punk recording sound quality. wtf

[ChrisJones]

I understand early punk and hardcore bands had access to only shitty studios because of budget constraints. Stuff like Misfits, black flag, minor threat, ramones, all had that vintage lo-fi sound. Nowadays you can get a really good digital studio for cheap and with some knowledge on mic'ing and sound balance you can make some pretty awesome(although not perfect) sounding recordings in your basement.

The other day a fellow said he didn't like the "clean" sound of NOFX or the Unseen.

Clean? The vocals are crisp and easy to hear. That's not bad. A trained ear can actually name the guitars and cabs they are using just from the recording. That doesn't seem bad. You don't buy a nice gibson and marshall stack for it to sound like an epiphone in a 10watt practice amp, yet I hear those sounds on these recordings. Is this done on purpose? Has this practice turned punk rockers off of high quality recordings?

[Danny Montez]

it is weird that some people wanna hear a record that sounds like shit. i dont wanna. i wanna hear something that has been well recorded. i dunno if some people think that if it has a decent sound quality then it must mean that they have sold out or something?

[The Transmission]

For me i like a clear,quality recording.I think where some bands go wrong is more in over production than the basic recording!

[jonhomeowner]

The other day a fellow said he didn't like the "clean" sound of NOFX or the Unseen.

Clean? The vocals are crisp and easy to hear. That's not bad. A trained ear can actually name the guitars and cabs they are using just from the recording. That doesn't seem bad. You don't buy a nice gibson and marshall stack for it to sound like an epiphone in a 10watt practice amp, yet I hear those sounds on these recordings. Is this done on purpose? Has this practice turned punk rockers off of high quality recordings?
It's not the quality of modern recordings or the equipment, so much, that causes it: It is the amount of compression used.

Most modern recordings use a ton of compression to equalize every single note and part... And it fucking sucks. Most modern music lacks any peaks or valleys, ebbs or flows, because of that.

Don't get me wrong, the quality of recording equipment and the ease at which you can access decent equipment have both risen 500% since the early days of punk... But too much compression is something I see as a "problem" with most music.

I personally don't like such equalized, flat-sounding recordings, and I guess that's why I hate a lot of professionally-recorded modern music... It's a matter of taste, I guess.

[thebigother]

I generally prefer records to have a more raw sound, as opposed to the slick and polished sound a lot of albums have these days.

[ChrisJones]

I generally prefer records to have a more raw sound, as opposed to the slick and polished sound a lot of albums have these days.

Define "raw" please.

For me, raw would mean the guitars actually sound like guitars, the drums sound like drums...etc. It doesn't get much rawer than the exact sound of the instruments used. The mix is important as well as vocal compressions(which should be limited).

[Spiralz]

One complaint I have with a lot of oldschool punk records is the sound quality of the drumming more than any musical element. On one too many records the drums are muffled and almost non-existent, really diminishes the intensity of the recording.

[Nips]

i dont think those old recordings are bad at all. in fact, i think the fact that they had to make do with sub standard studios or whatever produced some of the most interesting sounds ever. and even then, the quality wasnt bad. i think minor threat and black flag were excellently produced. perfect mix of clarity and that overrun fuzz.

the Germs lexicon devil EP is a really obvious example. guitar had to be plugged straight into the board, no amp. its one of the most unique sounding records ever and its awesome. i miss that kind of slap dash creativity. it really sucks when you can tell what amp someones using.. they all use the same shit. when my new band records im gonna experiment with all kinds of fucked up gear. its half the fun... plays just as much of a key role as the way you play and the songs you write.


and on a side note... i agree with jon (big surprise says ChrisJones). modern recordings often sound horribly flat. i love the thinner compression on old records. it gives the music so much more deapth, especially on vinyl. id also say it the measure of a truely good band, if they can pull that shit off. so much harder to do. on that type of recording your playing makes the real difference, not the sound desk.

[Spiralz]

^I agree Black Flag, Minor Threat and the Germs had brilliant sound quality.

[jonhomeowner]

i dont think those old recordings are bad at all. in fact, i think the fact that they had to make do with sub standard studios or whatever produced some of the most interesting sounds ever. and even then, the quality wasnt bad. i think minor threat and black flag were excellently produced. perfect mix of clarity and that overrun fuzz.

the Germs lexicon devil EP is a really obvious example. guitar had to be plugged straight into the board, no amp. its one of the most unique sounding records ever and its awesome. i miss that kind of slap dash creativity. it really sucks when you can tell what amp someones using.. they all use the same shit. when my new band records im gonna experiment with all kinds of fucked up gear. its half the fun... plays just as much of a key role as the way you play and the songs you write.
I almost never mic an amp for recording... It's my pet peeve. Yes, when I've played live in the past, a bit of my sound comes from my amp and cabinet, but it's really only some EQ'ing, as I've never used the distortion built-in to an amplifier.

I might use an amp for the base tracking or something, because I'm just going to be playing live with everybody else, but in the end, I'll use a line-in from my guitar (and use built-in effects processing/plug-ins to recording software) or simply a pedal (multi-effects or just plain distortion).

[jonhomeowner]

Just to prove a point...

Spending five minutes of my time and using everything I know about how music is recorded in "modern" days, I did a quick re-mixing of a few parts of The Jam's "A Bomb In Wardour Street", using compression and parametric EQ'ing to make everything virtually the same decibel level (as most recordings shoot for these days).

You can shoot me later for the complete blasphemy that it is, as it (no surprise here!) sounds like utter shit without all of the awesome variations in volume it normally has:

http://geocities.com/judestevenson/ABombMixed.mp3

The only real difference is that I was only working with one track, so I couldn't EQ the actual individual instruments compared to one another as well as a studio would've been able to. But, whatever... The point is that each instrument playing sounds flat and boring.

[ChrisJones]

I find no distortion pedal or effects processer can match the tone of some good tubes. They can try all they want. The only pedals I use are a footswitch(when playing live) for the head and a tuning pedal. I'm just a simple guy I guess. A good guitar through a good cab is a very hard sound to replicate through any digital effects. Going off of the beaten path of cheap recordings...We discovered this studio that does everything analog and tubed(including studio monitors). Simply amazing. It was quick and to the point. No little wavey lines on screens to stare at. Just music to listen to. I like the sound of my gear ALOT. Thats why I bought it. It's what you hear live. That's what you should hear when it's recorded. I want the listener to hear the music in terms of what I hear in my head as it was written. I am speaking in terms of a group whose strength is playing live. The recording has to capture that live sound. Put the listener in front of the band per se. Mixing is different for every band of course.

[ChrisJones]

Just to prove a point...

Spending five minutes of my time and using everything I know about how music is recorded in "modern" days, I did a quick re-mixing of a few parts of The Jam's "A Bomb In Wardour Street", using compression and parametric EQ'ing to make everything virtually the same decibel level (as most recordings shoot for these days).

You can shoot me later for the complete blasphemy that it is, as it (no surprise here!) sounds like utter shit without all of the awesome variations in volume it normally has:

http://geocities.com/judestevenson/ABombMixed.mp3

The only real difference is that I was only working with one track, so I couldn't EQ the actual individual instruments compared to one another as well as a studio would've been able to. But, whatever... The point is that each instrument playing sounds flat and boring.

What program do you use?

[The Transmission]

I find no distortion pedal or effects processer can match the tone of some good tubes. They can try all they want. The only pedals I use are a footswitch(when playing live) for the head and a tuning pedal. I'm just a simple guy I guess. A good guitar through a good cab is a very hard sound to replicate through any digital effects. Going off of the beaten path of cheap recordings...We discovered this studio that does everything analog and tubed(including studio monitors). Simply amazing. It was quick and to the point. No little wavey lines on screens to stare at. Just music to listen to. I like the sound of my gear ALOT. Thats why I bought it. It's what you hear live. That's what you should hear when it's recorded. I am speaking in terms of a group whose strength is playing live. The recording has to capture that live sound. Put the listener in front of the band per se.

I agree.Ive never managed to get a sound through a pedal or effects unit that is as good as my valve amp.Im sure some players can but not for me!

[thebigother]

Define "raw" please.

I think the best example I can think of would be the early Bad Brains recordings. Minor threat is an other good example. I like a little bit of scratchiness and amp hum. For modern bands I'd cite the Clorox Girls self-titled LP as good example of what I mean by "raw"

[jonhomeowner]

What program do you use?
CakeWalk.

[jonhomeowner]

I find no distortion pedal or effects processer can match the tone of some good tubes. They can try all they want. The only pedals I use are a footswitch(when playing live) for the head and a tuning pedal. I'm just a simple guy I guess. A good guitar through a good cab is a very hard sound to replicate through any digital effects.
Except for the fact that Line 6 sounds near perfect when it comes to modelling.

[Rio]

I prefer the raw sound of classic punk/post punk records, but to have that sound on todays bands seems a bit ludicrous and false. I do not care for many bands to date anyway.
love the nostalgia, and I really do not care for digitalizd music either unless it suiits the genre.

[ChrisJones]

CD's are digital. Surely you must own one.

[jonhomeowner]

CD's are digital. Surely you must own one.
Yeah, but even with a CD, you can easily tell if it the music was recorded on analog originally.

[ChrisJones]

wrong context. whoops. "digitalizd music" as in recording digital. Gotcha.

Check out this studio. This was one of the best all analog studios I've worked in. http://www.donfury.com/csp/Gear.html

good piece of equipment: Air Mattress x 5

[jonhomeowner]

For sound-proofing? Or what?

[sr113]

I'm going to have to side with analog recordings on vinyl, and tube amps. Listening to a vinyl record (if it's done right) should sound like you're in the same room as the band. The problem wasn't always shitty recording equipment, most of the time the engineer or producer didn't know how to record punk ("You mean you want the record to sound like that?!?!). If they only had experience recording pop records, you could easily burn up an hour of studio time fighting about keeping hand-claps out of the mix (although I do love the compromise on Agent Orange's Living In Darkness where the band agreed, but only if they could use trash can lids instead). The whole point should be to capture the sound of what's happening in the studio on tape, and mess with it as little as possible. As a side note, if you own Social Distortion's Mommy's Little Monster, you'll find a delta (a triangle followed by a number) etched into the inner dead wax. Since delta signifies change, if you adjust your turntable (I think it's -3.75, but I'm not going to dig it out to check), you can hear the record at the speed it was recorded (imagine that! Mike Ness' balls had dropped by the time he was 19, and doesn't sound so young after all!).

[ChrisJones]

For sound-proofing? Or what?

for passing out...

[!straightfuckingedge]

It don't matter to me honestly, clear sounding records are good because they can filter out easier, but then the shitty ones are cool because you can barely understand wht the fuck the vocalist is saying, but at the same time kinda get a clue of what they're talking about, still keeping you guessing of what the hell the guy is saying. Eirgo both are good

[Johnny Running Shoes]

I like a good clean sound as well but beggars can't be choosers....I just bought "Johnny Got His Gun" by No alternative and let me tell you about sound quality...total crap but that's early S.F. punk for ya....The raw crappy sound documents what punk was/is....

[DEVIN 75]

Okay, my personal recording preference is to do minimal overdubbing and to leave the mix a tad "raw" for a living type of gruff sound. Perhaps I'm not explaining it well here but I just hate how my guitar work was "over cleaned" in a recording session. I like full on live recordings versus separate individual takes although I know they are sometimes necessary.

[Fukface82]

My opinion is good music is good music no matter how it's recorded. Work with what you have and let the chips fall. Gotta say it takes me a while to get into bands newer records with all thier production quality. As Jon was saying a lot of it sounds "flat" to me. Taking the human error out of the music is intangible to myself.

[Super_Destroyer]

The problem wasn't always shitty recording equipment, most of the time the engineer or producer didn't know how to record punk ("You mean you want the record to sound like that?!?!). If they only had experience recording pop records, you could easily burn up an hour of studio time fighting about keeping hand-claps out of the mix )
I've noticed that a lot of the early UK oi bands all suffered from a guitar mix that only can be described as "dinky". Drums, vocals, and bass all thunder along quite nicely but the guitar seems to be added as an after thought. No doubt due to the studios being used to recording keyboard heavy pop and new wave?