A bit of a paradox...

**bassybill** · #1 03-15-2007, 02:52 PM

If today's gear is so great, how come records made in the 60's, 70's and 80's sound vastly better than anything more recent?

superbassman2000 · #2 03-15-2007, 02:58 PM

i think that is a little subjective--there is a lot of good music today, you just have to search for it

IanStephenson · #3 03-15-2007, 04:47 PM

Because todays "great" gear is great because it's smaller, cheaper, lighter, and more flexable. Not necessarily better sounding. A line 6 will get you 95% of ANY sound, but if you want 100% of a particule r sound you need the big gear, which the guys making those great recording had.

the guys making those great recordings were of course great players - nowdays ANYONE can make a recording, so of course more of them are going to sound bad.

Finally remember there are loads of old recordings which don't sound good - it's easy to pick out one or two great recordings by giants, but the average sound availble to the average guy ha improved massivly.

Ian

Spector_Ray · #4 03-15-2007, 05:18 PM

I think a lot of that great 60's-early '80's sound is due to analog recording. Everything seems too compressed these days. Nobody used Pro Tools back then!

RWP · #5 03-15-2007, 05:53 PM

This may be true in general but some of the FM radio stations are the worst offenders. I was listening to a HOT 99.5 the other day and they had the most compressed, distorted signal I have ever heard from a commercial station. I thought they were having trouble but nope, a week later same crap. As long at the bass is jacked up 20bd they are happy.

KeithBMI · #6 03-15-2007, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bassybill

If today's gear is so great, how come records made in the 60's, 70's and 80's sound vastly better than anything more recent?

Why do you think a lot of guitar and bass players use vintage gear from the 60's, 70's, and 80's?

**Eric Perry** · #7 03-15-2007, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spector_Ray

I think a lot of that great 60's-early '80's sound is due to analog recording. Everything seems too compressed these days. Nobody used Pro Tools back then!

Nailed it right there, IMO.

TFG_low_end · #8 03-15-2007, 06:43 PM

Well, back then everything was played on the same thing with the same settings. Now you have so many more brands and custom amps and equipment, that you won't always get the same decent sound. I feel that with new equipment there are more opportunities to create your own individual sound rather than sounding like what you hear on the radio.

superbassman2000 · #9 03-15-2007, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KeithBMI

Why do you think a lot of guitar and bass players use vintage gear from the 60's, 70's, and 80's?

this post got me thinking...do you think that it really has to do with gear?
I don't think this has to do with pro tools or what bass you are playing, but more "what" you are playing. Maybe the reason that all the led zepplin sounds so great in their recording is because we like what they are playing, and associate that with a good recording method. I mean, any of us can buy the exact same bass that Jaco or wooten has/played, but we cant sound like them because we don't always play the same thing as they do.

just food for thought i guess...I think that gear is better today than 20 years ago and I think that back in the 60s or 70s, a lot of bassists would love a roscoe or fodera, and I am sure they'd all love to use pro tools if it were around, but thats not what was important--the song was important.

Richard Lindsey · #10 03-15-2007, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bassybill

If today's gear is so great, how come records made in the 60's, 70's and 80's sound vastly better than anything more recent?

I think your premise is flawed. I don't think records from back then necessarily sound better. Some do, but many don't. Nostalgia is addictive, and things often look better in the rearview mirror.

And BTW, I'm old enough to remember most of that stuff the first time around.

Richard Lindsey · #11 03-15-2007, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KeithBMI

Why do you think a lot of guitar and bass players use vintage gear from the 60's, 70's, and 80's?

Guitar players, yeah, but even they, not so much as is usually suggested. Bass players, not so much at all. Again, i think the premise is somewhat flawed.

ric1312 · #12 03-15-2007, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bassybill

If today's gear is so great, how come records made in the 60's, 70's and 80's sound vastly better than anything more recent?

Two words..........Better players.

Most of the music on the radio, at least rock type stuff, is crap compared to what was popular back then. You can blame the music end of business for that. Now it's more important if you fit into what a label thinks will sell, and how you look rather than if your band is something new and very talented.

Rakie · #13 03-15-2007, 10:31 PM

If Jaco was still around he'd be playing an 11 string Jerzy Drozd and a chapman stick with his feet.

NickyBass · #14 03-16-2007, 06:19 AM

I think it has to do with the technique and not the gear itself. I can't stand the overly compressed sound, but---remember, there were compressors available in the 60's and 70's. It's all in how you use the gear.

Chick Corea, Herbie, Miles -- They all used the newest technology in the 70's. I'm sure if it were someone else, they could make it sound bad.

Bjork, Beck, RadioHead -- They are using today's technology tastefully.

There are alot of great records being made today. They just aren't a part of pop culture.

**bassybill** · #15 03-16-2007, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ric1312

Two words..........Better players.

Most of the music on the radio, at least rock type stuff, is crap compared to what was popular back then. You can blame the music end of business for that. Now it's more important if you fit into what a label thinks will sell, and how you look rather than if your band is something new and very talented.

Now that is something I can agree with.

It seems to me that at some points in the past, creativity was not just commercially "allowable", it was actually encouraged. Companies seemed a lot more willing to take chances on sonething a bit original or different when signing new acts than they are now.

A lot of this braindead obsession with genres stems from that attitude, I think. The whole concept of "genre" is a useful way to ensure conformity.