How many hours recording in a pay per hour studio?

[jokerone]

Sorry,

Don't know which category this should go in, so I'm posing the question here.

I you have band (5 members), you gig, etc. You have your songs down pat.

To do an Album (10 songs) , how many studio hours do you think it would take. (you pay by the hour).

thanks!

 

[Steenamaroo]

Sorry,

Don't know which category this should go in, so I'm posing the question here.

I you have band (5 members), you gig, etc. You have your songs down pat.

To do an Album (10 songs) , how many studio hours do you think it would take. (you pay by the hour).

thanks!

That depends on your approach.
Are you going to record as a live band or is it full multi tracking?
Either way it really just depends on just how well rehearsed and how good the band are.
Only you can tell if a keeper take is going to take two goes or twenty.

Get an idea of that figure in your head then add realistic set up time and mixing time.

PS: I think you left a word out of your title. I'll fix it if you like.

 

[jokerone]

That depends on your approach.
Are you going to record as a live band or is it full multi tracking?
Either way it really just depends on just how well rehearsed and how good the band are.
Only you can tell if a keeper take is going to take two goes or twenty.

Get an idea of that figure in your head then add realistic set up time and mixing time.

PS: I think you left a word out of your title. I'll fix it if you like.

thanks, I fixed it.

I understand, this would be a multi track for a studio album.

Just trying to budget something for the future.

thanks.

 

[Steenamaroo]

thanks, I fixed it.

I understand, this would be a multi track for a studio album.

Just trying to budget something for the future.

thanks.

Multitrack as in drums (and maybe bass) get recorded first, then guitars go on top, then vocals go on top, etc?
That's going to be pretty time consuming even if everyone's damn good.

Weak answer but it really is something you'll have to try to work out based on the songs and the calibre of the performers.
Also keep stamina in mind. It's easy to say you'll get the drums all done in the first 10 hour session, but the drummer might be wrecked after 3 hours.

Is the studio prepared to keep your equipment set up for the duration? If not, factor in multiple setup times.
If so, it might be worth asking him for an all-in figure to book the place for a week, or something.

 

[jokerone]

Multitrack as in drums (and maybe bass) get recorded first, then guitars go on top, then vocals go on top, etc?
That's going to be pretty time consuming even if everyone's damn good.

Weak answer but it really is something you'll have to try to work out based on the songs and the calibre of the performers.
Also keep stamina in mind. It's easy to say you'll get the drums all done in the first 10 hour session, but the drummer might be wrecked after 3 hours.

Is the studio prepared to keep your equipment set up for the duration? If not, factor in multiple setup times.
If so, it might be worth asking him for an all-in figure to book the place for a week, or something.

ok, a week is a good ball park number I can work with. Can't imaging it being more expensive for 40-50 hours than it is for an entire week' price.

thanks!

 

[BroKen_H]

Be careful of your engineer. Have run into several over the course that want to waste your time. Stop and playback everything and ask if it's good. Try to record song at a time instead of track at a time*, etc.
* Make sure that when you set up the drums, the drums get recorded. Go three takes on each song. Make sure there's a useable set in there and tear down/set up for the next instrument. Don't let the guy stop you after each take to listen. Don't let them suggest trying to put guitars and vocals over the drum track before all the drum tracks are done. I'm sure you know the drill. Be relaxed and have fun!

 

[Massive Master]

Some may disagree, but I've always been a fan of (well, obviously being freakishly prepared for the session and then.....) sort of running through the whole thing "live" -- and taking a rough mix home on day 1.

It gets everyone in the mood without burning out, it's a relaxed jam session after spending several hours on mic'ing everything up and blah, blah, blah... And it gives you an idea of where you stand.

Don't expect the mixes to sound fantastic or anything of course, but you should at least be able to "hear the quality in there somewhere" -- If the drums sound flabby or the guitar tone can dry out tomatoes or you realized the bass player has been playing a flat note in that one part all this time without noticing, that's the way to fine-tune before you start laying down the actual tracks. Squeaky pedals - Noisy amps - etc., etc.

It also gives the engineer an overall sneak-peek at the album as a whole. He'll probably (well, hopefully...) be spending his time finding verbs that work well and fabricating ideas and logistics. And then you can lay down the "Hey, we're adding a keyboard part here..." and "We're doubling a guitar lead there..."

Don't waste a boatload of time -- But if you spend 4 hours setting up (if you're really prepped, that should be easy) and two hours recording everything, the next couple-three hours can be used on a rough mix. It can even be done on one timeline (not individual projects - Just one long session - planning is key, of course).

Pre-production. "Demo" -- The time you "waste" on this will probably come back to you threefold later in the week.

 

[RFR]

When I used to have a studio for hire, we'd often track 8 songs in a 10 hour day. The band would leave with rough mixes to take home. The next day we would go over it, retrack if needed and then mix. So, 2 to 3 days.
but.......I had a secret weapon, I'll post later.

 

[Schwarzenyaeger]

If you want to do it live, it really depends on how tight you are.
Professional jazz groups or orchestras will give you one perfect take and then will tell you to go f yourself if you want a second one, if they're that good.

It's really hard to answer a question like this. There are hundreds of variables including how good you guys work and your engineer.

 

[mjbphotos]

Do you have a producer? Someone knowledgable to listen to your songs and advise on them - structure, overall sound, etc?

 

[RFR]

When I used to have a studio for hire, we'd often track 8 songs in a 10 hour day. The band would leave with rough mixes to take home. The next day we would go over it, retrack if needed and then mix. So, 2 to 3 days.
but.......I had a secret weapon, I'll post later.

My secret weapon was that I owned a rehearsal studio. I'd have the band rehearse for a couple of days and would pop into their room from time to time and see how it was going. We'd go over production, arranging, etc. This would get me familiar with the band in all aspects from skill to personality as well as the songs.

When I felt they were confident and ready, we'd go upstairs, set up mics, and once again rehearse. But this time it was with them set up for recording. I wanted them real comfortable playing under the microscope, and totally comfortable in the studio environment. Often rehearsals were done with cans. Sometimes if the band was doing some magic, I'd hit record with them unaware.

For a 4 piece Rock and Roll band, this method worked real well, and 1st and second takes of a tune were often keepers.

Then again, I'd done whole albums with bands that took anywhere from 2 weeks in the studio to a couple of months.

So there are many variables, but probably the most important factor is this. How ready are you and your band?? A studio on the clock is NOT the place to work out arrangements, songs, and production ideas........Unless you got pockets full of money.

There is no absolute formula for how long it will take. It is best to expect that it will always take longer and cost more than you had planned for.

 

[miroslav]

... how many studio hours do you think it would take.

Probably 3 times as long as you think it would.

I'm not just joking with you. The whole "run through the songs" mentality never really works out in the studio, even if you have your songs down pretty good. You have a lot of false starts and retakes...and then of course, everyone becomes overly picky/concerned since it is a recording and not just rehearsal.
Plus, if you need to do overdubs after the basic tracks go down, that's another thing.

Also....the set up time often can be 2-3 times longer than the actual tracking time. Not talking about the engineer's set-up, he should have most of his stuff preset as best as possible....but like when you go to mic an amp...that takes some time to find the right position and the right tones (since things sound different when tracking than they do live).

Of course...there is also the "as it falls" approach, and just let the engineer use his go-to approach, minimal trying out stuff, and then bang out the songs and that's it.

Like other have said, it's really what you are after and how well prepared you are going in.

 

[Dave Holmes]

Pretty much everything covered above but I'll add...

Be seriously well rehearsed. Everyone in your band/group should know their part(s) inside out.

 

[gecko zzed]

I did an on-location recording of a band. Started at about 11am finished at about 4pm, and had the backing for nine tracks done, as well as some guitar overdubs.

The next week, they came and spent maybe three hours doing the vocals. After that there were a couple of sessions of mixing.

However, the band had their act together. They knew their material inside out, and they approached the recording task efficiently and professionally.

Apart from one, all backing tracks (guitar, bass and kit) were done in one take. There was no need for any more than that.

So, about 16 hours in total was spent.


However, I have also recorded someone who spent nearly a year on his project: three hours every Thursday for about 50 weeks. That's 150 hours. That was a different process, because there was a lot of experimentation and exploring possibilities.

 

[witzendoz]

When people ask me for a price to record an album I often ask them, "How long is a piece of string?"

Some bands will get this done quick some slow, some will track the rhythm section live, Drums, Bass and maybe guitar. Some will do drums to a guide, some bands do minimum over dubs some have 6 tracks of harmony guitar solos. Some singers will nail it in 1 or 2 tacks, some ave a meltdown (when they really hear what their voice sounds like) and need counselling (from me) to get them to sing again.

Albums I usually say allow about 10 to 14 hours per song, 6 to 8 hours tracking, 4 to 6 hours mixing as a ball park, demos (real demos not a cheap way of making an album) about 3 to 5 songs in 10 hours, if the band knows the songs and we are not changing arrangements and producing. But if it takes longer than so be it, don't put yourself under pressure looking at the clock.

Alan.

 

[jokerone]

thanks so much for all who responded. lots to consider!

 

[Formyson]

We recorded 10 songs in studio. It averaged 4 hours a song including mix. We rushed the last couple of mixes due to budget concerns but they were larger mixes (7 and 8 instruments). Studio said to budget 4 hours a song and they were pretty much dead on. Mastering took 3 hours for the 10 songs. About 20 min. a song.

It was a great experience. Time with my son that I will cherish. It was that experience which has now got us into recording at home.

 

[jokerone]

We recorded 10 songs in studio. It averaged 4 hours a song including mix. We rushed the last couple of mixes due to budget concerns but they were larger mixes (7 and 8 instruments). Studio said to budget 4 hours a song and they were pretty much dead on. Mastering took 3 hours for the 10 songs. About 20 min. a song.

It was a great experience. Time with my son that I will cherish. It was that experience which has now got us into recording at home.

thanks to all. these give me some good ballpark figures.

 

[Xdrummer]

I normally suggest to clients that they plan on 10 hours per song. I have found that too many drummers can't tune drums which adds time to get a good sound. Often guitar players get extremely anal about tone and spend too much time trying to get "their sound". Almost everyone gets a touch of "red light paralysis" - no matter how tight they think they are live, once they hear playback which reveals every little error - then they want to "try one more time" - which turns into 10 takes.

If I prepare them for 10 hours per song and we come in under budget, I can rave about how tight the band was and how proud they should be for getting it done sooner than planned - and all is good. However, if I tell them 5 hours per songs and it takes longer - then it's always the studios fault.

No some bands aren't as anal or perhaps the material is easier to execute with less overdubs, less harmony vocals, etc. - so things go faster. I remember back when "punk" was more popular, sessions often went quickly because the bands did not care as much about tone, etc. as long as the energy kicked ass.

 

[MrWrenchey]

If I prepare them for 10 hours per song and we come in under budget, I can rave about how tight the band was and how proud they should be for getting it done sooner than planned - and all is good. However, if I tell them 5 hours per songs and it takes longer - then it's always the studios fault.

Good to know I'm not the only one that experiences that!