I'm aware that a lot of bands nowadays record each instrument separately when it comes to recording their music, but I've heard so many tracks by the Stones that sound as if they were cut live, with the whole band playing at the same time and in the same place. Sweet Virginia, in particular, almost sounds like it was recorded with just a few mikes around the room, and with everyone playing together in a live fashion. Does anyone know how the Stones, or any other artists from their era (The Who, The Jimi Hendrix Experience, Bob Dylan etc) typically recorded their music? With each instrument being recorded separately, or with the whole band playing live?

I've heard Keith say many times that they cut live, but then Charlie's also made mention of how some of his drum parts were recorded in stair wells, and I've heard that during the making of Exile, different band members had to record their individual parts in separate rooms, so it's a little unclear. Can someone help me out?

Quote
StickyExile98
I'm aware that a lot of bands nowadays record each instrument separately when it comes to recording their music, but I've heard so many tracks by the Stones that sound as if they were cut live, with the whole band playing at the same time and in the same place. Sweet Virginia, in particular, almost sounds like it was recorded with just a few mikes around the room, and with everyone playing together in a live fashion. Does anyone know how the Stones, or any other artists from their era (The Who, The Jimi Hendrix Experience, Bob Dylan etc) typically recorded their music? With each instrument being recorded separately, or with the whole band playing live?

I've heard Keith say many times that they cut live, but then Charlie's also made mention of how some of his drum parts were recorded in stair wells, and I've heard that during the making of Exile, different band members had to record their individual parts in separate rooms, so it's a little unclear. Can someone help me out?

Yes, Charlie recorded his part for 'Moon Is Up' on a trashcan in a stairwell, if I'm remembering the story correctly.

in a nutshell in the early sixties bands recorded live by the middle sixties be recorded live but were able to replace or add elements on a limited basis. in the seventies the flexibility allowedas a to play as a band but still choose and replace or augment whatever elements they please. today the choices are unlimited so each player tries to get his work perfect using technology and imagination.

Hey StickyExile98, cool thread!
Most of the songs/albums from the 60s and 70s were recorded live. Usually they the songs played all together at the same time, but often when they got a good rhythm track, the vocals got recorded seperately on top of that.

Here some interesting links:
Recording of sympathy: [www.youtube.com]
Recording of start me up: [www.soundonsound.com]

One thing that's semi-unorthodox about the Stones is how much "bleeding" from one track to another they tolerated in a finished product. You can still hear lots of scratch vocals. "Beast of Burden" springs to mind...

Quote
Mel Belli
One thing that's semi-unorthodox about the Stones is how much "bleeding" from one track to another they tolerated in a finished product. You can still hear lots of scratch vocals. "Beast of Burden" springs to mind...

The YCAGWYW intro even features faint residue of Midnight Rambler on the left.

It has changed considerably since the Stones first started recording. Mostly these days unlimited tracks are available while in the old days they had to bounce recorded tracks down to one or two tracks to free up more for additional parts. Bouncing to two tracks was done to preserve a stereo image with things like the drums.

Obviously the Stones are using separate tracks for every instrument and multiple tracks for drums when initially recording. My guess is they still try to get the general live feel for the initial recording with drums, bass, guitar and a scratch vocal done all at once to get the right feel. They probably have some stereo room mics set up to get an ambient sounds of all the instruments but basically are still recording every instrument to a separate track. They get isolation by using different rooms and baffles around their instruments and amps to reduce bleed from other instruments.

After they get a good take they then add additional guitar parts, doubling and weaving as need be, until they have a good basic track (still with scratch vocal).
Then they add multiple vocal tracks both lead and background and any instrument solos. The whole tracking process involves many tracks with as much separation of instruments and preservation of stereo signals.

Finally they take all the tracks to a good mixing studio and play around with EQ, levels and and such in a process known as automation. They basically take their time and make small adjustments to different parts each time through the song and record these moves into a computer (muting, panning, EQ, levels and effects). Then when all the mixing moves are done, they hit play and the console computer makes all the moves from all the passes in real time and they end up with a stereo master recording. It the old days it would often take several guys sitting at the mixing console making these adjustments as the song played to get the job done.

After that the stereo master is taken to a mastering lab for the magic process which creates the best sounding result for whatever format they are mixing for. That process is probably beyond the scope of your question.

I doubt they ever build a song one track at a time unless they are working on a demo in their home studios. I imagine Mick has done that in the past but when he brings the song to the band they probably start over, possibly using one or two of the tracks on the demo if they are perfect.

Mixing in the true live studio tracks of everyone playing and even having some bleed between tracks often creates a good effect and is probably present on most Stones recordings to some extent.

peace

A couple more points: they generally record with clean-sounding guitars and at low volumes. When the Steel Wheels outtakes were leaked a few years ago, you could hear Mick's rhythm guitar for "Hold On To Your Hat" before it went through post-production. The '80s-ish overdrive clearly was added after the initial performance.

And at least until fairly recently — with Mick extensively demo-ing his stuff in pre-production with Matt Clifford — the band would record long, meandering takes of songs ("Flip the Switch," for example) and then cull the best three or four minutes.

Quote
Naturalust
It has changed considerably since the Stones first started recording. Mostly these days unlimited tracks are available while in the old days they had to bounce recorded tracks down to one or two tracks to free up more for additional parts. Bouncing to two tracks was done to preserve a stereo image with things like the drums.

Obviously the Stones are using separate tracks for every instrument and multiple tracks for drums when initially recording. My guess is they still try to get the general live feel for the initial recording with drums, bass, guitar and a scratch vocal done all at once to get the right feel. They probably have some stereo room mics set up to get an ambient sounds of all the instruments but basically are still recording every instrument to a separate track. They get isolation by using different rooms and baffles around their instruments and amps to reduce bleed from other instruments.

After they get a good take they then add additional guitar parts, doubling and weaving as need be, until they have a good basic track (still with scratch vocal).
Then they add multiple vocal tracks both lead and background and any instrument solos. The whole tracking process involves many tracks with as much separation of instruments and preservation of stereo signals.

Finally they take all the tracks to a good mixing studio and play around with EQ, levels and and such in a process known as automation. They basically take their time and make small adjustments to different parts each time through the song and record these moves into a computer (muting, panning, EQ, levels and effects). Then when all the mixing moves are done, they hit play and the console computer makes all the moves from all the passes in real time and they end up with a stereo master recording. It the old days it would often take several guys sitting at the mixing console making these adjustments as the song played to get the job done.

After that the stereo master is taken to a mastering lab for the magic process which creates the best sounding result for whatever format they are mixing for. That process is probably beyond the scope of your question.

I doubt they ever build a song one track at a time unless they are working on a demo in their home studios. I imagine Mick has done that in the past but when he brings the song to the band they probably start over, possibly using one or two of the tracks on the demo if they are perfect.

Mixing in the true live studio tracks of everyone playing and even having some bleed between tracks often creates a good effect and is probably present on most Stones recordings to some extent.

peace

Nice explanation, sounds like you've spent some time in the studio... What's amazing is that you can buy a pocket recorder now (like a Boss Micro BR) that has some of these functions like being able to bounce tracks, mix over pre-recorded tracks, etc. I wonder if Mick ever uses something like that to just carry around to lay down random vocal ideas.

Quote
roller99

Quote
Naturalust
It has changed considerably since the Stones first started recording. Mostly these days unlimited tracks are available while in the old days they had to bounce recorded tracks down to one or two tracks to free up more for additional parts. Bouncing to two tracks was done to preserve a stereo image with things like the drums.

Obviously the Stones are using separate tracks for every instrument and multiple tracks for drums when initially recording. My guess is they still try to get the general live feel for the initial recording with drums, bass, guitar and a scratch vocal done all at once to get the right feel. They probably have some stereo room mics set up to get an ambient sounds of all the instruments but basically are still recording every instrument to a separate track. They get isolation by using different rooms and baffles around their instruments and amps to reduce bleed from other instruments.

After they get a good take they then add additional guitar parts, doubling and weaving as need be, until they have a good basic track (still with scratch vocal).
Then they add multiple vocal tracks both lead and background and any instrument solos. The whole tracking process involves many tracks with as much separation of instruments and preservation of stereo signals.

Finally they take all the tracks to a good mixing studio and play around with EQ, levels and and such in a process known as automation. They basically take their time and make small adjustments to different parts each time through the song and record these moves into a computer (muting, panning, EQ, levels and effects). Then when all the mixing moves are done, they hit play and the console computer makes all the moves from all the passes in real time and they end up with a stereo master recording. It the old days it would often take several guys sitting at the mixing console making these adjustments as the song played to get the job done.

After that the stereo master is taken to a mastering lab for the magic process which creates the best sounding result for whatever format they are mixing for. That process is probably beyond the scope of your question.

I doubt they ever build a song one track at a time unless they are working on a demo in their home studios. I imagine Mick has done that in the past but when he brings the song to the band they probably start over, possibly using one or two of the tracks on the demo if they are perfect.

Mixing in the true live studio tracks of everyone playing and even having some bleed between tracks often creates a good effect and is probably present on most Stones recordings to some extent.

peace

Nice explanation, sounds like you've spent some time in the studio... What's amazing is that you can buy a pocket recorder now (like a Boss Micro BR) that has some of these functions like being able to bounce tracks, mix over pre-recorded tracks, etc. I wonder if Mick ever uses something like that to just carry around to lay down random vocal ideas.

Yes those pocket recorders are indeed awesome. More functionality than the whole studio great records of the 60's were recorded in! What's even more amazing to me is the recording apps you can get for your cell phone. Some amazing multi track recorders with pretty great capabilities and sound.

No doubt Mick has hand held recording device but these days if he has his phone, it's likely good enough!

peace

Thanks mate. My band and I are getting ready to record our first album, and we want it to have a more authentic and natural sound like many of our favourite 60s and 70s records, as opposed to sounding too processed and plastic like a lot of music does nowadays. I always thought that overly-processed sound was due to the separate recording of each individual instrument, so I thought it might have been a good idea to cut the songs live for a more honest sound.

Very interesting thread, thanks!

Quote
Mel Belli
A couple more points: they generally record with clean-sounding guitars and at low volumes. When the Steel Wheels outtakes were leaked a few years ago, you could hear Mick's rhythm guitar for "Hold On To Your Hat" before it went through post-production. The '80s-ish overdrive clearly was added after the initial performance.

And at least until fairly recently — with Mick extensively demo-ing his stuff in pre-production with Matt Clifford — the band would record long, meandering takes of songs ("Flip the Switch," for example) and then cull the best three or four minutes.

That's interesting too, where can one hear these meandering takes of FTS ? ;-)

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Quote
StickyExile98
Thanks mate. My band and I are getting ready to record our first album, and we want it to have a more authentic and natural sound like many of our favourite 60s and 70s records, as opposed to sounding too processed and plastic like a lot of music does nowadays. I always thought that overly-processed sound was due to the separate recording of each individual instrument, so I thought it might have been a good idea to cut the songs live for a more honest sound.

If you guys are tight and well rehearsed enough to cut live tracks it seems like a very good idea. Cutting live but with good separation so you can make adjustments later is a good approach, not only because it retains the bands togetherness feel but it also can save expensive studio time. You'll know when you get the right take. If it doesn't seem to be working, you can always go back to the more layered approach of adding parts over an initial rhythm track or a combination of the two. Getting the right groove on the initial tracks is probably the most important thing.

If you really want that 60's and 70's sound you should try recording to some analog tape in addition to the Pro Tools or other recorders you are using. Some great results are obtained by recording the whole band to 2 inch 2 track right off the bat! But that requires a lot of set up time to make sure levels are perfect and mic placements are ideal. As a minimum you could try recording the drums, bass and possibly loud guitars to analog tape (too), the results are often warmer and you end up with some nice stuff to work with when the final mixing needs to be done. Things can always be sweetened in the final mix but the better your original tracks sound, the better the final mix will sound.

Finally I would add that lots of those 60's and 70's records are made from much simpler parts than you would expect. Lots of "space" between the playing, always something taking the prominent part of the mix but rarely everyone playing at the same time. Its a true art not to overplay and allow the music to breath and the more you can do it during the tracking, the less work it will be later when riding faders and muting parts in the mix sounds less natural.

Good Luck!

peace

Charlie may not have been in the same room with the rest of them for sessions in the 1970s, probably specifically the actual EXILE sessions, but they still recorded live for the bottom ie rhythm track. Then you have the Charlie - Keith - Bobby live recording of Happy... with overdubs.

Minimal mic usage on the drums in the 1960s and 1970s through BLACK AND BLUE. Since then things have progressed to two overheads, snare, kick, hi-hat, toms.

Quote
Mel Belli
One thing that's semi-unorthodox about the Stones is how much "bleeding" from one track to another they tolerated in a finished product. You can still hear lots of scratch vocals. "Beast of Burden" springs to mind...

"miss you" also has vocals bleeding through. used to drive me crazy until i knew what i was.

Quote
Naturalust
After that the stereo master is taken to a mastering lab for the magic process which creates the best sounding result for whatever format they are mixing for. That process is probably beyond the scope of your question.

I was wondering about the mastering process in particular: Is it possible, then, that the Stones can go back to the saved mixes of some of these terribly compressed recent releases (Bigger Bang, Live at the Vault series, etc.) and easily "fix" them for future release once the Loudness Wars are over? Or is there some degree of information loss that occurs prior to the mixing process (e.g. the drum clipping on A Bigger Bang)?

The greatest "bleedthrough" vocals on Miss You can be heard on the 2012 Newark PPV.

Quote
Nikkei
The greatest "bleedthrough" vocals on Miss You can be heard on the 2012 Newark PPV.

really? you mean he overdubbed the vocals?
there are very obvious ones on the studio version.

here is a previous thread about recording imperfections: [www.iorr.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-28 01:38 by Turner68.

Nah, how would that work on a live broadcast? What I mean is Mick encouraged the audience to sing along and at times a totally atrocious voice dominates the mix.
It's difficult to describe, sounds almost like some inebriated lunatic got lost in the control room.

Quote
Nikkei
Nah, how would that work on a live broadcast? What I mean is Mick encouraged the audience to sing along and at times a totally atrocious voice dominates the mix.
It's difficult to describe, sounds almost like some inebriated lunatic got lost in the control room.

i thought you were referring to a recording of it. there are lots of examples of ghost vocals on their "live" recordings. [www.iorr.org]

Quote
Nikkei
The YCAGWYW intro even features faint residue of Midnight Rambler on the left.

This is interesting. Not knowing much about recording, I'm guessing this is caused by a different process than "bleeding" (where you get sound leakage to an adjacent microphone), but instead to the physical properties of magnetic tape, with the tape being recorded over or only partially erased or in contact with the other track on the same reel, partially transferring the image over.(?)

Quote
SharksWillCry

Quote
Naturalust
After that the stereo master is taken to a mastering lab for the magic process which creates the best sounding result for whatever format they are mixing for. That process is probably beyond the scope of your question.

I was wondering about the mastering process in particular: Is it possible, then, that the Stones can go back to the saved mixes of some of these terribly compressed recent releases (Bigger Bang, Live at the Vault series, etc.) and easily "fix" them for future release once the Loudness Wars are over? Or is there some degree of information loss that occurs prior to the mixing process (e.g. the drum clipping on A Bigger Bang)?

Everything can be fixed these days. Amazing the technology available. Just depends on how far you want to go back in the process. Things that were originally tracked poorly like clipped drums can be "fixed" by triggering new drum sounds from the old hits and clicks and pops are easily erased with the digital editing platforms of today. Compression used on instrument tracking is pretty much there to stay if it was recorded that way but most of the compression you are referring to as a result of the loudness wars is done in the stereo mix and mastering processes. Both these can be pretty easily fixed with a talented engineer at the controls.

I imagine there will be a time when many artists including the Stones go back to these low dynamic range releases and make them much more listenable by remixing and mastering them with greater dynamics. I sure hope so.

peace

I believe your "partially erased theory explains it best.

Quote
SharksWillCry

Quote
Nikkei
The YCAGWYW intro even features faint residue of Midnight Rambler on the left.

This is interesting. Not knowing much about recording, I'm guessing this is caused by a different process than "bleeding" (where you get sound leakage to an adjacent microphone), but instead to the physical properties of magnetic tape, with the tape being recorded over or only partially erased or in contact with the other track on the same reel, partially transferring the image over.(?)

indeed. i don't see how bleeding would put the sound from one song on to another.

Quote
SharksWillCry

Quote
Nikkei
The YCAGWYW intro even features faint residue of Midnight Rambler on the left.

This is interesting. Not knowing much about recording, I'm guessing this is caused by a different process than "bleeding" (where you get sound leakage to an adjacent microphone), but instead to the physical properties of magnetic tape, with the tape being recorded over or only partially erased or in contact with the other track on the same reel, partially transferring the image over.(?)

Yes, "print through" I think they call it

It's worth mentioning that tape was used for recording up until the early 80s and this gave the music a certain sound - a warmer, smoother sound with tape saturation distortion that's pleasant to the ears. Since the 80s though, recording studios use digital recording techniques - and this can lead to a much cleaner sound than tape, but to some people can sound cold and clinical with none of the warmth and character of tape recording.

Certainly you can hear the differences with the Stones's music - compare their recent recordings with Beggars Banquet - what do you hear?

Quote
SharksWillCry

Quote
Nikkei
The YCAGWYW intro even features faint residue of Midnight Rambler on the left.

This is interesting. Not knowing much about recording, I'm guessing this is caused by a different process than "bleeding" (where you get sound leakage to an adjacent microphone), but instead to the physical properties of magnetic tape, with the tape being recorded over or only partially erased or in contact with the other track on the same reel, partially transferring the image over.(?)

That is actual tape bleed, not sound bleed. The pressing of the tape on the reel can lightly imprint another song and, if it's over a quiet part, it'll be obvious.