RJDG14

So I'm curious how modern rock and alternative/indie music, in particular that from the 80s/90s, would have sounded if recorded in the late 60s with the same innovation but with 60s production equipment. I'm asking this because guitars on most 60s rock usually sound different, usually janglier/springier or with a wah-wah fuzz sound. Drums were also usually tinnier sounding. Were these differences a result of the limitations of the equipment available at the time or was it simply the fashionable production of the day? I doubt electric guitars sounded any different by themselves in the late 60s. So what I'm basically asking would be whether it would have been possible to record a 90s sounding album with a 90s-style mix in the late 60s (perhaps with slightly more background hiss), had someone had the innovation? Have there been any examples of people who have recorded songs in the last 25 years using old instruments so we get the gist of how music coul have potentially sounded in the 60s?

OccultHawk

How much of what you're asking is analog vs digital?

__________________

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Member of the Year & Journal of the Year Champion

Behold the Writing of THE LEGEND:

https://www.musicbanter.com/members-...p-lighter.html

RJDG14

That wasn't really what I meant. Some bands in the early 90s were still recording on analog equipment; I agree that most of what is being done now wouldn't have been possible with 60s recording technology, though. For instance, the CD of Nirvana's Nevermind has an AAD SPARS code, meaning it was recorded on analog tape. As far as I know, most of their equipment was also analog, so could they (for instance) have sounded the way they did in the 60s or early 70s?

Chula Vista

Well, a lot of the technology used today didn't exist back then. No sequencing, no loops, no PC based cut and paste, and everything was analog and recorded on tape.

But Hendrix, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, The Beach Boys, The Yardbirds, The Moody Blues, and others all put out amazing stuff.

Also, please post examples of what you consider to be "modern rock music".

In the 60s there was basically just rock. These days rock has been splintered into dozens and dozens of sub-genres so it's impossible to determine what you mean by the words "rock music".

__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

RJDG14

By modern rock, I was discounting music with a lot of looping or keyboard/electronic elements. Here are some bands from the 80s through to te 00s, and I'm wondering if you could have made music similar to any of them in the 60s/70s with a similar production, minus any digital vocal effects (eg: Autotune) that may be present on recordings from c.1997 onwards:

Nirvana
Foo Fighters (90s era)
Husker Du (last 3 albums)
Pixies
Idlewild (first 3 albums)
The Connells (Ring era)
Green Day (39/Smooth - Dookie era)
The Dream Syndicate (giving them as an example since The Velvet Underground was a major influence)

Most current modern rock utilises too many effects to have been possible in the 60s, but I don't know about these, since none of them used many electronic effects or loops to my knowledge.

DriveYourCarDownToTheSea

I think about this idea all the time. There is A LOT of modern music I think would sound A LOT better if it was recorded with older equipment - in particular, sound compression makes a lot of modern music really awkward to listen to.

__________________
Stop and find a pretty shell for her
Beach Boys vs Beatles comparisons begin here

RJDG14

The sound compression on new music is down to current mastering trends, not the recording.

Chula Vista

Then the answer is yes. I'd argue that some of the albums released in the late 60s recorded on tape and relased on vinyl LPs sound better than anything those bands have put out. Not talking about the actual compositions, just the sonics.

Granted, these are digital renditions of the originals but try to imagine what this stuff sounded like played through a good quality turntable and sound system with an original pressing of the LP.

1968


1968


1968


1967


1968

__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

OccultHawk

Nirvana, Husker Du, and the Pixies could have easily created the same sound with technology from the '60s.

__________________

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Member of the Year & Journal of the Year Champion

Behold the Writing of THE LEGEND:

https://www.musicbanter.com/members-...p-lighter.html

RJDG14

Yeah, I guessed they could. Would there have been the innovation, probably not, but that's not what I was asking.

The original mastering of Nevermind actually sounds cleaner in my opinion than the digital remaster, hence why it's the copy I own (it's also the cheaper option). The remaster sounds pretty compressed in comparison with the original.