Quantcast
Listening to cd's on my iPod and then came the Beatles...Weird! - Page 2 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Listening to cd's on my iPod and then came the Beatles...Weird!
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #31
Gear Guru
 
Sqye's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
.

my fav mixing trick is:

kik hard left at 160db through a resonant filter at 250hz
...with 32nd note staggered triplet delay 100% wet signal only

bass and ride bell mixed hard right at 140db through a notch filter at 375Hz
...with 100% wet eventide canyon reverb multed through a low pass filter at 200Hz.

triangle and accordian [distorted] dead center through a high pass filter @ 8.5kHz
...and 100% wet returns with a pulsing sequenced 64th note triplet gate...


i don't usually care too much about any other instruments...


this mixing technique usually makes my pop merengue / bachata clients really enthusiastic.



.
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #32
Lives for gear
 
brill bedroom's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz ➑️
T
Some engineers, though, were very daring. Fred Weinberg did an incredible job with Joe Cuba's classic "Bang Bang Push Push" album that I remastered a couple of years ago.The 1966 source tape sounded just as fresh as new, it was in great shape and the sound does not come across as "fake stereo". I called Fred (who's still working today!) and he said that he made it a point to record a lot of the instruments in stereo and premix them (he had a lot of confidence in his blending ability) and that a lot of the performances were (as was the case at the time) real with little or no overdubbing, so the leakage also was stereo.

It's an amazing R&B-Boogaloo record, you all should get it!

BK
Nice to see you mentioning Fred. i went to Berklee with his son Gregg. He was very encouraging- for a birthday present one year, he booked a night at Synchro sound (the Cars old studio in Boston) and Gregg and his buddies went in and recorded one of my songs- my first time with a 2' 24 track studio. At one point, we were talking about an edit and Fred pulled the 2' off the machine, pulled out a razor and did the edit right before our eyes. Blew our 19 year old minds! Great guy.
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #33
Lives for gear
 
3rd&4thT's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
As has been pointed out, those early Beatles recordings were intended for mono, and the stereo mixes were a hurried afterthought.

But hard panning generally existed for two reasons, only one musical. The other reason was commercial.

The customer had been forced out of their 50-year-old 78 format at mid-century into a battle of the speeds, 33 vs. 45 rpm. Now here it was just a few years later, and the industry was asking you to scrap your whole "hifi" sound system and start over with stereo LPs. It might also mean moving furniture around your living room - a mono rig could sit in one corner, but stereo meant speakers in new places.

The cycle of technological and cultural change was slower in those days - people weren't into disposable hardware then as we are now. How old is your iPod?

The only way to get people interested in stereo was to demonstrate a clear superiority of the new product, and ping-pong, wide-angle recording was the only thing that would move the new record players out of the store and into the home.

You have no idea what a novelty it was to have "Steam Trains under Thundering Skies" rumble through your living room. You'd invite people over just to hear it.

In classical recordings, it was at about this time that Decca began to use outriggers to supplement their tree, and EMI was forced to follow suit to increase the perceived spread of their center-heavy Blumlein array. Walter Legge complained about it, and ascribed it to "competitive pressures."

The Beatles hole in the center was an aberration. The stereo of that vintage was robust, unashamed, and sometimes downright gimmicky.

Cheers,
3rd&4thT
Attached Files

Bang, Bang.mp3 (3.76 MB, 46 views)

Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #34
Lives for gear
 
vernier's Avatar
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Hard panned is a neat thing . . .


'
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #35
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Damn James, stop making me feel so old. I was well aware of this 30 or 40 years ago.

I was once at a party where the speakers were really far apart, different rooms. You could hear the drums coming from one room, the guitar from the other, and so forth.
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #36
Gear Addict
 
Mike Derrick's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd&4thT ➑️
As has been pointed out, those early Beatles recordings were intended for mono, and the stereo mixes were a hurried afterthought.

But hard panning generally existed for two reasons, only one musical. The other reason was commercial.

The customer had been forced out of their 50-year-old 78 format at mid-century into a battle of the speeds, 33 vs. 45 rpm. Now here it was just a few years later, and the industry was asking you to scrap your whole "hifi" sound system and start over with stereo LPs. It might also mean moving furniture around your living room - a mono rig could sit in one corner, but stereo meant speakers in new places.

The cycle of technological and cultural change was slower in those days - people weren't into disposable hardware then as we are now. How old is your iPod?

The only way to get people interested in stereo was to demonstrate a clear superiority of the new product, and ping-pong, wide-angle recording was the only thing that would move the new record players out of the store and into the home.

You have no idea what a novelty it was to have "Steam Trains under Thundering Skies" rumble through your living room. You'd invite people over just to hear it.

In classical recordings, it was at about this time that Decca began to use outriggers to supplement their tree, and EMI was forced to follow suit to increase the perceived spread of their center-heavy Blumlein array. Walter Legge complained about it, and ascribed it to "competitive pressures."

The Beatles hole in the center was an aberration. The stereo of that vintage was robust, unashamed, and sometimes downright gimmicky.

Cheers,
3rd&4thT
This is a great post which puts things in perspective. Sometimes what later gets hailed as creative genius was really just a practical application dealing with certain limitations.

I don't mind the hard panning thing, but it can be a weird adjustment for your listening-sense for the first little while until you get used to the scene. Fun to try, sometimes works, sometimes it's just distracting. It's nice to have a little bleed in the mics so the L/R has a little bit of sharing going on.
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #37
Gear Guru
 
10 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
james,

dude - I love you man, but at first I thought the post was a joke. many early stereo recordings {L}eft. {C}enter, {R}ight panned as those we're pre-panner's. that's what they had. break out the history books!

there's a story about either the beatles or beach boys getting really excited when the engineer brought in this dial which they could wire in and use on ONE TRACK, it was called a panner... it was more of an effect to move something across the stereo field rather than to position it stationary.

I LOVE - those old L/C/R recordings - I must be getting old. Although it's well documented the beatles recordings were intended for mono - I am grateful for those mixes - go back an listen to some Donavan, Van Morrison... same thing...

my secret obsession to record my own L/C/R album. I will also record each song 4 tracks at at time, mix to stereo, add two, mix to stereo, add two... for the whole thing... I'm not sure how many bumps they did on pepper but they idea would be to do no more than they did...
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #38
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
For more of AWESOME "modern" panning techniques and mixes; I love Steve Albini's mixes. Surfer Rosa is an example. The vocals are panned 10,9 O'clock or 2,3 O'clock throughout the whole album. I believe some of the panning (and level) decisions in his mixes are so taken due to bleed between instruments played in the same room.
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #39
Lives for gear
 
Batchainpuller78's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcm ➑️
I love bold panning choices. I wish more clients would let me get away with it.
right on! me too, I like the hard panning going on end 50's & the 60's in Jazz & rock/pop
I really see no problem with it as one normally would listen music on a stereo system more or less set up in the right way.
even on headphones it's allright with me.

For those with a problem with hard panning or confusing music listen to Ornette Coleman's Free Jazz in the left ear you got a rhythm section playing half time, in the right ear a rhythm section playing double time and horns all across. 26 minutes, once you are done with that you can take anything.

Actually I always choose to place instruments more left or right instead of evenly spread across or plenty of mono if I want to push or rock.

On a lot of albums I own from back then you can even solo a couple of tracks just by panning the stereo, ah only bass & drums, or hey here's the guitar & vocal.
I actually use that a lot when i'm trying to figure out a part that's played, or to listen to the sound of the instrument or to see what those guys are doing under the track.
Old 9th February 2009
  #40
Gear Addict
 
van Overhalen's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by James 'LA' Lugo ➑️
Oh my God it's like they just invented the pan knob and the boys were hittin' the bong to hard.

The strangest most distracting experience. Vocal hard left, drums hard right with guitars and bass kind of somewhere else not sure. I think the first song I heard was Taxman, man it was weird sounding.

That music is better on a stereo not headphones.


How old are you, man ?
I think I was 8 years old when I discovered that the Beatles' stereo mixes allowed me to listen more closely to different instruments/vocals. Always loved listening on headphones !
This was in 1973 or something.
Now it's 2009 and you JUST found out about it ?
What were YOU listening to the last 30 years ?
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #41
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Well, many have touched on some of these points, but here are a few more facts.

Again, think about the advent of stereo...

Yes, when The Beatles first arrived, records were mono. At some point around 1965 or so, the labels started releasing albums in mono OR stereo, with the stereo versions typically costing $1.00 more (as I recall, it was typically $4.95 for mono, and $5.95 for stereo). Of course, stereo was just starting out, and with (typically) only four tracks to work with, engineers didn't know exactly what to do with it, for exactly the reasons you've stated, James. But, with some pressure from the labels and the hope of getting consumers to buy their albums all over again in stereo, stereo mixes were created.

And, given only four tracks, you'd typically have some odd panning...let's remember that with only four tracks of playback, people would "overdub" by pre-mixing four tracks down to two tracks on a second machine, while adding other elements "live" (as the bounce was happening, because machines then didn't have the ability to overdub as they did later on). So, on one track, you may have background vocals in the chorus and tambourine in the third verse, with empty space on all other parts of the song. On another track, you might have B3 in the intro and string quartet in Verse 3 or whatever. So, eventually, if you play back all four tracks in mono, you have a song. But when you take those four final tracks, pan one Left, one Right and two in mono, for instance, you have what you hear, James. Sometimes this would even mean that NO SOUND whatsoever was coming out of one of the two speakers.

In George Martin's book, "All You Need is Ears", he tells the story that even up through Sgt. Peppers, The Beatles only cared about the mono mixes. Even on Peppers, he tells of all of them spending two weeks mixing the mono version, which they considered THE version...then the band went on holiday, while George and Geoff Emerick mixed the stereo version in about two days.

So, James, it wasn't drugs that induced the odd panning...it was technology that hadn't been fully developed...it was the limitations of early stereo console capability...it was the engineers' not fully knowing what to do with it...it was the marketing arm of the label driving the creative arm...it was the land rush to a new format to sell...and, in the case of The Beatles, they considered the mono mixes to be the MASTERS up until and including Sgt. Peppers. So, whenever possible, listen only to the MONO mixes...
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #42
Lives for gear
 
doorknocker's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
One would think that it wouldn't be too hard to release the (generally rather short) Beatles albums as say double CDs with both the mono and stereo version on one CD and non-LP singles, rarities on the other.

I have CDs like that of the Zombies, Kinks, John Mayall's Bluesbreakers and others. I wonder how long we need to wait for 'proper' Beatles reissues? Or wait till the loudness war is over, now that would be worth it though....
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #43
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScumBum ➑️
I read somewhere that mixing boards back then only had three positions you could pan to . Hard Left , Middle , Hard Right . The pan knob could only click to these three positions . Which explains why alot of old mixes where so extreme .
There was no pan knob, they only had routing knobs...
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #44
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
For real, I can still remember the first time I heard "Whole Lotta Love" as a kid.

I would move the speakers on the old Zenith "HiFi" so they were right next to my ears. Sort of like gigantic headphones.

Who doesn't love the middle section with the theremin and Robert Plant's screeching and moaning?
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #45
Lives for gear
 
blackcatdigi's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Man, I LOVE that stuff...

I used to listen to each song 3 times: Once just left speaker, once just right speaker, and then with both on. I was always amazed at how the stereo effect was so much more than just the sum of left and right. Kind of like if 1 + 1 =139!!!

And very cool to listen for production qualitys in (semi) isolation.

Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #46
Gear Maniac
 
corworld's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I always liked messing with the balance control when listening to Revolver and hearing the vocal and drums in isolation. In a very basic way, It let the listener have control over the final mix.
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #47
Gear Guru
 
theblue1's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorknocker ➑️
I think the difference is that on 'Electric Ladyland' the panning is intentional and not just a 'mono afterthought'. Listen to 'House Burning down' and the way the burning guitar moves across the spectrum. 'Moon... turn the tides' is absolutely mindblowing as well.

As a teen I used to stay up late at night and listen to 'Electric Ladyland' on headphones in the dark, it was an incredible experience as I really got the feeling of being inside the music. I love the panning on these Hendrix records and really think that it has become extremely boring and predictable in most modern rock/pop.
I'm a little more jaded... I love ELL because it's Hendrix's guitar being swung abruptly from one side to the other (rather clumsily, I thought at the time, being a big stereo buff even before I started listening to rock again in the middle of my teen years [about the time I realized listening to Coltrane and Pete Seeger wasn't going to cut it when it came to winning over the beach bunnies who were currently catching my eye]).

But there was, in that early psychedelic era, a lot of silly stereo gimmickry of various kinds. I was glad when people started mixing drums in stereo in the middle of the virtual soundstage... That said, I also liked the completely unrealistic -- I called it surrealistic at the time -- production style that popped up in places like the Temps' version of "Papa Was a Rolling Stone" or the somewhat more downhome but still quite odd and unnatural mixes that Willie Mitchell came up with for the classic Al Green stuff. (A totally unnatural mix of dry and wet, weird pannings, you name it. It drove me crazy, but ultimately in a good way. It took me a while to really accept it, but once I did, it became some of my favorite tracks.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Resonater ➑️
Well, many have touched on some of these points, but here are a few more facts.

Again, think about the advent of stereo...

Yes, when The Beatles first arrived, records were mono. At some point around 1965 or so, the labels started releasing albums in mono OR stereo, with the stereo versions typically costing $1.00 more (as I recall, it was typically $4.95 for mono, and $5.95 for stereo).[...]
That's pretty much true for rock and teen pop. But jazz, classical, and mainstream pop was being released considerably earlier. The first stereo LPs were released in '57 (according to Wikipedia -- I thought it was a little later). About a year later, I heard my first stereo recording, an Ampex prerecorded reel tape of Arthur Lyman's tiki-torch classic, Tabu. (Sounded great... I was knocked out.)

AFAIK, there were no commercial stereos in '57 but the component hi fi guys were set up to go, they just bought a stereo tape deck and or stereo cartridge and bought another preamp, power amp, and speaker. But that was the beginning of the move to smaller speakers in the hi fi set. A long-suffering wife who would put up with one huge, folded Klipschorn was not as likely to go for two... It was only a few years later, maybe around '62 or '63 that the first commercially successful acoustic suspension sealed box bookshelf speakers came out, the Acoustic Research AR3's, which pretty much were the start of the small hi fi speaker thing...

Remember, teens, by and large, did not buy albums. Albums were an afterthought in the teen market in those days. The album release, if any, would often come months later and might not even include all the single hits. It was all about milking a few more bucks out without killing off whatever revenue stream remained from the singles.
Old 9th February 2009
  #48
Lives for gear
 
Knox's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I say get out of comfort zone and what is 'safe' (everything is waaaaay too safe these days) and seems everything sounds like everything / everyone else) . . Personally, I really like all that hard panning 'stuff'. Doing what everyone else does is boring. Of course we all know why things were hard panned in the old days . . . doesn't mean it can't be done these days for creative reasons. . . . . throw out the 'safe' book and stretch. Thank God people threw away all the safety nets, otherwise there would be no Hendrix etc.
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #49
Founder
 
Jules's Avatar
hard to resist..

Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #50
Gear Guru
 
Sqye's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by van Overhalen ➑️
How old are you, man ?
I think I was 8 years old when I discovered that the Beatles' stereo mixes allowed me to listen more closely to different instruments/vocals. Always loved listening on headphones !
This was in 1973 or something.
Now it's 2009 and you JUST found out about it ?
What were YOU listening to the last 30 years ?
.

lol


james, i know what you're saying - compared to everything else in the last few decades,
the mixes can sound out of whack...but if you take them in their own context,
and maybe don't listen quite as loud in the cans - so you're not freeking out your equilibrium with uneven spl pressure - it can be quite refreshing. the music and arrangements are unparalled, imo.

man, frikkin' eleanor rigby is ridiculous - listen to those cellos - people don't do that kinda **** anymore...

.

.
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #51
Lives for gear
 
chet.d's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knox ➑️
I say get out of comfort zone and what is 'safe' (everything is waaaaay too safe these days) and seems everything sounds like everything / everyone else) . . Personally, I really like all that hard panning 'stuff'. Doing what everyone else does is boring. Of course we all know why things were hard panned in the old days . . . doesn't mean it can't be done these days for creative reasons. . . . . throw out the 'safe' book and stretch. Thank God people threw away all the safety nets, otherwise there would be no Hendrix etc.

word.
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #52
Gear Guru
 
Sqye's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 ➑️
I'm a little more jaded... I love ELL because it's Hendrix's guitar being swung abruptly from one side to the other (rather clumsily, I thought at the time, being a big stereo buff even before I started listening to rock again in the middle of my teen years [about the time I realized listening to Coltrane and Pete Seeger wasn't going to cut it when it came to winning over the beach bunnies who were currently catching my eye]).

But there was, in that early psychedelic era, a lot of silly stereo gimmickry of various kinds. I was glad when people started mixing drums in stereo in the middle of the virtual soundstage... That said, I also liked the completely unrealistic -- I called it surrealistic at the time -- production style that popped up in places like the Temps' version of "Papa Was a Rolling Stone" or the somewhat more downhome but still quite odd and unnatural mixes that Willie Mitchell came up with for the classic Al Green stuff. (A totally unnatural mix of dry and wet, weird pannings, you name it. It drove me crazy, but ultimately in a good way. It took me a while to really accept it, but once I did, it became some of my favorite tracks.)




That's pretty much true for rock and teen pop. But jazz, classical, and mainstream pop was being released considerably earlier. The first stereo LPs were released in '57 (according to Wikipedia -- I thought it was a little later). About a year later, I heard my first stereo recording, an Ampex prerecorded reel tape of Arthur Lyman's tiki-torch classic, Tabu. (Sounded great... I was knocked out.)

AFAIK, there were no commercial stereos in '57 but the component hi fi guys were set up to go, they just bought a stereo tape deck and or stereo cartridge and bought another preamp, power amp, and speaker. But that was the beginning of the move to smaller speakers in the hi fi set. A long-suffering wife who would put up with one huge, folded Klipschorn was not as likely to go for two... It was only a few years later, maybe around '62 or '63 that the first commercially successful acoustic suspension sealed box bookshelf speakers came out, the Acoustic Research AR3's, which pretty much were the start of the small hi fi speaker thing...

Remember, teens, by and large, did not buy albums. Albums were an afterthought in the teen market in those days. The album release, if any, would often come months later and might not even include all the single hits. It was all about milking a few more bucks out without killing off whatever revenue stream remained from the singles.

.

great post.

.
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #53
Moderator
 
James Lugo's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by van Overhalen ➑️
How old are you, man ?
I think I was 8 years old when I discovered that the Beatles' stereo mixes allowed me to listen more closely to different instruments/vocals. Always loved listening on headphones !
This was in 1973 or something.
Now it's 2009 and you JUST found out about it ?
What were YOU listening to the last 30 years ?
I'll try not to take this as an insult.

First off I'm 44 and grew up around Beatle music but was rarely moved by it so I never listened intensly. The Beatles just weren't my thing, I was in the crowd that detested the Beatles (if you're as old as you sound, you know the crowd). I also never listened to music on headphones in my whole life till the advent of the iPod, it just wasn't my thing either. So at 44 I had a fresh new experience! WOW mind blowing.
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #54
Gear Guru
 
theblue1's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sqye ➑️
.

great post.

.
I view my ever-advancing age as one might regard a lemon tree in the back yard...

... you just have to learn to like lemonade.

_______________


James

I can identify. I didn't hate the Beatles, by any means, but I certainly identified (once I got back into rock, anyhow) with the Stones -- and particularly with the new crop of psychedelic musicians coming up -- considerably more.

________________


And speaking of great headphone albums...


They're not super well-known, but LA's Firesign Theatre translated their extremely free-form, wacky underground radio shows into a series of super-surrealistic, hilariously inventive albums that some critics dubbed headphone humor because of their adventurous and aggressive use of the stereo medium.

They were sometimes called drug humor -- because they were very clearly influenced by the hippie and LSD countercultures. But their drug humor -- unlike the later, loadie buffoonery of Cheech and Chong who aimed straight for the lowest common denominator -- was truly psychedelic and subversive and counted on an alert, informed audience to be able to decipher the multiple layers of puns and literary and cultural references.

We're Glad You Made It - Welcome to firesigntheatre.com
The Firesign Theatre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #55
Lives for gear
 
Knox's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I always find it questionable when someone says something like they "detest the Beatles". How can anyone really "detest" the Beatles? May not be your 'favorite' . . but "detest"? I have friends who 'acted' tough and would say "I'm in to the Stones. The Beatles are too pop / cutesy" . . . but I even find that questionable. 3 of the greatest song writers in one band (!) great vocalists / great harmonies / great players. . . . who changed not only music but the world . . . and you "detest" them? I was a rock guy / punk guy / HUGE Hendrix / Coltrane / Miles etc . . . but even still, I appreciated the Beatles (even did Beatlemania on Broadway). I do remember a period where it was 'in' to say you don't like the Beatles (if that is what you are referring to) but it just seems it was just 'in' to do so and most of the people who said that were just saying it to say it. So I am curious . . . how and in what way did you "detest" the Beatles?

Quote:
Originally Posted by James 'LA' Lugo ➑️
First off I'm 44 and grew up around Beatle music but was rarely moved by it so I never listened intensly. The Beatles just weren't my thing, I was in the crowd that detested the Beatles (if you're as old as you sound, you know the crowd). I also never listened to music on headphones in my whole life till the advent of the iPod, it just wasn't my thing either. So at 44 I had a fresh new experience! WOW mind blowing.
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #56
Moderator
 
James Lugo's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knox ➑️
I always find it questionable when someone says something like they "detest the Beatles". How can anyone really "detest" the Beatles? May not be your 'favorite' . . but "detest"? I have friends who 'acted' tough and would say "I'm in to the Stones. The Beatles are too pop / cutesy" . . . but I even find that questionable. 3 of the greatest song writers in one band (!) great vocalists / great harmonies / great players. . . . who changed not only music but the world . . . and you "detest" them? I was a rock guy / punk guy / HUGE Hendrix / Coltrane / Miles etc . . . but even still, I appreciated the Beatles (even did Beatlemania on Broadway). I do remember a period where it was 'in' to say you don't like the Beatles (if that is what you are referring to) but it just seems it was just 'in' to do so and most of the people who said that were just saying it to say it. So I am curious . . . how and in what way did you "detest" the Beatles?
I don't detest the Beatles but as a kid I was rock rebel kid and the Beatles were lame around my crowd. We were into Maiden, Rush, BS, Dio etc... So for kids from that generation the Beatles weren't cool to us. It sounded like Sinatra. Blaaa I do appriciate the Beatles and for years I made a living singing Beatle songs all over Florida as a restaurant singer. But still to this day can only listen to a song or 2 before I have to turn it off, just not my thing. And I love middle of the road rock just not the Beatles. My daughter's name is Aja if that's any indication.

Think about how many people detest Steeley Dan, does that make the person wrong? Does it make Steeley Dan suck?

Apples and oranges. I wouldn't trust gearslutz if everyone felt the same way about everything around here.
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #57
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Here's some really hip and happening 60s stereo for all you cool cats and groovy chicks.

[YouTube - Esquivel - Mini Skirt

Sorry- but for some reason the embed takes you to the mono version. This is the groovy one.
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #58
Gear Guru
 
theblue1's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
James -- You were lookin' pretty hip -- 'til you got to Rush, Dio, et al...

heh
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #59
Moderator
 
James Lugo's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 ➑️
James -- You were lookin' pretty hip -- 'til you got to Rush, Dio, et al...

heh


The man!
YouTube - Dio - The last in line Live philadelphia 84'

p.s. How do you embed these youtube vids so it shows up in thread?
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #60
Lives for gear
 
DCtoDaylight's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 ➑️
And speaking of great headphone albums...


They're not super well-known, but LA's Firesign Theatre translated their extremely free-form, wacky underground radio shows into a series of super-surrealistic, hilariously inventive albums that some critics dubbed headphone humor because of their adventurous and aggressive use of the stereo medium.

They were sometimes called drug humor -- because they were very clearly influenced by the hippie and LSD countercultures. But their drug humor -- unlike the later, loadie buffoonery of Cheech and Chong who aimed straight for the lowest common denominator -- was truly psychedelic and subversive and counted on an alert, informed audience to be able to decipher the multiple layers of puns and literary and cultural references.

We're Glad You Made It - Welcome to firesigntheatre.com
The Firesign Theatre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yay, Firesign! Some of my early headphone listening involved my big sister's collection of their albums, and they really are magnificent examples of creative production (not to mention the writing, vocal performances, occasional songwriting, and general wackiness). I've done some spoken word stuff over the years, and they're definitely a reference point.

I always smile when I think about their skit that involved someone driving in a high-tech car, in which this voice way in the background is reading out all the road signs, including, "Antelope Freeway, one mile.....Antelope Freeway one-half mile....Antelope Freeway one-quarter mile.....Antelope Freeway one-sixteenth mile....Antelope Freeway one-thirtysecond mile....Antelope Freeway one-sixtyfourth mile....Antelope Freeway one-onehundredtwentyeighth mile....."

Bonus points for anyone who knows the correct response to, "Where's the fire, Danger?"
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 1115 views: 233866
Avatar for kuulart
kuulart 14th May 2021
replies: 124 views: 5469
Avatar for mike_n
mike_n 25th January 2016
replies: 2118 views: 202679
Avatar for TheShadowV
TheShadowV 1 week ago
replies: 590 views: 88740
Avatar for Phosphenetre
Phosphenetre 31st January 2021
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump