Live Recording versus Track by Track

ShriekingSheet

Would be interested to hear what people do and why.

We've always recorded a guide track and then laid down drums, bass, guitars and vox one by one.

For a 4 piece rock band we don't sound particularly 'traditional' in the sense that recordings tend to be more than a really good version of our live takes. We layer things and add bits and piece - just our preference. I think it lends itself more to recording each piece seperately.

We're back in the studio soon and just wondering is anyone has any insight as to different ways of doing things.

My current impression is that recording most things all together is more of an old romantic idea as opposed to actually sounding better. Although I wouldn't suggest it sounds much worse either....

Anyone?

JimiTime

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

Would be interested to hear what people do and why.

We've always recorded a guide track and then laid down drums, bass, guitars and vox one by one.

For a 4 piece rock band we don't sound particularly 'traditional' in the sense that recordings tend to be more than a really good version of our live takes. We layer things and add bits and piece - just our preference. I think it lends itself more to recording each piece seperately.

We're back in the studio soon and just wondering is anyone has any insight as to different ways of doing things.

My current impression is that recording most things all together is more of an old romantic idea as opposed to actually sounding better. Although I wouldn't suggest it sounds much worse either....

Anyone?

It really depends on the band, the song, the studio, the engineer etc. There are engineers who have been known to record each part of a kit seperately, i.e. kick drum, then snare etc. This can work in a Dance, bubblegum Pop, linnear type song. However, the whole point of recording live, si not really about sound quality, its about capturing the soul and essence of the band/song. In a top class studio, good channel seperation can still be achieved, while still capturing the bands live soul. Once an atmosphere is captured, then overdubs here and there can be done without impacting too much. the band needs to be tight for a live recording.

TelePaul

There's nothing to say you can't record live AND get a good sound - it's just harder to do. And IMO, there's nothing wrong with micing the whole kit either. It does give you moe control - you can strip it back to 2 OHs, a kick and snare, but at least you have the option. Tracking live you're gonna get alot of bleed unless you have a dedicated space.

ShriekingSheet

It's such a weird on innit!

But I agree, it does depend a lot on the kinda stuff you're recording

tubedude

It depends on the music and the performers to determine the best option.
I recorded a demo with a band a while ago. We do mainly pop rock and indie, and along with the engineer we decided to record it all live, except for the vocals which was done after.
I do think that tracking everything layer by layer, for this kind of music anyway, is kind of a safe option, and the end result may lack character and could kill the song a bit, with all the instruments sounding too distant from each other in that you may not be able to sense a real connection between some of the instruments, regardless of good mixing. But then again, for some songs it could suit and sound great.
But recording live, you should all be experienced playing together and a drummer that can keep tempo. And you will be able to capture the intensity and dynamics of all the instruments easier, and with a good engineer, sound quality should'nt be an issue. I would recommend doing vox separetly though. And of course some tweaks and edits can still be done afterwards.
Our demo sounded great, we got a live feel with a studio sound quality.
I would say try do it live, to no avail, track it.

We recorded in Silverline studios, co.Wicklow.
Engineer was Ivan.

JimiTime

tubedude wrote: »

It depends on the music and the performers to determine the best option.
I recorded a demo with a band a while ago. We do mainly pop rock and indie, and along with the engineer we decided to record it all live, except for the vocals which was done after.
I do think that tracking everything layer by layer, for this kind of music anyway, is kind of a safe option, and the end result may lack character and could kill the song a bit, with all the instruments sounding too distant from each other in that you may not be able to sense a real connection between some of the instruments, regardless of good mixing. But then again, for some songs it could suit and sound great.
But recording live, you should all be experienced playing together and a drummer that can keep tempo. And you will be able to capture the intensity and dynamics of all the instruments easier, and with a good engineer, sound quality should'nt be an issue. I would recommend doing vox separetly though. And of course some tweaks and edits can still be done afterwards.
Our demo sounded great, we got a live feel with a studio sound quality.
I would say try do it live, to no avail, track it.

We recorded in Silverline studios, co.Wicklow.
Engineer was Ivan.

Any chance that you have a link to this demo? Love to hear what it sounds like.

Denalihighway

people in this thread might also find this one interesting, some similar musings goin on...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055225858

glad to be of service!

tubedude

JimiTime wrote: »

Any chance that you have a link to this demo? Love to hear what it sounds like.

I dont have a link but if ya wanna give me an email add, I'l send ya a couple tracks off the demo.

juanchoja

Its like cooking pasta Bolognese and tomato soup in the same pan, you could eat that but good luck! Now if you cook the pasta individually, the pasta sauce in another pan and the tomato soup in another pan all using different ingredients and the right amount for each one you will have a proper meal.

The same applies to recording, for instance, when recording the vocals a studio microphone will pick up anything, even de sound of birds outside of the house even if the doors and windows are closed, they are extremely sensitive, so a live recording will pick up very clear drums, guitars, bass,etc, now tell me how to mix these vocals ? It will sound terrible, cheap.

You might get away with guitars and drums at the same time, but you need a spacious room to separate the two instruments as far as possibly and assigning individual tracks for kick, snare, hihat, overheads etc and guitar.

studiorat

Denalihighway wrote: »

people in this thread might also find this one interesting, some similar musings goin on...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055225858

glad to be of service!

+1

I'm always amazed when I hear people layering up instruments like that. When you layer stuff as overdubs the dynamics can suffer. When a band play together they sometimes play loud sometimes soft. Just laying down say a drum kit with a click means the drummer has no reference from the other players as to how loud or soft to play. Even if it's rehearsed it's difficult for someone to know how hard to perform. And it's quicker to record all together too.

juanchoja

studiorat wrote: »

+1

Just laying down say a drum kit with a click means the drummer has no reference from the other players as to how loud or soft to play.

You can add monitors to the drummer's headphones to feel the guitars, vocals, etc

And it's quicker to record all together too.[/QUOTE]

Easier for you but a mediocre recording for the band.

JimiTime

juanchoja wrote: »

You can add monitors to the drummer's headphones to feel the guitars, vocals, etc

And it's quicker to record all together too.

Easier for you but a mediocre recording for the band.

A very narrow minded perception of the recording process there IMO. Saying it results in a 'mediocre recording', is nonsense. In some circumstances this is true, but to put it in such a blunt, certain term accross the whole spectrum of recording?? Absolute tosh! It certainly takes the correct space, a good tight band, and a good engineer, but if these are in place it does not mean a 'mediocre recording'. It is alot easier to 'track' a song, and good results can be achieved this way of course. However, Live recording is about feel and soul, something no piece of technology can genuinely give you IMO.

juanchoja

JimiTime wrote: »

A very narrow minded perception of the recording process there IMO. Saying it results in a 'mediocre recording', is nonsense. In some circumstances this is true, but to put it in such a blunt, certain term accross the whole spectrum of recording?? Absolute tosh! It certainly takes the correct space, a good tight band, and a good engineer, but if these are in place it does not mean a 'mediocre recording'. It is alot easier to 'track' a song, and good results can be achieved this way of course. However, Live recording is about feel and soul, something no piece of technology can genuinely give you IMO.

Well, yes, I wouldn't say narrow minded but what i say makes sense, now it depends of the band and type of music, but definite vocals needs to be recorded apart.

JimiTime

juanchoja wrote: »

Well, yes, I wouldn't say narrow minded but what i say makes sense, now it depends of the band and type of music, but definite vocals needs to be recorded apart.

There is nothing definite though. Even the Vocal. Its all about the particular environment you are recording in. Yes, most studio's would not be suitable for such a recording, due to space etc, but if you go to a good professional studio such as Abbey Road, Grouse Lodge or even mid range studio's etc, Even the Vocal can be done live. Its all about the circumstance. There is no rule that says you can't do it. Think about a performer like James Brown, who's essence is his relationship with his band. So for certain songs, recording that interaction is essential for the soul of the piece.

I think what you are getting at is that you don't want spill all over your vocal, and that is true. But there are ways to minimise the spill. Also, its not always that the vocal needs to be recorded using a Neumann U87 or similar. Bono is known to record vocals with an SM58. So there really is no hard and fast rule about it all, its all about the circumstance.

TelePaul

juanchoja wrote: »

The same applies to recording, for instance, when recording the vocals a studio microphone will pick up anything, even de sound of birds outside of the house even if the doors and windows are closed, they are extremely sensitive, so a live recording will pick up very clear drums, guitars, bass,etc, now tell me how to mix these vocals ? It will sound terrible, cheap.
.

Use a dynamic mic. Shure SM58. Best. Mic. Ever.

TelePaul

Incidentally, you guys should have a listen to Bruce Springsteen's Seeger Sessions. Tracked live, even the vocals, in a largely untreated environment (the downstairs of a big house).

juanchoja

TelePaul wrote: »

Use a dynamic mic. Shure SM58. Best. Mic. Ever.

Thanks for the advice, but I rather use a Neumann U87 or a good Condenser mic or tube mic, you get for what you pay for. A cheap mic will sound cheap.

JimiTime

juanchoja wrote: »

Thanks for the advice, but I rather use a Neumann U87 or a good Condenser mic or tube mic, you get for what you pay for. A cheap mic will sound cheap.

??? you do realise that whats been said is that its all about the specific circumstance yeh? Obviously a U87 is a monster of a mic. One of the greatest mics out there no question. However, its not suited to every vocalist. I have yet to find a vocalist that I think sounds better with an SM58, but thats not to say they don't exist. I think you are being a tad textbook. As Telepaul pointed out, The Seeger sessions is an excellent recording, that is far from the textbook recording process.

gally

Yes with a Shure SM58 you can get a good live vocal.I had to do it for over 30 years in a live broadcasting environment.Mostly turned out pretty good.

ShriekingSheet

Cheers for all the replies - an interesting read.

We're in on Saturday, Sunday and Thursday. Really looking forward to it. Obviously have decided how we're going about things but have taken some food for thought from the above.

Doctor J

I'd favour the track by track approach, simply because a lot of bands aren't good enough to record live to a studio standard. While working in a studio, the most shocking thing I encountered was just how badly prepared a lot of bands were. Some didn't know the structure of the songs, some couldn't even play the songs. There were plenty of bands still arguing about the structure of a song while they were supposed to be recording it. I could count on one hand the number of drummers who can hold tempo without a click and about the same amount could actually tune their kit properly.

Too many bands blast the **** out of their songs in rehearsal rooms and, among the energy and volume, the subtleties get lost. They then show up in a studio thinking they can nail it but several fruitless hours later you find them bitching at the drummer or re-writing guitar lines to something they can play cleanly without ****ing up, especially solos. These things get overlooked in rehearsals but in the studio, where you can hear every mistake clearly and you'll hear it every time you hear the song, it shows up bands and musicians as not being as good as they thought they were.

When you track the instruments together, you need the drummer to be able to nail it more than once. You also need anything that can be heard in the drum mics to be spot on too. Unless you're paying big €€€ there will more than likely be at least two noise sources in the same room and you'll hear one in the mic of the other. Everybody has got to be on the ball and getting a quality take down each time. Really, I can think of only a couple of bands I've seen who could do this. You hear a lot of musicians going on about the vibe man and all this **** but you can either play or you can't. A good bass player will easily be able to groove off a pre-recorded drum track. A good guitarist will be able to work with pre-recorded bass and drums. If you're looking to do something above demo quality, you need to be able to play on your own and to a click too. It's not very hard with a little bit of practice.

Your recordings will (should) last a lifetime. The drummer coming back late from a fill may not seem like a big deal now but it'll be like an itch you can't scratch every time you listen to it for the rest of your life

IMO, of course

TelePaul

juanchoja wrote: »

Thanks for the advice, but I rather use a Neumann U87 or a good Condenser mic or tube mic, you get for what you pay for. A cheap mic will sound cheap.

Hang on there man, I wouldn't record in a studio that didn't keep a 58 or SM7B around. You just never know when you'll need 'em. Condensor = bleed, simple as.

TelePaul

Doctor J wrote: »

Your recordings will (should) last a lifetime. The drummer coming back late from a fill may not seem like a big deal now but it'll be like an itch you can't scratch every time you listen to it for the rest of your life

IMO, of course

That is by FAR the most annoying thing about recording and mixing. Always back up those session files!

juanchoja

TelePaul wrote: »

Hang on there man, I wouldn't record in a studio that didn't keep a 58 or SM7B around. You just never know when you'll need 'em. Condensor = bleed, simple as.

True, but the Sure SM58 can be for some extra vocals, some distortion or FX, but not as a main mic, I wouldn’t record in a studio were the main mic is a Sure SM58, the vocals needs to be recorded separately, with no outside noise with a monster of a condenser or tube mic, any good sound engineer will tell you that, the rest I’m afraid are just attempts to improvise a cheap sound.

studiorat

juanchoja wrote: »

You can add monitors to the drummer's headphones to feel the guitars, vocals, etc

And it's quicker to record all together too.

Easier for you but a mediocre recording for the band.[/QUOTE]

If I'm adding "monitors to the drummers headphones" whatever that means, why then wouldn't I record guitars etc as well.
As for the mediocre business, well I guess you know what you are talking about there.
I've recorded Bono a few times, it involves a Beta 58 a decent mic pre and the main monitors turned up really loud, I mean really really loud and him singing sitting beside you at the desk in the control room. For the vibe y'understand. The idea here is not to keep the man waiting and to be in record from start.
Condensor mic's don't necessarily mean spill either, if you set them up right spill won't be a problem.

BTW a tube mic usually is a condensor...

TelePaul

juanchoja wrote: »

True, but the Sure SM58 can be for some extra vocals, some distortion or FX, but not as a main mic, I wouldn’t record in a studio were the main mic is a Sure SM58, the vocals needs to be recorded separately, with no outside noise with a monster of a condenser or tube mic, any good sound engineer will tell you that, the rest I’m afraid are just attempts to improvise a cheap sound.

Hang on, my love of the dynamic mic was prompted by your earlier post:

You wrote:

When recording the vocals a studio microphone will pick up anything, even de sound of birds outside of the house even if the doors and windows are closed, they are extremely sensitive, so a live recording will pick up very clear drums, guitars, bass,etc, now tell me how to mix these vocals ? It will sound terrible, cheap.

So I think we agree that you can record your vocals seperately with a high end LDC, or you can track live with the tough as nails Shure. But you can't have it both ways.

juanchoja

TelePaul wrote: »

Hang on, my love of the dynamic mic was prompted by your earlier post:



So I think we agree that you can record your vocals seperately with a high end LDC, or you can track live with the tough as nails Shure. But you can't have it both ways.

Exactly, if you record live the Sure SM58 is excellent, but my point is that I woudn't think to make a live recording anyway, so I stand for the Condensed Mic, you have to recognize that no profesional band will make a live recording, the sound difference is just to big. Who say that music is cheap? it isn't, a real quality recording cost money, the gears cost money.
Wanna record a live session in a concert venue? The SURE SM58, wanna record a studio CD, Condenser Mic, Neumann, AKG,etc.

studiorat

juanchoja wrote: »

Wanna record a live session in a concert venue? The SURE SM58, wanna record a studio CD, Condenser Mic, Neumann, AKG,etc.

I thought we were talking about a live studio situation...
As for the dynamic vs condensor for vocals thing, Bob Dylan - Shure SM-7 (always, it goes on the tech rider as the session is booked, Michael Jackson - Shure SM-7 (used on Thriller album), Freddy Mercury - Shure SM-58 in the control room, Bono - SM-58 (see above). You should try it, You might get a nice surprise.

juanchoja

studiorat wrote: »

I thought we were talking about a live studio situation...
As for the dynamic vs condensor for vocals thing, Bob Dylan - Shure SM-7 (always, it goes on the tech rider as the session is booked, Michael Jackson - Shure SM-7 (used on Thriller album), Freddy Mercury - Shure SM-58 in the control room, Bono - SM-58 (see above). You should try it, You might get a nice surprise.

No, this thread is called live recording VS track by track, I am defending track by track as the smart and professional choice.
I'm not a singer, but I have seen the Sure SM58 in action, great Mic, but not for recording. is like comparing a Tesco wine with a nice Cavernet-Sauvignon Chateu. they are both good for different occations, and recording have to be a very special occation that deserves the best of the best.

studiorat

I'll have to disagree there. I've had bands come into me thinking that layering was the norm, and being totally surprised when they were given the option of setting up in the room, boothing off the amps, setting up a few baffles, get a decent mix in the cans and off we go. Maybe then do a few fixes and overdubs.
As I said in another thread, there's a song I produced playlisted on the radio at the moment, the vocal is live, through a dynamic and with spill from two acoustics on it. One of the acoustics sounds much better with the spill in when the rhythm acoustic and vocal channels are in the mix.
To say that a condensor mic is always a better choice for vocals smacks of inexperience to me. Traditionally condensors are favored in the UK and Europe, probably because of the availability of them back in the day. In the US however, dynamic microphones get a far bigger look in.

juanchoja

studiorat wrote: »

I'll have to disagree there. I've had bands come into me thinking that layering was the norm, and being totally surprised when they were given the option of setting up in the room, boothing off the amps, setting up a few baffles, get a decent mix in the cans and off we go. Maybe then do a few fixes and overdubs.
As I said in another thread, there's a song I produced playlisted on the radio at the moment, the vocal is live, through a dynamic and with spill from two acoustics on it. One of the acoustics sounds much better with the spill in when the rhythm acoustic and vocal channels are in the mix.
To say that a condensor mic is always a better choice for vocals smacks of inexperience to me. Traditionally condensors are favored in the UK and Europe, probably because of the availability of them back in the day. In the US however, dynamic microphones get a far bigger look in.

Interesting point Studio Rat, I gues I'll have to stop winding ya, he he, but I still preffer Condensed mics track by tracks, maybe because of my experice with singers, they sound better in a condenser Mic, I could even hear their breath and that gives the feeling and soul to the vocals.

studiorat

For a delicate Vocal Female I'd usually go for the C-12 condensor first, but the C-12 is kinda fussy about what type of mic pre you are using. Male Vocals, I'd try the SM-7, maybe a Bluebird condensor, a U-87 or a U-89, personally I prefer the 89 over the 87 on vocals, fiddles, whistles flutes etc. Actually the slightly smaller diaghpram is really sweet.

Mind you the best vocal mic I've ever owned was the older Cad Equitek E300, I tried it against a 414, an 87 and 89 and a TLM 170 and it was fuller and deeper than then the lot.

TelePaul

No professional band will do a live recording? I call BS. Bruce Springsteen's Born in the USA (single) and the entire 'The River' album. It's not an issue of quality or cost, it's a matter of what works and what doesn't.

juanchoja

TelePaul wrote: »

No professional band will do a live recording? I call BS. Bruce Springsteen's Born in the USA (single) and the entire 'The River' album. It's not an issue of quality or cost, it's a matter of what works and what doesn't.

The vocals were recorded separte, so it doesn't make it a 100% live recording.

juanchoja

Niall - Dahlia wrote: »

To blindly go straight for the most expensive condenser just because you've read it's great on vocals is missing the point.

I like the Neumann not because I read the comments but because I have seen it in action and it's not the most expensive Mic on the market anyway and there are better mics than the U87 if you read the reviews.

but what you say makes sense as long as the vocals are being recorded apart in an isolated room with no external noise.

TelePaul

juanchoja wrote: »

The vocals were recorded separte, so it doesn't make it a 100% live recording.

Fine, "Please Please Me", which is the Beatles first album. Tom Waits' "Foreign Affairs". Most of "Blonde on Blonde", or Bruce Springsteen's Seeger Sessions. The point is, to make a sweeping statement which suggests a live studio take is inferior to a layered approach is grossly innacurate.

studiorat

TelePaul wrote: »

Fine, "Please Please Me", which is the Beatles first album. Tom Waits' "Foreign Affairs". Most of "Blonde on Blonde", or Bruce Springsteen's Seeger Sessions. The point is, to make a sweeping statement which suggests a live studio take is inferior to a layered approach is grossly innacurate.

+1