Music Player Network Home Guitar Player Magazine Keyboard Magazine Bass Player Magazine EQ Magazine
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#2878603 - 09/12/17 08:58 AM Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio?
Aperkeys Offline
Member

Registered: 04/06/17
Posts: 14
Loc: Tel Aviv
I've visited a colleague of mine last week. He's a great and well-known sound engineer&producer who's a good friend of mine. He told me that after years of recording real B3&Leslie rigs he ("Sadly", to his words) said that there's no difference between recording a real rig to a virtual\clonewheel one in the final result. He admitted that even after watching in his own eyes Alan Parsons miking and recording a Hammond thru a Leslie he came to an opinion that the real thing won't bring a "special frequency" to the mix, especially when its used as a texture. He added that afer recording real Hammonds he needed to proccess them strongly as the raw material was "noisy" and problematic. Don't know why, but many here share his opinion and I strongly insist on having the "Real thing" recorded studio if possible (If the studio has one), even for some buried-in-the-mix textures.
What do you say?
_________________________
My Gear: Korg Kronos X 73, Nord Stage EX Compact, Kurzweil PC3K6 (For rehearsals mainly).
My Band: Aperco.
https://www.youtube.com/user/apercoband

Top
KC Island
#2878609 - 09/12/17 09:30 AM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: Aperkeys]
Nathanael_I Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/11/15
Posts: 69
This is very similar to pianos, actually. I think the distinction is down to player vs. non-player. As a player, I have a vast preference for a real piano (as do most pianists). There is an engaging thing that happens as the sound swirls around you, the keys vibrate slightly under your fingers. Acoustic instruments are LOUD. And it takes a GREAT PA to make digital stuff loud in a pleasing way.

Reality? My Ravenscraft samples sound much better than micing up my acoustic grand piano. Surprised? I'm not. That was a $300k piano, meticulously prepped by one of the finest concert techs in the country, recorded in a high-end studio with a limitless collection of the best gear, arranged by experienced engineers....

The Ravenscroft doesn't "feel" like a real piano to play, but it sounds like a FANTASTIC recording of one. If the goal is a wonderful recorded tone, then most of the time a digital version WILL trump the acoustic.

I can't imagine it would be different for organ.

But, again, as a player, the real B3 with Leslie in a room moving air is an experience. An intoxicating, beautiful, musical thing. But none of that makes it through the mic. The real argument is that if the experience inspires into playing better, then that better playing with more passion will absolutely come through the mics. But the recordist is right, in my opinion. As a texture, the real thing is more hassle (and it isn't limited to just organs).

Winds and strings are not sufficiently digitized yet, though the Sample Modelling brass can do amazing things - better than most players..

Top
#2878613 - 09/12/17 09:49 AM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: Aperkeys]
Steve Nathan Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 01/06/06
Posts: 2989
Loc: Nashville, TN
Your friend is applying methods to all recording that is only true for some types of recording. There is clearly "music" being recorded today for which there is no requirement for any particular sound, let alone any particular "vintage" sound. But there are many other forms of music for which the sound of the instruments is essential, and the spirit that those instruments evoke in their players is critical.
I have run up against many engineers like your friend who often have great depth of understanding for wave lengths and frequencies, but who seem unaware that their primary job is to capture MUSIC. Not only do the noises and pops that he meticulously removes belong there, they are a part of the experience for the player that contributed to an inspired performance. I'd be looking for another engineer.

Several years ago, Mix Mag interviewed the great Bob Clearmountain, and in that interview they asked him what was his most important piece of hardware. They were expecting to hear about a special EQ or compressor that he wouldn't work without. Maybe his console or a favorite microphone.
He answered "the coffee machine". When pressed to explain he said "if the musicians aren't happy, the music will suffer and it won't matter what you record with". It's a paraphrase from memory, but close enough to get the drift, and shows why Bob is one of the all time greats.
_________________________
The floggings will continue until morale improves.
Captain Bligh

www.stevenathanmusic.com
www.nashvillemusiciansforpensionsecurity.com

Top
#2878615 - 09/12/17 09:58 AM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: Steve Nathan]
Nathanael_I Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/11/15
Posts: 69
No surprise - Steve Nathan nails it as one of the finest players of the real thing... He knows more about it than I ever will. I know it as a texture, not an instrument. He knows it at the highest levels as a player.

Top
#2878621 - 09/12/17 10:22 AM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: Nathanael_I]
mate stubb Online   content
Grand Poobah of the Trebuchet
10k Club

Registered: 10/26/03
Posts: 15518
I'm currently recording a project (organ heavy New Orleans style funk) using a Mojo, even though I have a B-3 in the same studio.

I'm doing that because the B-3 doesn't sound as good, simple as that. It has scratchy tube sockets and tends to cut out on the vibrato channel. The generator was recapped years ago and is somewhat shrill.

The Mojo is paired very well to a leslie 145 and sounds really good. It's the best organ tone I have achieved on a recording in a long while - I'm really happy with it.

Interestingly enough, I had to swap out the leslie to make this all sing. I started with the house 122 thru a Trek preamp and it sounded dull, with a sudden transition from clean to overly dirty.

I ran home and dragged this shorty 145 over with a Leslie preamp and it blew the 122 away. This is the second time I have tried a Trek preamp and for whatever reason not liked the sound.

Anyway, moral of the story - modern clones are so good that if you pair them with a well chosen leslie, they are more than good enough for exposed use.

For other projects in that same studio, where I was providing more pad like stuff on other band's records, Mojo with a Vent has been plenty good enough.
_________________________
Moe
---
Kawai Novus: "Please feel surprised even more."

http://www.hotrodmotm.com

Top
#2878630 - 09/12/17 10:58 AM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: Steve Nathan]
sagetunes Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/26/14
Posts: 296
Loc: Rhode Island
Originally Posted By: Steve Nathan


Several years ago, Mix Mag interviewed the great Bob Clearmountain, and in that interview they asked him what was his most important piece of hardware. They were expecting to hear about a special EQ or compressor that he wouldn't work without. Maybe his console or a favorite microphone.
He answered "the coffee machine". When pressed to explain he said "if the musicians aren't happy, the music will suffer and it won't matter what you record with". It's a paraphrase from memory, but close enough to get the drift, and shows why Bob is one of the all time greats.

Love this quote! I'm moving into a new place and plan to have more of a pro setup than I have now. An there will be an office with a coffee machine, a fridge, and a ping-pong table (maybe TV). So when one of the guys is doing some overdub,or whatever tedious thing, the others can choose to go to the office and blow off some steam, relax.

As far as recording a real B/122 deal, I'll have it set up, and it's not that hard to mic it up, and it sounds fantastic....a little noise or natural imperfections don't bother me--but if some dude came in with his Nord and a Vent, I wouldn't blame him one bit.

As far as real acoustic piano, I personally don't see any need, and I won't have one ever again. Between all the digital sources I have available, there's a lot of great options. The miking of a piano is something I haven't mastered and don't care to. I've disliked most of the real pianos I've ever played.

I would encourage any clients to have at it with my Rhodes Mark V. And i'm seriously thinking of getting a real wurli (although there are a myriad of interesting digital emulations).
I just heard Billy's Los Angelinos from the Attic album---If I can get close to that sound and effect...I'd forego the real thing considering the cost and upkeep. But the collector in me wants the real thing.


Edited by sagetunes (09/12/17 11:00 AM)
_________________________
Hammond B-2, Leslie 122, Hammond Sk1 73, Korg BX3 2001, Leslie 900, Motion Sound Pro 3, Polytone Taurus Elite, Roland RD300 old one, Roland VK7, Fender Rhodes Mark V with Roland JC90

Top
#2878634 - 09/12/17 11:09 AM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: sagetunes]
Outkaster Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 02/25/06
Posts: 5792
Loc: Rochester, NY
You have disliked most you have played?
_________________________
"Danny, ci manchi a tutti. La E-Street Band non e' la stessa senza di te. Riposa in pace, fratello"


noblevibes.com


Top
#2878641 - 09/12/17 11:32 AM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: Outkaster]
sagetunes Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/26/14
Posts: 296
Loc: Rhode Island
Originally Posted By: Outkaster
You have disliked most you have played?


Yes, I know it sounds blasphemous, but that's how I feel. With the exception of a German Steinway in a concert hall and a Kawaii upright at a college, and a beat-up upright at my buddies house, I've been dissatisfied with the lack of life. Make no mistake, I've played some shitty pianos, including 2 Baby Grands that I gave away---begged for someone to take them away.

I'm a Rock guy, and prefer bright as compared to lush--love options as far as EQ, etc. Love artificial amplification.
_________________________
Hammond B-2, Leslie 122, Hammond Sk1 73, Korg BX3 2001, Leslie 900, Motion Sound Pro 3, Polytone Taurus Elite, Roland RD300 old one, Roland VK7, Fender Rhodes Mark V with Roland JC90

Top
#2878662 - 09/12/17 01:39 PM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: sagetunes]
GRollins Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/01/17
Posts: 374
I have a perspective that most don't have, I guess. I have a heavy background in high end audio. Megabuck stuff. I like the nuances that separate the real thing from the sampled/synthesized versions. I'm also willing to accept the whirring of the tone generator, etc. as part of the game, in the same sense that some recordings capture the sound of the spit or condensation in saxophones, trumpets, and such. It's the nature of the beast. To try to sterilize that sound is, to me, to emasculate the instrument. It's dishonest, in a deeply philosophical way.

Listen to, say, Led Zeppelin I or II; Hendrix's stuff was even worse. Thin to nonexistent bass. The guitars are flat, sonically. There's no real image to speak of, though that's admittedly rare in a rock album (arguable exception: Pink Floyd). Early solid state studio gear is largely to blame. The music is/was vital, raw, and new, however, and people sat up and took notice in spite of the acoustic flaws of the albums. I've always wondered what would have happened if the albums had been recorded well.

Is it easier and more convenient to record a reproduction of a Hammond? Undoubtedly. Does the buying public care? Hmmm...some do. Most don't, sadly. We live in a world where convenience has taken precedence over quality. If you listen to music over something like YouTube, then you're getting horrendous audio quality, but it's enough to suggest the real thing and you can sing along to it. If that's all someone cares about, then they'll be happy.

For me, it cheapens the experience. If at all possible, I'd like the real thing. It adds to the resonance of the moment and I'm able to enjoy the music on more than one level.

Yes, I know I'm in the minority, and it's a steadily decreasing subset of the public, but look at it this way: There may yet come a time when people aren't rushing around, listening to lowest common denominator sound systems, even if it's years down the road. Wouldn't you rather leave them something better than just a paint-by-numbers recording that merely suggests what you actually heard in the studio? Or in this case, what a real Hammond sounds like?

I just recently bought an A-100, so I've put my money where my mouth is. I got super-duper lucky. It's in excellent condition for a 55 year-old instrument and I got it for an obscenely low price. And, no, I am in no way worthy of the organ, but I'm having fun with it and--to my ears--it does, in fact, sound better than the sampled versions I have on hand (Korg Kronos X, Yamaha MM8 [older Motif samples]). I'm quite happy with it.

If someone is giving away grands, then, unworthy as I might be, I'll try to give them a good home. Good excuse to practice--gotta become worthy of the instrument!

Grey
_________________________
I'm not interested in someone's ability to program. I'm interested in their ability to compose and play.

Top
#2878666 - 09/12/17 02:03 PM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: Aperkeys]
The Real MC Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 05/17/05
Posts: 4679
Loc: Secluded Tranquil NY Wine Coun...
Originally Posted By: Aperkeys
What do you say?


It's one thing from a listening perspective; quite another for the player to be in the same room of a real Leslie. The sound just inspires a player to PLAY.

Top
#2878670 - 09/12/17 02:33 PM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: mate stubb]
Dnsmo Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/16/08
Posts: 91
Loc: Chicago
Originally Posted By: mate stubb
I ran home and dragged this shorty 145 over with a Leslie preamp and it blew the 122 away.
Moe, are you referring to your AMA as the "Leslie preamp" you used with the 145? I ask because I'm thinking about the same pairing -- Mojo (Gemini actually) and 145 -- for a studio project.
_________________________
Dennis

Top
#2878685 - 09/12/17 02:59 PM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: Steve Nathan]
Dr88s Offline
Platinum Member

Registered: 05/12/13
Posts: 1099
Loc: Montreal, Canada
Originally Posted By: Steve Nathan
I have run up against many engineers like your friend who often have great depth of understanding for wave lengths and frequencies, but who seem unaware that their primary job is to capture MUSIC. Not only do the noises and pops that he meticulously removes belong there, they are a part of the experience for the player that contributed to an inspired performance. I'd be looking for another engineer.


I have no opinions nor anything personal to add, but I absolutely love this response both in content and phrasing.
_________________________
NS2EX Compact, PX5S, MX49

Top
#2878687 - 09/12/17 03:03 PM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: Dnsmo]
mate stubb Online   content
Grand Poobah of the Trebuchet
10k Club

Registered: 10/26/03
Posts: 15518
Originally Posted By: Dnsmo
Originally Posted By: mate stubb
I ran home and dragged this shorty 145 over with a Leslie preamp and it blew the 122 away.
Moe, are you referring to your AMA as the "Leslie preamp" you used with the 145? I ask because I'm thinking about the same pairing -- Mojo (Gemini actually) and 145 -- for a studio project.


No, just an old school Leslie brand preamp.

_________________________
Moe
---
Kawai Novus: "Please feel surprised even more."

http://www.hotrodmotm.com

Top
#2878689 - 09/12/17 03:08 PM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: Dnsmo]
bourniplus Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 04/11/05
Posts: 503
Loc: Québec
If someone told me that "the real thing won't bring a "special frequency" to the mix", I'd sit with them and listen to Santana's Evil ways, or Jimmy Mcgriff's All about my girl, and ask them to tell me that a clone and Vent (or even with a Leslie) can get THAT sound.
_________________________
Way too much stuff
My homemade instruments

Top
#2878695 - 09/12/17 03:19 PM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: Dr88s]
drawback Online   happy
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 05/11/04
Posts: 3258
Loc: Canada
I dunno guys. Personally, I'd rather hear a pipe organ on this fugue but hey, it's the twentieth century for crying out loud and this Laurens Hammond guy invented a more convenient, more portable version for the mass market. Yeah, I know, it's a pale impersonation of the original, but sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do and move on.

laugh wink

Anyway, I see both sides of the discussion, but irony never escapes me. So what can of worms do you really want to open here?




_________________________
"I think we had it on take four, Burt." ~ Sir George Martin

Kawai KG2 | Studiologic SL88 | Mojo61 | Pianoteq 6 | Ravenscroft 275 | Korg Module

Top
#2878705 - 09/12/17 03:43 PM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: mate stubb]
Doc Tonewheel Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 02/04/06
Posts: 578
Loc: Downingtown, PA
Originally Posted By: mate stubb
Originally Posted By: Dnsmo
Originally Posted By: mate stubb
I ran home and dragged this shorty 145 over with a Leslie preamp and it blew the 122 away.
Moe, are you referring to your AMA as the "Leslie preamp" you used with the 145? I ask because I'm thinking about the same pairing -- Mojo (Gemini actually) and 145 -- for a studio project.


No, just an old school Leslie brand preamp.



I have had a similar experience. For some reason, the Leslie pedal just seems to sound better than the Trek. I think Trek makes some great items, but the preamp pedal does something to the sound. Same with their solid state preamps. Although others may disagree, I can tell the difference between the Trek solid state preamp and the original tube one. No contest.
_________________________
1975 Hammond A105, Leslie 122RV, Yamaha N2 AvantGrand, Hohner D6 Clavinet, Wurlitzer 200A, Minimoog Model D, Virus kc, Nord Wave, Mono/Poly, Prophet 6, DX7IID, Korg Lambda, Arp Odyssey, Yamaha MOXF8

Top
#2878708 - 09/12/17 03:53 PM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: Doc Tonewheel]
mate stubb Online   content
Grand Poobah of the Trebuchet
10k Club

Registered: 10/26/03
Posts: 15518
Originally Posted By: Doc Tonewheel
I have had a similar experience. For some reason, the Leslie pedal just seems to sound better than the Trek. I think Trek makes some great items, but the preamp pedal does something to the sound.


I once had a gig in KC and Rick from Tonewheel General Hospital brought out 3(!) leslies to hook up to my B-3, along with a Trek pedal to connect them all.

It should have been glorious but it just sounded like all the tone was sucked out of it. idk
_________________________
Moe
---
Kawai Novus: "Please feel surprised even more."

http://www.hotrodmotm.com

Top
#2878728 - 09/12/17 05:06 PM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: mate stubb]
WesG Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 02/16/13
Posts: 3076
Loc: Inverary, ON, Canada
Interesting review, gentlemen. Never saw THAT coming. Was thinking of going UC1A...think I'll finish my custom jobbie first instead.

My CPA2 sounds good, but obviously not on 147 wink
_________________________
Hammond: Split L111, '58 M3, '59 B3, Northern DV
Leslie: 760, 51C, 147, 145
Yamaha: CP4, DGX-620, DX7II-FD-E!, PF85
Roland: VR-09
Band Site: http://DrBombay.ca/

Top
#2878748 - 09/12/17 07:08 PM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: WesG]
Tom Williams Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 01/04/14
Posts: 618
Loc: West Virginia
I'm not sure I am musically worthy to untie the sandals of some of the folks here, but I think I side with the unnamed / despised engineer mentioned in the OP.

I've played Baldwin grands that I loved, a Bosendorfer Imperial that didn't move me at all, plenty of pipes, Allen organs, and tonewheels; and yet I find that I can easily immerse myself in my PC361; and that it sometimes obtains a good sound more easily than the Real Things.

When playing live before an audience, I've seen them react more enthusiastically to a red AX-1 than to an excellent 9' Baldwin.
_________________________
-Tom Williams
<First name><At>AirNetworking<dot>com
PC361, AX-Synth, K2600S
M-Audio Keystation 88, Axiom 61, Boss RT-20

Top
#2878761 - 09/12/17 07:59 PM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: Tom Williams]
Reezekeys Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 02/07/11
Posts: 2181
Loc: NYC area
When I'm recording in a studio I'm always wearing cans so I'm fine with my virtual piano. I usually put a convolution verb with a "recording studio" IR on it to give it some air. My piano, like most acoustic piano VIs these days, has enough of the requisites to give me the warm & fuzzies as I try to make whatever magic I can: sympathetic resonance, pedal down resonance, pedal mechanism noise, etc. etc. And most of the time, the sampled piano I'm listening to is better than whatever is in the studio (if there's even a real acoustic there)!

A Hammond & Leslie is a little different in my mind, as the core of the sound is the swirl of reflections bouncing around a room, and the vibrations of a large wooden surface – something maybe not quite as easy to virtualize (as evidenced by the thousands of posts in this forum about this subject)! I'm sure that a lazy engineer would much rather record a clone! No surprise there, it makes their job a lot easier. And sure, sitting in a control room listening on speakers, or listening to a final mix on your earbuds, an engineer might claim to not hear enough of a difference to warrant them doing the extra work to record the real thing. As others on this thread have pointed out (in many less words, lol), that's not what it's about.

Having said this, there are always situations where practical considerations have to be addressed. The real Hammond might be in bad shape. The room could have terrible acoustics. The engineer might not know the proper way to mic a Leslie, or maybe it can't be isolated for some reason. In my experience I evaluate every situation on its own and do the best I can to make it work for myself and everybody else. It could be that there are real Hammond players here that have been in certain playing situations, either in a studio or on a live gig, that they wished they had a clone – I can only speculate because I'm not an organ player. I do know that there's one fairly well known band that's been around for a long time, with a great Hammond player and a big Leslie on stage – but you the audience are not hearing it. He & the band hear the Leslie, you get a Vent! It's a very towerful, er, powerful band!

Top
#2878777 - 09/12/17 09:33 PM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: mate stubb]
OB Dave Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 04/25/09
Posts: 949
Loc: San Diego CA, US
Originally Posted By: mate stubb
I started with the house 122 thru a Trek preamp and it sounded dull, with a sudden transition from clean to overly dirty.

I never much cared for the tone of Treks either. They do something weird to the percussion. The old CBS combo preamps were a lot noisier but they seemed to handle transients better. This is why I keep a small hoard of Speakeasy preamps. Those things are magical.

Top
#2878785 - 09/13/17 01:18 AM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: Steve Nathan]
yannis D Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 09/01/03
Posts: 2433
Loc: athens, greece
Originally Posted By: Steve Nathan
Several years ago, Mix Mag interviewed the great Bob Clearmountain, and in that interview they asked him what was his most important piece of hardware. They were expecting to hear about a special EQ or compressor that he wouldn't work without. Maybe his console or a favorite microphone.
He answered "the coffee machine". When pressed to explain he said "if the musicians aren't happy, the music will suffer and it won't matter what you record with". It's a paraphrase from memory, but close enough to get the drift, and shows why Bob is one of the all time greats.

Best quote i've ever read concerning gear and studio recording. And it's 100% true.
_________________________
Be grateful for what you've got - two Nords, a laptop and two hands

Top
#2878794 - 09/13/17 03:36 AM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: yannis D]
hardware Offline
Platinum Member

Registered: 03/04/14
Posts: 1097
Loc: Las Vegas
Totally agree with Clearmountain.
I've grown so accustomed to a K4 and PianoTeq that I can concentrate on performing, just like I did studying/Performing classical.

Other Pianos don't make me unhappy, I just have to try and feel the new dynamics rather than perform.

OTOH I entertained the extended family on a beach in Lake Tahoe using a battery powered 41 note Casio with crappy speakers and no pedal.
If they sing and dance it must have worked.

But as far as having a Hammond to record.
I'd prefer my K4 with an HX-3 or B5/Blue3 and a Lester K.
I miss the air from the Doppler effect on stage, but that's it.
_________________________
Magnus C350 + FMR RNP + Realistic Unisphere Mic

Top
#2878814 - 09/13/17 06:47 AM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: bourniplus]
humannoyed Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 12/28/00
Posts: 757
Loc: Deep South ,UNITED STATES
Originally Posted By: bourniplus
If someone told me that "the real thing won't bring a "special frequency" to the mix", I'd sit with them and listen to Santana's Evil ways, or Jimmy Mcgriff's All about my girl, and ask them to tell me that a clone and Vent (or even with a Leslie) can get THAT sound.

Have to agree. As good as clones are getting, I think many of us hear old recordings sometimes and are still stunned at how good the Hammond and Leslie sound. I have thought the exact thing, "I still haven't heard a clone sound like THAT"
_________________________
"It is a danger to create something and risk rejection. It is a greater danger to create nothing and allow mediocrity to rule."
"You owe it to us all to get on with what you're good at." W.H. Auden

Top
#2878823 - 09/13/17 07:16 AM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: humannoyed]
Wastrel Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 05/13/09
Posts: 2422
Loc: Los Angeles
Originally Posted By: humannoyed

Have to agree. As good as clones are getting, I think many of us hear old recordings sometimes and are still stunned at how good the Hammond and Leslie sound. I have thought the exact thing, "I still haven't heard a clone sound like THAT"

Yeah. Me too. I was listening to the car radio the other day and thought to myself "After all these years am I really getting tired of the Hammond/Leslie sound?" Then I realized it wasn't the H/L sound I was tired of, it was the crappy clones with unrealistic Leslie sim and CV that I am sick of. Also a lot of players and producers these days seem to want to stick in the organ sound here and there but lack the experience and grounding in Hammond lore to get it right. /rant
_________________________
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.”
-Mark Twain

Top
#2878825 - 09/13/17 07:21 AM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: The Real MC]
p19978 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/12/12
Posts: 85
Loc: KY
Originally Posted By: The Real MC
Originally Posted By: Aperkeys
What do you say?


It's one thing from a listening perspective; quite another for the player to be in the same room of a real Leslie. The sound just inspires a player to PLAY.


Truth.

Back in May, I had a chance to catch Greg Lewis at a jazz club in Harlem. First time I ever heard a Hammond and Leslie "live" (C3 and 145 IIRC).

I have an SK1, and I love it, but that was almost a religious experience.

Top
#2878828 - 09/13/17 07:35 AM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: p19978]
burningbusch Online   content
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 10/22/00
Posts: 7620
Loc: Ghost Planet
A musician who has spent many years listening to their instrument(s) knows when something is a little off, whereas these engineers and producers are tuned into other things. An experienced sound engineer can hear the subtle differences in compressors and EQs that most others don't.

I can go out into my garage and stick an SM57 somewhere in the vicinity of my 122 and get a great sound, instantly. Sure, with more sophisticated mics and placement I could get a "better" sound but it wouldn't sound any more accurate, authentic. On the other hand I could spend hours trying to get a clone (including cloned Leslie) to sound as good. Cleaner yes, more authentic, no. Micing an acoustic piano is another matter.

Busch.

Top
#2878834 - 09/13/17 07:51 AM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: burningbusch]
GRollins Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/01/17
Posts: 374
Wastrel,
You say you were in the car...which is hardly an optimum listening environment, no matter how fancy the car stereo is. What if it's--in part--poor reproduction of Hammonds that's getting to you?

Note that I'm not talking about the "fidelity" of the Hammond itself. The organ is what it is. That sound is what we want to hear, in toto. You mic the thing and do your dead level best to get a high fidelity signal of what the Hammond sounded like in that room at that time playing those notes. As though you were there, in the room, that day. That's the signal you want to reproduce; the experience of actually being there, not some sanitized, plastic wannabe.

Yes, there's some minimum level of fidelity that's deemed "good enough" and many's the time that I've sung along with a crappy car radio, having a grand ol' time. But it's better if it sounds better, if you follow my drift. Good enough ain't good enough. Part of it's having a real Hammond and part of it's having a good recording and good reproduction. It's a pipeline in time, going back to the original event and if you corrupt any part of the process, you're losing something. The magic begins to fade away.

Grey
_________________________
I'm not interested in someone's ability to program. I'm interested in their ability to compose and play.

Top
#2878838 - 09/13/17 08:21 AM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: GRollins]
Wastrel Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 05/13/09
Posts: 2422
Loc: Los Angeles
Originally Posted By: GRollins
Wastrel,
You say you were in the car...which is hardly an optimum listening environment, no matter how fancy the car stereo is. What if it's--in part--poor reproduction of Hammonds that's getting to you?

Grey

Actually, my car stereo is pretty awesome sounding generally, though I take your point that listening to any car audio isn't optimum. My extended point is that I think that in a lot of current recordings, Hammond sounds have been relegated to retro effect status that producers shove in for flavor or to lend their mix some sort of authenticity and often it isn't very artfully done. Part of this is the lack of appreciation for the significant difference between the real thing and any clone - including, as has been mentioned in this thread, the effect a real Hammond and Leslie has on how a seasoned player interacts with the instrument and sits in the mix.
_________________________
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.”
-Mark Twain

Top
#2878839 - 09/13/17 08:25 AM Re: Do we really need to record a "real" Hammond in the studio? [Re: GRollins]
Joe BrokeIt Offline
Triple Secret Banninated
10k Club

Registered: 02/21/05
Posts: 19107
Loc: Heaven, Hell, or Houston
When you're in the (real) studio with a Hammond and a Leslie, where do they put the Leslie? When I've been to studios here, the Leslie was miked in another room or space. So when I played the Hammond, the sound was close to 100% in the cans.

A few months ago, I recorded a Hammond track at home for someone who wanted a *very* aggressive organ sound. I used my Mojo61 because I was able to get that sound easily. If I could have gotten that sound with my A100 and Leslie 45, I would have. Unless it would have rattled the house to pieces, which it might have.

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >


Moderator:  Dave Bryce, Stephen Fortner