OT- RIP Mitch Mitchell

EW strange it's a hotel again.. I guess not really.. hhmm

Hendrix died up the road from me in Notting hill in not so natural causes

"Rock & Roll Heaven" just got a new "A-Team" member on the union roster...R.I.P., Mitch...

I was reading somewhere, I think it was in Keith Emerson's book, that it almost was Emerson, Lake & Mitchell

Yep, but according to Keith he and Lake were put off by Mitchell's use of body guards.

Hugely sad. What a cool person, and fantastic drummer.

oh man...I didn't realize this until this thread. Yes, a sad day.

I still wonder how those guys got such a full sound from so little. I know tape had a lot to do with it but darn it was great stuff!

It is a loss when the icons of your youth and musical formation leave us. He will be missed.

ORIGINAL: John

I still wonder how those guys got such a full sound from so little. I know tape had a lot to do with it but darn it was great stuff!

bleed

I think you should listen a little more carefully to those recordings.

I just did. I have to agree with papa on this. So much better than the digital recorded crap I've been hearing over the last ten years. (including my own)

His recording was in 1967. Vaugham's was made in 1984

Don't forget that recording/mixing technology moved along quite a bit during that time gap.
From 4 to 48 track recorders (running at 30ips)
Mixing consoles saw major improvement

These advances would result in significantly lower noise-floor.

BTW, Hit records have never really been about "perfection".
Louie Louie (muddy mix - can't understand the vox)
Hang On Sloopy (background vox have intonation issues)
Nirvana (intonation issues)
Sheryl Crow (intonation issues)
Bob Dylan (great writer - perhaps not the best vocalist)
(Insert your favorite imperfectionist here)

Don't forget that recording/mixing technology moved along quite a bit during that time gap.
From 4 to 48 track recorders (running at 30ips)
Mixing consoles saw major improvement

True but how many tracks do you need for a three piece band? I am not talking about the quality of the performance it's superb. I am talking about the quality of the recording. It is awful. When this was being put out there were a lot of great recordings around. Its not that the gear was inadequate. It was the person(s) doing the recordings that screwed up. I believe it was recorded way to hot. We are stuck with for ever. One reason I am so down about. These recordings are our heritage for all times and they don't really let us hear what was being created. They can't be fixed or modified because its on the master tapes. BTW many Motown classic recordings suffer from the same problem.

So you're saying Eddie Kramer's work was doo-doo? I don't thinks so dude. If you're such an expert on what's good and what isn't, would you care to point out EXACTLY what you THINK is the problem with the Hendrix recordings? Not generalizations, but specifics.

Well dude I already said what I thought was the problem. I really don't give a darn who did it but I would like to slap them. If you like it fine I don't. Maybe if you could listen with a critical ear you would hear what I hear. Do the comparison I suggested. BTW do you know what over saturated tape sounds like? Or clipping on analog gear?

After I posted this I saw a further response from you in the thread. What makes you say they were recorded too hot? Have you actually listened to the master tapes? Do you have access to the same things Eddie Kramer did and does? I got news for you: Hendrix played LOUD. So did Clapton in his early days, particularly in the studio. You never hear any complaints today about his levels being too hot, do you?

First I have the original vinyls. Also I have different compilations on CD. Every one has the same bad sound. It has to be on the master tapes.

I can't believe how silly your argument is. So because some one plays loud you can't record them well? If no one says that they are badly recorded but me I will stick to it to the very end. Why because its the truth and I don't care what any one else says on this. I wouldn't have brought it up if I had any doubt.

ORIGINAL: John

So you're saying Eddie Kramer's work was doo-doo? I don't thinks so dude. If you're such an expert on what's good and what isn't, would you care to point out EXACTLY what you THINK is the problem with the Hendrix recordings? Not generalizations, but specifics.

Well dude I already said what I thought was the problem. I really don't give a darn who did it but I would like to slap them. If you like it fine I don't. Maybe if you could listen with a critical ear you would hear what I hear. Do the comparison I suggested. BTW do you know what over saturated tape sounds like? Or clipping on analog gear?

Yup, been there, done that. I listen every time with a critical ear and can tell what saturated tape and clipping on analog gear sounds like. Done some time in a studio in the 70's in Philly on both sides of the glass. You want to know how critical an ear I have? I can hear the phase distortions on audio on broadcast concerts that just aren't there on the cd or dvd of that concert. I can tell when something is either an original or close copy.