Quote
TooTough

Quote
Amused
And I hate the sound of Goats Head Soup and IORR. Yeah.

Me too. It´s the two albums with the worst drum- (snare) sound ever
done by them.

...For me that prize belongs by far to Dirty Work.

Undercover has also a bad mix, too bad, cos the songs are very good

I think the 60s and 70s, through to present, reflect a long period of rapidly changing recording technology and approaches. I agree with comments about the varying sound, however above all I think they (and all recording artists) sound far better when recording to TAPE, rather than recording digitally.

I think I'm right in saying that the last two stones albums, ABB and SAL, were recorded entirely digitally, and it shows in the lightness and thinness of sound, ABB especially.

Compare Still Life with SAL: with Still Life you get a warm bass sound, a solid thud of the bass drum.....this is what tape does to recorded sound, ie gives it a heavier and punchier sound. Whereas although digital recording is very accurate and clear, it can also sound lifeless and thin to an extent. As well as being warmer, sound recorded to tape also has a more intense feel to it... in a sense tape adds a veil of fuzziness (distortion) that ultra-clear digital recording doesn't add. It's almost like the difference between cinema film and video.... we can all appreciate that video can look more real, however film seems more intense, more arty if you like. Film is probably less real therefore.

I'm referring to the initial multitrack recording and mixing, ie whether recording onto tape or recording onto digital recorders BEFORE transferring to final CD. As most music is consumed digitally these days, this is ok if the initial recording was done to tape in my view.

Those of you who are musicians and/or also record will know what I'm getting regarding the above.

Cheers
WLY



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-16 15:19 by WeLoveYou.

Nobody records "air" any more...that's half the problem.
I suspect it's partly because early digital recorders were not capable of capturing it and engineers have adjusted to the medium.
It's also arguable that digital recording [or processing and monitoring] screws up the subtlties of timing too...which is potentially a big issue if music is supposed to swing or has syncopation.

Digital even has failings with portraying pitch correctly. You can much more easily sing along with an analogue recording than digital.
Don't believe me ?...try it.
I recall that back in the 80s when Ry Cooder recorded Bop Til You Drop [one of the earliest fully digital albums[, he remarked that he had trouble tuning up to the digitally recorded tracks. The album itself was also typical of early digital, No recorded air whatsoever...as if recorded in a vacuum.

The resolution and quality of Digital recording has greatly improved in recent years... but I don't think there are many engineers left who know what to do with that resolution !

I agree with the modern advances with digital - and in fact there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Digital recording will capture an exact copy of the orignal sound source. But that's its problem - it's boring. A digital recording listened to in 50 years time will still sond like it was recorded the day before. Tape, on the other hand, has soul and character - ie what's lacking with digital recording.

Also, Spud, what you're refering to in the early 80s is when digital recording used 16 bit resolution. As you may know, studios use 24 bit recording now, which is much better (even though the final product is a 16 bit CD, converted down from the higher bit depth).

Some of the initial complaints regarding digital were because of the limitations of 16 bit, however 24 bits is far better and doesn't have these issues anymore (but the bad reputation has lingered though)..in fact 24 bit recording is a near perfect recording medium, and can capture the 'air' becasue it can record very high frequencies.

The only problem with it is the lack of character to the sound.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-16 15:54 by WeLoveYou.

I see everyones point. The digital age has made recording much more easier but dare I say sterile? But as they used to say about Sam Philips, he used to know where to position the mics and had a feel for which take would be the "one". You either got it(analog) or you didnt but when you did it was magic!

I think the mix on Some Girls is really flat. Kinda static. That's the main reason I dislike the album. The sound on Tattoo You is completely the other way around: very dynamic, with a really crisp sound. It's a matter of taste, but I really prefer the Tattoo You sound.

I certainly agree that pro Digital recording technology has improved hugely...possiblyeven to the point of good enough !
However, playback media haven't kept up...and that's a whole other subject ;^)

Quote
HEILOOBAAS
The mix is dreadful. Black and Blue has a sensational mix, as does IORR. SG sounds muddy muddy muddy and tinny tinny tinny.

I agree. The mix is a turnoff. I prefer assorted live versions to any origianl songs on this album.

[thepowergoats.com]

Oh yeah, SAL versions are all amazing

Also, BoB and Whip on Live Licks are good.

Kingsnake - I too much prefer Tattoo You!

[thepowergoats.com]

the ablum versions of songs like Miss You Beast of Burden and Shattered are what got me hooked on the stones. IMO Some girls their best output since exile.

Interesting thread. For my money, When The Whip Comes Down is exactly how a good rock song should be mixed/produced. Strong guitars leading the way, solid rhythm, with Mick's voice in the middle somehwere instead of dominating.

Quote
Dark Horse 77
with Mick's voice in the middle somehwere instead of dominating.

Now that's a very good point. Stones recordings have often worked better when Mick's voice is within the mix rather than pushed prominently to the front of it.

I really like the GHS mix because it matches the mood of the record - remote, detached, floaty, dreamy. But it's suited to that record only.

For a digital recording A Bigger Bang is by far the best sounding record since Steel Wheels when it comes to digital. Whatever that means. Didn't they use tape for Voodoo?

Quote
WeLoveYou
I agree with the modern advances with digital - and in fact there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Digital recording will capture an exact copy of the orignal sound source.

It's actually the other way around: an analogue recorder records an exact copy of a soundwave into whatever medium, while a digital recorder translates a soundwave into bits which the are stored. Hence, digital recording always uses interfaces, which still are the weak point in the proces.

Analogue recordings have the benefit of great warmth due to the bass and mid response, while digital recording has great clarity and presence, but the bass response still is weak and artificial. This difference has been pushed by the sound engineers the last 20 years. Most modern recordings sound overly compressed to obtain maximum push and drive.

Due to the easiness of use digital recording will stay forever, and we all will be playing digital media. But once in a while try to listen again to an old Stones LP, and the difference will make you cry. It just sounds so much better than CD....

Mathijs

Some Girls way too thin productionwise for my taste. I like Black and Blue and Tattoo You much better. GHS is not even worth mentioning. Clearly the worst produced Stones-album ever. (Well, now I did mention it...)

[www.reverbnation.com]

Bigger Bang sounds too much like a pro tools quick job for me, could (and should) be much better production wise.

Some Girls to this day still sounds great..........its a classic no matter how you slice and dice it.....one of the best ever from start to finish.

SOME GIRLS is a piece of genious as far as production goes. It has the own identity as, for example, EXILE has. Some say the sound is a bit muddy, and I think there is some truth in that claim, but I think that is intentional and works very fine. Yeah, TATTOO YOU and BLACK & BLUE are much sharper (and soundwise more distinguished), just as STICKY FINGERS - which are, of course, wonderful in the rights of their own - but there is that chaotic but still controlled flavour of a great Stones product that makes SG and EXILE truely masterpieces (like some of their early efforts and, for example, BEGGARS and LET IT BLEED). I think one of the secrets of the Stones sound and its charm is that it is not 'conventional', and 'easy-listening' in the sense that it does not really match the best technology of the day - even though they try to flirt with it sometimes. They are no any Beatles or Toto, after all.

Sometimes they just don't hit the goal very well, though - for example, UNDERCOVER is perhaps trying reach that half-chaotic, holistic soundscape, but not really gets there. Perhaps it is a part of the philosophy talked by Bill Wyman that The Stones sound like a living risky - tendency of sounding like not reaching the next note or beat, and sometimes they do actually miss those...

(Lastly, the 'official' whining point: since 1989 they have not tried to play with the fire anymore - to take that kind of riskies in production.)

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-18 11:20 by Doxa.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
WeLoveYou
I agree with the modern advances with digital - and in fact there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Digital recording will capture an exact copy of the orignal sound source.

It's actually the other way around: an analogue recorder records an exact copy of a soundwave into whatever medium, while a digital recorder translates a soundwave into bits which the are stored. Hence, digital recording always uses interfaces, which still are the weak point in the proces.

Analogue recordings have the benefit of great warmth due to the bass and mid response, while digital recording has great clarity and presence, but the bass response still is weak and artificial. This difference has been pushed by the sound engineers the last 20 years. Most modern recordings sound overly compressed to obtain maximum push and drive.

Due to the easiness of use digital recording will stay forever, and we all will be playing digital media. But once in a while try to listen again to an old Stones LP, and the difference will make you cry. It just sounds so much better than CD....

Mathijs

Mathijs, you are right that digital doesn't create an exact copy - it's a digital representation as you say. However, neither will tape give an exact copy of the original as there will be a bit of distortion and compression of the sound, even if only minimally. So neither method of recording will provide an exact copy of the original sound source.

I was speaking in a general sense when comparing the two.

Digital will give a reasonably accurate, clear and bright copy of the original, but as we know, tape sounds fatter and warmer etc. I'm my view, and many will agree, rock and pop music (and the Stones) sound way better when recorded to tape than when recorded digitally.

Note that I'm refering to the inital recording process, not the final medium, ie whether CD or vinyl etc. (Whether music sounds better when listened to on vinyl is another debate...). As I said earlier most of us consume music on CD these days, however if the original multitrack recording was done on tape, then you will still hear the sound and warmth of tape on the final CD.

--

About the sound of various Stones albums in general, many of the 60s recordings sound good simply because they were recorded to tape , and because they recorded to tape at a high recording level, known as 'pushing into the red'. This saturates the tape and causes distortion and compression of the sound. This is very evident on some Stones songs, eg Parachute Woman and much of Beggar's Banquet, The Last Time, Little Red Rooster; and less evident on others, eg She's A Rainbow, Love In Vain (LIB version).

It's ironic that in the 60s, engineers were trying to make the recording process as perfect as possible, yet in hindsight we now appreciate that the imperfections were actually beneficial to the sound. This is why many studios today are using tape as part of the recording process (eg mastering to tape).

cheers
WLY



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-18 12:01 by WeLoveYou.