Why do albums recored in the seventies sound better?

[StevegSr]

I'm too biased to answer this question, but I'm cheeky enough to ask it. Why do all of the great albums from the seventies such as Zeppelin 4, And Then Their Were Three from Genesis and TAAB by Tull, as examples, sound so much better than many albums recorded in the eighties?

[3LockBox]

I'm too biased to answer this question, but I'm cheeky enough to ask it. Why do all of the great albums from the seventies such as Zeppelin 4, And Then Their Were Three from Genesis and TAAB by Tull, as examples, sound so much better than many albums recorded in the eighties?

sound better? Because you like them more?

[No Pride]

I'm too biased to answer this question, but I'm cheeky enough to ask it. Why do all of the great albums from the seventies such as Zeppelin 4, And Then Their Were Three from Genesis and TAAB by Tull, as examples, sound so much better than many albums recorded in the eighties?

Actually, I don't think ATTWT is a very good sounding recording at all. The only (pre-pop) Genesis albums that I consider to sound great are SEbtP and TotT. Duke is alright, much better than ATTWT.

The trouble with a lot of '80s albums are the production values of the time; gated reverb snare drums, cheesy synth sounds, etc. I'm sure there are those here would be happy to pontificate on that.

[StevegSr]

sound better? Because you like them more?

No. I like them the same as my Rush, Steve Hackett and Yes albums from the eighties, just as examples. Guess again.

[StevegSr]

Actually, I don't think ATTWT is a very good sounding recording at all. The only (pre-pop) Genesis albums that I consider to sound great are SEbtP and TotT. Duke is alright, much better than ATTWT.

The trouble with a lot of '80s albums are the production values of the time; gated reverb snare drums, cheesy synth sounds, etc. I'm sure there are those here would be happy to pontificate on that.

Yes! The cheese factor! Good point! But on a technical level, ATTWT has awesome detail for such a dense sound mix at the expense of bass presence but the pleated multi tracked ADT on Collins' choruses are a marvel. But to each his own as it's a matter of taste.

[PeterG]

Because they were better! End of thread!

[Vic2012]

Because they were recorded on tape, and the musicians were in the studio, not phoning it in and using auto tune, and cutting and pasting. And I sound like Skullhead......lol

[rcarlberg]

Because the music was pure, not tainted by money, and too much drugs, and excessive compression. The Eddie Offords of the day were masters at capturing great players playing greatly.

Ten years later many of the musicians, as well as many of the engineers, were coked out of their gourds.

[zravkapt]

Define 'better'.

[GuitarGeek]

The trouble with a lot of '80s albums are the production values of the time; gated reverb snare drums, cheesy synth sounds, etc. I'm sure there are those here would be happy to pontificate on that.

Don't forget the Rockman that damn near every guitarist used in the mid 80's.

[notallwhowander]

You know: better than good, but not quite best.

[Rick Robson]

No. I like them the same as my Rush, Steve Hackett and Yes albums from the eighties, just as examples. Guess again.

Well Steve, 80's Rush, SH and even Yes were not good examples of gated reverb snare drums, cheesy synth sounds, etc. imo. Btw Signals is a pretty good album, I like it almost as much as my fave Rush 70's stuff, but I agree if someone says that again we are talking about a pretty subjective matter.

[Vic2012]

Just because. Because.

[Fracktured]

I'd like to know how a great sounding recording from the 70's gets transferred onto CD and sounds like shit.

[The Dark Elf]

Because early on there was quality in quantity, whereas later there was a jumble of gimcrackery.

Simply put, the first half of the 70s had the greatest collection of superb rock albums ever released. If one wanted to stretch it to a decade, then 1967 through 1977 was rock's golden age. Afterwards, there was a notable diminution of talent, a simplification of sound, a retardation in composition and an excess of marketing as opposed to music. I'm not at all sure one could even argue the point.

[Vic2012]

^I agree.

[Steve F.]

Because the music was pure, not tainted by money

You don't really believe that, do you?

[taliesin]

You don't really believe that, do you?

I'm pretty sure there was sarcasm in there.

I hope.

[Trane]

I'm too biased to answer this question, but I'm cheeky enough to ask it. Why do all of the great albums from the seventies such as Zeppelin 4, And Then Their Were Three from Genesis and TAAB by Tull, as examples, sound so much better than many albums recorded in the eighties?

Mmmhhh!!!... Not all these albums were so/that well recorded. Plenty of big production mistakes were done in them. I got a radio technician engineer buddy who gave me a few examples (material proof at hand/ear) during the 90's and I must say it was glaring. I chose to ignore or forget these flaws, because I didn't want to ruin my enjoyment of those otherwise great albums.

I'd say that it's not just a question of 80's production values, but also the songwriting process and spirit of the times. It's kind of suggestive of course, but it's also partly because we're a product of those times, when artistic freedom was much more dominant (not just in music) and the eternal business models were suffering from the late-60's revolutions (both Californian/NY and European).

sound better? Because you like them more?

Well Steve did admit he was biased (as we are all, I believe)

Because the music was pure, not tainted by money, and too much drugs, and excessive compression. The Eddie Offords of the day were masters at capturing great players playing greatly.

Ten years later many of the musicians, as well as many of the engineers, were coked out of their gourds.

Hopefully you're jesting, because there was probably much more dope in the studios in the early and mid 70's than in the early 80's when the record labels took back the controls of the mixing desk and imposed their new/modern production values.

I'd like to know how a great sounding recording from the 70's gets transferred onto CD and sounds like shit.

not sure of they managed that in some (lots of) cases... Because,TBH, when I did transfer a few vinyls straight (no filters and cracks and pops and all) to CD-r via a Hi-Fi burner, I had some damn good results, often better than some of those commercially available CD versions.

[Trane]

Actually, I don't think ATTWT is a very good sounding recording at all. The only (pre-pop) Genesis albums that I consider to sound great are SEbtP and TotT. Duke is alright, much better than ATTWT.

The trouble with a lot of '80s albums are the production values of the time; gated reverb snare drums, cheesy synth sounds, etc. I'm sure there are those here would be happy to pontificate on that.

well you kind of nailed the 80's sonic values, which allowed kids to take care iof their looks rather than actually concentrate on their music and learn how to play (in a general sense)... The problem is that even jazz often stunk in the 80's , notably by the use of technologies like Synclaviers

Because early on there was quality in quantity, whereas later there was a jumble of gimcrackery.
Simply put, the first half of the 70s had the greatest collection of superb rock albums ever released. If one wanted to stretch it to a decade, then 1967 through 1977 was rock's golden age.


Afterwards, there was a notable diminution of talent, a simplification of sound, a retardation in composition and an excess of marketing as opposed to music. I'm not at all sure one could even argue the point.

I'd say 67 to 73, but if I have to widen it , it goes from 59 to 79... and in 59, music technology and recording techniques were still neolithic.

However the second part of your statement, I'd much more dubious about your "notable diminution of talent, a simplification of sound, a retardation in composition" statement.

Talents were squashed, not diminished sounds were not simplified, but complexified (like those sampling processes) and not quite clear on what you mean in "retardation" of compositions.

[Zeuhlmate]

Zeppelin 4 doesnt sound good.
Unless you have a pressing/mix/mastering I have never heard, I would say its the worst sounding of all their albums.
IMO II and Houses of the Holy are the best sounding. Zeppelin 4 was recorded in the same studio as Aqualung, which also sounds pretty bad.

I dont think albums of the seventies sounds better. Some does, some dont.

[Rick Robson]

It's kind of suggestive of course, but it's also partly because we're a product of those times, when artistic freedom was much more dominant (not just in music) and the eternal business models were suffering from the late-60's revolutions (both Californian/NY and European).

Hmmm I'm atraid just a small parcel of the population of those times can be considered.

Hopefully you're jesting, because there was probably much more dope in the studios in the early and mid 70's than in the early 80's when the record labels took back the controls of the mixing desk and imposed their new/modern production values.

I can't figure how dope in the studios can be favorable for producing music.

[Trane]

Hmmm I'm atraid just a small parcel of the population of those times can be considered.

Mmmhh!!!... A sizeable parcel of this PE population

I can't figure how dope in the studios can be favorable for producing music.

Didn't want to say that (don't think I did FTM)

Around the songwriting stage, I can clearly see the advantages of recreative drugs, but once in the studios, it can certainly be detrimental

[bob_32_116]

I have another theory: improvements in the technology of recording and playback, along with people's propensity to listen either through headphones or on high-end speakers in their home, means that their expectations are now higher than they were in the 1970s. A recording which today we would simply call "good", such as Selling England by the Pound or Wish You Were Here, in those days sounded fantastic because people were not used to recordings of that clarity.

[Fracktured]

not sure of they managed that in some (lots of) cases... Because,TBH, when I did transfer a few vinyls straight (no filters and cracks and pops and all) to CD-r via a Hi-Fi burner, I had some damn good results, often better than some of those commercially available CD versions.

That was pretty much my point. I've done the same thing with the vinyl transfer sounding much better.