I know that back in the day, the whole band would arrive and play live in the studio, but how is it done now? Do the different musicians play their parts and hope it all mixes together right? If so, who goes first, usually, and who goes last. I would think the singer would be recorded last, but then the background singers would have to come in somewhere.
SSG Schwartz
I’ve done quite a few recordings and the practice has varied. Sometimes we’ve had all of the musicians in the recording studio at the same time. For other gigs the sound track has been recorded first, and the singers have been recorded later. Any time I’ve done something with soloists, they’ve been recorded at the same time as the choir.
I’ve done quite a few recordings and the practice has varied. Sometimes we’ve had all of the musicians in the recording studio at the same time. For other gigs the sound track has been recorded first, and the singers have been recorded later. Any time I’ve done something with soloists, they’ve been recorded at the same time as the choir.
There are any number of methods employed depending on the genre, proficiency and actual playing style and recording experience of the band, simple preference, etc. but the generally popular method is for the band to come in and play the songs live in the studio with some degree of sound isolation between the different musicians, with each person’s instrument getting recorded to its own track; these individual tracks are called “scratch” tracks. Then, usually on a one-by-one basis, each musician re-records his individual part with perfect/ideal mic’ing, effects, isolation, and engineering while playing along to the rest of scratch tracks. Often, multiple takes or passes are “comped” (edited together) into a more perfect take. Eventually, each of the original scratch tracks gets completely replaced by this newer, more well-recorded version until the entire song is now made up of expert and satisfactory takes, both in performance and recording quality. Additional overdubs are added, like strings, backup singers, etc. as necessary, then all of these takes are mixed together down to one final stereo version of the song.
The ideology here is that by capturing the “vibe” or feel of the band initially playing together in the studio, the final version of the song maintains that natural and “real” feel even though each component of it has been replaced by the time all is said and done. Sometimes bands even end up using a mix of the original scratch tracks alongside new overdubs and replaced parts, especially if the performance is particularly great and the original recording quality is satisfactory.
There are bands that fit into all spectrums of this, from bands that essentially record live in the studio and add minimal or no overdubs to bands that never all play together at once in the studio and simply build each recording track-by-track until it’s done.
Also, as for “who goes first and who goes last,” it’s really a moot point with modern multitrack recording, but there used to be a specific preferred order depending on the type of tape being used and how many tracks were available - for example, if a band was working with limited tracks and constantly “bouncing” (mixing down all current tracks to a single track in order to free up the original tracks to lay down new parts, before bouncing down again…), there was a preferred order to make sure that certain instruments didn’t get lost in the mix due to sound degradation, phase, etc. It was generally conventional wisdom that the bass, for example, should go on last so as to not disappear into mud through several generations of bounces.
[QUOTE=Drakkar Sauna]
Also, as for “who goes first and who goes last,” it’s really a moot point with modern multitrack recording, but there used to be a specific preferred order depending on the type of tape being used and how many tracks were available - for example, if a band was working with limited tracks and constantly “bouncing” (mixing down all current tracks to a single track in order to free up the original tracks to lay down new parts, before bouncing down again…), there was a preferred order to make sure that certain instruments didn’t get lost in the mix due to sound degradation, phase, etc. It was generally conventional wisdom that the bass, for example, should go on last so as to not disappear into mud through several generations of bounces.
[/QUOTE]
Saving tracks by combining them is called ping-ponging, although I never heard of doing the bass last. I would think a bass could tolerate being in the mud more than most.
Back in the days when tracks were very limited, Mary Ford (of Les Paul &) would record her vocals in “reverse order”, that is, the least important harmony first, as each time she put on another voice, the older recordings would be degraded just a bit. This way, the main melody was done last and suffered the least.
To answer the OP, although others have done it quite well, some artists like to do it all at once, some like to do it one at a time. Film scores with orchestras are typically done all at once. People like Frank Sinatra or Barbra Streisand like it all at once. But much rock & pop music is done in layers, and tracks are laid down at different times and even in different studios. A typical sequence might be rhythm first (bass, drums, basic guitar, basic keyboard), then maybe a scratch vocal, other instruments, sweetening (horns, strings), background vocals, then the scratch vocal is replaced with a final vocal and the whole thing is mixed down.
Obviously you need a much bigger room for a full orchestra, so the all-at-once method is quite expensive.
Drakkar Sauna’s answer is good regarding recording your basic band, at least in my limited experience. To add to that, during the live band recording, particular attention is paid to recording the drums because it’s pretty much impossible to do a second take with just the drums. Same with the bass perhaps to a lesser extent.
The amount of overdubbing and whatnot depends on the budget. If the budget’s limited then more time is usually spent getting the vocals as good as they can be as opposed to, say, going for the perfect guitar solo.
[QUOTE=mack]
Drakkar Sauna’s answer is good regarding recording your basic band, at least in my limited experience. To add to that, during the live band recording, particular attention is paid to recording the drums because it’s pretty much impossible to do a second take with just the drums. Same with the bass perhaps to a lesser extent.
[/quote]
Difficult, but not impossible. I’ve done it.
I think a better reason is that the rhythm section usually plays as a unit or a team and the “tightness” of the band is a function of playing together. I don’t play much bass or drums (keyboards and woodwinds are my thing), but a very good bass player once told me he liked to be seated where he could keep an eye on the drummer’s bass drum foot pedal. It made it easier to synchronize hits by bass guitar and bass drum at once, which creates a composite sound different from either separately.
Once you have a solid “floor” to the tune from the rhythm section, you can add sweetening and vocals to it.
Mack: …do a second take with just the drums…
[QUOTE=Musicat]
Difficult, but not impossible. I’ve done it.
I think a better reason is that the rhythm section usually plays as a unit or a team and the “tightness” of the band is a function of playing together. I don’t play much bass or drums (keyboards and woodwinds are my thing), but a very good bass player once told me he liked to be seated where he could keep an eye on the drummer’s bass drum foot pedal. It made it easier to synchronize hits by bass guitar and bass drum at once, which creates a composite sound different from either separately.
Once you have a solid “floor” to the tune from the rhythm section, you can add sweetening and vocals to it.
[/QUOTE]
That was brought the question to my mind. I was thinking that at some point, the drummer could have to redo his piece. Is it really possible to lay down the drum track without any other tracks, no bass, no guitar, etc?
SSG Schwartz
If the structure of the song has been finalized a drummer can play his part alone to a click track (a track with the beat of the song).
The boards went down just as I tried to post this reply last night. Luckily, I saved a copy before hitting submit. Here it is, 24 hours late:
[QUOTE=SSG Schwartz]
I was thinking that at some point, the drummer could have to redo his piece. Is it really possible to lay down the drum track without any other tracks, no bass, no guitar, etc?
[/quote]
Sure, as long as the track layout was handled properly. In modern music, electrical instruments (electric bass, all-electric guitars, electric keyboards) are piped directly into the recording console and recorded on one or more[sup]*[/sup] of their own tracks with minimal leakage. (This is harder with acoustic instruments because they rely on mics.)
So as long as each track is sufficiently independent, any one can be replaced by a new recording. Or, if enough tracks are available, a new track can be laid down, the old one retained, and either, both or none can be used in the final mixdown.
But because the drums are the timekeepers, a drummer overdubbing a new track would have to be very precise and try to match his tempo to the other instruments (or even another drum track).
Even if all instruments are acoustic, the recording engineer tries to separate them as much as possible so the guitar’s mic(s) don’t pick up much of the drums and vice-versa. “Gobos” (so named because they go between instruments) are placed to minimize leakage; isolation booths are used (typically for drums) and other acoustic tricks can be called upon. Musicians like be close to each other when playing, but a recording engineer would prefer they were in different cities, so there’s some compromise here.
I was once called upon to assist in replacing the sax and flute parts for a recording that had been considered completed, ready for final mix and release. It was a Blood, Sweat & Tears kind of band, and the sax/flute player refused to sign with the record company, so the company rerecorded everything he played, copying every nuance possible, with another (very good) player. My task was to write down everything the sax player had done, including solos, to help the substitute player.
The record was released and the attorneys were happy. Too bad it didn’t sell many copies.
[QUOTE=mack]
If the structure of the song has been finalized a drummer can play his part alone to a click track (a track with the beat of the song).
[/QUOTE]
But a click track is usually the FIRST track to be recorded, and everything syncs to it. If a click track wasn’t laid down at first, you would have to record one in sync with the original drums, just an extra step. Easier just to just record the new drums.
Click tracks are not common for typical pop music unless such a (re-record) action is planned in advance. Click tracks are common in film scores, but that is usually because syncing to specific frames is desired and important and the difference between, say, 90 bps and 90.3 bps is critical due to on-screen action.
nm
[QUOTE=Musicat]
But a click track is usually the FIRST track to be recorded, and everything syncs to it. If a click track wasn’t laid down at first, you would have to record one in sync with the original drums, just an extra step. Easier just to just record the new drums.
Click tracks are not common for typical pop music unless such a (re-record) action is planned in advance. Click tracks are common in film scores, but that is usually because syncing to specific frames is desired and important and the difference between, say, 90 bps and 90.3 bps is critical due to on-screen action.
[/QUOTE]
But a click track does not need to be recorded, it’s simply an electronic metronome. As long as a tempo is predetermined you can record to it whenever you want.
Playing to a click track is extremely common for typical pop music. Here’s a discussion about it:
http://acapella.harmony-central.com/archive/index.php/t-1493125.html
[QUOTE=Ellis Aponte Jr.]
But a click track does not need to be recorded, it’s simply an electronic metronome. As long as a tempo is predetermined you can record to it whenever you want.
[/quote]
But adding a click track to an existing recording can be difficult. First, you have to match the general tempo, then you have to make sure the tempo was unvarying or else vary the new click track to match. Not worth the trouble when all you’re trying to do in the long run is sync to the band.
As far as commonness of click tracks, YMMV. When I was doing studio work in the 1970s, 80s, we rarely used them for demo sessions, sometimes for serious recordings, and always for film scores. Royalty artists who were used to playing together (established bands) often didn’t see the need for them, but if you were putting together performances by studio cats who never saw each other at the same time, a click track is a good idea. However, it won’t work well for rubato passages anyway.
Practices may have changed since then, too. I’ve used click tracks for my own home recordings where I would be the only performer for multi instruments, but not always.
[QUOTE=Musicat]
But adding a click track to an existing recording can be difficult. First, you have to match the general tempo, then you have to make sure the tempo was unvarying or else vary the new click track to match. Not worth the trouble when all you’re trying to do in the long run is sync to the band.
[/QUOTE]
Right, but I thought we were dealing with Mack’s scenario (post #10) of a drummer recording his part alone with no other instruments to listen to. That can be done as long as the drummer knows the structure of the song. Doing that to a click, and thus making the timing perfect, would help the other musicians who come around later to layer their tracks.
What’s changed regarding click tracks is the widespread use of editing software such as ProTools, which is much, much easier to use when the whole recording is synched to the same clicktrack at a preset tempo.
[QUOTE=Musicat]
…Film scores with orchestras are typically done all at once…
Obviously you need a much bigger room for a full orchestra, so the all-at-once method is quite expensive.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve often seen footage of John Williams or Howard Shore conducting orchestras recording their film scores (Amistad and The Lord of the Rings come to mind), and yes, they’re in big halls.