Tweet
Only if true. I doubt the person who wrote the article was personal friends with the band during their recording career.
Music CAN be recorded on tape, but most is not these days. How can you store a reel on a reel? Oh, my bad. I guess you just stack one on top of the other. So if you stack one of them on the source reel, it gives it a reverse echo?So I can have a source reel and a take-up reel laying flat on a table. If you stack a reel on the source reel, and it gives you a reverse echo, if you instead decide to stack the reel on the take-up reel instead, do you get a normal, forward echo? Or no echo at all? Or if it is a mistake, I guess you just have to stack the reel on top of the source reel and just hope that it adds the reverse echo somewhere on the tape at random?
Ok and one or two more questions: How long are you supposed to stack the reel on the source tape for the reverse echo to appear on it? Is there any way to know in advance how strong of an echo it will be? Or what the decay rate will be? Is there some way to make it so that you get a reverse echo on just one hit of the hi-hat on bar 458 of the song? Does it require that you adjust exactly where the reel sits on top of the source tape in order to determine where you can make the echo occur?
What if you have several reels of tape?
Are these reels stacked properly on top of the source reel so that they can have reverse echo? And is there a particular brand of tape like Sony, Maxell, MCI, etc. that is better for reverse echo than Ampex? What model number of Ampex tape should be used? 560? 456? 499?
Haff yooo bin smoke-eeeeng KKKRRRRAAAAKKKKK??????
Backwards echo or reverb can be used to seriously enhance things.
Hardly an "undesirable" effect.
No it is not an effect people bother with on a majority of tunes (like standard plate reverb or something), but ANY effect is useful as another tool that any self-respecting engineer or producer should have in their arsenal.
I have used backwards echoes and reverbs on numerous tunes, and it really sounded cool.
It would not surprise me if it's discovery was a mistake. Much like flanging. Those happy accidents are what have improved recording techniques over the years.
Back in the olden days this is how they did it.
That guy is an engineer. He went to college for 23 years to learn how to what he is doing here. Pushing some buttons. See, that is the very first 32-track recorder, made in 1954. It had a modulated die-electric source reel. That is the big reel on the left up top. The guy is adjusting the magneto-dynamic variance by turning that dial below to parity. Once it gets to parity, the source reel automatically generates a magnetic pulse. You can synchronize the die-electric source reel with the smaller reels just below it. They can use punch cards to tell the vacuum tube interface what settings to use to determine whether the pulse creates a forward, or a backward echo.
I found all the above info at a top-secret website I belong to with nothing but multi-platinum engineers and producers.
This is the current state of the art way of doing things:
In the above photo, the guy (who is a good friend of mine) has gone on ebay on bought TWO source reels. He put them both on that SONY deck below, and is going to make a reverse echo on both the reels on that TEAC deck. See, that way he can get twice as much reverse echo in half the time.
He did say it is getting harder to find good tape these days though. He says the Scotch company might be going out of business. I don't know what we will do if that happens.
I guess we will all just have one of these:
Firstly, the guy who wrote the article IS wrong.....there is a most famous black and white video of a TV broadcast they did in Denmark when they did their first tour as the "New Yardbirds".
Secondly, you will probably never in your lifetime play in a band who even could approach them when they were a young shit hot band. Like Van Halen was.
Hater.
It has? By whom? What armies of armchair pundits who vomit such inept baby-gurgles ever even heard them live?
I have a lot of incredible sounding bootlegs that would easily prove such foolishness to be false, and and that was the beauty of the band...they only had 4 people. They did not need 3 keyboard players, 4 guitarists 8 hot female African American background singers and a fucking grand piano, with a speshul fucking appearance by the Moron Tabbur-nackul Kwire.
That left them lotsa space to fill sonically, and they did so very efficiently and with great power.
Without any help from any other motherfuckers.
Page/Plant in the mid-to-late 90s was a reasonable fascimile. Stripped down sonic ass-kicking on a major scale. I did witness that in person.
They were not some superhuman guys who played everything perfect all the time. Even Hendrix had many an off-night. Babe Ruth may have been the home run king, but he also lead the leagues in strikeouts.
And so it was with Led Zep. Especially when James got into the smack.
So what if the band became lame by 1976. The definition of a "body of work" includes all the lame stuff. Live stuff too. Yes, it was 12 years. September, 1968 to September, 1980.
That statement about Cream is irrelevant. Hendrix was around for only 3 years in the public eye (as an A-list solo artist) but he achieved more musically than Cream, The Beatles, The Who, Jeff Beck, The Stones, and just about everyone who existed in the public eye from 1967 to 1970 COMBINED by a longshot.
Pretty much agree with everything else you posted.
But then, it does not matter what you or I think.
Krusty has been begging me for weeks to send her some of my Zep bootlegs.
So I told her I would give her a cheap substitute: This thread.
The purpose of this thread is NOT for a serious discussion on Led Zeppelin.
But thread derailment is encouraged around here.
Carry on.
Comment