Tracking without click

D

davecg321

New member
I play mostly acoustic/folk/fingerstyle stuff with very little in the way of drums or percussion. I listen to a lot of similar stuff that sounds as if it's been recorded without a click (bon iver, bright eyes, Tom waits) my question is how would is this style of music tracked. Would it generally be a live (and kept) take of both vocal and guitar/piano, or, is it more common for the performer to record the main instrument without the vocal, and then add the vocal afterwards.

Our engineer insisted on using a click as we have lots of instrumentation which is fair enough, but I'm just curious as to how others would approach this particular kind of music.

On future projects I would like the track to breathe more but without the sometimes problematic timing issues.

Tah

Dave
 
If possible I'd get as much of the group, at least the core rhythm instruments, playing together as I recorded basic tracks. The eye contact and real time adjustments good players make gives a result that can't be replicated by other means. If the lead vocalist is also a musician then I may have him just mouth the vocal, or give him a mic turned up in the headphones so he can sing it very quietly for reference. If the lead vocalist is not a musician, or plays something that can be added later, I'll put them in the control room and have them sing a scratch vocal on the talkback mic while the band is playing.
 
Would you then keep these main instruments that were recorded together. Or would you then aim to track everything separately over the top of this 'scratch track' if the latter then wouldn't it be extremely tricky to match the timing of playing for each instrument?

Thanks
 
speaking from a drummer point of view, it is hard for me to play to track that has even small timing issues, I have to chase the tempo the whole song. the way I do it is lay down a rhythm guitar track with a click track, then we build on that. adding bass, lead, and drum tracks, I usually do the vocals last. sometimes I record a scratch vocal or the whole band on a scratch track. then I just do away with it.
 
If you're recording with a full band...then let the drummer be your "click" (assuming he can stay on time).
If you are going to do a lot of single overdubs...use a click, or again, lay down the drums and all other tracks follow that.

One problem is that a lot of bands do play sloppy...which can be a PITA for the engineer later on when overdubs are needed or any kind of edits...etc....so that's why a click is a sure thing.

Also...if your scratch track is sloppy and done without click...and you then ask the drummer to follow that...well, he's either going to have trouble with it, or it will be sloppy in the end.

You can do timing variations, you can even set them up with click...but that has nothing to do with playing in time (which is what you always want to be doing). I only say that because some players confuse the two...not saying you're one of them necessarily.
 
Working with a band, a good drummer can be your click. The operative word being good.

Now the rest of the band needs to be on par with the drummer as well.

They all need to be on the same page and paragraph of the same script.

Then there are others that cannot get by without a click.

So sometimes yes to click and sometimes no.

Depends on the players and circumstances.
 
davecg321 said:
Would you then keep these main instruments that were recorded together. Or would you then aim to track everything separately over the top of this 'scratch track' if the latter then wouldn't it be extremely tricky to match the timing of playing for each instrument?

Thanks
Click to expand...

It really depends, but with acoustic music I would tend to try to get keeper takes all at once. With careful placement and a relatively dead room it's amazing what you can do.

Lately with rock I've been moving from laying down scratch bass and rhythm guitar while recording keeper drum tracks and toward getting keepers of all three at once if possible, while doing scratch lead guitar and lead vocal. The bass and lead guitar (pedal steel, actually) are going direct and the singer is in the control room, so no bleed from those. I make a blanket tent for the guitar amp which provides enough isolation even though the amp is right next to the drums.

I've done the thing where you lay down a scratch take and then replace everything, but it starts to get away from real musical feel. I'd rather have the whole band play together like in real life.
 
In your case, I would just record all the rhythm instruments at the same time...like a band. That should be a keeper. If you can't all play the rhythm parts all the way through with good feel, you need to be rehearsing, not recording.

After that, you just overdub anything else on top of that. You should be able to feel your way through the song, listening to the recorded instruments. You do it every time you play as a band.

If there are a lot of extended stops, have someone count through them into a mic in the control room and record it. That can be the cue to come back in.
 
Farview said:
In your case, I would just record all the rhythm instruments at the same time...like a band. That should be a keeper. If you can't all play the rhythm parts all the way through with good feel, you need to be rehearsing, not recording.

After that, you just overdub anything else on top of that. You should be able to feel your way through the song, listening to the recorded instruments. You do it every time you play as a band.

If there are a lot of extended stops, have someone count through them into a mic in the control room and record it. That can be the cue to come back in.
Click to expand...

I try to record bands like this most of the time, I find the band is much more comfortable and it gets a better vibe. In fact my own bands last album was recorded live including all solos, the only overdub was vocals. We had this philosophy that if there was something about the take someone did not like we just played the song again no problem, only 3 or 4 mins so what LOL. No song on the album had more then 3 takes, we kept all the takes because sometimes you listen back later and what you thought was the best take wasn't and one that was dismissed had a better feel.

Alan.
 
I would personally (if I was working with you) record how you want, but I would track as much at once as possible and do overdubs after. This would solidify the core of the tracks.

If the overdubs were a fail (nothing fun about spending a half hour to get a stupid 15 second part done), then I might get irritated at the lack of click.
 
Cool, this has helped me get a better picture of how to approach certain tracks/material.

The main rhythmic stuff in my music is just guitar and bass, so I'll probably record both live with the bass DI'ied, we can the scrap bass if mistakes are made. I can then mime the vocal throughout takes. ;)
 
witzendoz said:
I try to record bands like this most of the time, I find the band is much more comfortable and it gets a better vibe. In fact my own bands last album was recorded live including all solos, the only overdub was vocals. We had this philosophy that if there was something about the take someone did not like we just played the song again no problem, only 3 or 4 mins so what LOL. No song on the album had more then 3 takes, we kept all the takes because sometimes you listen back later and what you thought was the best take wasn't and one that was dismissed had a better feel.

Alan.
Click to expand...

This works if the timing is on. If it varies, then taking one take and using it in another usually has issues. I tried this once with a band that wasn't that good and wouldn't use a click. The timing drifted and I tried to use another take, well you know how it sounded.

That is the nice thing about using a click. Or as others have stated, a good drummer that can keep time.
 
A lot depends, too, on the player(s) him/themselves. I know that my timing can be way off if I'm playing by myself (usually too fast, but also speeding up during some sections). I've heard the evedence when I record a song idea with no click or when I've been on a local tv show playing solo.
 
DM60 said:
This works if the timing is on. If it varies, then taking one take and using it in another usually has issues. I tried this once with a band that wasn't that good and wouldn't use a click. The timing drifted and I tried to use another take, well you know how it sounded.

That is the nice thing about using a click. Or as others have stated, a good drummer that can keep time.
Click to expand...

I think he's talking about which whole-band take turns out to be the best, not trying to copy a track from one take and paste it into another.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
I think he's talking about which whole-band take turns out to be the best, not trying to copy a track from one take and paste it into another.
Click to expand...

I was, we were not cutting between takes. This only works if band members don't get precious about what they played "Oh that take had the best guitar solo I ever played in my life and the drummer messed up!" kind of stuff. If one person was not happy we just played the whole song again until we had it down, no problem.

Alan.
 
They used to make a lot of good music back in the day without any clicks. The tempo was all over the place. Nobody noticed or cared. The Click is mostly just for editing, but you could tempo map a DAW project to match your playing. Given the instrument and style of music you do, a click would actually be a detriment IMO. Too rigid for that sort of thing. That is. . . unless you've got issues with musicians not playing in the pocket.
 
It depends on the project being built, the time you plan to spend, and the talent involved.

If you are going to add electronic drums or samples afterwards you really need a click track to time them. Even an actual drummer needs a fixed beat that can easily be heard.

If the music has no drums then the use of a click track is optional. If you have good experienced players with good natural rhythm, you can go without it. Multitracking is not the same as playing live where you can queue off another's visual gestures. Catching that first chord and any breaks during the sound benefit from a click. Some players have a hard time playing to a click track however. I know many. They would highly benefit form practicing to a click track or drum machine in all cases.
 
wrgkmc said:
Multitracking is not the same as playing live where you can queue off another's visual gestures.
Click to expand...

That's weird because just a couple of weeks ago I multitracked a song and everybody could see each other just fine and we got keepers of drums, bass and rhythm guitar.
 
wrgkmc said:
It depends on the project being built, the time you plan to spend, and the talent involved.

If you are going to add electronic drums or samples afterwards you really need a click track to time them. Even an actual drummer needs a fixed beat that can easily be heard.

If the music has no drums then the use of a click track is optional. If you have good experienced players with good natural rhythm, you can go without it. Multitracking is not the same as playing live where you can queue off another's visual gestures. Catching that first chord and any breaks during the sound benefit from a click. Some players have a hard time playing to a click track however. I know many. They would highly benefit form practicing to a click track or drum machine in all cases.
Click to expand...

All good points. Personally, I record everything to a click, but I don't do acoustic stuff. It's possibly just my aesthetic but I'd think acoustic music would gain from being a bit more imperfect in the tempo dept. If you take old recordings and put them into a DAW you'd be shocked at how much the tempo deviates and you don't even notice it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top