth and real human sound when doing this! You cannot replicate !
I really enjoyed this. There is a magic of the 70s sound for sure growing up during that time period. I've heard excellent recordings from now as well. I think the overall sound from both eras are a little bit different for the most part. Tape is definitely naturally punchier in my opinion. You can do it digitally as well. The one thing that I find to be really interesting is I have an old Tascam MSR 16, 16 track machine from the late '80s that gives a really nice tape sound. When I go directly into my DAW from the board vs going into the tape machine into the DAW, the sound is a little different, but still really good. However, if I record it to tape and then pull it into the computer, the computer will capture the sound of the tape. I just find that really fascinating that they don't sound about the same.
I learned to limit myself in the number of tracks used per song for my music these days.
10 to 12 mics on drums, 1 acoustic, 2 main electric guitar parts, 1 guitar for ear candy (maybe).
1 to 2 tracks for bass. 1 main vocal, and 1 for doubles(maybe). 3 tracks for back vocals. 1-2 for other instruments (piano or other).
Focus more on performance and try to not comp tracks even though sometimes it necessary.
Being prepared and well practiced makes it go smoothly
So 26 tracks or so is what I try to stay at
I lived through this and I think the biggest thing that shaped the sound of the 70s was that it followed the 60s and preceded the 80s. The 60s saw creativity enter recording: engineering was no longer just about capturing a performance - it became part of the creative process. The 60s laid the groundwork for experimentation, but in the 70s it was still new enough that artists could stand out without having to get into the "much more is only a little bit more" mindset of the 80s onward - you could be a world class guitar hero by playing a blues scale a bit quickly! Records were selling, you could have a successful single and buy a house off the earnings. A big one. Budgets bought talent to the studios - if you needed a horn section you'd fly one in; need a guitarist, get Page. Biggest of all, there were record companies like Atlantic that genuinely supported music as art, not just as a commodity . Take all this and a simple limitation enforced approach to recording and you get the 70s. Oh - and if you add-in 50 years between then and now you have enough time for all the dross to be forgotten about.
Great insight on the culture. The mindset and culture is half the battle to a recording. The mindset shaped those records. You can use vintage gear but you cant recreate the vibe in the room when Fleetwood Mac was recording.
The absolute Quintessential 70s live sound on this album: 'Frampton Comes Alive'
Checking it out as we speak!
Don’t forget wurly and clavinova in the keys department. Appreciate the video!
Yes going way back to early recoding would be very interesting .
Bro, if you had put the images of all the things you are saying, would be awesome! But overall, great content
Really didn’t expect many people to see this lol. I uploaded at 45 subs. Next time I definitely will!
Talent will always be on top of every midi and daw or ai....how to put emotion on the material
The quality of music mixing and mastering is so much better nowadays than the seventies
Fidelity, accuracy, and precision certainly have improved.
Love this video, wishing you success brother
Great video so let me help you along a bit on your journey!
The 70s were defined by 3 main things,
1st, you couldn't be a bad player (you had to be well rehearsed and prepared) no amount of editing could really save a recording.
2nd the lack of equipment compared to studios in the 80s is stark so you had to know when to use something and when to not use something. A less is more approach.
3rd DRY Rooms were how they achieved those tight sounds. This is why a decade later music did a 180 degree turn to avoid sounding like the 80s and then in the 90s they went back to a more dry sound.
I started in the mid 1990s as a teenager and some of the studios that were built in the late 60s early 70s in Nashville had CARPET on the floor. Tea towels on the drums to stop the ringing and isolation booths. It was a new way of working compared to the 1960s. This is why a ton of music recorded at home today fails to meet the goals of a modern LARGE roomy recording. They want a big sound yet they are recording in carpeted houses. It an aesthetics thing. Work within the paradigm you have. If your room sounds small and dry work to make it more transient heavy and use panning to achieve width and depth. If the room is full and bloomy like a gymnasium then use that to your advantage. But its nearly impossible to make them interchangeable. You can't make a little room big and you can't make a gymnasium sound like a bathroom without major detrimental sacrifices to the audio. Learn the strengths of the room and make the space work for the recording.
Lots of great points thank you! Sessions musicians whose entire jobs were to play the instrument they mastered on a track to support the track is definitely a big factor. You hear about the great session players of the day but I don’t hear much of them now.
@@nicorinehart So true budgets are so small today that producers like myself will end up working with a client and playing almost every instrument, another good example of this is youtuber Warren Huart. So you have to be more agile today just to make money. I remember the good days of the 90s when money was easy to make in a studio and there was room to hire a session drummer, but now days I do most of the session work myself. You basically need to be a one man band to help artists out to get the work. Its changed so drastically since I began but I still love the job. Just spend as much time working on your instrumentation skills as your recording an mixing skills and that will lead to actual work that can pay your bills! Great job!! Keep up the channel you are good at it, but make the bed next time or get it out of the shot Cheers!!
@joesalyers haha ur not the first to mention the bed
@@nicorinehart 😆 It happens to us all when we need to be creative we forget about everything else! I've done it too in my videos!!