How come 80s stuff sounds like it was recorded in the 80s but The Beatles sound like it was recorded yesterday?
george martin
80s production gimmicks went out of style, 60s production is more timeless because it's simple, grug point mic at drums will always sound better than drums with tons of shitty sounding reverb
>>128876342Solid state guitar amps were used a bit more along with early synth sounds, both of which might be considered products of their time (maybe still charming, but dated in their own way). Along with what anon said >>128876619
>>128876342It doesn't, 90% of the Beatles catalog sounds like shit, some of that stuff is literally hard-panned, it's bad. The later stuff gets better but still not that great, now get to 70s stuff like Wings and now we're talking
>>128876342>>128876619Agreed. Similar to how Backstreet Boys still sound like they were recorded yesterday. I'm not gay btw, even though I listen to boyband music.
>>128876342Because you're listening on a phone speaker or similarly shitty sound system and can't hear the flaws of analog recording.
>>128876342>The Beatles sound like it was recorded yesterday?no it doesn't
the Beatles music you hear doesn't even sound like how it did in the 60s80s music doesn't get changed as much in remasters
>>128876342Yeah, Beatles did record Yesterday and because of that they're timeless.
>>128876715>critiquing the sounds of the records when he has obviously only ever listened to the shitty 2009 remasters
The Beatles had access to state of the art recording studios and unlimited budgets, most of their contemporaries didn't have the same resources and their stuff has dated a lot worse.
>>128876342Because copying the Beatles was ultra popular among indie bands in the 1990s and 2000s + all the commercials of the era that overused their songs, so they sound recent by association.
>>128876342>The Beatles sound like it was recorded yesterday?hehe
