Making a 'Single'

PaulBrewer

What are the expectations of bands these days on making a single - how long do you reckon it should take for a rock band ?

the_barfly1

Once the band goes into the studio prepared with all pre-production done, a day for recording and a day for mixing should be plenty in my humble opinion. Of course, if a catastrophe like the singer being off form on the day happens then another few hours would have to be considered....

PaulBrewer

the_barfly1 wrote: »

Once the band goes into the studio prepared with all pre-production done, a day for recording and a day for mixing should be plenty in my humble opinion. Of course, if a catastrophe like the singer being off form on the day happens then another few hours would have to be considered....

One day doesn't leave any time at all for experimentation though does it ?

Dermo

PaulBrewer wrote: »

One day doesn't leave any time at all for experimentation though does it ?

All depends on what you can afford. Some bands prefer to do their writing and experimenting in the studio. For smaller bands they should already have everything ready so they can get in and out.

Squidgy Black

2-3 days for a single for radio play or something they want to actually release, a day for a demo. I find that when I start mixing or when the bands start to hear the parts all put together for the first time there's usually at least one thing that has to be re-recorded or tweaked.

DamagedTrax

3 days.

1 for tracking
1 for edits, balance mix (faders and pans)
1 for mix proper

ive always found seperating these 3 areas keeps my mind a lot clearer on the end result. obviously smaller projects mightn't take as long but 3 days is what i'd say for a typical pop/indie/rock mix.

the_barfly1

PaulBrewer wrote: »

One day doesn't leave any time at all for experimentation though does it ?

Thats why I mentioned having all the pre-production done first - when we are planning to record something we do all of our own experimentation on our own recording gear for weeks beforehand, and have every element of the song finalised before heading to the "proper" studio - where we then just have to lash out our pre-rehearsed parts.

On a good day, we could have all our parts recorded by 2pm, and be ready to begin mixing on day one.

(thats recession-busting studio technique!)

PaulBrewer

the_barfly1 wrote: »

Thats why I mentioned having all the pre-production done first - when we are planning to record something we do all of our own experimentation on our own recording gear for weeks beforehand, and have every element of the song finalised before heading to the "proper" studio - where we then just have to lash out our pre-rehearsed parts.

On a good day, we could have all our parts recorded by 2pm, and be ready to begin mixing on day one.

(thats recession-busting studio technique!)

I've over 25 years of hanging around studios and never, not once, have I ever seen that happen - there's ALWAYS something that changes the plan.... it can be something as simple as the drummer not finding parking !


However, that's not to say it can't be done.

It also depends on what one calls 'finished' - I personally like stuff to be as well in time and in tune as I can get stuff to be (not ALWAYS possible, mind) - other modus operadi are equally valid.

PaulBrewer

Also -

A Plan isn't a Plan at all if there isn't a plan for when something goes wrong !

i57dwun4yb1pt8

one thing ive learned in the last few weeks is that PB is dead on by saying stuff should be in time . ( and obviously in tune )

if you have the groove elements and vocal locked down

( ie kick and bass locked on time and in harmony wit heach other
, snare dead on time , vocal and ryth guitars dead time )

then this goes a huge amount of the way to getting a punchy clean mix.

it seems to clean up alot of hazy . phasy smearing that you hear in sloppy stuff.

just realised this this week , and boy it makes a big difference.

the_barfly1

PaulBrewer wrote: »

It also depends on what one calls 'finished' - I personally like stuff to be as well in time and in tune as I can get stuff to be (not ALWAYS possible, mind) - other modus operadi are equally valid.

Agree completely, that's why, as I said, we record it several times on the home studio rig, before going in, and I personally (drummer) spend a little bit of extra time with my metronome in the time preceding, just to make sure that all the bangs are "bang" on come studio time.

It's very possible to do, in a limited time, once all the prep is done. Just like a fine meal

shayleon

Unfortunately most of my clients are skint so rarely get more than 1 day to record and 1 day to mix. Occasionally you have a project with anal producers, but ... these guys do get their money back from sales, while the budget guys don't even cover the cost of the 2 days.

MilanPan!c

We're finally recording a record in July...

10 tracks.

2 months pre-production, 30 (12 hour) days recording/mixing.

so, about 80-90 days of work for 10 tracks...

We then will get the whole thing re-mixed at a later point.

It's almost impossible to spend enough time recording unless you're looking for a completely live sound.. and even then...

PaulBrewer

It's interesting that most people seem to think 4 or more days are needed ...

the_barfly1

PaulBrewer wrote: »

It's interesting that most people seem to think 4 or more days are needed ...

Good news for studio owners I suppose?!

DamagedTrax

PaulBrewer wrote: »

It's interesting that most people seem to think 4 or more days are needed ...

i think for a proper major label sound for the more commercial end of rock and pop, more than 4 days is definitly needed.

but to make a radio ready mix for something a little less "produced" like an unsigned indie act, 3 days should be sufficient. i dont mean that the mix should be any less good but the genre dictates a lot less detail. i certainly wouldnt be setting up multiple delays getting triggered by gates, on the typical indie mix.

it comes down to how experienced that you are mixing. someone with more experience could probably get it down to 1.5 days. i personally wouldnt be happier working with less than 3.

krd

I think if you have the experience and skills you can do things very quickly.

Something I've heard in relation to dance music production. Record companies have got into a habit of giving incredible short notice - 2 days, that kind of thing, for remixes. And that could be a remix for a major artist.

If you've already got the skills, you could probably fit 4 days to a week into 2 days, just by doing everything faster.

And I think there's more to it than just recording the song and mixing it.

Really fine, painstaking work is always going to take time. And it's not even like getting through a whole track with as few mistakes as possible.

dav nagle

7 days or in wonderlands case 2 months

krd

And this is what it should sound like - Hear that off time guitar at the start - Are you listening, PB?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGytDsqkQY8

There's a story. That when Oasis did cigarettes and alcohol. Alan Magee sent a copy to every band on the creation label, with a note saying "this is what a single should sound like".

PaulBrewer

krd wrote: »

And this is what it should sound like - Hear that off time guitar at the start - Are you listening, PB?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGytDsqkQY8

There's a story. That when Oasis did cigarettes and alcohol. Alan Magee sent a copy to every band on the creation label, with a note saying "this is what a single should sound like".

The guitar's grand !

Dan is an acquaintance of mine actually. Great track mixed by Bob Clearmountain.

krd

PaulBrewer wrote: »

The guitar's grand !

Though. For listening to what people do today - they'd remove every last fluff and flub, - which can make the music sound really boring.

The same with Dan's voice. Done today people might autotune it into shape.

Dan is an acquaintance of mine actually. Great track mixed by Bob Clearmountain.

I think the mix sounds great. And it has something very rare for these days: dynamics.

I think it works great as single. The lyrics make sense - the arrangement makes sense. Nothing is wasted and nothing is overdone. I even like the tuning on the toms.

It's a very straight guitar/bass/drums track with a bit of keyboard.

Not saying every band should sound like Semisonic - but that is how you make a single.

If any one of the literally hundreds of Irish indie bands who go off and record albums, just sat down and put the effort into creating a single well made single, they'd get a lot further than they do. I have heard so much, where I feel if they'd just put a little more effort in on the lyrics - a bit more effort on the arrangement., tried a little more novelty and bounce they'd have something.

Denalihighway

before i ever recorded: "this shouldn't take more than a day eh?"

after i had decent recording experience: "1-2 days preproduction/tracking/experimentation/mistakes/etc + 1-2 days post production"

normally - these things take time but also, deadlines are important. and I say normally because there's always the exception to the rule. pressure can be detrimental or it can reap results.

from what i can see, anyone with reasonable recording experience on the musicians side will allow more time. i remember my first session, turning up expecting us to blast out our song a la rehearsals, and then we're done! preproduction? hah?? hours of mixing and mastering? what's that?!!!

PaulBrewer

I always like a bit of hair on it myself - but not so it's a distraction to anyone musical.

I had some correspondence with Dan about the recording of the Semisonic tracks years ago, here what he said -

" Feeling Strangely Fine
Neumann FET 47 very old mic
Telefunken preamp very old can't remember the #
Urei 1176 silverface

no pop screen, pops are usually okay

Chemistry
Neumann U47
handmade mic pre built by Chuck Zwicky
LA2A

no pop screen, sim as above

Both albums were mostly mixed by Bob Clearmountain, who is the very best mixer when it comes to vocal sounds, he really is a big part of the sound - he uses an old silverface Urei 1176 and his board is an SSL. "

Might be of interest, might not ....

krd wrote: »

Though. For listening to what people do today - they'd remove every last fluff and flub, - which can make the music sound really boring.

The same with Dan's voice. Done today people might autotune it into shape.



I think the mix sounds great. And it has something very rare for these days: dynamics.

I think it works great as single. The lyrics make sense - the arrangement makes sense. Nothing is wasted and nothing is overdone. I even like the tuning on the toms.

It's a very straight guitar/bass/drums track with a bit of keyboard.

Not saying every band should sound like Semisonic - but that is how you make a single.

If any one of the literally hundreds of Irish indie bands who go off and record albums, just sat down and put the effort into creating a single well made single, they'd get a lot further than they do. I have heard so much, where I feel if they'd just put a little more effort in on the lyrics - a bit more effort on the arrangement., tried a little more novelty and bounce they'd have something.

splitrmx

krd wrote: »

There's a story. That when Oasis did cigarettes and alcohol. Alan Magee sent a copy to every band on the creation label, with a note saying "this is what a single should sound like".

I'm sure the actually good bands on Creation had a laugh at that if it did happen, which it probably didn't.

And meanwhile Oasis went on to initiate the loudness wars with their second album. Nice one Alan.

krd

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Might be of interest, might not ....

Yeah it is actually.

I always like a bit of hair on it myself - but not so it's a distraction to anyone musical.

I've been recording bits of my own guitar playing recently. My timing is pretty brutal. Or brutal for what I want or need the guitar to do. A combination of not practicing enough and needing to do an adjustment on the guitar. I still didn't get a key for the truss rod.


There can be a real musicality to "hair". But ropiness is ropiness. Like the difference between a good funky drummer (who gets sampled an recycled thousands of times) and just a drummer who a beat if he was in a sugar factory in Tuam.

I've even been playing around with my vocals - And watching the auto-tune warning lights flash on and off made me really paranoid. I'd know in places it would be off - but which parts are "off" and which parts aren't. It can be hammered into perfect tune - but is that really the right thing to do (I don't mean "right thing to do" as in not cheating - I mean, if it's perfectly smooth does it lose something).

" Feeling Strangely Fine
Neumann FET 47 very old mic
Telefunken preamp very old can't remember the #
Urei 1176 silverface

There's a really nice warmth to their sound.

no pop screen, pops are usually okay

Why no pop screen? Albums that really strike me for pops are Dylan's Blonde on Blonde, Highway 61. I don't really know if it adds anything - I always notice them - and it's "Jesus Bob...you coulda used a shield"

Both albums were mostly mixed by Bob Clearmountain, who is the very best mixer when it comes to vocal sounds, he really is a big part of the sound - he uses an old silverface Urei 1176 and his board is an SSL. "

It has a really warm pleasant sound to it. Stuff is so unnecessarily harsh these days - like the world. Even something like Trespassers Will have a nasty fizz in their music.

PaulBrewer

I bet Bob didn't let any pops get onto the record.

Perhaps the thinking was that a pop shield perhaps can affect the tone slightly and they'd deal with the pops .

krd wrote: »

Yeah it is actually.



I've been recording bits of my own guitar playing recently. My timing is pretty brutal. Or brutal for what I want or need the guitar to do. A combination of not practicing enough and needing to do an adjustment on the guitar. I still didn't get a key for the truss rod.


There can be a real musicality to "hair". But ropiness is ropiness. Like the difference between a good funky drummer (who gets sampled an recycled thousands of times) and just a drummer who a beat if he was in a sugar factory in Tuam.

I've even been playing around with my vocals - And watching the auto-tune warning lights flash on and off made me really paranoid. I'd know in places it would be off - but which parts are "off" and which parts aren't. It can be hammered into perfect tune - but is that really the right thing to do (I don't mean "right thing to do" as in not cheating - I mean, if it's perfectly smooth does it lose something).



There's a really nice warmth to their sound.



Why no pop screen? Albums that really strike me for pops are Dylan's Blonde on Blonde, Highway 61. I don't really know if it adds anything - I always notice them - and it's "Jesus Bob...you coulda used a shield"




It has a really warm pleasant sound to it. Stuff is so unnecessarily harsh these days - like the world. Even something like Trespassers Will have a nasty fizz in their music.

drumdrum

I'm surprised that there isn't an option for "as long as it bloody well takes!" as thats what I would vote for ESPECIALLY for a band crucial element such as their single!

The single is what most people will hear and is used to promote the album to people, so IMHO its gotta be PERFECT in this day and age. Also, in the iTunes generation, most people will download the single(s) first before or instead of the album, so if thats their only relationship with the band, then I think that it better be a dam good one!

Additionally, most labels push for that "hit SINGLE" because its the one that they will sell to radios and used to generate the most income. You can usually afford to experiment around a bit more with the non-single tracks, but for labels the single is vital. If it doesnt sound like the dogs bollox when they get it, then you can be assurd that you will be spending more time "fixing it" for them, even if that only entails making it 1db louder! :rolleyes:

I voted 4days plus, but only because it was the longest option timewise.

DamagedTrax

drumdrum wrote: »

I'm surprised that there isn't an option for "as long as it bloody well takes!" as thats what I would vote for ESPECIALLY for a band crucial element such as their single!

The single is what most people will hear and is used to promote the album to people, so IMHO its gotta be PERFECT in this day and age. Also, in the iTunes generation, most people will download the single(s) first before or instead of the album, so if thats their only relationship with the band, then I think that it better be a dam good one!

Additionally, most labels push for that "hit SINGLE" because its the one that they will sell to radios and used to generate the most income. You can usually afford to experiment around a bit more with the non-single tracks, but for labels the single is vital. If it doesnt sound like the dogs bollox when they get it, then you can be assurd that you will be spending more time "fixing it" for them, even if that only entails making it 1db louder! :rolleyes:

I voted 4days plus, but only because it was the longest option timewise.

in an ideal world i'd agree but in reality there's not many bands willing to pay for more than 4 days work on one song. maybe a few but not many...

jtsuited

slightly OT -
Was only listening to semisonic the other day.....perfect band imo - killer songs, perfect 'imperfect' sound, and managed to stay out of the bullsh1t promo game (or else they weren't very good at it so we never saw them in it).

PaulBrewer

jtsuited wrote: »

slightly OT -
Was only listening to semisonic the other day.....perfect band imo - killer songs, perfect 'imperfect' sound, and managed to stay out of the bullsh1t promo game (or else they weren't very good at it so we never saw them in it).

You may recall Dan won something , I think it was a Grammy, for co writing with the Dixie Chicks ...

PaulBrewer

DamagedTrax wrote: »

drumdrum wrote: »

I'm surprised that there isn't an option for "as long as it bloody well takes!" as thats what I would vote for ESPECIALLY for a band crucial element such as their single!

The single is what most people will hear and is used to promote the album to people, so IMHO its gotta be PERFECT in this day and age. Also, in the iTunes generation, most people will download the single(s) first before or instead of the album, so if thats their only relationship with the band, then I think that it better be a dam good one!

Additionally, most labels push for that "hit SINGLE" because its the one that they will sell to radios and used to generate the most income. You can usually afford to experiment around a bit more with the non-single tracks, but for labels the single is vital. If it doesnt sound like the dogs bollox when they get it, then you can be assurd that you will be spending more time "fixing it" for them, even if that only entails making it 1db louder! :rolleyes:

I voted 4days plus, but only because it was the longest option timewise.

in an ideal world i'd agree but in reality there's not many bands willing to pay for more than 4 days work on one song. maybe a few but not many...

Interesting point . We sometimes get bands in who want to do 4 songs in 4 days or whatever.

The idea that one might spend all that time on making 1 song as good as can be seems to be concept difficult to understand.

We want an EP , they say ....... No, you want someone to give a phuck, THAT'S what you really want.

drumdrum

DamagedTrax wrote: »

in an ideal world i'd agree but in reality there's not many bands willing to pay for more than 4 days work on one song. maybe a few but not many...

Ah I hear ya man!

I've been on the bad side of rush jobs before. Always ends in disappointment. Hence I now always make sure I'm prepared and I take it one song at a time. Gets better results especially on "single" songs.