Early Classic Rock: Why So Many Bad Recordings?

[watchnerd]

Confession: I'm a fan of the music of classic rock, but so many of the recordings of the era make me cringe.

And the worst is that it's not obvious why.

When I think of early Rolling Stones, Cream, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, The Who, much of it has mediocre to poor recording quality.

Which is in stark contrast to the "golden age" of analog recordings in classical and jazz, where Living Stereo, Mercury Living Presence, Decca, Deutsche Grammophon, Blue Note, Prestige, Columbia, etc were making recordings of not only artistic merit, but also are still considering to be excellent examples of recording engineering.

And it's also in stark contrast to the prog rock / art rock that would come shortly thereafter -- Pink Floyd, Alan Parsons Project, etc.

So what was going on / wrong with early classic rock?

 

[RayDunzl]

Probably partly due to the limitations of recording equipment, in terms of attempting "multitrack" recordings before real multitrack equipment existed.

Basically, record something, play it back and play new material with it and record that onto a new track, and repeat, until you have the parts to mix into the final version.

"Sgt. Pepper was recorded using four-track equipment. Although eight-track tape recorders were available in the US, the first units were not operational in commercial studios in London until late 1967.[68][nb 10] As with previous Beatles albums, the Sgt. Pepper recordings made extensive use of the technique known as reduction mixing, in which one to four tracks from one recorder are mixed and dubbed down onto a master four-track machine, enabling the Abbey Road engineers to give the group a virtual multitrack studio."

The Beatles weren't short of funds, talent, nor expertise, as I recall.

Others may not have been so fortunate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_multitrack_recording

 

[Wombat]

The jazz and classical buyers were more likely to have a stereo system. The young rock/pop consumers were lucky to have a mono portable player in the house which until the early '60s was mainly used by them for playing 'singles'. Different markets.

Studio time was less affordable then so finessing was limited to a few 'name' acts who demanded it and could pay for it - otherwise the recordings were churned out quickly to catch the youngsters latest fad before it passed.

Songs/tunes for the young were rated on 'it has a good beat and you can dance to it' or its 'romantic' effect.

 

[watchnerd]

Probably partly due to the limitations of recording equipment, in terms of attempting "multitrack" recordings before real multitrack equipment existed.

Basically, record something, play it back and play new material with it and record that onto a new track, and repeat, until you have the parts to mix into the final version.

"Sgt. Pepper was recorded using four-track equipment. Although eight-track tape recorders were available in the US, the first units were not operational in commercial studios in London until late 1967.[68][nb 10] As with previous Beatles albums, the Sgt. Pepper recordings made extensive use of the technique known as reduction mixing, in which one to four tracks from one recorder are mixed and dubbed down onto a master four-track machine, enabling the Abbey Road engineers to give the group a virtual multitrack studio."

The Beatles weren't short of funds, talent, nor expertise, as I recall.

Others may not have been so fortunate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_multitrack_recording

I think it's a plausible theory.

But then it begs the question of, "why do it like that"?

Rudy Van Gelder has been recording ensembles of jazz quartets, sextets, etc, using equipment that was no better.

 

[watchnerd]

The jazz and classical buyers were more likely to have a stereo system. The young rock/pop consumers were lucky to have a mono portable player in the house which until the early '60s was mainly used by them for playing 'singles'. Different markets.

Interesting...so the teens were using relatively crappy, low fidelity systems and the market optimized for that?

Reminiscent of today's loudness wars + autotune pop charts...

 

[Wombat]

Interesting...so the teens were using relatively crappy, low fidelity systems and the market optimized for that?

Reminiscent of today's loudness wars + autotune pop charts...

Don't forget the boomy jukeboxes.

 

[fas42]

They were interested in playing with, putting down musical concepts, rather than capturing it "perfectly". And their intention was smart: if played back on a competent system the ideas come through brilliantly, with full impact - I've learned to generally keep well away from anything that's got the audiophile tick of approval, because it will be, 1) boooriiiing, 2) empty of ideas, full of technically accomplished twanging, etc, which goes nowhere, 3) leave me feeling, why did I bother acquiring, or listening to that ...

So much interesting music to listen to - superbly recorded dullness is just a waste of time ...

 

[Wombat]

They were interested in playing with, putting down musical concepts, rather than capturing it "perfectly". And their intention was smart: if played back on a competent system the ideas come through brilliantly, with full impact - I've learned to generally keep well away from anything that's got the audiophile tick of approval, because it will be, 1) boooriiiing, 2) empty of ideas, full of technically accomplished twanging, etc, which goes nowhere, 3) leave me feeling, why did I bother acquiring, or listening to that ...

So much interesting music to listen to - superbly recorded dullness is just a waste of time ...

I love those American folk, blues and other early field recordings. No 'audiophile' stuff there.

 

[j_j]

There was also a very dismissive attitude that "this stuff won't last", "it's trash", to the extent that masters for gold records were erased and reused.

Really.

 

[Analog Scott]

Confession: I'm a fan of the music of classic rock, but so many of the recordings of the era make me cringe.

And the worst is that it's not obvious why.

When I think of early Rolling Stones, Cream, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, The Who, much of it has mediocre to poor recording quality.

Which is in stark contrast to the "golden age" of analog recordings in classical and jazz, where Living Stereo, Mercury Living Presence, Decca, Deutsche Grammophon, Blue Note, Prestige, Columbia, etc were making recordings of not only artistic merit, but also are still considering to be excellent examples of recording engineering.

And it's also in stark contrast to the prog rock / art rock that would come shortly thereafter -- Pink Floyd, Alan Parsons Project, etc.

So what was going on / wrong with early classic rock?

Not sure one can paint this era with such a broad brush. Each recording had it's own personal journey. Some were bad but some were good. They all have their own flavors. Even the bad ones have their charm in many cases. I like the early Led Zeppelin recordings warts and all.

 

[Analog Scott]

There was also a very dismissive attitude that "this stuff won't last", "it's trash", to the extent that masters for gold records were erased and reused.

Really.

I don't think anything like that was going on with Cream, The Who, The Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin. By then rock music was very well established and clearly wasn't going away anytime soon.

 

[TBone]

depends on the specific band and its various mastering ... sometimes you just need to know what to look for (esp LZep) ... and as Analog Scott suggested, simply painting the entire lot with one fat negative brush is misguided. IMO, much of today's recordings (and especially the remasters of yesterdays material) are too compressed (w/heavier bass, but far less detailed) junk by comparison. IMO, some of the very best recorded music peaked mid to late eighties (much of it, early 16 bit digital), well before the loudness fad that still lingers today (and pollutes much of the highest rez material also) ...

As an example, I've often regarded David Bowie's early material as poorly recorded and far too compressed. I've hadt near every different pressing of Ziggy on CD/LP, but they all were all much the same, so I figuring it was inherited within the original master. However, the 2003 SACD/CD remix changed my perception considerably, it has stunning dynamic contrast (measures considerably better). I wish they'd do much the same with the rest of his inventory.

 

[fas42]

As an example, I've often regarded David Bowie's early material as poorly recorded and far too compressed. I've hadt near every different pressing of Ziggy on CD/LP, but they all were all much the same, so I figuring it was inherited within the original master. However, the 2003 SACD/CD remix changed my perception considerably, it has stunning dynamic contrast (measures considerably better). I wish they'd do much the same with the rest of his inventory.

David Bowie's are another group of recordings which are excellent for debugging the competence of systems - run "Five Years" at a decent volume, to make it obvious where a system is struggling to handle his type of sound. And the variability in the albums, and reissues covers a wide spectrum of possible misbehaviour of playback.

Ziggy is an album which can sound horrendously awful, or staggeringly "big" - the latter revealing the genius of creativity of the man - I have the 1990 CD issue, and it presses all the buttons, very nicely.

 

[TBone]

Ziggy is an album which can sound horrendously awful, or staggeringly "big" - the latter revealing the genius of creativity of the man - I have the 1990 CD issue, and it presses all the buttons, very nicely.

I may need to revisit my Ziggy CD pressings, but memory states they were are very compressed (sounding & measured) compared to the 2003 remix.

The 1990 CD posted here has decent numbers, the best being an impressive DR14, but on average DR11/12 ...
DR10 -0.00 dB -13.99 dB 01 Five Years.m4a
DR12 over -15.93 dB 02 Soul Love.m4a
DR12 -0.00 dB -14.18 dB 03 Moonage Daydream.m4a
DR12 -0.00 dB -14.60 dB 04 Starman.m4a
DR12 -0.00 dB -17.08 dB 05 It Ain't Easy.m4a
DR14 -0.20 dB -16.74 dB 06 Lady Stardust.m4a
DR12 over -13.48 dB 07 Star.m4a
DR12 -0.00 dB -13.75 dB 08 Hang On To Yourself.m4a
DR13 -0.34 dB -15.29 dB 09 Ziggy Stardust.m4a
DR13 over -14.17 dB 10 Suffragette City.m4a
DR11 over -15.99 dB 11 Rock & Roll Suicide.m4a
DR11 -0.00 dB -13.34 dB 12 John, I'm Only Dancing.m4a
DR11 over -12.43 dB 13 Velvet Goldmine.m4a
DR11 -0.09 dB -13.13 dB 14 Sweet Head.m4a
DR11 -0.73 dB -16.14 dB 15 Ziggy Stardust.m4a
DR9 -3.53 dB -15.18 dB 16 Lady Stardust.m4a

Ken Scott's 2003 remix offers even less compression ...
DR12 -3.29 dB -19.94 dB 01 Five Years.wav
DR16 -0.87 dB -19.93 dB 02 Soul Love.wav
DR16 -0.94 dB -19.03 dB 03 Moonage Daydream.wav
DR14 -1.97 dB -19.30 dB 04 Starman.wav
DR13 -2.34 dB -19.93 dB 05 It ain`t easy.wav
DR15 -0.75 dB -18.75 dB 06 Lady Stardust.wav
DR13 -1.94 dB -17.05 dB 07 Star.wav
DR14 -0.92 dB -18.67 dB 08 Hang on to Yourself.wav
DR15 -1.26 dB -18.05 dB 09 Ziggy Stardust.wav
DR13 -3.70 dB -17.71 dB 10 Suffragette City.wav
DR13 -3.07 dB -20.65 dB 11 Rock'n Roll Suicide.wav

And yes, Five Years is a difficult song to reproduce, I often find it sounds too grating, my least favorite song of the bunch, even the remix version isn't that much better. Lady Stardust on the other hand ...

 

[Sal1950]

I think it's a plausible theory.

But then it begs the question of, "why do it like that"?

Rudy Van Gelder has been recording ensembles of jazz quartets, sextets, etc, using equipment that was no better.

Yes, it begs the question of where was the engineers integrity? Are you an artist or not, do you not put your best effort into your work for no other reason than personal pride? Some of my favorite music is the 60s Motown stuff, much barely listenable on good equipment.

 

[fas42]

Yes, it begs the question of where was the engineers integrity? Are you an artist or not, do you not put your best effort into your work for no other reason than personal pride? Some of my favorite music is the 60s Motown stuff, much barely listenable on good equipment.

Yes, Motown is a severe test - Smokey Robinson tracks can be hard work, as a good example. But certainly able to be lifted up to a very satisfying subjective experience.

 

[watchnerd]

Yes, Motown is a severe test - Smokey Robinson tracks can be hard work, as a good example. But certainly able to be lifted up to a very satisfying subjective experience.

@fas42 is there any album or recording you're willing to admit is actually genuinely bad and not a "system integrity" test?

 

[watchnerd]

simply painting the entire lot with one fat negative brush is misguided.

I don't believe I painted the entire lot -- I certainly never said every classic rock album and/or remastering was crap.

 

[Wombat]

Get real, guys, do you think most consumers, then and now, give a 'rat's-arse' about audio, hifi, accuracy/personal tonal or anal stuff?

We live in a small bubble where this stuff is topical but it is for a very self indulgent few.

 

[fas42]

@fas42 is there any album or recording you're willing to admit is actually genuinely bad and not a "system integrity" test?

Off the top of my head, I can think of whatever Amy Winehouse album it was where they chucked in fake vinyl noise, to make it sound "old worldly" - this is truly awful as an "effect", and degrades the listening experience terribly; also, I recall people recently deliberately using cheap cassette recorders to put down material, though I haven't heard the tracks - I suspect these will be pretty iffy.

IOW, the more people deliberately manipulate to make things sound 'rough' - by using means which aren't actually integral to how the historical recordings were done, causing them to now show distinctive characteristics - the more this will sound awkward, or just downright unpleasant.