Hello, we are a 11 piece Motown band (including horns (tr/tr/tnr/bar), vibraphone, percussion) and just started gigging after 10 months rehearsals. We hired a real good PA company for the first two gigs, but we were mixed with that typical nowerdays 'sub' bass + 'smiley face' eq sound that is used for most rock/pop bands. We are really chasing that original sound from the sixties and would defenately like to nail that sound live, even if it is way below the hifi standards of today. Any tips how to achieve this sound? Get rid of the subs? Mike the drums with just two/three mikes? Mix everything in mono? Cut of low? How much and where - 70,80,90? Pump up low mid? We have some ideas, but is not simple to bring the message to the sound engineer. Thanks for helping us. Paul / Cloud-Nine.

--------------------
Paul Leblanchisseur

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-457607153062514364

--------------------
I'm All Ears.

+1 to Ken's suggestion. The Motown sound is all about the playing and the arrangements. You need to forget all the modern styles that you've learned over the last 45 years and go back to the jazz and gospel of the late 50's and early 60's.

I was engineering a covers band a few years ago and, when the drummer came in, I thought we were going to have real problems. He was an old guy with a small jazz kit using regular grip playing 60's rhythm and blues. I thought he'd be tickling the drums (like many not so good jazz drummers seem to) but instead he had an absolutely authentic 60's sound which was spot on for the style of music. I realised that most of the 60's drummers had probably come from a similar style and that you really can't get a properly authentic sound without understanding that musical background.

If you want to be really authentic PA wise, you'll need a couple of 4x12 columns with just the vocals going through them. Let the band balance themselves.

Cheers

James.

--------------------
JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration.
http://www.jrpmusic.net

Hi Paul,

Assuming you're talking about the mixing stage rather than PA? And assuming the playing/tracking is up to scratch?

I think you're right about losing some of the bottom end. I believe a lot of Motown records lose a fair bit of the top as well. It's probably worth getting a spectrum analyser and checking how it looks for a few classic tracks and trying to copy.

I'd roll off a lot of the top and bottom of any effect sends as well as this can help.

Also: Tracks that I'm thinking of "Heard it Through the Grapevine" for example, sound particularly "warm" - which is basically saturation / harmonic distortion in the lower mids. There are a number of plugins you could use for this - or record to tape/use a tape emulator.

Hope this helps a bit - sorry if anything is a repeat of what's in the link. I can't open it here....

Dan

I might be misunderstanding something, but why on earth would you want to recreate the limitations of 60's record production, live?

Or, are you trying to recreate how it sounded when played live way-back then?

--------------------
www.thediplomatz.com

Oh yeah "live" - missed that.

How do you know what they sounded like live?

>Get rid of the subs?

Getting rid of the subs might make you sound a bit more authentic, but you have to consider whether your modern audience will like that. They usually like hearing lots of bass, it gets them dancing and that's what being in a cover band is all about. (But getting a more authentic sound might also make them dance more, I'm not saying it's a cut-and-dried matter).

>Mike the drums with just two/three mikes?

Unless you have a good crew and lots of time to set up, that's generally a good idea anyway for gigs. Snare mics are just an invitation for a lot of sound mixers (at the lower end of the live scene) to have the snare way too loud. Tom mics ditto.

That would also help with getting the Motown sound. A whipcracking snare with lots of 80's reverb does not say Motown.

>Mix everything in mono?

Lots of bands prefer to go mono live, but it's unlikely to make much difference to your search for authenticity, as stereo doesn't really come across live anyway like it does with your hi-fi.

Personally, I'd look at adding an FOH engineer as almost a 12th member of your band — someone who can work with you and get to know your sound, your likes, dislikes etc. If you have that, the right instruments and a decent performance you should be pretty much there.

But it's hard to say what the sound is that you want. You want it to sound like the recordings you've heard (eg on TV shows) — which will have been mixed/balanced for broadcast and have been recorded to tape; or do you want to sound like you *think* they sounded playing live in all the sh1tty little venues they played back in the day?

The right reverbs would help as well, plates probably. What gives you that sound in the studio ? Consider the mic technology of the time and that type of warm vox distortion that happened in the 60's. Recreate that set up as closely as possible.

cheers

SafeandSound Mastering

--------------------
Mastering online mastering

Obviously there's not a huge amount of evidence of genuine live Motown footage, but this ones pretty good:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9KC7uhMY9s

Including the rarest of all - James Jameson on bass! The master!
Not as warm as the recordings obviously but still a good sound and noticeably Motown but that's more to do with the musicians than it is the actual sound...

Sean

Quote SafeandSound Mastering:

---

The right reverbs would help as well, plates probably.

---

If we're talking about the records rather than gigs, I was under the impression that the Motown reverb was usually more from rooms/chambers than plates. Also, the vox often seem to me to be quite up-front - ie dry - compared with much of the backing.

Quote The_Big_Piano_Player:

---

I might be misunderstanding something, but why on earth would you want to recreate the limitations of 60's record production,

---

Perhaps because the original recordings sound great and full of character, unlike a lot of modern day pop records?

Quote johnny h:

---

Quote The_Big_Piano_Player:

---

I might be misunderstanding something, but why on earth would you want to recreate the limitations of 60's record production,

---

Perhaps because the original recordings sound great and full of character, unlike a lot of modern day pop records?

---

Well done, for quoting me out of context.

--------------------
www.thediplomatz.com

ISTR an article saying that the way they worked, they recorded the backings to 2-track one day and then overdubbed the vocals the next day. So the backings were a second-generation tape copy, with all the sonic effects that implies for the tapes they had at the time (inherent compression, rolling off the high end, etc.).

Paul don't listen to any og these guys. Everyone in the industry knows that it all comes down to the hair. As I'm a caring and sharing kinda guy I will share this profoundly guarded secret with you.

This was Hugh before he went all EDM on us:



--------------------
Samplecraze
Stretch That Note

Zuke, don't post up your private photos mate.

--------------------
http://soundcloud.com/richie-royale
http://www.mixcrate.com/richieroyale

Should I be worried that I saw that photo and my first thought was "he's done a good job on that decking"...?

Quote grab:

---

Should I be worried that I saw that photo and my first thought was "he's done a good job on that decking"...?

---

I'd be more worried if you saw it and thought, nice shoe/trouser combo, I need to get that.

--------------------
http://soundcloud.com/richie-royale
http://www.mixcrate.com/richieroyale

Can you guys see the natural evolution from funky, pink striped shirt to fluffy pink jumper....huh?

Everything in life has a beginning.

I started off in a Kentucky Fried Chicken Box, left outside my family's gaff.

--------------------
Samplecraze
Stretch That Note

Quote grab:

---

ISTR an article saying that the way they worked, they recorded the backings to 2-track one day and then overdubbed the vocals the next day. So the backings were a second-generation tape copy, with all the sonic effects that implies for the tapes they had at the time (inherent compression, rolling off the high end, etc.).

---

Studios have changed so much since those days, and the skills of those engineers are pretty much lost forever. Getting that natural dirt and crunch back into the recordings without sounding harsh is a very difficult skill.

Have you looked into Phil Collins' recent album, Going Back? It's his 'battle re-enactment' tribute to Motown. Musically I'm not so keen on it, but from an authentic, historical practice point of view it's interesting. Instead of trying to emulate the Motown sound with matching vintage equipment, the engineer went for the aural approach and used his ears: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan11/articles/it-0111.htm

Quote johnny h:

---

Quote grab:

---

ISTR an article saying that the way they worked, they recorded the backings to 2-track one day and then overdubbed the vocals the next day. So the backings were a second-generation tape copy, with all the sonic effects that implies for the tapes they had at the time (inherent compression, rolling off the high end, etc.).

---

Studios have changed so much since those days, and the skills of those engineers are pretty much lost forever. Getting that natural dirt and crunch back into the recordings without sounding harsh is a very difficult skill.

---

Not sure they're "lost forever". Isn't that what all the SoS "Classic Tracks" articles are about?

And what I was getting at is that if this is a significant element of the sound, you could likely get an approximation of it by bussing everything except the vocals and then applying suitable processing (tape simulation or whatever) on that bus.

Quote johnny h:

---

the skills of those engineers are pretty much lost forever

---

Not quite - Bob Olhsson was involved in the old Motown studio and he's still active in sound recording. He's also posted a fair bit about the old recording techniques online.

James

--------------------
JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration.
http://www.jrpmusic.net

Quote johnny h:

---

Studios have changed so much since those days, and the skills of those engineers are pretty much lost forever. Getting that natural dirt and crunch back into the recordings without sounding harsh is a very difficult skill.

---

I don't think they are lost -- plenty of engineers and producers are still very much aware of how it was done and why it worked.

The reason it's not done that way anymore is because few people have the confidence to work that way. They don't want to record vocals in a few superb takes, they want or expect to comp a vocal track from dozens of average takes, and to autotune any performance faux pas.

They don't want to record the band as an ensemble and use the inherent spill in the small studio as an integral part of the sound because that means unimpressive and under-rehearsed performances can't be fixed through countless overdubs and editing.

In short, most people are too comfortable and too lazy thanks to the techniques associated with modern DAW production. The fashion and style today is generally for uber-production. It was done differently in the Motown era, and could still be done if the desire and drive was there.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

Studios have changed so much since those days, and the skills of those engineers are pretty much lost forever. Getting that natural dirt and crunch back into the recordings without sounding harsh is a very difficult skill.

---

I don't think they are lost -- plenty of engineers and producers are still very much aware of how it was done and why it worked.

The reason it's not done that way anymore is because few people have the confidence to work that way. They don't want to record vocals in a few superb takes, they want or expect to comp a vocal track from dozens of average takes, and to autotune any performance faux pas.

They don't want to record the band as an ensemble and use the inherent spill in the small studio as an integral part of the sound because that means unimpressive and under-rehearsed performances can't be fixed through countless overdubs and editing.

In short, most people are too comfortable and too lazy thanks to the techniques associated with modern DAW production. The fashion and style today is generally for uber-production. It was done differently in the Motown era, and could still be done if the desire and drive was there.

Hugh

---

Indeed, that kind of recording and production is still done properly today: http://youtu.be/8ouI5KcyHfE

--------------------
I'm All Ears.

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

Studios have changed so much since those days, and the skills of those engineers are pretty much lost forever. Getting that natural dirt and crunch back into the recordings without sounding harsh is a very difficult skill.

---

I don't think they are lost -- plenty of engineers and producers are still very much aware of how it was done and why it worked.

The reason it's not done that way anymore is because few people have the confidence to work that way. They don't want to record vocals in a few superb takes, they want or expect to comp a vocal track from dozens of average takes, and to autotune any performance faux pas.

They don't want to record the band as an ensemble and use the inherent spill in the small studio as an integral part of the sound because that means unimpressive and under-rehearsed performances can't be fixed through countless overdubs and editing.

In short, most people are too comfortable and too lazy thanks to the techniques associated with modern DAW production. The fashion and style today is generally for uber-production. It was done differently in the Motown era, and could still be done if the desire and drive was there.

Hugh

---

If the tools are there, they will be used. People tend to only work as hard as they need to, and if an acceptable result can be taken from pasted together, auto tuned, time shifted bits of audio then it may be that this is the easiest way to go about it. Its more the fault of the performers than the producers.

Quote johnny h:

---

Its more the fault of the performers than the producers.

---

Actually, its the producer's job to get the best out of the performers. And results can only be deemed acceptable by the producer.

--------------------
I'm All Ears.

Quote ken long:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

Its more the fault of the performers than the producers.

---

Actually, its the producer's job to get the best out of the performers. And results can only be deemed acceptable by the producer.

---

If the producer is a big name and demands respect, then yes. But many performers are total divas and complain to their people that the producer is behind the times by refusing to use modern techniques (fixing their crap timing and tuning). The fact that the tools exist make it possible for this scenario to exist, and I have seen it happen myself.

Quote johnny h:

---

Quote ken long:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

Its more the fault of the performers than the producers.

---

Actually, its the producer's job to get the best out of the performers. And results can only be deemed acceptable by the producer.

---

If the producer is a big name and demands respect, then yes. But many performers are total divas and complain to their people that the producer is behind the times by refusing to use modern techniques (fixing their crap timing and tuning). The fact that the tools exist make it possible for this scenario to exist, and I have seen it happen myself.

---

Hmmm... not sure where you've seen this. Producers are usually hired for their approach to making a record (and record sales, no doubt). And who are they? "their people"? Surely you mean the record label who hires the producer. Not sure who the artist would complain too. And if they've hired a producer to create that type of record, then they will be expecting his method.

--------------------
I'm All Ears.