criticism...how much is too much?

[question444]

I'm recording an album with my band. I love 'em. I sing and write much of the music. Naturally, I want the songs to sound good, not just my part. I was just wondering if you guys had any advice on the general issue of criticism during recording. Take 10, take 100?...where do you draw the line? I used to feel that everyone ought to be responsible for their own role, and you just have to take it or leave it. But now I think that might be a rather immature approach. Thanks.

 

[gdavi1]

The way I feel about this is every member in the band should be able to play their part. I've recorded many band were one member is lacking greatly and I don't understand why they don't remove the musician from the group or change their part. When my band hit the studio last year and our synth player couldn't hold it down. We kicked her out. I feel around 10 takes is the max. If you can't play it right once out of ten times you need address the problem and change up the part.

 

[drossfile]

it's like anything else--you have to consider your return on investment. does your bassist/keyboardist/singer/etc completely suck? if so, then you've already conceded this point and have decided to play in a band with substandard musicians.

on the other hand, if these people are talented, creative people who are slipping here and there, it's simply a matter of rehearsal. and if their parts aren't rehearsed enough, those parts shouldn't be getting recorded yet. either they need to practice more, or the parts should be changed to something they can handle.

i played in a jam band in which we had 2 hand percussionists, and they were both hopeless. it saved me a lot of frustration when i came to the understanding that my friends and i were just doing this for fun, and nothing serious would ever come of it. if i had wanted to pursue something more professional, they'd have been kicked out in a flash.

so it just depends on what you're trying to do. you can't get blood from a stone, so consider the source. and if they're just making small mistakes here and there, you can always punch in and out to eliminate a lot of blunders...

hope that helps?

 

[Tim Brown]

Practice the songs until everyone knows and can perform them like the back of their hands.

Until you are at that point, you're not ready to record them.

My brother and I always were perfectionists when it came to that.

So, when my brother's band got signed, the label - Virgin - booked 3 weeks of studio time. The producer was the late great David Briggs who worked for Neil Young.

So they recorded the record - and Briggs turned to my brother and said,"You just did something I've never seen. You recorded an entire record's worth of material in all first takes."

We were kind of floored by that.

We always got a lot of praise for our playing, but it never dawned on me that bands at that level couldn't go in and just nail the songs in first takes.

I think part of it has to do with comfort level - some players kind of "freak out" when the tape starts rolling.

In the end you have to ask yourself,"What am I Comfortable with?" and "What am I willing to accept?"

Because those really are the deciding factors.



Tim

 

[Supercreep]

Consider this: Being a songwriter and unable to rely on other people is what got me into "serious" home recording in the first place.

 

[heroics321]

Consider this: Being a songwriter and unable to rely on other people is what got me into "serious" home recording in the first place.

Same here. "What? I don't have to be able to play the instruments simultaneously? No more sloppy bass parts? Where do I sign?"

If the player can't muster up the performance, get the best you can out of him. Punch-ins are your friend, as are click tracks and grid editing. Maybe there's an easier way to play the part, or maybe one of the other members can play it better. Just tell em like it is... do they want to put out sub-par material because their feelings are hurt by you playing 8 measures of their part?