Recording an album's worth of songs... what instrument order?

dkerwood

Member
I'm in the middle of an album project in my home studio, and I'm almost ready to begin recording the new songs. I've always done one song at a time as they are written, but this ends up with inconsistent sounds across the tracks. It's got me thinking about how to do this as a cohesive 10-12 song unit. As far as I can tell, there are two options.

Option 1- Record all the drums for all 12 tracks, then record all the bass parts, etc...

Pros:

-Consistent mic placement
-Consistent settings (EQ, effects, etc)
-Seems consistent with what professionals do ("John is tracking vocals right now on our new record!")
-All tracks are finished at the same time
-If I bring in outside players, they can do all their work over the course of one or two sessions
-Save time by not resetting mics, gain staging, preamps, etc

Cons:

-With 12 tracks to do, this approach will take FOREVER.
-Fatigue on the musicians trying to track 12 songs back to back (more so since it's mostly going to be me overdubbing)
-Much more likely for musicians to rush to get done

Option 2- Build each track one at a time, resetting for each

Pros:

-Keeps each step of the process fresh and energized
-Keeps musicians (particularly vocals) healthy and fresh

Cons:

-Lots of time wasted in resetting mics and other equipment, particularly in regards to drums.
-Requires each musician to come in twelve separate times to track.
-When overdubbing, this will still create a lot of fatigue and frustration
-Inconsistent and hasty placement of mics, setting of equipment, etc

I know I can do a little bit of both (track all the drums for all 12 then build one song at a time from there, for example), but in your experience, what works the best for a large project like this?
 
How much of the playing are you doing yourself, and how much by others? If you've got a lot of people coming in to record their parts, then get all your work done first.
As to inconsistent sound - why? Make notes on your mic placement, amp settings, etc, so you can duplicate them.

Standard method could be:
Scratch track (instrument of choice) to a metronome or steady drum beat. This is your chance to figure out tempos/changes.
Record drums to the scratch track.
Record any tracks YOU are doing at this point - you can always go back and re-record them after the guests have done theirs.

Do this for all of your tracks, then start having the guests come in.
 
Are you recording with a computer based setup? DAW software? If so, be sure to use templates. That will cut your set up down and, more importantly, provide some consistency. Also as Mike suggested, be sure to take really good notes.

I would do scratch tracks for all the songs, then record the drums through all the songs. Then work on the rest of the project one song at a time.
 
The issue I run into has to do with mic placement on the drums. I'm doing a rather odd mic placement - LDC over the kick facing the snare and SDC pointing up from underneath the hi hat, in addition to a 57 on the snare and a kick mic. It was an experiment I tried after reading about it online, and it really gave me the best drum kit sound I've ever had- very balanced across the board- and far superior to using overheads in my situation. I was concerned about consistently finding the "sweet spot" for the LDC since it has to grab cymbals and toms in wash, but if I do all the drum tracks first and then work each song on its own after that, that's a non-issue.

From there, it should be easy. Doesn't take long to dial in and mic a guitar amp, bass and keys are DI, acoustic is easy (I generally blend a condenser and the piezo, although I have gotten great results with a 57 on my acoustic, so I may use that as a third input).

Just means I'll have a LONG day tracking drums, unless I can find a better drummer to come in and do it for me (I'm trying to find someone to play with the band live, but that person hasn't materialized yet).
 
I take it you've never done a live gig? :D

Have you heard most bands' live recordings?

I'm referring primarily to vocals... Let's say there's 3 takes of the lead vocal in each tune. That means 36 songs performed back to back. That's a lot of singing, even for a road warrior. If they're also covering some backup vox, you could easily be looking at 60-70 passes. In other words, song number 12 is going to sound pretty tired (or at the very least, brain dead).
 
Have you heard most bands' live recordings?
What does that have to do with anything? If you can't play drums, guitar or bass for 12 songs in a row without getting "fatigued", you might want to check your diet. You mentioned drum tracks first, so that's what I was referring to.

Either way, I was just joking around mostly. Hence, the smiley. :-)D) Didn't mean to upset you. Good luck with your project. :)
 
Sounds like you're pushing this to be done rather quickly. Why the rush? I took me months to record a CD's worth of music at home.
 
Oh come on! Professional singers can sing continuously for quite a long time - it's their job - 2, 1 hour sets with a few minutes between them isn't a problem. In the studio, you go and have a cup of tea, or food, or a break when the engineer needs ten minutes to reset. However, I've never had a straight through session that has gone like you mention. 3 takes, but then you still need a break to get ready for the next song - but I wonder why you want every track to be identical? Only live (or as live) albums do this - most have different instrumentation, with swapped guitars, different drum sounds etc etc for variety. I've never thought it bad.

I'm also unsure how you will record the drums for each song in one go? Presumably you're playing to clicks or guide tracks - which often robs the song of something, and sure as hell, if everyone spends a day recording their bits, by the last song, as you say - they'll be tired and make more mistakes, lengthening the process, and if everyone is slotted in, can you afford to have lost half a day by the time the bass players day comes round? Dragging them in one by one is the way this system works, and that's never very productive because everything is planned and preset - no spontaneity possible, plan the play and play the plan. Dull!

Take photos of the placement, makes it easy to repeat for retakes. Sure - there is hanging around, but isn't that normal. You are trying to plan a limitary operation instead of a creative session. why not record some combinations at the same time - drums and bass maybe, or however the studio can separate people. Last time I had a girl in for a full day session, we got very little done because it was so mechanical. We zoomed through a few tracks, and then one tricky one arrived and we spent hours trying to sort it. She got bored and performance went right down.

I'd record the songs separately, but it depends on the availability of your talent. I hate rigidity.
 
Click tracks don't rob the song of anything unless you suck. And even then, you're probably better off playing to a click track.

1. Scratch guitar or bass to click, if desired, if you want it to actually sound good.
2. All the drums - this can take days if necessary, just don't move anything. Or man up and do it all at once.
3. Bass for keeps
4. Whatever else
5. Vocals
6. Start mixing
 
What does that have to do with anything? If you can't play drums, guitar or bass for 12 songs in a row without getting "fatigued", you might want to check your diet. You mentioned drum tracks first, so that's what I was referring to.

Either way, I was just joking around mostly. Hence, the smiley. :-)D) Didn't mean to upset you. Good luck with your project. :)

It's all good. Not upset at all. As I said, my biggest concern is vocal fatigue- my own.

Sounds like you're pushing this to be done rather quickly. Why the rush? I took me months to record a CD's worth of music at home.

If I was at home, it wouldn't be as big of a deal, but my "home studio" is at church, so on some instruments (particularly drums), I'll need to move quick before having to tear down. And I suppose a big part of it is trying to move while I have time to get it done. My self-appointed deadline is to have the album done by January, so I have plenty of time, but I don't want to wait by any means.

Oh come on! Professional singers can sing continuously for quite a long time - it's their job - 2, 1 hour sets with a few minutes between them isn't a problem. In the studio, you go and have a cup of tea, or food, or a break when the engineer needs ten minutes to reset. However, I've never had a straight through session that has gone like you mention. 3 takes, but then you still need a break to get ready for the next song - but I wonder why you want every track to be identical? Only live (or as live) albums do this - most have different instrumentation, with swapped guitars, different drum sounds etc etc for variety. I've never thought it bad.

I don't need the tracks to be identical by any means, but I don't want to change the level of quality in the recordings. Thus, since I'm using the same drums (again, my biggest concern), it makes sense to leave the mics alone while tracking them. Since I'm the engineer and talent for at least half the instruments and vocals, I don't get breaks unless the work completely stops.

I'm also unsure how you will record the drums for each song in one go? Presumably you're playing to clicks or guide tracks - which often robs the song of something, and sure as hell, if everyone spends a day recording their bits, by the last song, as you say - they'll be tired and make more mistakes, lengthening the process, and if everyone is slotted in, can you afford to have lost half a day by the time the bass players day comes round? Dragging them in one by one is the way this system works, and that's never very productive because everything is planned and preset - no spontaneity possible, plan the play and play the plan. Dull!

You know what click and scratch tracks rob my tracks of? Tempo mistakes. Playing to a metronome is never a bad idea, even live (although I generally practice to a click and perform without). And as far as spontaneity is concerned, I would hope that the form of the recording is already set by the time I hit record. I don't need somebody fouling up a take when we're 14 hours in by trying to be spontaneous. :D

Take photos of the placement, makes it easy to repeat for retakes. Sure - there is hanging around, but isn't that normal. You are trying to plan a limitary operation instead of a creative session. why not record some combinations at the same time - drums and bass maybe, or however the studio can separate people. Last time I had a girl in for a full day session, we got very little done because it was so mechanical. We zoomed through a few tracks, and then one tricky one arrived and we spent hours trying to sort it. She got bored and performance went right down.

I'd record the songs separately, but it depends on the availability of your talent. I hate rigidity.

Creative session comes in rehearsals, not in the studio.

Click tracks don't rob the song of anything unless you suck. And even then, you're probably better off playing to a click track.

1. Scratch guitar or bass to click, if desired, if you want it to actually sound good.
2. All the drums - this can take days if necessary, just don't move anything. Or man up and do it all at once.
3. Bass for keeps
4. Whatever else
5. Vocals
6. Start mixing

I think this will be the plan.
 
I think you're on a good path by recognizing that the drums, at least, should be consistent. IMO, that's the one part of an album that really should sound consistent from song to song. I always like an album to sound like it was done in one moment in time. Like it was done in one space. A collection of songs that work with each other in sound and style. Not a bunch of one-off singles slapped together to fill up a CD.
 
You know what click and scratch tracks rob my tracks of? Tempo mistakes. Playing to a metronome is never a bad idea

Agree 100%. Like you and Greg said, playing to a click is the way to go. Anyone who says otherwise either can't play to one or has no business recording. Looks like you have a pretty good plan.
 
I always like an album to sound like it was done in one moment in time.
I think that because relatively so few albums in the last 45 years actually have been, I've pretty much always just accepted whatever the artist has brought forth. Even if one of the songs was recorded two years before the rest on the album, I'm hearing them all together so to my mind, they all belong within the same time bracket.
Like it was done in one space.
Around 2010, I began to really notice how diverse loads of albums I had were on the one hand, things recorded and mixed in different ways, yet still on the same record and on the other hand how other albums were recorded months apart in different studios yet achieving an interesting consistency of sound. Yet on both sides, great albums.
A collection of songs that work with each other in sound and style.
There have, of course, been lots of albums in this vein, leaning in a more one dimensional direction and no less great because of it. I find however, that diversity works as much as similarity. For example, some of those early AC/DC, Motorhead or Bob Marley and the Wailers albums are brilliant in their 'song after song of the same sound and style' way, while some of the Beatle, Bruce Cockburn, King Crimson or Little Purple Circles albums work brilliantly as you get very different things from track to track. To be honest, the only thing that brings down albums for me are crummy songs in abundance.
Not a bunch of one-off singles slapped together to fill up a CD.
I guess it really depends on the artist, the genre being played and the strength of the songs. Even groups or artists that were primarily viewed as singles artists and did throwaway albums to cash in on their popularity in retrospect often made some good albums.
 
Presumably you're playing to clicks or guide tracks - which often robs the song of something
As far as clicks go, not playing to one can sometimes rob a song of something. Actually, there are literally endless factors that can rob a song of something {nerves, disinterest, hurrying, inability, sticking rigidly to the click, not using a click, poor listening skills, unwillingness to serve the song, desire to shine individually....the sky is the limit} and guide tracks are precisely that ~ they act as a guide not a law enshrined by parliament. Depending on how the person whose song it is lets things run, there can be plenty of spontaneity despite the presence of clicks and/or guides. But if said person doesn't want spontaneity, the players should be decent enough to give the person what they do want.
 
I think that because relatively so few albums in the last 45 years actually have been, I've pretty much always just accepted whatever the artist has brought forth. Even if one of the songs was recorded two years before the rest on the album, I'm hearing them all together so to my mind, they all belong within the same time bracket. Around 2010, I began to really notice how diverse loads of albums I had were on the one hand, things recorded and mixed in different ways, yet still on the same record and on the other hand how other albums were recorded months apart in different studios yet achieving an interesting consistency of sound. Yet on both sides, great albums.
There have, of course, been lots of albums in this vein, leaning in a more one dimensional direction and no less great because of it. I find however, that diversity works as much as similarity. For example, some of those early AC/DC, Motorhead or Bob Marley and the Wailers albums are brilliant in their 'song after song of the same sound and style' way, while some of the Beatle, Bruce Cockburn, King Crimson or Little Purple Circles albums work brilliantly as you get very different things from track to track. To be honest, the only thing that brings down albums for me are crummy songs in abundance.
I guess it really depends on the artist, the genre being played and the strength of the songs. Even groups or artists that were primarily viewed as singles artists and did throwaway albums to cash in on their popularity in retrospect often made some good albums.

As far as clicks go, not playing to one can sometimes rob a song of something. Actually, there are literally endless factors that can rob a song of something {nerves, disinterest, hurrying, inability, sticking rigidly to the click, not using a click, poor listening skills, unwillingness to serve the song, desire to shine individually....the sky is the limit} and guide tracks are precisely that ~ they act as a guide not a law enshrined by parliament. Depending on how the person whose song it is lets things run, there can be plenty of spontaneity despite the presence of clicks and/or guides. But if said person doesn't want spontaneity, the players should be decent enough to give the person what they do want.
:D

It's good to have you back, brother. :)

There were a few Grimabe's here in the last few weeks, but there's nothing like the real thing. :D
 
I've always done one song at a time as they are written, but this ends up with inconsistent sounds across the tracks.
How do you mean 'inconsistent' ? One person's inconsistency is another person's creative diversity.

Just means I'll have a LONG day tracking drums, unless I can find a better drummer to come in and do it for me
Are they long songs ? Roughly how long are they ?
A couple of years back a mate of mine who is a drummer was over for a few months from Zambia and I figured I would get him to do some recording, if he was willing to utilize his skills. We actually did lots of recording. On one occasion, we were working on a 20 minute piece which we did in sections and that took around 4 hours. On another, we did 13 songs {longest about 3 minutes but on average just over 2 minutes ~ I was in my short song phase} and it took half an hour less. It was fun.
On both occasions, I knew generally what I was looking for {I was playing bass or guitar} though I gave Ray plenty of freedom.
But it can be done.
 
Back
Top