Do pro's do 2 takes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chamelious
  • Start date Start date
chamelious said:
He's not right, he's just being pedantic.




And what on earth is this about? You know nothing about me but assume i can't play music live because im asking questions about recording using more than 1 take? And as i said. We already have a "demo", i'm thinking about when its time to do an album.

It seems to be difficult to ask a question on this board without being jumped on. I don't see how all this "you need to practise more" is constructive at all. I wasn't even talking about me, i was talking about my bands drummer, who's my brother and probably the most consistant musician i know.
Click to expand...

Uh, calm down. That's how it gets in here. It's not about you specifically.
Greg is pragmatic, and some of us are a bit more diplomatic, but in the end, we are saying similar things.
There's an old saying on this board and everywhere else: Garbage in = garbage out
Many of the responses given in here are also meant for "the larger audience" of forum visitors that may be popping by.
It's okay, really.
 
I just thought I'd chime in. I've been playing drums for 20 years, and recording them for around one - so I'm by no means an expert. Anyway... I can't ever seem to get my drum tracks down in one take, but by the same token, I do my absolute best to do so. One take which is great, usually ends up far better than cutting and pasting together 20 individually fantastic takes. I find the general feeling of the drums and song gel much better the closer you can get it to one take.

However, that's just *my* experience. Lars Ulrich, as has been mentioned, recorded the multiple takes for the majority of his songs. A video on youtube is great as a brief example of the recording techniques used for his drumming. However, I'm sure they paid through the nose to record the way they did, as well as taking their sweet time. If you're short on time and money, ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

Anyway... I just thought I'd put in my two cents. Take care, and keep going, man.

Youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJRyY5cyLts
 
Cheers guys, and sorry greg, took it a bit personally. Usually what happens with my brother on drums is the first take is, good enough so that i don't notice anything "wrong" with it. But he'll hear something small, ghost hit, a fill he can do better, etc.

As for Gregs 4 options, we'll be somewhere in between B and C, as I imagine a lot of bands are. Its not really a case of not technically being good enough to play a part, its a case of wanting the best possible performance of every part.
 
The philosophy of studio work is to do whatever it takes to get a good product. So "pros" and their producers will do just that. Studio and live are 2 different worlds.
 
joeym said:
The philosophy of studio work is to do whatever it takes to get a good product. So "pros" and their producers will do just that. Studio and live are 2 different worlds.
Click to expand...

I agree with this 100%
 
Greg_L said:
And you can follow that philosophy balls deep when you become a pro or do your own recordings at home. Until then, you're gonna have to work it out some other way.
Click to expand...

By "become a pro" you mean "when someone else is paying" but yeah.
 
chamelious said:
Our EP was done for what is about $100, 2500 a day, 9 months, $630,000 odd. Ouch
Click to expand...

Hehe.... $630,000.00 is a drop in the ocean, when you sell 25 million albums at approximately $15.00 each. That's 375 million dollars, and even if they got only 10 percent of that, that's $37,500,000.00

Yeah... I'm sure they couldn't care less about 630 thousand dollars spent to get the absolute best sound they possibly could.
 
chamelious said:
I agree with this 100%
Click to expand...

Though, and not jumping on you personally, but it's a dangerous philosophy if you follow it too far.

I think a studio recording and a live performance are obviously going to be two different things, and when I'm recording I definitely do a lot of layering knowing that I'll never play half those parts live (I mean, I play instrumental rock, so odds are I won't play any of them live, since no one really goes out to see that stuff unless your name is Joe Satriani :p). I don't have a problem with taking advantage of the ability to multitrack plus nearly unlimited tracks to add some extra depth and ambience to a studio recording, and then be prepared to strip a lot of that away to its more fundamental parts when it comes time to play live.

However, if you're using the recording studio to piece together a part that you know for a fact you can't pull off live... THAT I think is problematic. On some level, if you're writing songs then you have to be able to write stuff you can play, and be able to play the stuff you write. If you're doing heavy pitch-corection to a vocal performance that's just out of your register, or doing some serious tightening up of a drum performance that's just too complex or too fast for your abilities, or punching in sections of a riff because you can't jump from one position to the next fast enough but if you record each section seperately you can do it, then that's a problem, because someday, god forbid, maybe people will start to dig what yu're doing and you'll have to perform the material live, and you won't be able to. That's a problem.

I mean, yes, the studio and the stage are two different worlds... but they're certainly connected, and the former needs to keep the existence of the later in mind.

Full disclosure, I was working on a demo last night, and the bass part kicked my ass - I ended up having to do four or five punch-ins to get it right, partly because I had plans that night and was working in a hurry and didn't want to re-record an entire 6 1/2 minute performance, and partly because while it was within my technical ability to play, it was a bit outside my endurance (I'm not really a bassist) and my hand was cramping up like crazy by the time I finished. So, I'm a little bit of a hypocrite here, but for what it's worth I'm demoing for an album right now, and when I do go back to re-record for real with live drums, I'll have gotten some more practice in on the part (which I wrote that night, so some of the riffs were totally new to me) and should be able to hit it cleanly. But, at the same time, while I didn't nail it perfectly on the first take last night, had I spent any time practicing bass beforehand I should have been able to - if pushed, it's something I could play live. For me, that's the litmus test.

EDIT - and to reiterate Greg's point, if you're on a shoestring budget, then for all practical purposes studio and live are NOT two different worlds. You need to be able to go in there and nail it in one or two takes at most.
 
I've never thought the studio and live were two different worlds. I've heard people say that for 40 years and still shake my head. I think it goes back to my dislike for studio's "preparing" their drumkits with boxes of Kotex and duct tape because "we're in the studio and we're not playing live".

I play live in the studio.

If you're not playing live aren't you playing dead?
 
dintymoore said:
I've never thought the studio and live were two different worlds. I've heard people say that for 40 years and still shake my head. I think it goes back to my dislike for studio's "preparing" their drumkits with boxes of Kotex and duct tape because "we're in the studio and we're not playing live".

I play live in the studio.

If you're not playing live aren't you playing dead?
Click to expand...

Well, I'm no drummer, but as I understand the point of treating drum heads like that is to dampen their vibration a little bit and cut down on overtones. Since you're doing it once for all of eternity, the argument goes, you might as well take steps to get as pure a signal as possible, so you don't have weird resonances in your drum performance, from sympathetic vibrations or odd overtones on the head.

So, that sort of begs the question - do you spend much time treating your drums when you play live as well, or do you think that you shouldn't take steps to get as pure and good a drum sound as you can while you're recording?
 
DrewPeterson7 said:
So, that sort of begs the question - do you spend much time treating your drums when you play live as well, or do you think that you shouldn't take steps to get as pure and good a drum sound as you can while you're recording?
Click to expand...

Yes, I am a drummer and I do exactly that - when I play live (as opposed to dead) I get the best possibly sound I can possibly get! I use 50's Istanbul K. Zildjians, calf heads that I have to tweak, vintage drums (50's & 60's Gretsch, Ludwig and Slingerland) and every moment I try to get the best sound I can get. Really, I do, and that's part of why I don't understand the whole road recording went down where a person hones his craft on stage night after night for years and when he goes into the studio on go the headphones and duct tape.

In a way, it's always comes off as incredibly disrespectful - what, you'd record a bassoonist and say "no, use this reed, it sounds better, and can you hold that thing further out?". That would be rude.

When you play "live", you play in a room. When you record, you play in a room. I've never seen the difference.
 
Well I play in accoustic groups that typically perform LIVE outdoors. So when I play live for $$$ I'M OUTSIDE. When I recording for a $$$ product to be sold later, I'm in a box / room. Two completely different and yet still related set of circumstances.

I generally record ourdoors too. And in that regard two takes is pretty normal. Mainly because the first take is the audio guy (me) learning the venue and group(s). And the 2nd is to let those levels ride for a good and honest capture. It also comes in handy if there's a plane in this take, a car drag racing in the next, a pack of wolves in the next, a gust of wind knocking over the cymbals or gong, or whatever... Although for many events I only get one take, and have to set levels safe even if it's not optimal.

But I'm mainly recording amatuers / events without pay. It's just a hobby of mine. And I've mainly been dragged into it, because those "pros" that charge for their skills are not familiar enough with the product to capture the moment. Or getting paid enough to package the results in a way that does the groups justice. (dvd's without menus / automated switching between cameras every three seconds without any decission made as to what is of interest at a given point and time / other I'm so not getting paid enough for this things). Not that the pay is great, or the distribution will exceed 100 units. But still, if you're getting paid for something, do it and do it well. It's in our / your best interest.

Although I guess we're skirting a pro versus not realmn. As another performer put it to me, an amatuer practices until he gets it right, and a pro practices until he CAN'T get it wrong. If the later were true, obviously one take should be enough. But I don't live in a perfect world. And there's always something to improve. The real question is how much time and money do you want to invest in a single project. Or how much is there to invest to start with.
 
dintymoore said:
Yes, I am a drummer and I do exactly that - when I play live (as opposed to dead) I get the best possibly sound I can possibly get! I use 50's Istanbul K. Zildjians, calf heads that I have to tweak, vintage drums (50's & 60's Gretsch, Ludwig and Slingerland) and every moment I try to get the best sound I can get. Really, I do, and that's part of why I don't understand the whole road recording went down where a person hones his craft on stage night after night for years and when he goes into the studio on go the headphones and duct tape.

In a way, it's always comes off as incredibly disrespectful - what, you'd record a bassoonist and say "no, use this reed, it sounds better, and can you hold that thing further out?". That would be rude.

When you play "live", you play in a room. When you record, you play in a room. I've never seen the difference.
Click to expand...

Well, that's sort of my point, man - I don't see anythin wrong with that attitude as long as you're treating your drumset to dampen vibrations and whatnot for the stage. I kind of agree with you, that if you feel like it makes a difference then you should be doing it live and in the studio, although admittedly the typical PA you play through live isn't really on par with your average home stereo in terms of clarity and reproduction, so I would buy an argument that it just doesn't matter as much in the typical acoustics of a bar or club...

Also, not to split hairs, but that "playing live (as opposed to playing dead)" thing relies on intentionally misinterpreting the what it means to play "live" and is maybe just a tad offensive to those of us who DO enjoy playing in the studio. ;)
 
or punching in sections of a riff because you can't jump from one position to the next fast enough but if you record each section seperately you can do it
Click to expand...

Lol, been there done that! The AE didn't like it much at the time either :D

I'm a fan of multiple takes, if time is not an issue. More options later.. One of my friends records his own band, after pretty much every take he says "That was great, perfect! Now get back in there and do it again.." If you're recording yourselves, why not.. I'd re-evaluate that train of thought if I was paying a studio for time, and I would definitely be practicing my ass off before going in..
 
DrewPeterson7 said:
... Also, not to split hairs, but that "playing live (as opposed to playing dead)" thing relies on intentionally misinterpreting the what it means to play "live" and is maybe just a tad offensive to those of us who DO enjoy playing in the studio. ;)
Click to expand...

Sorry about that - I don't mean to offend.

I too love playing in the studio, but consider that live too, 'cause if you're not alive, how could you play at all?
 
DrewPeterson7 said:
However, if you're using the recording studio to piece together a part that you know for a fact you can't pull off live... THAT I think is problematic. On some level, if you're writing songs then you have to be able to write stuff you can play, and be able to play the stuff you write. If you're doing heavy pitch-corection to a vocal performance that's just out of your register, or doing some serious tightening up of a drum performance that's just too complex or too fast for your abilities, or punching in sections of a riff because you can't jump from one position to the next fast enough but if you record each section seperately you can do it, then that's a problem, because someday, god forbid, maybe people will start to dig what yu're doing and you'll have to perform the material live, and you won't be able to. That's a problem.



EDIT - and to reiterate Greg's point, if you're on a shoestring budget, then for all practical purposes studio and live are NOT two different worlds. You need to be able to go in there and nail it in one or two takes at most.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this isn't the case. We aren't one of the million shit bands who walk into a studio with terrible gear old strings old heads and expects to record 7 songs in a day. I'm used to tracking my own music, but when we do an album i wanna use a studio so we can actually record some loud amps (normally use modelling).

My view on recording a BAND, is that i don't add large elements to songs that cant be reproduced live. Talking about things like double tracking an acoustic part for stereo width, when live there will be only one. That kind of thing at the most. Other than that, bands ive been in have been complimented for "sounding like the recording" when performing, thats a good thing in my books :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top