Question posed by chessparov
How have the Fab Four recordings helped you to make better recordings? Are there any specific techniques you picked up?
Reply by phat
Well, I have yet to get a chance (or have the guts) to mix a record the way I really want to. I realize the sound of those early stereo recordings of theirs was not supposed to be that way. “Revolver” is still my touchstone, after “Loveless” by My Bloody Valentine and just about anything from The Jesus and Mary Chain.
Reply by leeflier
I couldn’t tell you specifically what I’ve picked up. The Beatles’ whole vibe (and the Stones’ too) is so ingrained in every fiber of my being, that I think every recording I make has a lot of their influence without my even thinking about it. I think that’s true of a lot of people whether they know it or not - certainly their use of multitracks, tape loops, effects etc. have influenced pretty much everyone who came after.
I’ve certainly mic’d more than one drum kit with a mic in the “Ringo” position halfway down his chest over the snare. I think a lot of the ways that I like to use compression were lifted from Beatles records (and yeah, “Revolver” is my fave too overall, but some of the drum sounds on the White Album were incredible). And a cool three-part harmony, double tracked and drenched in plate reverb, never fails to give me the chills.
If I could ever make a recording that has a vibe like Rain I think I could die happy.
Reply by chessparov
One thing to respect IHMO about The Beatles is their recording metamorphosis from being “performance” orientation in their earlier albums to a tendency for meticulously crafted productions.
Like going from the 10 or 11 hours it took to make their first record to “Revolver”, et al. The turning point seems to be Beatles 1965, partly due to Dylan’s lyrical influence. Reading about the recording sessions, it’s simply astonishing how many classic songs were cut in the “early days” within five takes. The vocals for both “Rock ‘n’ Roll Music” and “Kansas City” were done in one take!
Reply by dwarf
“I’ve certainly miked more than one drum kit with a mic in the “Ringo” position halfway down his chest over the snare.”
Huh? I’m having trouble picturing this. Wouldn’t the mic get in the way? Can you give a description of this one?
Reply by themixfix
I use ‘The Beatles’ records to help me make MUSICAL recordings!!
I did live sound for a Beatlemania tour of Canada one summer, and (although I KNOW a LOT of Beatle fans DIDN’T like the whole idea of the show), I had the BEST time, and KNEW all the material SO WELL, that the cues came totally naturally to me,
PLUS, the guys were REALLY GOOD, and it was like getting to play Geoff Emerick/George Martin every night, but LIVE, in front of 10,000 Canadians, who LOVED the show! An excellent experience I’ll NEVER forget!!
Reply by mynewlife
The most important thing is they’ve made it very easy for me to never be tempted to have more than four mics on our drums…. mainly cause our set isn’t much bigger than Ringo’s in the first place.
Second, it just shows me that you can’t blame lack of tracks for deficiency… I just keep telling myself “Sgt. Pepper on a 4-track…. Abbey Road on an 8-track…..” and it makes me feel all invigorated.
Reply by ortrejos
Despite my love for the band, I´ve never read anything about the technical part of their recordings. What books/materials do you consider to be the best and most informative for the engineer/producer?
Reply by rivers
There are several good books…. check out Mark Lewisohn book which documents all the Beatles sessions at Abbey Road, also George Martin’s book “All You Need Are Ears” is straight from the horse’s mouth. Man I wish Geoff Emerick would write a detailed book about his time with the Beatles and others.
Reply by chessparov
“All You Need IS Ears” by George Martin! The creative grammar usage for the book’s title was intentional BTW.
Reply by themixfix
“The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions” book by Mark Lewishon (sp?) is the BEST, most informative, technical book out there, describing the recording techniques for virtually every song that The Beatles EVER recorded, including a LOT of (still) unreleased stuff!!
PLUS, there are copies of track sheets, take numbers used, details of what was bounced from what machine to the next, etc.!
It MAY be a bit hard to find, because it may be out of print, BUT there are a LOT of copies still floating around out there, especially on Beatle fan websites. It was published around 1990, in both hard and soft cover versions, and the hardcover was around $25. BEST money you’ll EVER spend on a recording book, I PROMISE!
Reply by lory
The Beatles recordings, in their present form of re-constituted stereo on CD, serve to remind me how paramount the writing and “vibe” are. The weird but undeniable fact is that these recording sound great - even with the oft-encountered bizarre panning of an entire drum kit on one side and all the vocals on the other side!
It’s too bizarre.
Nothing should sound worse than that, and all everyone does is turn it up. I’m afraid to draw any conclusions about panning from these mono-stereo aberrations. Why are they still enjoyable? The writing and the vibe. Oh yeah, and the small matter of the performances.
I honestly feel Paul McCartney is the best backup singer of all time, which is why I rate him the Number One Singer of All Time. The early Beatles were at their strongest with John singing lead and Paul on backup, and it wasn’t because John was necessarily any better of a lead singer than Paul. Sure, the Elvises and Roy Orbisons were more operatic in their lead vocals, but who had the creativity and nail-it-the-first-time panache of Paul McCartney? No one. And when he sings his greatest ballads live, even in his fifties, it just defines what pop music is supposed to be.
I’ll go one step further - when Paul McCartney sings duets with Stevie Wonder and Michael Jackson, these hall of fame singers sound like they have speech impediments.
Well, maybe I’ve drifted off the subject, but to get back on topic, all you have to do is make sure you have a Paul McCartney available for your sessions and you too can create timeless classics!
PS - The George Martin book wastes way too much ink on all the novelty acts he recorded and doesn’t go into a tenth of the Beatles gear and recording stuff we’d like to know. One book I don’t believe anyone mentioned is the Paul McCartney autobiography.
What’s great about this is that he actually gives you his songwriter’s perspective. It made me feel a lot better to know a guy who’s probably The Musician of the Twentieth Century sweated lyrics too. He also sweated his approach to lead vocals.
And even when he and John were writing apart, he always checked in with him for final approval. Maybe you don’t have a John Lennon around for final approval, but the lesson is it’s good to have someone you trust for final approval before committing to “tape.”
Reply by rivers
The really amazing thing about the Beatles for me is how lighting seemed to strike not only few times but at exactly the right time,multiple times. What I mean is you had coming together all AT ONE TIME: great once-in-a-lifetime songwriting, innovative/inspired sounds and engineering, forward looking production/arrangement, incredibly influential playing, the technology to achieve the new sounds (but not get bogged down), at least four charismatic personalities, and, oh yeah - they kept this up for like seven years with barely a misstep. It blows the mind and I doubt will be repeated in our lifetime.
Reply by nightshade
There is a chapter in Steinbeck’s “East of Eden” where the author has a little rant about how nothing original of value was ever created by committee, it was always the inspiration of one person alone. The Beatles turned that on its ass.The solo careers served only to prove it.
Reply by drumsound
I had an engineer tell me that he thinks the guitar on Beatles recordings is weak. I couldn’t believe this! Let’s look at the chain: George Harrison, John Lennon and Paul McCartney, and Rickenbacher, Gibson, Fender, Hofner—Vox—U47tube—EMI/Telefunken tube console—Studer J37. Yep that’s a recipe for bad sound.
Reply by phat
Yet another person mentions the “bad panning” in Beatles recordings. Now tell me this. How can you possibly have bad panning? That strikes me as one of the silliest comments I have heard about the Beatles. I mean, no matter how those so-called odd stereo mixes got there they are still considered great. I’ve grown tired of the “stereo as stage image” garbage. And I kind of wish everyone else would too.
Reply by lory
You could possibly have bad panning because the original recordings were mono and Capitol had it head up its ass when they signed off on a master that had all the drums on the left and all the singing on the right. I’m terribly sorry to be the poster who plunged you in deepest darkest despair because I noted something that other earthlings also noticed.
Reply by phat
I’m sorry if I came off as hostile and mean, that wasn’t what I was trying to do.
Having said that… Has anyone here really tried to mix something trying to get away from the stereo as stage image idea? It’s something I’ve been obsessed with since I noticed that a huge chunk of the song disappeared when I disconnected one speaker when listening to Revolver.
PS - I hadn’t ever really thought of Paul as a backup singer in those terms. I might have to agree with you.
Reply by lory
“Revolver” was originally recorded in stereo. I don’t believe anyone who points out the bizarre panning on Beatles albums is talking about Beatles albums that were intended to be stereo recordings. It’s the older ones reconstituted from mono.
I would also consider it sacreligious to rag on anything done by George Martin, but these stereo aberrations were done by someone at a record company, not George Martin (I have to believe). In fact, I would pay good money to buy a drum sample CD called Abbey Road that has the sounds of the kit George produced for “Come Together” and also sounds like the kit on all the Badfinger records.
Reply by steve
I finally got around to picking up “Anthology 3” a few weeks ago. While everyone talks about their creative use of production techniques, I feel that these “outtakes” and alternate versions makes all of the studio tricks seem almost a waste of time. What the Anthology Series shows more than anything is that the Beatles were an amazing live band, and that a good band usually sounds at its best when it is playing together live, even just “live in the studio.”
Many of the most impressive moments on this CD set are live run-throughs of songs complete with live “scratch” vocals that sound just great. This was a band that hadn’t played a live gig in years but they still recorded like a band. Reading through the CD notes and the “Beatles Recording Sessions” book, Lennon wouldn’t lay down an acoustic guitar track and then come back and start trying to nail a vocal take. He would sing and play together (to tape!) until he got an overall performance that was up to their sky-high standards.
This was a band that made good use studio technology; but they never stopped playing and recording like a band. Even on songs with countless overdubs, the basic tracks often included the entire band playing live to tape, and the recorded performances are good proof of how important that is. Just say NO to building songs one track at a time!
Reply by nightshade
“I’ve grown tired of the ‘stereo as stage image’ garbage. And I kind of wish everyone else would too.”
I’m obsessive about that approach when doing a realistic purist recording, where the instruments really are all set up like that in the room, and recorded in stereo. Often that is the background for whatever overdubs come (usually not many), and I can fit them in quasi-realistically or in surreal contrast as seems appropriate.
However I agree it’s kind of weak to try to get there with panned mono tracks. Many mic’d drum tracks constructed that way are far from convincing, especially by the time some reverb on the snare puts it in another distant room than the rest of the kit.
I do believe I know what you mean, though. If we’re going surreal let’s do it up, and forget about make believe stage set ups.
Reply by phat
I think that the medium should be approached in as many interesting ways as possible. I’m not necessarily convinced that a record should sound like that band sounds live. Yes, those outtakes are stunning. And your points about them being a great live band are well taken. But, is that all we should strive for with recorded music? Surrealism might be what I’m talking about. I love surreal film.
Some of this also depends on live where? Are they in a small basement practice room? Are they in a blues club in Chicago? Are they in a perfectly designed acoustic space? Or are they live from the planet Saturn?
Reply by themixfix
“This is a bit off the subject, but I had an engineer tell me that he thinks the guitar on Beatles recordings is weak. I couldn’t believe this! Let’s look and the chain: George Harrison, John Lennon and Paul Mac—Rickenbacher, Gibson, Fender, Hofner—Vox—U47tube—EMI/Telefunken tube console—Studer J37. Yep that’s a recipe for bad sound.”
Yeah, so I’d like to hear HIS *GREAT* guitar sounds/recordings. With him using, oh, like, 10 pedals, preamp gain controls on the amps (IF he even uses amps ), AND I’m sure he just SUCKS, as an *Engineer* anyway.
First recorded feedback EVER was Lennon on “I Feel Fine”. The Rick 12-String stuff was REVOLUTIONARY! “Paperback Writer” guitar sounds kick ass; it’s just hard to tell, especially by lame ass, limp dicks like Mr. *Cut and Paste*, since they are like, 3rd generation down, and one needs EARS, and the ability to distinguish shit from shine-ola to have a clue. That jerk should keep using his POD, Amp Farm, or Line 6 (Presets, anyone? ) to get some REAL cool guitar sounds on Pro Tools for the ‘Boy Bands’ he records.
Reply by steve
“How have the Fab Four recordings helped you to make better recordings? Are there any specific techniques you picked up?”
A frequency range for every part and every part in its frequency range. Listen to any Beatles song with their “typical” instrumentation’ two guitars, bass and drums. Now try to determine the frequency range of the two guitar parts; 9 times out of 10, you will hear NOTHING below 320 Hz or so.
Ever wonder how Paul’s bass parts could be so clear, distinct and loud when he had NO high end on the bass at all? It was because there were no guitar parts competing in his range. From 40 Hz to 200-something Hz was all Paul’s.
Finally, Ringo’s drums sound percussive, not like “Thor’s Hammer” or some other “Thunder of the Gods” nonsense.
Add all of this up and you get a place for everything and everything in its place. It won’t solve all of your problems, but you might be surprised at how many problems it can solve.
Reply by lory
Good points. Now a Beatles question: Until about 1970, George Harrison was an awesome rockabilly guitarist who came through time and time again under the greatest pressure possible. What made him all but give up his incredibly inventive and appropriate rockabilly licks for the rest of his life (I don’t have the answer - I’m asking!) For that matter, how come almost every lead if not every lead he ever played from 1970 on is a slide guitar part?
Anyone a big enough Beatles freak to answer this one?
Reply by nightshade
Maybe a lack of tunes screamin’ for it?
Reply by lorry
Well, if you were in a band called the Traveling Wilburys, do you think there might be one or two tunes that called for something besides slide guitar?
I guess I’ll rephrase the question to delete the word “rockabilly.” Because unlike Jeith Richards, George also stopped playing the Chuck Berry riffs he absolutely excelled at. Basically he had all kinds of stuff in his arsenal. And then he just had slide guitar.
Maybe the Krishna thing?
I’m really not trying to rag on the dead, I’m just curious if anyone has any insight why it all became slide guitar. BTW, last time we were in the car, my 12 year old daughter made me play “While My Guitar Gently Weeps” five times in a row!
Reply by nightshade
That girl’s got TASTE!
Who knows, really? The Beatles all lamed out without each others’ company. I know what you mean though, exactly.
Return to article