If you're looking for an authentic 60's sound, play live all together in one room.  You may have to play songs several times until you get a good take.  Yes you will get instruments bleeding into one another, but that's part of the sound.  This is the way it was done back in the day.  Make sure you're well rehearsed and tight but not over rehearsed or you will squeeze all the magic out of the songs.  Make sure you're very familiar with the songs and that they are complete BEFORE you go in to record them.  If you're having trouble getting one song down, move on to another and come back to it later.  Don't get hung up on one song.  Record another song and success with one will lead to success with another.  As a band, the MOST important thing to remember is to "play for the song".  I can't stress this enough!!  Play together with the outcome of the song being the most important goal or focus (how good it sounds), not the guitar solo or drum sound or singer.  KEEP YOUR EGO IN CHECK ON A PERSONAL LEVEL.  BANDS ARE A GROUP EFFORT AND YOU'RE THERE TO HELP ONE ANOTHER BE THE BEST MUSICIAN YOU CAN BE!  Stay positive and remember why you started doing this in the first place with this group of people.  Support and love one another through the process.

Where are you planning to record?  There is a guy in Atlanta who we have worked with and totally "gets it" when it comes to this style of recording.  He has a great small studio not too far outside the city.

Recording live shouldn't be a problem. Possible bleeding of sound to other instruments can be limited with walls or being in different rooms(the drums i.e.). The only challange can be a fair amount of re-takes unless you are really tight or fine with minor mistakes on the recording.

I'd use click-track only if your drummer has timing issues.

make sure you got the songs  well rehearsed, make your sound through the amp, record it in analog if possible, and dont mess around with it later, except maybe for levels.... live is the right way to go for rock n roll....every other way we tried just ddod not work for our ears...

Almost everything recorded in the 60's was recorded in real time! If you can play it all at once I would definately not use a clicktrack as this can really kill the energy and magic you have together, unless you are used to recording with clicktrack. Every good studio or sound engineer should be able to record live music, as this is the most basic thing a studio should be capable of. Of course it kind of depends on the genre and instruments you want to record but if you want to just capture the energy you have when you perform I would just insist on recording without clicktrack. If this doesn't work it would be better to rehearse more until it works instead of fixing things later in the mix, which could be more easy because of the clicktrack..

My band is thinking about recording and we are wondering if anyone has suggestions for recording in the studio with the least amount of effort. Ideally we would like to be recorded "live" so as not to loose the energy. However, we don't know if this would be possible as a lot of engineers seem to like the "one instrument at a time" root. The engineer I talked to suggested click tracks as well. But we are not looking for a Radio-friendly sound though I beleive he is more concerned about us being tight. Does anybody have any suggestions or stories as about their approach in the studio? Additionally, doe anybody know of any records that were recorded in real time?

Pls don't be "jealous".....ILOVE you guys....for sure you're more garagey than GP &theN......wow, Vermont really dishes out some good hot tunes , it does:):):)!!!!!

ALWAYS ROCK ON :):):)

PERSIAN CLAWS said:

...and after you're done listening to Grace Potter & The Nocturnals, you can listen to another band from Vermont...  PERSIAN CLAWS   xx

...and after you're done listening to Grace Potter & The Nocturnals, you can listen to another band from Vermont...  PERSIAN CLAWS   xx

1bassmans are cool

2ac15 would be more garage and nearly as loud but the ac30s better

3would you recomend the hotrod caus i have reservations aount modern amps for such a vintage style

Gonzo said:

I'm currently switching between a 65RI Fender Twin Reverb & Hot Rod Deville. I use a Blues Junior for mostly home use. The Deville has a pretty sweet clean and the gain channel is decent, reverb is very sturdy too. I find my Twin takes pedals a lot better then the Deville, I've used a fuzz face reissue through all three and it sounds like a completely different beast through the Twin. I always prefered the NYC Big Muff but after plugging in that fuzz face holy shit. Obviously the Twin has the better reverb and the tremelo is nice but honestly, I don't think the cleans are THAT much better. Not for the price anyway. Luckily I got mine cheap and only ended up paying $500AUD more for the Twin. I'm contemplating buying a AC15/AC30 though for that invasion/60's garage type sound. Then I might buy a bassman, man you can never have too many amps !

kay now i need tabs or chords any help???

good plan but i dont like todays cheap stuff they so poorly made compared to old ones

just get today's cheap stuff, it will be vintage and expensive in 30 years ;-)

the rock is coming back believe me son

all i know is it looks like a mustang

also the headstock is un branded

Hi there,

I just need a little help from you, anal garage collectors. 

I just got a copy of an early (how early ? I'm not sure. 2nd reissue ???) edition of the GARAGE PUNK UNKNOWNS vol. 4 compilation (Stone Age records #664). See cover below.

It's in great condition...blah blah blah...BUT, here's the point :

When you look at the label etiquette, you can read GARAGE PUNK UNKNOWNS vol.4 but, as you discover the tracklisting : surprise !!! Same tracklisting as volume 3 !

And when you play the vinyl ??? Suspense...

Damn !!! This IS volume 3 !!!

(Too bad, I already own vol.3...)

Have some of you already heard about such copies ?  Or maybe even own such a copy ?

Do all the copies from this particular pressing suffer from the same "defect" ?

Please help me dispelling my ignorance...

I know I'm taking a risk getting a Powertron for the price of 3 or 4 GFS pus, but my guts tell me that it's the right choice (and if not there is always Ebay...).

Whoa Cool! You were there.  I've only read about this (as should have everyone).  But everything you say pretty much verifies what I was saying.  and it's great that someone enjoyed the Flamin' Groovies.  I always read that they didn't get as good a reception.  Too quiet in comparison or something. Sounds like it was a great experience. 

Like most bands, the Pistols influences were diverse and varied from member to member.... Johnny even liked Van Der Graaf Generator (though I can't hear it in the songs!) and Matlock was a Small Faces fan, and of course they were all  into the Stooges...

Glam was certainly a major influence... as someone said earlier, just listen to Steve's guitar, but I doubt if the Pistols had heard much about the Ramones prior to the "Bi-Centennial Bop" (or whatever it was called) at the Roundhouse... it was a great show (I recall the Ramones manager shepherding them side-stage to watch the brilliant Flamin' Groovies and pointing things out to them energetically.... it looked most humorous... as had the Ramones running onto stage earlier, going "1-2-3-4" then.... nothing! The amps weren't on... and after some techies ran around feverishly, they came back out and did it again... but this time they ROARED!!!!), and yes nearly everyone who was into what would become "punk" was there, but an influence? The New York Dolls certainly... A friend and I accidentally saw them in 1975 and it was a Dolls-sounding song that made us look up from the bar (it was not until several years later that I realized that we had indeed witnessed an early Pistols show at our local pub! DOH!)

So I  definitely vote "Glam" !!

Cheers, Peter Brat

Iggy Pop and the Stooges would definitely be another but the Sex Pistols started in 1975 before hearing of the Ramones.  Believe it or not, they were into groups like the Sweet and Mott the Hoople and also David Bowie from his Ziggy Stardust days.  If anybody got something from the Ramones experience, it was the Clash and Sid Vicious (before joining the Pistols).

iggy pop

I think it's closer to a 50/50 split, rather than one or the other.

You should have told her you want to name your kids "Mott" or "Hoople," and after she shot those two suggestions down for being too weird, then you could have suggested "Ian" or "Hunter."  Anyway, that's cool that you wanted to do that.  I know a punk rock mother who named her son "Stiv" and her daughter "Ramona."

Mottey's Garage said:

ian Hunter ....hahaha...wife wouldnt let me name any of my kids ian or hunter...so I named my podcast after him..or them..whatever...brilliant...just brilliant

Cool:)

phil hope said:

Yeah I'd like to see him do a follow up.

 

We flew over from ireland for the Mott reuinion gigs - brilliant stuff so it was!

Thanks for letting me know:)

Bryan Chapman said:

Both Ian Hunter and Michael Monroe play a fair selection of tunes from previous bands if the recent boots are anything to go by. Monroe's band sound awesome.

 

Both Ian Hunter and Michael Monroe play a fair selection of tunes from previous bands if the recent boots are anything to go by. Monroe's band sound awesome.

ian Hunter ....hahaha...wife wouldnt let me name any of my kids ian or hunter...so I named my podcast after him..or them..whatever...brilliant...just brilliant