Recording - whats your appraoch? Wall of sound or slam it out?

Long Johns

Afternoon all,
Just wanted to hopefully pick some people’s brains about recording/production techniques.

May I firstly say I don’t think there’s right or wrong answers to these questions but I‘m interested to know what approaches various music producers have taken to mult-track recording. I’ve had my own experiences and have heard stories of others but want to know more.

I’ll focus mainly on recording guitars I suppose - to explain more, my main experience with producers (whom we’re very happy with) has been a very detailed ‘de-construct’ approach to guitar recording. For example where live you may play a power chord or whatever, when recording you would sometimes deconstruct this down and use one track for the high-e and B string to get the highs then another 2 or 3 tracks to get the lower strings by themselves – all to aid clarity in the final mix rather than a big distorted power chord of 6 strings. I remember thinking ‘f*ck this, why can’t I just play me feckin chord?’ the first time I ever recorded but was happy with the result. I was unbelievably naïve the first time in fairness though, thinking that we were gonna walk in and slam out what we played live and walk out with a cd etc…some bands do get away with it depending on style or whatever. I’ve since learnt the error of our thinking for our own situation. My own opinion is that recording is about making something beautiful and totally set apart from the live experience. Many may disagree but that’s my own view.

I guess sometimes it just feels very clinical and calculated and maybe a bit cold (again I’m probably being naïve with an overly romantic view of recording) with track upon track of stuff and it certainly adds to the pre-pro workload but overall it seems well worth it for the results. I

What are people’s experiences? I’m interested to know what other bands’ / producers’ approaches are?

Hope I didn’t ramble too much…

TelePaul

It's very common to double or triple track guitar parts, often with variations. I'll usually record an electric guitar at least twice - the majority of the time with a different amp and/or guitar.

Long Johns

TelePaul wrote: »

It's very common to double or triple track guitar parts, often with variations. I'll usually record an electric guitar at least twice - the majority of the time with a different amp and/or guitar.

do you mean you record a few tracks on the same guitar line so producer can pick best one and go with it or that they all go in the mix with the different guitars etc on the same line?

i'd always record a few tracks of the same guitar line anyway just to make sure there's at the very least least one smooth version of that particularly line if there's chopping up required

TelePaul

Long Johns wrote: »

do you mean you record a few tracks on the same guitar line so producer can pick best one and go with it or that they all go in the mix with the different guitars etc on the same line?

i'd always record a few tracks of the same guitar line anyway just to make sure there's at the very least least one smooth version of that particularly line if there's chopping up required

Lol I have the luxury of being my own producer! I'll play a take till it's perfect, then i'll save it and do it again - using a different chord voicing or phrasing and a different tone.

Long Johns

that must be cool.
must say the dynamic of working with an enthusiastic producer with his own ideas has been great for us... if not extremely stressful at times christ ...but overall we've benefitted from the friction and the synergy.

I'm just curious about artist/producer dynamics out there really and different techniques employed

LaVidaLoca

" For example where live you may play a power chord or whatever, when recording you would sometimes deconstruct this down and use one track for the high-e and B string to get the highs then another 2 or 3 tracks to get the lower strings by themselves – all to aid clarity in the final mix rather than a big distorted power chord of 6 strings. I remember thinking ‘f*ck this, why can’t I just play me feckin chord?’ the first time I ever recorded but was happy with the result."

Thats bleeding awful. I remember hearing of a producer who made a drummer play the hi-hats separately, to get 'better seperation'.

Madness.

Long Johns

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

" For example where live you may play a power chord or whatever, when recording you would sometimes deconstruct this down and use one track for the high-e and B string to get the highs then another 2 or 3 tracks to get the lower strings by themselves – all to aid clarity in the final mix rather than a big distorted power chord of 6 strings. I remember thinking ‘f*ck this, why can’t I just play me feckin chord?’ the first time I ever recorded but was happy with the result."

Thats bleeding awful. I remember hearing of a producer who made a drummer play the hi-hats separately, to get 'better seperation'.

Madness.

more posts like this please! this is what I'm looking for - I'm interested in hearing about people who have done serious recording and would use different techniques etc

I totally agree with your reaction (as was mine) but why would they do it if it wasnt to make them (you) sound bigger and better? If the end result is great then it doesnt really matter but sometimes I wonder is it worth it?

another question re recording guitars - would you always record reverb and room sounds live or would you fiddle with it afterwards sometimes? I've heard of producers who sometimes insist guitars are completely clean of reverb or delay/chorus effects and the like so they can tinker afterwards, 'because once its in you can't take it out etc'...like f*ckin control freaks or something, then you might hear the mix and they've made a b*llox of it, its a god-complex thing I think and it really undermines the musician which is not necessary unless the musician really has no idea what they're doing. Even the best producers in the world can miss whatever 'vision' a musician might have and f*ck it up by assuming they know better

Long Johns

would the reverb thing be common?

TelePaul

Long Johns wrote: »

would the reverb thing be common?

I leave my amp verb on full when I'm playing and recording - it's just how I like my amp to sound.

jtsuited

one thing i think is important here is that while there is no right or wrong way of doing things, there is good and bad. But good and bad only refer to how something is done in the overall musical context.

not to sound silly here, but when recording you really have to feel the vibe of the track you're working on. and know where to go next working in this vibe. this is why experience and general messing about is the most invaluable asset to any recording artist (performer, producer, mix engineer, etc.).

saying that there is a sort of physics to mixing that one must learn in able to produce some sort of coherent sounding record.
the internet is a wealth of knowledge in this regard. Google everything from "how do i make my snare stand out to the front in my mix", to "the lead guitarist is pissing me off during mixing".

Eventually you'll know everything!!!:)

Denalihighway

Niall - Dahlia wrote: »

It depends, on the amp and the sound you're trying to achieve. There's no one single answer. No right or wrong.

By the way I think these kind of threads is exactly what this forum needs. I know there's "better" and more active international forums that you can go to with your questions, but if you're gonna do that why not post it here for discussion too?

I agree. So when to 'seperate'? - i mean was there an advent of this recording technique and what are the real advantages? For example on drums, when recording separate snare/bass and cymbals, is there a specific soundscape one is after somtimes or is the real advantage to have snare/bass and cymbals in seperate tracks with no spill when cutting everything for mixdown?

I'm still not 100% convinced but I think its probably cuz I'm a musician and precious about my babies That said, our producer has done stuff which I rebelled against and did under protest/for experimentation and i've eaten my words manys a time...

smurfrockstar

First off, I think the most important thing about a producer is that they share your idea of what the hell the song is meant to sound like, not exactly the same idea but definitely somewhere in the ball park. It's a producers job to make your song sound as good as it can.

Now the overdub separation thing. It does work but only for certain types of music and only certain producers too. As an example that somebody else mentioned severe metal like The Dillinger Escape Plan which is all pure precision playing would definitely benefit from a degree of separation also something like Explosions In the Sky are definitely another candidate for separation. on The other hand it can be a load of bollocks, I was recording once and we separated a fairly simple guitar part out to about 7 seven different tracks on our producers bequest, the end result, pure unadulterated mud.

Another thing a bout separation is simply the producer may be looking to increase dynamics of a fairly straight forward rock song by maybe dropping out a guitar note for a few bars and then bring it back in, same goes for the hates, having it separated in the recording while avoiding spill also gives flexability.

Finally, if you notice a producer ****ing about a lot with something, they might be working very hard to get your song to work. This is a massive problem because something that absolutely destroys live can sound ****ing terrible if recorded. I don't know how many times I've seen great bands live and thought 'god help them when they hit a studio'. Think about dynamics before you go into record, too many bands go for the 'everything in' approach whereby the drums, bass guitar vocals keyboard and kitchen sink all start on the first beat and don't finish until the last beat. If the song is dynamically weak you'll catch a producer in a studio trying a lot of separation and various takes to try to get some dynamic into a song. Also if you're writing a song to make your life easier think about how it's going to be recorded, sounds terrible and counter creative but give it some thought when you have the song finished, ' is there just a ton of distorted guitar and no clean guitar, is it all power chords and no arpegiated bits, do I really need anything playing here. Listen to other bands and see how they recorded there stuff.

If you want to check out some nice guitar production without it being intrusive or exceptional in anyway check out Okkervil River, Unless it Kicks, overdriven guitar with a relatively high tone at the start, overdubs of a distorted guitar maybe played with an e-bow but more than likely just a volume pedal, then a twelve string acoustic with another overdriven guitar playing the main guitar riff. Really simple but effective guitar production thats shows that you have to have the song first before the production can do anything. Also Explosions in The Sky The Birth And Death Of The Day, again good solid product but the track has been written with all the separation in ming, most of the time there's maybe two to three guitars just playing one note, another example of how good writing can make production a lot easier but also that for a pure wall of sound separation whther written into the song or created by a producer can be very effective.

**** I've warbled on for ages, sorry bout that.

Long Johns

a lot of whats being said seems to confirm what i was thinking is that production techniques (to separate or not to seperate etc) should be taken as a case by case basis depending on the song basically and stuff like separation should not be a broad approach as such. - we've an album coming up and we're gonna make sure we've loadsa good pre-pro done and that we and our producer are super-familiar with the songs and what they require. That should (help) avoid conflict and confusion hopefully as studio will be at an all time minimum! It aint gettin any cheaper...

though conflict and confusion seems to have been an essential ingredient so far

ogy

i think one of the reasons for the drum seperation would be the dynamic differences between cymbals and other drums. like the cymbals might be close to clipping but the toms might not be loud enough. if you have them close miced you can sort it out that way but obviously the toms won't sound as roomy as they do in the overheads. so a solution is to record without the cymbals so you can get healthier levels from the rest of the kit without having to compress the incoming signal. i think i read somewhere that dave grohl does this, he uses pads for the cymbals during the takes and then the cymbals are recorded and lined up afterwards, so there is much more control over the balance between the cymbals and the rest of the kit, without losing the roomy overhead mic sound on the toms.

i think a lot of choices really depend on what type of end result your looking for. theres a degree of "hyper realism" you generally find on records, best example is drums, i.e. a drum kit in real life just doesn't sound like it does on record, your not trying to create a realistic sound, your trying to create a hyped version of reality. if you want a purer "truer" sound, you should use less close mics, more overheads/room mics, but the success of this technique really depends on how nice the room sounds.

layering sounds can be great for pop and rock to create hyperreal vocals/guitars etc. but the phasing that makes this technique useful can also be its downfall, the more overdubs the more phase coherence issues, so its a bit of a tightrope.

just a few thoughts!

sei046

For me it depends on the genre. If I am doing something where certain elements of the song lets say the Beat (Bass Rhythm guitar and drums, perhaps keyboards) have to be perfect and smooth i get clinical. Many acoustic tracks with certain eqs to hear a certain thing with the strings etc. When i do rock i have the opposite approach. I try and let everything breath and get a bit more feel into the track. It really depends on the result you want.

For country the bones of the song will be tighter than a nats ass but with enough random nuances to double tracked things to create a nice stereo spread. Then the lead elements, vocals, Fills, Lead instruments all are very live sounding to give the track a nice energetic realistic sound.

With rock if its pretty generic and sort of have a warts and all attitude. I dont like hearing mistakes, but i love hearing the little nuances to the sound. What isnt written on paper for the song is usually what ends up making it breath

smurfrockstar

I think the main thing about production is define the sound of a band, to make them stand out from the crowd. Certain producers are better at certain types of music than others for example Butch Vig is a brilliant producer of raw grungy, punk styles with good loud quiet dynamics, case in point would be his work on Nevermind and more recently on Against Me's first major label album New Wave. Every producer has a style and sometimes it's best to seek out those that fit to your style the best.

Another important element as mentioned by Long Johns is your relationship with your producer, as a fairly wet behind the ears muso I went recording two tracks with a producer in Dublin and not wanting to insult or pretend to know what the hell we were talking about we just followed blindly what he said. His production was brilliant but the finished product had no resemblence to what we initially walked in with. Conflict can be helpful and creative in a context but definietly a fairly open relationship with your producer where you can bounce ideas around is much better. Also as Niall mentioned creativity can be a bit hampered by time constraints.

Finally another thing about separation is that it makes it easier to widen the stereo image which can be very, very handy when it comes to massively expansive songs, again not so good on simple straight songs and stuff, as an example Oasis D'ya know what I mean has something ridiculous like 10 overdubbed guitar parts for a simple guitar riff, big production ideas can't save an average song.

I suppose what I've been trying to say for ages without getting to the point is that production is a means to an ends, good production won't save a crap song and terrible production won't kill a brilliant song. Don't be afriad to experiment but don't be afraid to stand up for where you think the song should be going.

Long Johns, best of luck with the album, most people saying moving and getting married are the most stressful things you'll ever do, obviously those people never spent any time in a recording studio listening to the floor tom being checked for over an hour!!!:D

Niall and Ogy, hats off boys you've forgotten more about production and engineering than I've ever known.

LaVidaLoca

There are no hard and fast rules for this kind of stuff.

A Record like Buena Vista Social Club for example was recorded mostly live in the studio with minimal overdubs (This album, the Rueben Gonzalez album and the first Afro-Cuban All Stars album were recorded in the SAME 2 week period)

And guess what? It sounds freakin' fantastic!

But that's the type of music that it is. Some music is supposed to sound like it was pro-tooled to death, and that's a different aesthetic.

However that's a fashion that is changing very fast: Like anything it follows economics: It used to be very expensive and 'fancy' to make music with 48 tracks and Lexicon reverb splashed all over it, so thats what people did if they wanted to seem 'proffessional;.

Now that anyone can do that in their bedroom on a laptop, (*wow sweeping generalisation*) it no longer seems so fancy , the focus is shifting again to live playing and to bands that have energy and vibe. Listen to Franz Ferdinands 1st album for example - sound like they went to a rehearsal room, stuck up a couple of mics and hit 'record'.

smurfrockstar

LaVida makes another top point. Affordability has brought about a massive change in the way music is produced. Another point is that the music industry changed dramatically over the last few years and with it so has production. It basically came down to sales. The first part of that is that if a group or band came along with a certain sound you would've noticed that a lot of following groups were crafted to sound similar to that. Franz Ferdinand is a good example of this because after there massive success production tended to follow suit as labels started looking for there own Franz but mainly it was something totally different. If you listen to the radio you'll probably notice that adverts tend to be a lot louder than radio pro grammes this is usually because they've had the snot compressed out of them the end result being that they stand out an awful lot more than anything else on the radio. Well a similar thing happened to music, radio mixes tended to be very compressed so that they would, if you will punch through the rest of the guff on the radio, kind of whoever shouts loudest gets heard. This admittedly is mostly done at the mastering stage and has a lot to do with advances in stereo field and compression but it's interesting to think about if completely and utterly off the point of the original post.

LaVidaLoca

That **** just makes my ears bleed.

My personal take on 'production' is that in the past, arranging songs was something largely done away from studios and mixers - musicans learned to write parts and sing harmonies in the same room as each other, and part of being a musician was naturally balancing and *listening* to other musicians.

If you record music that is written or performed in that way (Most Jazz for example), a nice pair of mics on a stereo bar in a nice room, will probably make for a great sounding record.

By contrast, if you're recording a band that sticks all their amps up to 11, all the time, with a drummer that hits as hard as he can every time, where the musicians give no thought at all to balancing themselves - it's all 'every man for himself and let the engineer sort it out'. - then mixing suddenly becomes hard - youve gotta have 48 tracks and compression and EQ on every channel and so on.

If your music is written, arranged and performed well, compression and eq will be mostly mild changes, - rolling off a little bass on acoustic guitar or whatever. This is an art that has been lost, and is due a comeback in my opinion.

Remember the 60's? Bands used to make 3 albums a year in those days. Nowadays we're lucky if a band makes a new record every 3 years!

You know why?

Cause now, they spend 2 months writing songs, and 2 years and ten months, tracking, re-tracking, pro-tooling, auto-tuning, arsing about bouncing to tape and back (in a vain attempt to get that 'analog sound' that they think is something to do with tape and tubes - but is actually the loss of vibe from recording everything track by track to a click)

As more and more large studios close down every day, and releasing music begins to become a band's personal responsibility, through the internet and whatever, this anal modern mindset is gonna slip away. Bands are gonna learn to play well and record sings quickly, and release em on the internet the next day.

And damn, there aint gonna be any money in it, but it's sure gonna be fun.

frobisher

I think that every producer/engineer worth his salt should go along with capturing the essence of the band/song they're working with. If that's who's paying them. If a major label are paying him you can be sure that he's had a sit down with some exec's on how things should sound and that the band weren't at it. I've even had managers pull me aside while recording their bands ask can it be made a bit more x or y.

I'm surprised to read about the deconstructing approach mentioned in the thread. That buzz might be great for Mutt Lange and Shania whats-her-face but as far as I'm concerned it's usually shortest route between rocking and lifeless. There's a BIG difference between a band with a good sound and a band that just sound good. Give me a vibey recording over fidelity 9 times out of 10. I remember a friend telling about how a producer he was working with who liked to have guitars broken down and panned out like, ahem, a flower blossoming. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

All of that said, I think that music exists in it's purest form while being written, while being performed to an audience and while being listened to. Note the absence of the recording process. So while I may feel the above I reckon that you can do whatever the hell you like in the studio as long as it's working. If it ends up sounding good then it is good, right?

From a pure technical point of view I've gone full circle. I used to love the wall of sound thing, and still do sometimes (Paul White in SOS magazine gave out about my 70+ self recorded tracks) but I think that the accesability to fidelity has made it more interesting to me to take a looser approach. I've a load of new songs that I'd normally have put down by now but have decided to spend a few months gigging them as much as I can instead and see where that brings them first. Then go into the studio and try and capture that essence. There will be no breaking down of guitars to indivisual strings. In fact, I can see it having mono drums and being quite basic. Although don't quote me on that!

studiorat

Some of the posts here remind me of some stories I've heard from producers I've worked with though, the Smiths for instance, spending days recording each drum part on it's own, bass drum then snare drum then hat etc. And what about "peek-a-boo" by Souxie and the Banshees, they took an old backing track flipped the tape around so it played backwards and wrote a whole new song over that.

Very hard beat the sound of men playing in a room together.
A track that I recorded last year, that's currently on the wireless at the moment, ahem! Had the singer and two acoustics, lead and strummy one in the booth, and the rest of the band out in the big room. The lead acoustic sounds best when all three mics are open even though you can hear spill from each on all three microphones. The vocal is the one we did while tracking on an RE-20 dynamic mic. I think we may have dropped in for a line or two that's all. Otherwise apart from backing vocals and a few electric guitar overdubs the whole shmozzel is live.
It's just that that particular vibe was right for the song. There's other tracks on the album where we edited every single kick drum hit on the kit, use two basses and comped the vocal from about 3 vocal sessions etc. It's just horses for courses really.

So anyone here up for a Mercury this year???

ogy

So anyone here up for a Mercury this year???

very drole:)

Long Johns

all interesting stuff from the producer crew, i'm not technical at all unfortunatley...but I try to pick up as much as I can really so as to empower meself as much as possible in the recording situation. Personally I suffer frmo my lack of knowledge when recording, and I know you producers will know what it feels like to work with people who have a vision for a song that they've crafted in rehearsals but aren't sure how to communicate it and make it happen in the studio - "I just want it ...ummm...bigger...or something" etc...

I think another problem independent artists like us with a miniscule budget is the lack of pre-production, you've rightly pointed out that a producer worth their salt will know the songs and the dynamics etc and the vision for each one so as to maximise the transition from rehearsal room to the cutting floor to cd. But with a small budget pre-pro (like actual recording time) will be at a minimum so its of genuine concern that some songs may be a bit of a slog to get right but I guess we'll have to beg borrow and steal until the thing is right, who knows if we'll get to do it again even...

that said I'm consistently astounded by producers who hear a song for the first time and immediately know where its going and how it can be augmented, we're lucky enough to have someone like and I'm sure there's a huge amount of bands who don't which is tragic.

ogy

people who have a vision for a song that they've crafted in rehearsals but aren't sure how to communicate it and make it happen in the studio

obviously you want to have your own sound and stuff, but i think its very helpful to engineers if you give them a few guide tracks and examples of other bands that you'd like your recording to be in a similar style to. especially at the mixing stage its great to have something to a/b to

studiorat

Long Johns wrote: »

But with a small budget pre-pro (like actual recording time) will be at a minimum so its of genuine concern that some songs may be a bit of a slog to get right but I guess we'll have to beg borrow and steal until the thing is right, who knows if we'll get to do it again even...

There are very few decent budgets in Ireland any more, I just heard today that RMG a big company by Irish standards are laying off 40% of their staff. So like most record companies they are prepared to spend less and less on making the records, and the licenceing deals are getting worse too.

It's at the stage now where you are making more touring and selling tee-shirts so you may aswell give the music away...

Long Johns wrote: »

that said I'm consistently astounded by producers who hear a song for the first time and immediately know where its going and how it can be augmented, we're lucky enough to have someone like and I'm sure there's a huge amount of bands who don't which is tragic.

Back to the nice part of the business in hand though, I feel as an engineer or as a producer my job is to help paint a picture of how the song should sound given the instrumentation and song style or structure, that the talent performs. I'll take cues from the flavor of the music then, as to how I think it should sound and how the whole thing fits together. But always listening to the song as the big picture.
I'll use sounds of other stuff I've heard before as a style reference to enhance that flavor. Examples like a 60's guitar reverb, 70's dry drum sounds, the edit in "Home Thought's from Abroad" by Clifford T. Ward where it goes from dry mono to reverby stereo, the build up after the guitar solo in "Whole lot of Rosie", Joy Division and Interpol vocal reverbs. All of these things, Old, New, Borrowed and Blue...
One more thing though, if it doesn't sound right going in at the pointy end, it's not gonna sound good out the other end.

Good Night.

NeMiSiS

Great thread.
Recording at the moment, and learned a lot from both this thread and the similar thread on Bands/Musicians.
Il post the kind of techniques (if you could call some of them that) we are using when I have more time.. some are a bit off the wall, but we decided at the start that we would input all our idea's and try them rather than write them off. Because we want to get it "right" or at the very least as right as we can make it. Doing something over in it's entirety if we are not happy is an option we have discussed and are prepared for.

We are not using a producer though, so the info in these kind of threads and the stuff I found found on the net is great.

Thanks!
TK

PaulBrewer

Using a Producer is a great thing in a Studio I think. Better still is a Producer that isn't engineering.

In my experience, despite people's best intentions, if you're the Bass Player that's what your priority is, the bleedin' bass! Similar for Singers, Guitar players......

I can think of 1 Pro Drummer who's a great player technically, but has NO idea what's right for a song - Does a Fill every 8 bars ring any Bells for anyone?... or Cymbals... or Toms?

So that's the value of a Producer, he let's everyone involved, including the engineer, focus on their own gig, while keeping an overview on the whole show, so the band don't have too.

Particularly of use if you're new to recording....

As for StudioRat as his 'Home Thoughts from Abroad' I've only one thing to say --- 'Bleedin' Hippie'....

No, in fairness his points are very valid.

Handlestash

Try linking a number of amps together and micing them individually. Even really crappy practice have their good points. This means that when you play you'll have a few different sounds but the same part. Nice full sound too.
The key for me is well practiced accurate playing, good mics, good gear and a good sound engineer.
A producer is handy if you're unsure of the direction you should take a song or your 'sound'.
A producer is also handy if you've got a number of 'opinionated' members in your band and can't agree on a production.
I really really think that if you're happy with your sound in rehearsals and live you should try to recreate that sound in the studio.
This doesn't mean a huge noisy mess. Listen to Queens of the Stone Age. Heavy rock music but you can hear every element.

PaulBrewer

Niall - Dahlia wrote: »

True, but I've found that a producer with an engineering background, or at least one with a good understanding of studio equipment, is a big advantage, in my opinion and short experience anyway.

True Niall, I didn't mean he/she couldn't Engineer, just that he/she didn't! i.e. it was someone else's gig.

Trev M

smurfrockstar wrote: »

First off, I think the most important thing about a producer is that they share your idea of what the hell the song is meant to sound like, not exactly the same idea but definitely somewhere in the ball park. It's a producers job to make your song sound as good as it can.

Now the overdub separation thing. It does work but only for certain types of music and only certain producers too. As an example that somebody else mentioned severe metal like The Dillinger Escape Plan which is all pure precision playing would definitely benefit from a degree of separation also something like Explosions In the Sky are definitely another candidate for separation. on The other hand it can be a load of bollocks, I was recording once and we separated a fairly simple guitar part out to about 7 seven different tracks on our producers bequest, the end result, pure unadulterated mud.

Another thing a bout separation is simply the producer may be looking to increase dynamics of a fairly straight forward rock song by maybe dropping out a guitar note for a few bars and then bring it back in, same goes for the hates, having it separated in the recording while avoiding spill also gives flexability.

Finally, if you notice a producer ****ing about a lot with something, they might be working very hard to get your song to work. This is a massive problem because something that absolutely destroys live can sound ****ing terrible if recorded. I don't know how many times I've seen great bands live and thought 'god help them when they hit a studio'. Think about dynamics before you go into record, too many bands go for the 'everything in' approach whereby the drums, bass guitar vocals keyboard and kitchen sink all start on the first beat and don't finish until the last beat. If the song is dynamically weak you'll catch a producer in a studio trying a lot of separation and various takes to try to get some dynamic into a song. Also if you're writing a song to make your life easier think about how it's going to be recorded, sounds terrible and counter creative but give it some thought when you have the song finished, ' is there just a ton of distorted guitar and no clean guitar, is it all power chords and no arpegiated bits, do I really need anything playing here. Listen to other bands and see how they recorded there stuff.

If you want to check out some nice guitar production without it being intrusive or exceptional in anyway check out Okkervil River, Unless it Kicks, overdriven guitar with a relatively high tone at the start, overdubs of a distorted guitar maybe played with an e-bow but more than likely just a volume pedal, then a twelve string acoustic with another overdriven guitar playing the main guitar riff. Really simple but effective guitar production thats shows that you have to have the song first before the production can do anything. Also Explosions in The Sky The Birth And Death Of The Day, again good solid product but the track has been written with all the separation in ming, most of the time there's maybe two to three guitars just playing one note, another example of how good writing can make production a lot easier but also that for a pure wall of sound separation whther written into the song or created by a producer can be very effective.

**** I've warbled on for ages, sorry bout that.

Great post , Ive recently spent an age dicking around re amping tones, layering, panning tracks diferrently. I should have considered the seperation approach , whilst I have monster lush tones , dynamically its rolling thunder from start to finish.

Trev M

Niall - Dahlia wrote: »

Ah yeah I understood you. The whole "should an engineer also produce" and vice-versa is something that interests me, young bands more often than not don't have a producer and look to the engineer for decisions that he should only be giving his opinion on (if even that).

I think as recording and technology has moved on there is pressure on the recording engineer to assume additional "producer like" responsibilities to enhance what the band is capable of?.

These days its a given that most guys can record a half decent track and make it sound listenable at least. The expectation from bands these days is that when they go in and record they come out with something more than just their recorded sound if ya get me. Its expected that the engineer adds something to the recording that gives the band value for money.

This has been largely my experience last couple of years anyway. I guess a lot of bands dont have a huge amount of experience anyway so rely on the engineers judgement to a large extent.... Usually I always try and track in a way that allows me to have a strauight down the middle track and the track that we've "collectively produced" with additional ideas if that makes sense?