a theory

The_Hook_UpThe_Hook_Up 8,182 Posts
edited June 2005 in Strut Central
the majority of us on here like soul, right? We like it for a variety of reasons, but a big reason is rhythmn, and how up front the rhythmn is. I always wondered why the drums and rhythmic hooks are so upfront in 60s soul recordings...now I understand the dancing-to-it aspect, much more fun to dance to a cracking drum beat...But since soul music in the 60s was more or less a singles game, and where did folks hear 45s? Jukeboxes. Where were the majority of these jukeboxes? Bars and soda fountains, where people are carrying on and making noise. So does anyone else think that it was a conscious effort for artists, producers and labels to make sure their record got heard through the bar crowds and all the carrying on, that they made the rhythmn tracks loud so it could cut through all the noise in a bar and if there record did cut through and got peoples attention, that it had a better chance of folks listening and dancing to it and it being a hit? kinda of long-shot theory wise, but I thought I owuld just throw it out there...

  Comments


  • The_NonThe_Non 5,691 Posts
    A lotta 60s soul is EQed loud as fuck in general, good theory. Dancing In The Street by Martha & Vandellas is hella loud. Anyhoo, I think you might be onto something.
    Peace
    T.N.

  • drewnicedrewnice 5,465 Posts
    I'm not really sure if it has much to do with the "market." It seems like in those days people thought a bit differently about their audience and where and how their music would be listened to than now.



    People respond to drums and rhythm - loud ones make it all the better. I'd be willing to bet that band after band picked up on that idea (after seeing many a drum frenzy jump-off) and it ended up being the basis for the majority of a genre for a great peroid of time.



    Ummm...so basically I agree with you.

  • Birdman9Birdman9 5,417 Posts
    the majority of us on here like soul, right? We like it for a variety of reasons, but a big reason is rhythmn, and how up front the rhythmn is. I always wondered why the drums and rhythmic hooks are so upfront in 60s soul recordings...now I understand the dancing-to-it aspect, much more fun to dance to a cracking drum beat...

    But since soul music in the 60s was more or less a singles game, and where did folks hear 45s? Jukeboxes. Where were the majority of these jukeboxes? Bars and soda fountains, where people are carrying on and making noise. So does anyone else think that it was a conscious effort for artists, producers and labels to make sure their record got heard through the bar crowds and all the carrying on, that they made the rhythmn tracks loud so it could cut through all the noise in a bar and if there record did cut through and got peoples attention, that it had a better chance of folks listening and dancing to it and it being a hit? kinda of long-shot theory wise, but I thought I owuld just throw it out there...


    I don't think that's a longshot at all, just logical. People bought singles to dance to, wether at their own parties or in bars, etc. Stuff had to grab you by the shorts!

  • yup, that's also why people started to use compressers more and more. the louder songs were picked more often, so record producers tried to find a way to make their records louder.

  • soulmarcosasoulmarcosa 4,296 Posts
    Don't discount those newfangled transistor AM radios - records had to sound big (and EQ'd properly) if they were gonna come outta those tinny speakers.

  • AaronAaron 977 Posts
    What came first, the need for crackin' drums or the crackin' drums?

  • The_Hook_UpThe_Hook_Up 8,182 Posts
    Don't discount those newfangled transistor AM radios - records had to sound big (and EQ'd properly) if they were gonna come outta those tinny speakers.

  • AaronAaron 977 Posts
    I don't think the transistor radio theory hold up to much scrutiny: I've listened to plenty of 60s rock music and not many of those cuts have crackin' drums.

  • NiteKrawler45NiteKrawler45 1,062 Posts
    the majority of us on here like soul, right? We like it for a variety of reasons, but a big reason is rhythmn, and how up front the rhythmn is. I always wondered why the drums and rhythmic hooks are so upfront in 60s soul recordings...now I understand the dancing-to-it aspect, much more fun to dance to a cracking drum beat...



    But since soul music in the 60s was more or less a singles game, and where did folks hear 45s? Jukeboxes. Where were the majority of these jukeboxes? Bars and soda fountains, where people are carrying on and making noise. So does anyone else think that it was a conscious effort for artists, producers and labels to make sure their record got heard through the bar crowds and all the carrying on, that they made the rhythmn tracks loud so it could cut through all the noise in a bar and if there record did cut through and got peoples attention, that it had a better chance of folks listening and dancing to it and it being a hit? kinda of long-shot theory wise, but I thought I owuld just throw it out there...





    I don't think that's a longshot at all, just logical. People bought singles to dance to, wether at their own parties or in bars, etc. Stuff had to grab you by the shorts!



    Defintely agreed....once a few people became successful with that approach, most up-and-comers copied licks or made variations on the formula to get exposure

  • BamboucheBambouche 1,484 Posts
    I don't think the transistor radio theory hold up to much scrutiny: I've listened to plenty of 60s rock music and not many of those cuts have crackin' drums.

    Compression, which was first a novelty, was used specifically for radio wave transmission. "Radio compression," by name. Intended to provide a louder signal with less dynamic range. The idea being the "quiet" parts of songs wouldn't sound so quiet in your '64 Falcon. This technique was applied to entire songs, not drums.

    Compressors (as well as limiters) slowly began gaining popularity as outboard effects for individual tracks. Predominantly voice, but eventually guitars, drums, etc. Today, most multi-channel recordings employ several compressors, with each individual instrument/track being compressed/limited, and the overall final stereo or mono mix getting compressed as well.

    There are still a handful of albums produced each year that benefit from a full dynamic range (using little or no compression), and those albums are a joy to listen to.

  • Birdman9Birdman9 5,417 Posts
    I don't think the transistor radio theory hold up to much scrutiny: I've listened to plenty of 60s rock music and not many of those cuts have crackin' drums.

    early 60s stuff is what I would refer to, from like '62-'66 would be when singles were most def engineered with AM radio in mind. FM didn't get big until the late 60s early 70s. Most of the commercial music stations were heard through AM car and transistor radio, so that one is more than a theory, it's the history of sound engineering.

  • How do we account for countless (crackin'-drum-less) brilliant ballads???

  • AaronAaron 977 Posts


    Thanks, guys.

  • The_Hook_UpThe_Hook_Up 8,182 Posts
    How do we account for countless (crackin'-drum-less) brilliant ballads???

    late night smoochers meant to be listened to at home or the back seat of a ride I suppose

  • How do we account for countless (crackin'-drum-less) brilliant ballads???

    late night smoochers meant to be listened to at home or the back seat of a ride I suppose

    I'll buy that...

  • pickwick33pickwick33 8,946 Posts
    How do we account for countless (crackin'-drum-less) brilliant ballads???



    High end, my man, high end. That's what you do when the drums aren't SUPPOSED to be crackin'.



    Listen to any foreign single that was released in the US in '64-'66. The fidelity is HELLA loud, to the point where you can almost hear it at low volume. Even if it's a ballad like the Moody Blues'"Go Now," those massed voices just holler like hell. The horns on Millie Small's "My Boy Lollipop" are louder than she is (and she's up there)! And the drums on the Dave Clark Five singles? FORGET IT. At least that's the way it is on the American pressings; I don't know if the UK/JA mixes were that hot.



    Getting back to the States...I believe some producers did know how their intended audience would be hearing them. That's why Berry Gordy used to bring a Motorola car radio to the studio and mix the singles according to what came out of that radio. That's why all them 60's Motown 45's have so much treble.


  • jjfad027jjfad027 1,594 Posts
    yup, that's also why people started to use compressers more and more. the louder songs were picked more often, so record producers tried to find a way to make their records louder.
    that seems to still be the trend



    also... is it just me, or do a lot of popular 80's records have WAY TOO MUCH high end.

  • grandpa_shiggrandpa_shig 5,799 Posts
    i was just having a discussion about 45s this past weekend. how timely! but yeah, we all concluded that 45s are best on shitty soundsystems with paper speakers. and here's the theory we came up with.

    see, most 45s are beat to shit. the reason being is that 45s were a kid thing, and the LPs were for the grown folks. here's what im talking about. in the 50s and 60s, america began to shift and place more emphasis on youth culture. what with the beatles and all, corporations realized that there was a market in teenagers and began to market more towards youth. 45 sales exploded as they were cheaper and more affordable on a teenage allowance than full length LPs. and kids used to hit up house parties with their own stash of 45s, without sleeves mind you, and just slap them things on the hi fi til the wee hours. back then, only them cognac drankin jazz listener types understood the importance of hi fidelity. with the bulk of america willing to settle for shitty soundsystems. hell, all of radio was on the AM dial and the sound quality of AM radio is most similar to these shitty soundsystems that kids would hold dances on. plus, since the records were almost always without sleeves, and mixed into a big pile near the hi fi, they usually got all scratched up. and a paper speaker can easily hide those jarring pops and clicks of a cut up record. everyone wrote their names on the 45s cuz at the end of the night youd have to retrieve your records from the pile.

    now, when i hear a clean 45 that was eq'd with the audiophile in mind, it kind of loses its magic for me. no flavorfull cuts and scratches on that shit. just clean good music. which im not mad at, but hearing an old doo wop 45 on a portable, with all the lows taken out just seems so right to me.

    just a theory...
Sign In or Register to comment.