Tuning back in the days...

Thurisarz · #1 08-12-2005, 08:11 AM

I was told by my friend at one of the local stores that back in the days (50's-60's) you tuned the bass to D to get a more deeper sound because amplification back then in his words "sucked", is this true?

Nick man · #2 08-12-2005, 08:22 AM

No. As a matter of fact, by tunning to D you would just increase the risk of damaging an amplifier since you are putting even lower frequencies through them.

Just listen to old recordings and you'll hear that most dont go below the low E string.

Petary791 · #3 08-12-2005, 11:33 AM

Here's my old school tuning story.

I was trying to learn "Xanadu" by Rush. I was tuned perfect, and their notes weren't a half step above, they were like a quarter step, therefore leading me to believe that they didn't tune up to a tuner, just to eachother.

Richard Lindsey · #4 08-12-2005, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petary791

Here's my old school tuning story.

I was trying to learn "Xanadu" by Rush. I was tuned perfect, and their notes weren't a half step above, they were like a quarter step, therefore leading me to believe that they didn't tune up to a tuner, just to eachother.

Possible, but it's at least as likely, if not more so, that the engineer or producer decided to "speed-tune" the recording after it was done.

Freaky Fender · #5 08-12-2005, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Lindsey

Possible, but it's at least as likely, if not more so, that the engineer or producer decided to "speed-tune" the recording after it was done.

It's more likely that during the mixing/mastering stage, they sped up the tape by a little bit, and by making the tempo faster, they raised the entire pitch up to a quarter step.

Richard Lindsey · #6 08-12-2005, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freaky Fender

It's more likely that during the mixing/mastering stage, they sped up the tape by a little bit, and by making the tempo faster, they raised the entire pitch up to a quarter step.

Isn't that exactly what I said?

Petary791 · #7 08-12-2005, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freaky Fender

It's more likely that during the mixing/mastering stage, they sped up the tape by a little bit, and by making the tempo faster, they raised the entire pitch up to a quarter step.

Ew. Why would they do that?!??!

Richard Lindsey · #8 08-12-2005, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petary791

Ew. Why would they do that?!??!

Plenty of reasons. Suppose you did a great take, you went on to the next song, and weeks later you revisited it and thought it was just a tad slow. Do you recut the whole thing? Well, Steely Dan might, but a lot of people would see it as the more economical solution just to speed up the recording a little. With tape, which was the unversal standard not so long ago, that means raising the pitch.

Another reason is that speeding up a tape can sometimes give an impression of greater brightness and sparkle, making the track seem to jump out a little more.

fourstringdrums · #9 08-12-2005, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Lindsey

Possible, but it's at least as likely, if not more so, that the engineer or producer decided to "speed-tune" the recording after it was done.

"Every Breath You Take" is the same way.

Richard Lindsey · #10 08-12-2005, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fourstringdrums

"Every Breath You Take" is the same way.

Yes indeed, good example.

Freaky Fender · #11 08-12-2005, 02:56 PM

Strawberry Fields Forever is a good example of tape editting. John cut the vocal track on a guitar that was out of tune, but no one picked it up. George Harrison slowed it down to where it was in tune. Overdubs insued. That's why John's voice sounds so low.

steveksux · #12 08-12-2005, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Ew. Why would they do that?!??!

To start an argument between Richard and Freaky...

I'm scratching my head on that one too.... if there really IS a difference, all I can say is we're WAY beyond correcting spelling and grammar here...

Randy

I-Love-Ratm · #13 08-12-2005, 04:25 PM

And I think You Really Got Me is a weird pitch.Anyone care to clarify?

Freaky Fender · #14 08-12-2005, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Lindsey

Isn't that exactly what I said?

oops. Sorry.

Me fail english? Thats unpossible!

Figjam · #15 08-12-2005, 04:45 PM

mm Xanadu, good song.

Richard Lindsey · #16 08-12-2005, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freaky Fender

oops. Sorry.

Me fail english? Thats unpossible!

As they say in Croatia, nema problema.

JimmyM · #17 08-12-2005, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick man

No. As a matter of fact, by tunning to D you would just increase the risk of damaging an amplifier since you are putting even lower frequencies through them.

Just listen to old recordings and you'll hear that most dont go below the low E string.

Hell, most don't go below the A string! The reason for that was twofold...the first reason was that most of the stuff recorded in the 50's was done on an upright, and uprights back then had gut strings, and the notes on a gut E string had just the punch of a fundamental and nothing. No sustain, no tone, nothing. The second is that until Motown, nobody quite knew how to record the electric bass and notes below A were always muddy. The amplifiers of the day had no problem reproducing those frequencies safely, but the problem was nobody knew how to set their amps to where they wouldn't blow speakers

However, many 50's upright bassists DID tune down to D. But not for the notes. They did it so when they slapped the upright, the E string would be easier to slap down on the neck to get the rockabilly/swing slap sound. I know Marshall Lytle of Bill Haley's Original Comets and this is what he does on his bass.

PhatBasstard · #18 08-12-2005, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petary791

Here's my old school tuning story.

I was trying to learn "Xanadu" by Rush. I was tuned perfect, and their notes weren't a half step above, they were like a quarter step, therefore leading me to believe that they didn't tune up to a tuner, just to eachother.

......or your tape deck, CD, or turntable wasn't on exact speed.
Many consumer models, without speed adjustment, aren't right on.

Not discounting the producer/tape speed alteration argument...because that stuff was quite common.

BadB · #19 08-12-2005, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-Love-Ratm

And I think You Really Got Me is a weird pitch.Anyone care to clarify?

I think Van Halen down-tunes just about everything, don't they? Assuming you meant their cover of that tune. And, not every band tunes to A440 for every song.

fourstringdrums · #20 08-13-2005, 08:04 AM

I think "For Whom the Bell Tolls" is slightly off too. Just a smidge higher than it should be.