music production in the 70s

and that brian eno really
http://music.hyperreal.org/artists/brian_eno/interviews/musn79.html

scratch's black ark era '74 '79
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-26153/perry.htm

or if you want write a tighter article

daniel miller did warm leatherette in '78 (normal)
moroder felt love in '77
larry levan in '78,'79 with Instant Funk
arthur russel sneaks in under the wire with 'Kiss me again'

Catpure vs. ratpure.

http://www.algonet.se/~jonwar/moroder.html

There's a lot of talk about the painstaking craft and arduous recording processes of such famous late 70s records as Aja, Rumours, Wish You Were Here, etc.
I was wondering, are there superstar records from this era whose recording process was notably sloppy, rushed, rough or substandard? I'm not talking about e.g. The Clash, I mean established acts with an audience and radio play. Here's what comes to mind:

- Most of Neil Young
- Presence?
- Wasn't Elton John known for cranking out his records as fast as possible, with Captain Fantastic an exception? Is that haste audible in the way they sound?

Any other examples?

bob dylan and the band : the basement tapes ??

That was an archival release from 1967 (mostly), but Blood on the Tracks, Desire and Street Legal all have much-discussed technical shortcomings.

Well, the Zep stuff at Headley Grange with the mobile rig has a bit of that flavor.

The Who demos that Pete recorded at home are perfectionist but decidedly nonstandard in the production method.

Some BOC stuff is just two dudes in a couple takes, plus some overdubs, I think? Burnin' for You.

Not sure they were considered "superstars" or studio aesthetes, but the production on the Stooges' Raw Power by Bowie is widely seen as a botched job, both technically and aurally.

The Kinks put out a lot of dreary sounding records in the 70s. Three albums that I associate with a sort of murky over-stuffed 70s sound - though that might have been the pressings I heard them on - are "Quadrophenia", "Physical Graffiti" and "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway".

yeah when I finally heard Muswell Hillbillies on a decent system I was surprised to find that it sounded like garbage

The Kinks are not really noted for their production values tbf.

see I think Neil Young's records sound great...like Harvest, I can't really imagine a folk rock record sounding better, or Zuma, Everybody Knows This is Nowhere, Goldrush, Comes a Time...I think Time Fades Away and Tonight's the Night are rough (in amazing and awesome ways) but I'd say overall he made great sounding records

There's categories here that shouldn't necessarily be conflated:

- "records that were recorded in a spontaneous or sloppy way"
- "records that don't sound good"

Elton John records of the era generally sound pretty slick.

There's A Riot Goin' On

Exile on Main St!

I thought of Goats Head Soup too, but I feel like the standards changed about 1975, which is why my examples were drawn from that era - it was harder to get away with a raw sound later in the decade.

How about the Beach Boys' Love You from 1977? That one is really weird production wise. Their other albums that would follow would be very slick, but Love You sticks out like a sore thumb.

Darkness On The Edge Of Town has been criticized for being a too-dry production.

Big Star - 3rd

I guess that doesn't count as it was mostly recorded in 1974.

Also pretty sure it isn't a superstar record by an established act with an audience and radio play!

The Kinks are not really noted for their production values

Somewhere I read that it wasn't until they finished Konk studios in 1974 that they had access to (and time to spend in) decent recording facilities, right as Ray's songwriting dropped off.

Elton John records of the era generally sound pretty slick

I think so, too, so why did Fleetwood Mac or Steely Dan spend a year making records that sounded no better than what he and Gus Dudgeon could do in a few weeks?

True enough. I kind of forgot about the superstar part and was more thinking of "not established"" as meaning more along the lines of "part of the burgeoning punk/new wave movement".

Let it Be

Also Todd R's Wizard/TrueStar/Something/Anything were made mostly by one dude fuckin around in a studio, tho he had lots of toys and time and good equipment

An interesting thing about 3rd/Sister Lovers is that they tried to shop it to major labels who wouldn't even accept it as a demo (much less a ready to release album) because of the sound/performance quality.

oh what about tusk recorded in lindsey's bathroom

Mentioning Rundgren reminds me of this write-up by Scott Miller, in his book Music: What Happened? on "Cliche" from Faithful:

This perfectly delightful song unfortunately illustrates a certain creeping crumminess to the sound of many mid-seventies mainstream recordings. The FM radio era just brought an aesthetic requiring too many tracks too laboriously recorded: the industry had iron-poor blood.

...which makes me think of the "murky over-stuffed 70s sound" mentioned above on records by the Who and Genesis.

so why did Fleetwood Mac or Steely Dan spend a year making records that sounded no better than what he and Gus Dudgeon could do in a few weeks?

Some of it was probably work ethic, plus they'd developed a assembly line mentality partially borne of contractual requirements those other acts didn't necessarily have to abide by.

Well, Todd would keep trying to stuff 30 minutes of music on to one side of a vinyl LP.

Some Girls ?

Compared to those other groups, the palette of sounds for an Elton record was less extensive, too - 80% of the songs are going to be based around a piano, the rockers will have loud guitars, the ballads may have a string section, the band will sing harmony parts etc.

yea Todd I think is a great producer but some of the production/sound design of his 70s records (AWATS, TR's Utopia, and Initiation in particular) were clearly affected by his decision to go 30 minutes (or more!) a side - unless you have a microline stylus they distort pretty heavily by the end

Re: aborted Goodbye Yellow Brick Road sessions

Instead, the singer-songwriter formerly known as Reginald Kenneth Dwight opted to capitalise on his exploding international status — and comply with a two-albums-per-year contractual obligation to MCA — by commencing sessions for another new collection of songs penned with lyricist Bernie Taupin. Impressed that the Rolling Stones had recently been recording tracks for Goats Head Soup in Kingston, Jamaica, Elton also opted to work there. It was a decision he, Taupin, producer Gus Dudgeon and the band members — guitarist Davey Johnstone, bass player Dee Murray and drummer Nigel Olsson — quickly regretted, thanks to the economically depressed locale's tense, violent atmosphere and a studio that fell far short of professional standards.

"The first sign we got that something might be a bit wrong was when the guy who ran the studio, we heard him say, 'Carlton, get the microphone!'” Johnstone recalled in a 2001 VH1 Classic Albums TV documentary. "We went, 'Oh, fuck! Get the microphone?' We used 20 mics on the drums even in those days. It was like, 'Oh, we're in deep shit here.'”

agree with ums re: neil young

I think so, too, so why did Fleetwood Mac or Steely Dan spend a year making records that sounded no better than what he and Gus Dudgeon could do in a few weeks?

― Halfway there but for you, Tuesday, November 23, 2021 2:22 PM (fifty-four minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

i'd love a log of how much time fleetwood mac spent *actually recording music* vs...other stuff

feel like steely dan was probably working all the time though

Early rather than late 70s, but the sessions for Deep Purple's Machine Head sound like a total shitshow, the story of which can of course be heard in "Smoke on the Water". Always thought the production was pretty weak on that album tbh.

We had the Rolling Stones' mobile recording unit sitting outside in the snow ... once we got to the truck for a playback, even if we didn't think it was a perfect take, we'd go, 'Yeah, that's good enough.' Because we just couldn't stand going back again.

—Ritchie Blackmore[16]

Prolly on the earlier tip too, but the first few Kiss albums are horribly produced, borderline unlistenable. Destroyer was their first studio album with any oomph.

I like electric sitars

The Kinks are not really noted for their production values tbf.

Their records are all over the place. Production-wise, their best stuff was with Shel Talmy. Ray always seemed indifferent at best, accepting whatever the then-current mode of production was, but never attempting to perfect it or bend it to the Kinks’ needs. One exception is Give The People What They Want, but the great production is wasted on middling material. Their ‘70s theatrical records all sound meh, especially Preservation (though that was apparently rushed; they finished the mix literally the day before they left for a US tour).

Three albums that I associate with a sort of murky over-stuffed 70s sound - though that might have been the pressings I heard them on - are "Quadrophenia", "Physical Graffiti" and "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway".

Same engineer on Quadrophenia and (the ‘74 recordings on) Physical Graffiti, Ron Nevison. He designed Ronnie Lane’s mobile studio which the Who used for Quadrophenia while their control room was being built, so they kept him on as the engineer. He didn’t know how to mic Moon’s kit — few did — and supposedly after the first session with Zep, Bonham had to take him aside to tell him how he wanted his kit miked. This is why the drums on Quadrophenia are close-miked vs. the more ambient approach on Physical Graffiti. But the overall sound of Quadrophenia was heavily criticized in Lenny Kaye’s Rolling Stone review.

I mean

is no one going to talk about Nebraska

it's like

i

i don't even KNOW you people

Nebraska isn't '70s.

Oh! Right. My bad

Music production in the 80s is another kettle of fish altogether