Tracking Question

[moelar2]

When it comes to recording drums, I'm more of a purist/traditionalist. My drummer just recorded a session for some friends at a studio that appeared to be well equipped and managed. He told me that the way they tracked his drums was as follows:

1) 3 takes all the way thru
2) Record fills seperately (in addition to wherever they were performed during the 3 takes above) in case they didn't come out okay in any of the three takes.
3) Then apparently, they edit and put the track together.

That's NOT the way I do it. Originally, I didn't even allow punch ins unless there was a noticeable break in the song. That's mainly rooted in my phiolosophy that before you come to record, you have to have practiced your song such that execution comes second hand, thereby allowing us to focus on more "studio" things like sound, tones, textures, blah blah blah...

Now, because my drummer is super detail oriented and wants everything perfect, I've been forced to bend the rules. It was actually a good thing because I explored punch in techniques that I hadn't really delved into before. Now, I can punch ANYWHERE because I leave maybe 1 measure of overlap, splice, and cross fade. I imagine that's how it's done out there, correct?

Please share your tracking methods.

Thanks!

[SouthSIDE Glen]

It depends upon the production, but in general for me it's better to punch out the drummer than to punch in the fills. If the guy can't play drums, replace him, don't edit him.

G.

[Fletcher]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

If the guy can't play drums, replace him, don't edit him.

There is no way to ever be able to echo how much relevance this statement has... it should be tattooed on both arms of anyone with a DAW system... yes, I have edited every drum hit [in the analog domain]... wanted to shoot the producer but it was his call to have me do that and my job to do as he instructed... and I've heard records where people have done it in the digital domain... and they all have one thing in common.

They suck.

Zero life, zero reason to have used a real drummer, if anything they brought the performance of the song down... just not a good way to go in my not even close to humble opinion... as always, YMMV.

[... as a side thought... why the hell should you be burdened with several hours of intensely boring work because some idiot drummer can't play for shit?]

[laststartoshine]

let's be clear, i believe there is a difference between making a really good drummer, sound amazing, and trying to salvage crap.

for example: A really solid drummer, comes through a tough part in the song, and flubs a few kick hits. It's cool to edit those later.

I'm of the mind, get it right while tracking, and never assume you can "fix it later" i think that's lazy.

[Nate74]

Here's another side of it too. As a bassist, I prefer to track all my parts with the drummer. Not just while hearing him, but I like (when possible) to be in the same room as him, looking at him, grooving with him. When you start mixing and matching drum parts the bass parts either won't fall in the pocket or will need to be messed with. And I don't care how great you are with a DAW, there's no way to mimic the sound of a good drummer and bassist who just lock in and groove together.

Know your parts or stay home.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by laststartoshine

for example: A really solid drummer, comes through a tough part in the song, and flubs a few kick hits. It's cool to edit those later.

And to be clear, I agree with that as well. It's done all the time with all instruments, including vocals. If a performer has a great emotional take that would be in the can if it worn't for a trip up here or a small glitch there, I'd punch in rather than try to catch lightning in a bottle twice (unless the guy is *so* good that he's like Zeus with the thunderbolts . )

But that's not what was described in the OP, at least not the way I interpret it:

He told me that the way they tracked his drums was as follows:

1) 3 takes all the way thru
2) Record fills seperately (in addition to wherever they were performed during the 3 takes above) in case they didn't come out okay in any of the three takes.
3) Then apparently, they edit and put the track together.

The way I read that is that they, by design, manufactured a Frankenstein track assembled out of parts of three seperate takes as well an undetermined number of potential fill punches. That is the opposite of patching a crack in an otherwise smooth take.

The only reason one should have for doing a Frankenstein track like that is if the drummer is not ready to be recorded. So I can only assume one of two things: that the drummer was not up to the task, or, that the drummer was fine but the studio personnel were not up to the task.

G.

[moelar2]

Thanks for the replies guys.

It's very difficult to tell someone "you suck, practice more." But it's not impossible, and I've done it, albeit using different words. I guess my underlying concern was whether there was a standard alternative that made tracking time much easier. It came up twice in my studio this last week. The first time was with a band composed of home recorders with community college degrees in recording. They had a solid grasp of recording tricks and concepts but wanted to have a hands off approach to tracking. There were a couple of drum takes that I would not have allowed to stay where their response was "oh, I'll edit that and fix it at home. Just do me a favor, sample a couple of hits of each drum so I can adjust anything I don't like." It sounds like this guy has the ability (and patience) to go in there and sound replace each hit. But that doesn't make sense to me, especially when you're dealing with overheads -- and even more when you're like me and rely heavily on the sound from your overhead mics for drums.

But it sounds like we all generally agree. I always tell this to drummers recording with me: "You're in control of most of the drum mix. If you beat the shit out of the cymbals and only graze the toms, there's not much I can do to help you." I think that this, as a general proposition, is good advice. Drummers really need to understand that they are the mix engineers when it comes to drums.

[moelar2]

Nate -- too bad for Mario Danelo eh? That really sucks! I'm an SC alumni, class of 2002.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by moelar2

It's very difficult to tell someone "you suck, practice more."

And I can see that perhaps some studios may take the tack that you described in your OP because they can tell right off that one or more of the current client musicians are not really ready for the red button. Rather than waste their time trying a bunch of takes that they know won't work out, and rather than offend the client, they just speed aread with their formula for making a Frankenstein track and use that plan to make the best of it.

But as advice for the client or for the self-recorder, I'd personally IMHO have to say that is a situation either in the studio or in the home that you want to try to avoid. This would be especially true if you're paying a studio to do it. If the studio is doing it for the reasons I described, then I'd recommend calling off the session and saving the money until such time where using such technique to compensate for a lack of preparedness on the part of the musician is not necessary. Not just for money concerns, but for sonic quality concerns as well.

While it sounds like I'm biting the hand that can feed me, it never ceases to amaze me just how fast many new bands are to hit the record button. It's sometimes as if the recording is more important than the music or the performance, and even further, that the engineering can fix the performance. I sometimes feel like I need to (and have been known to) shout out, "What's your damn hurry to stick something to disc? Get something worthy of recording first."

Especially if you're paying for it, and even more especially if your want someone else to pay for it.

End of rant .

G.

[Cult_Status02]

Originally Posted by moelar2

That's NOT the way I do it. Originally, I didn't even allow punch ins unless there was a noticeable break in the song. That's mainly rooted in my phiolosophy that before you come to record, you have to have practiced your song such that execution comes second hand, thereby allowing us to focus on more "studio" things like sound, tones, textures, blah blah blah...

Thanks!

That's how I am now - I won't punch unless there is a break. If they say "just take it from there," I'll tell them it won't sound natural and then I find the end of a phrase, or for drums, a complete stop before agreeing to punc-in. I could and have put words together or lines just out of practice, but when I have a band book a 5 hour block, I'm not gonna waste everyone's time putting shit together unless it takes only a few minutes. Usually, it takes a lot less time to just take the song over again.

I feel I'm definatly of the same feelings as most that have posted to this post, be able to play the song before you come in and record. Of course shit happens, you do a drum fill and you hit a rim or click a stick, we all do it from time to time. In those instances I let them finish the song, then I have the drummer listen back and tell me if he doesn't care, or I try to do a quick fix, if I can't do it fast, we restart.

My own two cents: I think that studio your friend recorded at just makes up stupid ways of doing shit to waste time. Maybe not though

[gcapel]

Originally Posted by Fletcher

why the hell should you be burdened with several hours of intensely boring work because some idiot drummer can't play for shit?]

A drum machine could be a replacement in some cases. I think it's understandable for a drummer having a difficult take or two. But to track his fills seperate? That's pretty lame. If you ya can't do a fill, then don't do it.

[iqi616]

Originally Posted by Cult_Status02

My own two cents: I think that studio your friend recorded at just makes up stupid ways of doing shit to waste time. Maybe not though

Hmm... bill the customer for an hour of extra takes or ten hours of editing? Kerching!

[iqi616]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

...it never ceases to amaze me just how fast many new bands are to hit the record button.

Self-recording musicians are the worst for this. I do it myself - hitting record before I've even finished writing the words or composing the music and then I end up cobbling parts together. It's a hard habit to break.

Part of the problem is that when it's your own time you don't care but if you were paying someone you'd care a lot more.

[Fletcher]

Self recording musicians who hit red before the lyrics are finished are very often doing "writing demos" in which case the whole point of the exercise is to put down ideas and diddle with them... everything from arrangements to parts, yada, yada, yada... and there are lots of very successful bands that go into the studio and do a lot of their writing "in the studio"... however, without a somewhat skilled production team or an amazingly talented [and experienced] songwriter/producer/recordist the results are usually pretty terrible.

I've spent months working on records where the band came in with a few rough ideas on what they wanted to do and then put the song together while "making the record"... they also spent several hundreds of thousands of dollars making the record in the process... and usually had a "producer" and an "engineer" and the infrastructure staff that accompanies both a studio and a band where several hundred thousand can indeed be spent on making an album... I've also worked on projects that got up to like 50-60 reels of 2" tape [at about 16 minutes per reel you're talking about like 12-14 hours of music... which in the form of 3-4 minute songs is really kinda insane!!].

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by iqi616

Self-recording musicians are the worst for this. I do it myself - hitting record before I've even finished writing the words or composing the music and then I end up cobbling parts together.

Originally Posted by Fletcher

Self recording musicians who hit red before the lyrics are finished are very often doing "writing demos" in which case the whole point of the exercise is to put down ideas and diddle with them

I don't necessarily have a problem with the use of recording as a tool to help write songs. That's not so much what I'm ranting about.

Put simply, I'm talking about those who feel that MBCs and NLEs can make up for practice and actually learning their part before they go public.

G.

[RAMI]

Originally Posted by Nate74

there's no way to mimic the sound of a good drummer and bassist who just lock in and groove together.

I can almost masterbate to that line.

[jmorris]

Typically, I figure the artist is paying so its up to them how they want to do it. Go for broke until they get it, click track to get basic bed tracks down,ruff simple acoustic drum track layed down so later they can get fancier..whatever. I have my methods I prefer ie. learn the part/song and then come to me. But it really depends on the people and the band. Some have very hard ideas on how they want the project to proceed. If I think it isnt the right path I'll tell them so I'm not screwed if things go wrong. Sometimes it does work out as the band planned. Recording is I think a service business so I try to be flexible. For me, most of my clients are very open to my comments and are cool......most ....not all! My ideal method to operate is:
1) Band had material down cold but not too much to be sterile and boreing.No punch ins but band gets a good take for drums at least after 2 or 3 takes.
2) Punch in drum bits if a really good track has happened. I don't mean half the damn song either ,I mean minor repairs
3) If punch ins are not working out say after 6 times, go for fresh take.

[moelar2]

You know, you would think that the reason for recording the fills seperately MUST be either a) the drummer needs much more practice, or b) the studio is trying to rack up billable hours.

Neither apply. The drummer is very good. He's technical, critical, and a perfectionist. The studio is doing it for free, and its a pretty good setup that they have. So it beats the shit out of me why the hell they're doing it like that.

Maybe they're just douchebags. I can't come to any other conclusion.

[Ironklad Audio]

...or maybe the engineers just don't what the fuck they're doing?

[TragikRemix]

my method of dealing with shitty drummers is simple; vdrums.

they don't know it really, but i can fix any sloppy hits, or botched up fills easily.

i'm real good with this method, it's like the only thing i do, especially since i am a shitty drummer and i have to use them for my own projects.

but hey, DFH superior sounds better than my acoustic kit anyway, givin the room acoustics still suck, although thye have improved a lil.

i have to deal with alot of crappy musicians, honestly, almost everything i record is of a crappy musician, because you get a crappy band and everyone is 15-17 years old but they think a demo is gonna make them famous, so they kinda occupy space and make noise while i sweat my ass of fixing them through editing that is improper and even i frown on it..

but hey, they suck. i'm doing more than recording them. most cases i have to manufacture the song anyways. i can't wait until im older and get to deal with serious musicians, who can actually play...

[BRDTS]

.............1) 3 takes all the way thru, 2) Record fills seperately (in addition to wherever they were performed during the 3 takes above) in case they didn't come out okay in any of the three takes...3) Then apparently, they edit and put the track together....."

Moelar2...I might have missed this, but did you take a drive over to that studio where they did things in the above steps and take a listen to the final results? Did you like the results they came up with? If you've not done it yet, maybe you can do that and then post your opinion of the final mix now that you know how they did it.

It's all great when one has a philosophy about how to proceed in a recording situation. But for me, even if my "ways" work, I'm always up for taking a look and listen to how other people do it. And usually, I pick up something that I can later integrate into my own methods.

I don't have a firm preference for any stock procedure, including drums. I've heard all that Sly & the Family Stone stuff that started with only hi-hats tracked to metronomes..and then built one drum at a time from there. The "feel" of that Sly stuff doesn't seem to be ruined at all to me.

Then there are those bizarre ways of waiting until 23 tracks of stuff were recorded and submixed before even STARTING to lay down a drum track against it al...ala Penny Lane by the Beatles. Or recording just drums and piano and then overdubbing everything else against it, while punching in newly thought of drum fills...again ala the Beatles ...watch the youtube film of the basic tracking of "Hey Jude" where it's just piano and drums....I cringe when I watch it, thinking "how can anyone track that way"...but look at the song we're talking about. Doesn't seem the "feel" of that one was ruined by the technique.

I have personally tried everything I can think of besides having a dynamite, well rehearsed drummer doing a set of perfect takes. As far as I'm concerned, every technique is valid and every technique can be illustrated to have been used in music recordings that are timeless and guranteed a place in history.

So Moelar2, even though you're sort of cringing at the aspect of using alternate techniques, at least you're picking up the skill of doing it when necessary. And like I say, what did you think of the final mixes at the studio where your drummer worked that way?

[moelar2]

BRDTS -- I'm not cringing at anything. In fact, it's precisely because I AM open to knew ideas that I initiated this post. My point in posting was to verify or uncover whether other people try this technique, and possibly learn what their experience with it was/is. People develop their own techniques that slowly become habits. I have mine. But that doesn't mean I'm not open to others.

I'm actually about to listen to what they did. I'll repost shortly.