why didnt disco producers include pounding basslines?

**Spellbound** · December 16th, 2004, 07:45 PM

Back in the mid 1970's if disco producers and musicians had wanted to include basslines in their music loud enough and low enough to be heard more than 10 city blocks away or loud enough or low enough to shake and rattle the foundations of a small house...

Could they have done so if they really wanted to?

Why didnt they?

I am positive the technology surely must have been available.

Did the fascination with low frequency start to emerge as the music became more electronic based?

Were there any low frequency freaks around in the disco scene back in 1975?

Obviously the sound quality in the clubs would have to be far superior than the average personal home stereo.

How low was the bass response on most club systems in the middle to late 1970's?

How low was the bass response on most personal home stereo systems in the middle to late 1970's?

**paul** · December 17th, 2004, 01:11 PM

OK, here's my take.
First technology wise. Back in the 70s the quality of the analog systems varied tremendously. This was especially true for phonograph systems. My guess is a lot of what most households had was typically of low to mid quality. This is particularly true for cartridges. This relates to your question about bass because if a cartridge couldn't track strong bass recordings, they would literally skate across the groove. Of course there were some very good to excellent systems out that were in the clubs and in some homes (like mine :D ). I beleive however that the record producers decided in part to produce for the masses. That said, I suspect on some recordings the bass was somewhat attenuated so that even cheap record players could handle these recordings. Now there were some recordings that had a lot of bass. A lot of stuff from Bootsy Collins for example. Also, I must add the clubs and the radio stations did their own equalizations. So the way you hear some recordings isn't necessarily the way they'll sound in the clubs.
Today with digital, a lot more people can easily obtain very good systems so bass isn't as much an issue. With all that being said, there is also an issue that is perhaps even more important. BITD it wasn't all about bass. The music had artist with instruments that covered the entire audio spectrum. To have records that played bass in an over the top unnatural way would just sound horrible. If one went to a live concert, you would never hear the exaggerated bass you hear out of many of todays systems.

**BrunoRepublic** · December 17th, 2004, 02:18 PM

Originally Written by paul

BITD it wasn't all about bass. The music had artist with instruments that covered the entire audio spectrum. To have records that played bass in an over the top unnatural way would just sound horrible.

That's my opinion as well. Vinyl is unique in that it actually forces a natural tonal response during mastering -- too much bass and it will greatly limit the amount of music you can fit on a side, too much treble and you will have horrid distortion on anything less that a micro-line stylus. The bloated bass, screaming treble, and non-existent mids that characterize much of much of today's recordings are almost impossible to cut on vinyl. The practice of putting ridiculous amounts of bass on recordings really only took off in the late 80s/early 90s with the rise of digital formats where this was not a concern. Now it has become the standard. Unfortunately, there are lots of people who think that cranked subwoofers which loosen the bowels are the pinnacle of high fidelity.

**Funky Dude** · December 17th, 2004, 02:47 PM

Graham_Start wrote:
Unfortunately, there are lots of people who think that cranked subwoofers which loosen the bowels are the pinnacle of high fidelity.

Hahahahaha loosen the bowels what a cack :lol: !!! Guess those who suffer chronic constipation might need a set of subs and play a techno CD :lol: !!!

My middle brother who is 21 plays a lot of this heavy bass techno/trance and it's pretty much oonce oonce oonce boom boom boom when it echoes from the room/car. There's a funny Aussie TV show called "Pizza" which some young Aussie Lebanese blokes who enforce the stereotype by saying "fully sick mate" or "sick mate" and driving around in hotted up cars pumping out techno with window shattering bass. Anyways in the movie "Fat Pizza" they had this techno bass tester track which has really hard thumpin bass and goes "(BOOM BOOM BOOM)" and over the top of it you hear "Sick mate sick, subwoofer..... sick mate sick, subwoofer" :lol: :lol: :lol: and in one part of the movie in I think Paulie's car he plays that tune real loud and the windows shatter while you hear "sick mate sick, subwoofer" :lol: :lol: :lol: !!!

paul wrote:
BITD it wasn't all about bass. The music had artist with instruments that covered the entire audio spectrum. To have records that played bass in an over the top unnatural way would just sound horrible. If one went to a live concert, you would never hear the exaggerated bass you hear out of many of todays systems.

I too agree with this. Today it's more about bass beats then the funky pluckin' of the bass guitar producing a cool funky rubberband bass sound! The rubberband bass sounds way more cool than the oonce oonce oonce boom boom boom bass beat used in todays music. We need some more rubberband style bass pluckin' funk in todays music such as songs like "POW" by Graham Central Station, "Glide" by Pleasure, "Stretchin' Out" by Bootsy etc... Though I must say Fatboy Slim's rendition of "The Joker" featuring the bassman himself Bootsy turned out really good with Bootsy playing that really deep bass sound on his bass guitar :D !

__________________________________________________ ___
AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE!!! OI OI OI!!! :D :D :D

**Nard's The Daddy** · December 23rd, 2004, 07:39 AM

I wouldn't quote me on this....But as far as i know........I read in an online article somewhere that "Dance Dance Dance" by Chic was the first ever song to use Sub Bass.

Aparently.........Before "Dance Dance Dance"....everything below 40khz was removed during the mastering process.

If anyone has the article could they please post it here or leave a link to it??......As i'd love to read the whole article again but after searching a few times i just cant find it again.

Thanks
B'naaard

**FREDPUTE** · December 23rd, 2004, 09:38 AM

Here is a link to an article about sub-bass on dance,dance,dance....goodbye

http://www.disco-disco.com/tributes/chic.html

:D

**QUINNY** · December 23rd, 2004, 11:18 AM

Hmmmm. I'll take that with a pinch of salt (the 60Hz thing) 'cos according to the article Dance,Dance,Dance was released on Atlantic as a first label, whereas we all know it actually saw the light of day on Buddah first.
I'm not saying nuthin'

but if he can't get that right what's the odds that the 60 Hz thing is correct?

It's true that the bottom end of vinyl has always been attenuated (and HAS to be).

**NickNack** · December 23rd, 2004, 04:39 PM

Originally Written by QUINNY

Dance,Dance,Dance was released on Atlantic as a first label, whereas we all know it actually saw the light of day on Buddah first.

I never saw this on Buddah. Is that the way it was released overseas? The reason I remember "Dance, Dance, Dance" on Atlantic so well is because the words 'MIX BY SAVARESE' are in the same size font as CHIC, only not in bold print. I was never sure who was getting more promotion --- the artist or the dj. :o

**paul** · December 23rd, 2004, 06:08 PM

Originally Written by QUINNY

It's true that the bottom end of vinyl has always been attenuated (and HAS to be).

I assume you say this because it is the prerequisite RIAA standard. Of course during playback, the inverse boost is given to return the audio back to whatever it was before the equalization.

**paul** · December 23rd, 2004, 06:10 PM

Originally Written by NickNack

I never saw this on Buddah. Is that the way it was released overseas?

Thanks Nicky. I thought I was the dumb ass that missed that release

:lol:

**QUINNY** · December 23rd, 2004, 06:14 PM

HERE IT IS MESSIEURS with comments

http://www.discomusic.com/records-more/1848_0_2_0_C/

**paul** · December 23rd, 2004, 06:16 PM

So I am a dumb ass :o
Thanks and merry xmas to you too Quinny :lol:

**QUINNY** · December 23rd, 2004, 06:20 PM

I'm just glad I got somethin' right for once!

Felices Navidades! (not ready to get back to my old form just yet)

**NickNack** · December 23rd, 2004, 07:23 PM

:o Well smack me down! :D New saw this B-I-T-D. Always something new on "DM.com" :lol: . Thanks, Quinny.

**Stan** · December 23rd, 2004, 07:34 PM

QUINNY wrote:

Dance,Dance,Dance was released on Atlantic as a first label, whereas we all know it actually saw the light of day on Buddah first.

I must admit when i first saw this i thought eh up all the Chic singles were Released on Atlantic in the UK, he must be wrong :-?

So i did a bit of browsing & found

This was Chic's first single. In late 1977, the band recorded it as a demo and shopped it around to various record companies, all of which rejected it. A small label called Buddah decided to take a chance and release it as a 12" single. The song's success on the club charts led to the band's discovery by Atlantic Records. Shortly thereafter in early 1978, the band signed with Atlantic, and the song was re-released nationally.

Much respect QUINNY :D :D :D

I'm still on a very steep learning curve :oops: