Big up front guitars

[Chris Jahn]

I play a record music that traditionally has the guitars way up front when recorded. And this is the sound i like, up front but not overbering, still letting the other instruments breathe. When mixing guitar once i have a sound i like i tend to have trouble getting that resault, ie: the guitars sound good, but feel buried, or subdued.

Simply raiseing the db on the guitars does not do the trick, they either sound unatural like there "on top" of the mix, or they destroy everything else and i lose the "details" in the rest of the instruments.

Im not looking for a magic "do this and your guitars will rock" answer, but mabye some insight as to the cause of my problem and a few tricks of the trade to experiment with.

thanks

[Nightfire]

Have you tried double or triple tracking your guitar parts to fatten up the sound

Mike

[NinthHour]

how do you record the guitar track in the first place? namely amp, amp placement, mic setup etc. i have found alot of success in using a pair of 57's at the cab, and two large diaphragms out a ways (10-15 feet) then panning the room mics hard and leaving the 57's dead center, this is pretty much the framework for my setups, give us some more details and im sure everyone has their own mixing techniques for your style

[Chris Jahn]

Ive used a 57 most of the time, lately dead center (although ive learned right hear on this web site that my "dead center" is technically a little off center) ive tried using two close mics with mixed resualts, ive tried differnt distances, and off axis etc... for me the best sound ive found has been head on, and up close, although in anohter thread i started two days ago, i mentioned that im still not happy with my guitar sound over all, mostly harshness issues that apear in post, not so much things i hear comeing straight out the cabinet, that im VERY happy with.

But "sound" is not the issue in this question, its placemnet in the mix, like i said in the begining, if i bring them up (even if they sound good) they dont fit into the mix well, if i put them where they fit, they tend to feel (sound) kinda squished in, like its all a blur.

Lets just say an expert came in, placed the mics, dialed in the amps, and then eq'd compressed and whatever else and basically made some bad ass sounding guitars. then he handed these sounds to me and i had to blend them in, i dont know what to do to them, or the rest of the mix to make them sound urgent, in your face, powerfull, without killing the rest of the instruments or making them sound seperate from the mix.

[tunetown]

There's some great info here

http://www.badmuckingfastard.com/sound/slipperman.html

Cheers
Peter

[TerraMortim]

Originally Posted by Nightfire

Have you tried double or triple tracking your guitar parts to fatten up the sound

Mike

yeah, what he said. It's VERY rare that you'll hear a recording that has only one guitar tone per part... esp in "rock music"

[joeym]

mic placement if you're recording thru an amp and EQ play a big role too, not to mention compression.....damn i'm still experimenting myself!

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by Chris Jahn

And this is the sound i like, up front but not overbering, still letting the other instruments breathe. When mixing guitar once i have a sound i like i tend to have trouble getting that resault, ie: the guitars sound good, but feel buried, or subdued.

That sounds to me like maybe that's a case of getting something that sounds great soloed but doesn't work in the mix because every instrument is fighting to try and control as much of the spectrum as it can and they're not working together.

In this case, if you already have the rhythm section down (bass and drums), you may have them sounding really "k3wl" and full and powerful, but you got no room left for the guitars, perhaps. Try mixing the rhythm section with the raw un-mixed guitars just laying in there a little, just so you have a bit of a placeholder reference. Pull some bass out of the guitar with a highpass around 150-170Hz or so to make room for the bass and kick. Then mix the rest of the bass and drums so that they sound as good a you can get them without smothering the guitar. Then when you got those down, move your attention to the guitar and and pump that forward and polish it as you like to fit the mix best.

When you solo the instruments, they may not sound all that hot. But that's not the point; the need to sound good in the mix, not soloed. There is a difference

Originally Posted by TerraMortim

yeah, what he said. It's VERY rare that you'll hear a recording that has only one guitar tone per part... esp in "rock music"

The vast majority of "rock music" does not commonly double parts at all and manages to get a perfectly full sound in the mix.

If you're doing -metal/-core, though, then yeah that's true, but for the 95% of flavors of "rock music" that remain beyond that, it's just not that common.

G.

[Daisy]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

The vast majority of "rock music" does not commonly double parts at all ... for the 95% of flavors of "rock music" that remain beyond that, it's just not that common.

Not true. Most has a lot more going on than you'd think.

[WhiteStrat]

Tom Scholz (Boston) recorded his electric rhythm parts 8, 16, sometimes 32 times. I double track my guitar parts so consistently I feel like I'm cheating--"surely the Bigz must not be doing this" I tell myself.

so I listen to the Bigz. And you know what? They are. And if it's not as obvious, it's because they're better than me and doing it tighter.

Now if there are enough tracks to flush out the mix: drums, bass, rhythm guitar, acoustic, brass, piano, etc.--then probably not. But if it's anything close to a rock n' roll 4 banger (drums, bass, electric guit, singer) then, yeah--they're double tracking. And then some...

[benage]

If it suits the song I often double track guitars, pan one hard left and one hard right which sounds cool on headphones and is commonly done I think. I agree with what glen posted about cutting the bass out of the guitars that should really help them slot into place. I'm sure you already do this but adding some delay or reverb definitely helps.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by Daisy

Not true. Most has a lot more going on than you'd think.

Oh, please. You're going to sit there and tell me that jump rock, 50s rock, Delta rock, Piedmont rock, Tex-mex rock, latino rock, rockabilly, alt-rockabilly, bubblegum, rhythm n' rock, surf rock, fusion rock, psychadelia rock, space rock, Jersey rock, country rock, just plain ol' rock n' roll, or any blend of those use multipled lines lines in anything but an extreme minority of cases? Name the top rock acts of the past 50 years, you'd you'll be lucky to fine more than a couple of them that swung that way very often.

You headbangers really do need to get out more. The whole idea that there is no life beyond Van Halen other than Miley Cyrus and Justin Timberlake is just plain sad.

G.

[starbuck26]

that armenian guy who plays guitar for system of a down recorded dozens of tracks for each song when he worked with rick rubin. no effects, just different amp settings.

there are amazing tones on that album. the rest of it makes me want to vom.

[RAMI]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

whole idea that there is no life beyond Van Halen

Ironically, he didn't usually double his guitar, either. He just panned it to one side and threw the reverb on the other side, pretty much. In fact, until "1984", I don't think he put a rhythm guitar under his leads...though I might be totally wrong about everything I just said.

[bemo]

Something else you might wanty to try is to simply clone the guitar track so that you have three.

Pan track 1 about 70% L, track 3 70% R and then phase invert track two with the pan set dead center.

See if that gives you closer to the sound that you are looking for.

[RAMI]

............here we go..................................

[WhiteStrat]

Originally Posted by bemo

Something else you might wanty to try is to simply clone the guitar track so that you have three.

Pan track 1 about 70% L, track 3 70% R and then phase invert track two with the pan set dead center.

See if that gives you closer to the sound that you are looking for.

Originally Posted by RAMI

............here we go..................................

C'mon Rami...couldn't you have done this?

Bemo...I'm afraid that doesn't work. At worst, all you've got is a louder guitar--if it's the same exact track in two, or three (as you've suggested) or 23 places, it's still one guitar. And one guitar cloned and panned will still sound the same.

At best, if you tweak the clones--mostly folks do this with delay, you'll get a slightly bigger sound, but one that just sounds like an effect--and one with potential phase issues should it ever get summed to mono.

Believe me, I was at this point for about a year. And it sounded "bigger" than my single track, so I thought I was the shit. Then I heard some idiot like me saying that you HAD TO play it twice and pan those. So I tried it.

Guess what? The idiot was right. Moral of the story? I may be an idiot, but I'm right.

Seriously, it's all the tiny differences that it make it sound big. It creates what we call texture. And that's if you just play it the same. Try it with difference chord inversions, or a slightly busier rhythmic pattern on one side, or an embellishment only on one side, or different guitars or different amps on each side--the possibilities are limitless. (BTW--two's not the limit, 3, 4, 6 with any of the aforementioned variations can be really cool.)

Try it for yourself. Clone a track and pan 'em hard left and right--then record it twice and pan those hard left and right. You'll see what I'm talking about.

Really, stop reading and go try it! Don't make me prove it to you!

[RAMI]

........................(double post)

[RAMI]

Originally Posted by WhiteStrat

C'mon Rami...couldn't you have done this?

Sorry, Whitey. You're right. I just didn't have the energy. I'm still recovering from the Great "Double your Kik" Fiasco of 2007.

And I know that it's never as simple as one post. You'll see.

[WhiteStrat]

Originally Posted by RAMI

Sorry, Whitey. You're right. I just didn't have the energy. I'm still recovering from the Great "Double your Kik" Fiasco of 2007.

And I know that it's never as simple as one post. You'll see.

I forgive you. I know the "Double your Kik" fiasco was like a double kick right to your fiasco (what the heck does that mean?). Recovery is slow...

[DarkFriend]

In my opinion, its all about your guitar sound and EQ, not about how loud it is in the mix.

For a recent song, I recorded a guitar part as follows:

1) Bar chords using a Big Muff/Smashing Pumpkins sound, playing mostly the bottom three strings
2) Same chords but using traditional fingering using a crunchy, brighter sound, playing mostly the upper three strings
3) Double track both
4) EQ out the bottom mud where the bass already sits
5) Pan 75% left and 75% right

This made a unique, full, rich sound that sat nicely behind the vocals.

[DarkFriend]

For the first time, I'm not sure I agree with Glen completely. A lot of the powerpop/rock/alternative music I listen to has double-tracked guitars. Bands like Fountains of Wayne, Vertical Horizon, Owsley, etc., all double track constantly.

The real trick in my opinion is NOT double tracking for the entire song. It is tempting to keep it in as it sounds cool, big, rich, etc. But the idea is to sprinkle its use at appropriate times only, traditionally only in the song's chorus.

[Riffmaster]

A great thread, I don't know the number of people who've told me to copy guitar tracks and hard pan them. This discussion is gonna change the way I go about recording guitar tracks. Thanks for some insightful and informative information guys.

[jtees4]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

Oh, please. You're going to sit there and tell me that jump rock, 50s rock, Delta rock, Piedmont rock, Tex-mex rock, latino rock, rockabilly, alt-rockabilly, bubblegum, rhythm n' rock, surf rock, fusion rock, psychadelia rock, space rock, Jersey rock, country rock, just plain ol' rock n' roll, or any blend of those use multipled lines lines in anything but an extreme minority of cases? Name the top rock acts of the past 50 years, you'd you'll be lucky to fine more than a couple of them that swung that way very often.

You headbangers really do need to get out more. The whole idea that there is no life beyond Van Halen other than Miley Cyrus and Justin Timberlake is just plain sad.

G.

DO NOT make fun of The MileSTRESS!!!

[BrentDomann]

Double-tracking may not be a bad idea, but 32 guitar parts is getting stupid IMHO. Try recording the guitars in stereo. You may find that you get that extra bloom you need without 50,000 mono tracks sitting in weird places in your panning field eating up the space you need for the ride or the "just to the left" echo you want on that guitar solo.

And when I say stereo, I mean something like a dynamic mic at the speaker grille, straight on to the dustcap or perpendicular to the cone angle, and one LDC in the room. If you have a crappy room, try copying a dynamic close-mic track, applying some very slight chorus to the copy, panning them out a bit, and putting a nice stereo reverb on it. If you can hear the chorus, you're using too much. It's true that in order to avoid just having a louder version of your original track, there needs to be some difference in tone or performance in the second take.

Also, it seems few people mention re-amping. Record a clean guitar track into the board. Run that out to as many amps as you want on overdub. Barring any latency issues, it doesn't get any tighter than that.

EDIT: You might also want to read Glen's webpage on Compression. This is something that will help you a ton. If you can get one good fat guitar track down, pay attention to your compression later in the mixing game. It's that last stage of pushing things that can make your whole song really fat - with the caveat that you go a hair too far with it and your mix is going to sound as smashed as Rosie O'Donnell's car seats.