At what point do you start (or stop) making the band sound better than they are?

[jndietz]

I have a dilemma. Most of my clients right now aren't the best musicians (still getting started), and I want them to be satisfied with my recordings. However, I feel that some musicians have a false sense of what it takes to make a good record, especially artists who have never been in a recording studio. Obviously crap in is crap out.

At what point in the recording, do you start to help the band sound better, or do you even do that? I want my studio to be held in high regard for making quality recordings, but I don't want the bands poor performing abilities (or poor gear) to take away from that. Is this something that should be brought up prior to the sessions? I also don't want to piss off the band by telling them that they obviously have issues playing together.

Hopefully that all makes sense. Thanks everyone for any input!

 

[BigRed360]

I don't know what the answer is, but I just wanna say I can relate. I recorded a band a few years ago, and after the band sat and listened to the finished tracks for the first time, the lead singer looked really distressed. I asked him what was wrong (assuming he hated the mixes) and he said, "Shit, now we've got to practice until we sound that good, or they won't believe that's us!"

 

[AtoDeficient]

I think you have to decide where you are on the sliding scale of Engineer-Producer with that particular project. . . Some younger bands want as much producing help they can get, however critical, while most just expect you, as engineer, to make them sound amazingly professional. . The discussion about what particular role you will be playing is best had before the first session, but apart from that, most relationships between artist and engineer grow over time, even a short time. .

On the other hand, if they suck, and you have no discussion about what service you provide (advice is a service) then just be the best engineer you can be.

I myself charge an extra ten bucks an hour to be brutally honest about talent, gear, and music.

 

[Track Rat]

You CAN polish a turd. You just have to freeze it first.
How far to go? I like to think I'm distilling a band and giving them what they meant to do, not what they actually puked up.

 

[RawDepth]

Here is my idea...
Long before the session ever begins, ask them to record themselves at a rehearsal and bring it to you as a reference, (so you can better prepare for the session.) Any iphone or El-cheapo mono recorder will do. Hopefully this will make them realize how shitty they sound before they get to your studio. Then after the session/project is completely done, play the old recording for them again (their version) and ask them to give their opinions about how the new one stacks up.

Also before the session, have a sit-down meeting to discuss what they expect. Hand them each printed copies of articles like this one. How to prepare for a Recording Session at a Recording Studio
Discmakers.com has some studio preparation tips as well. -Find more on Google.

It is my opinion, (but don't tell them this part,) that if the band sucks, then they have no business being in a recording studio. They are not ready to record anything until they can play well together.

 

[miroslav]

As long as they are learning and improving from the help you are providing...help them all you can and as much as you are interested in doing....and yes, you are then straddling the line between producer and engineer, which is fine if you want to do that. Make them also aware of that, since that kinda' makes you a part of the band on some level...and they should understand that....that you now have a vested interest in them as a band and their product.

If they are lazy and just want/expect you to cover it up for them and fake it...then don't do it.

 

[AtoDeficient]

Great info people. . . I just want to add to what I posted earlier. I believe that EVERY recording session has a producer, whether the people involved realize it or not. .
Sometimes it's the whole band (bad idea, IMO), or maybe it's the band member with the least to do at the moment, or sometimes it's the loudest girlfriend present (an even WORSE idea) or maybe it's the engineer, whether he agreed to it or not.
I always stressed pre-production and having at least an "acting producer" for the song or project. . If the band doesn't have one, it doesn't necessarily mean that the engineer assumes that role. .

And FWIW, if the band really sucks, the odds are that your recording work will be heard by very few people, and therefore won't be such a bad reflection on your studio's abilities. . .

 

[Guitargodgt]

Whatever I'm comfortable having my name on.

Personally I could not care less what the average public thinks of my work, they will never get me any more work. What I do care about though is what other bands think of my work when the band I'm recording shows them the recording they did with me. So if that means some shit shining well then get me the polishing rag.

 

[59 Les Paul]

Interesting viewpoints. Something that I've learned is that the "source sound" determines everything. From the beginning, if the bands own "sound" is bad, there's not much more any engineer can do to improve it, even with creative mixing. I believe the engineer has to be in charge and "direct" the band accordingly, afterall, he's the person they've come to to record them. If the guitar player is too loud or too distorted, the engineer needs to address that. If the lead singer isn't up on the mic and only coming through in waves and peices....the engineer needs to address that and expalin/show the band how they need to do it. I say this because I've been there and I had to direct this girl singer how to remain at post and sing into the mic ( she kept turning her head, got quiet, got loud, moved back, etc).....she had never recorded before and didn't know how to do it ( thats ok, we all have to learn...the problem was she wouldn't take advice and just rolled her eyes and did her same thing).

Not sure that list above about how to prepare for recording has the info that I post on my site but it's very important to expalin ahead of time what is to be expected at your recording sessions...ie: come prepared knowing what songs your doing ahead of time, have a couple back up songs prepared in case other don't make the final cut, amps may be moved or tilted for best sound source, amps may be asked to be turned down more than what your used to, Mic placement, no alcohol, rest your ears prior to recording, etc,etc...)

I don't think theres any one trick to cure all. It's a matter of common sense and discussing ahead of time with the players the goal of the band - then it's up to the engineer to direct it to happen that way. It's also best to have one spokesperson from the band work with the engineer - an engineer getting 4-5 directions from all the players can spell problems and delay the whole process.

LP

 

[59 Les Paul]

The initial question.....At what point do you start to make the band sound better?.....Depends on what the band wants. Some bands just want a "Live" recording of them in a studio so show what they sound likke "live". Typically this process requires no overdubs. It's just a straight recording of the whole band playing live. Recording like this in a "live" room may have some issues like mic bleeding, volume issues, etc. Sometimes recording a band live will not give you much room to "improve" the sound that much, other times it's fine. It just depends on the bands sound and how they blend together. Every bands sound is different so there's no one way fits all.

Some bands will desire a more studio oriented approach and a well mixed material with overdubs and more layering - to me, this approach is the easiest because it gives the engineer more flexibility and ability to tweek in a better mix.

So, ask the band what their looking for...then do your best to guide them and deliver a recording that they'll be happy with.

 

[Steenamaroo]

Any band I've worked with who sound bad are usually too young and inexperienced or too cocky to actually take advice.

The bands I've worked with who sound great already are usually the ones who are really glad to take advice on board.
They're mature/humble enough to value outside contributions.

Can't tar all with one brush but that's been my experience.

 

[jndietz]

Thanks everyone for the insights so far.

I am mostly worried that a band's poor performing abilities may affect how other local acts see me as a studio. I don't want them to listen to a track I recorded and think it's trash only because the band performed it, thus, giving them a poor outlook on my studio.

 

[Bisson820]

Whatever I'm comfortable having my name on.

Personally I could not care less what the average public thinks of my work, they will never get me any more work. What I do care about though is what other bands think of my work when the band I'm recording shows them the recording they did with me. So if that means some shit shining well then get me the polishing rag.

spot on...

If your a band looking for a studio to work at... you want to listen to other bands that have recorded through them and see their quality.... you need to figure out if your doing it to try to make a point.. or doing it because you love editing/recording/mixing and want a bigger client base.

Also if you do a good job with their first album ... give it a couple years before they wanna record a new album (if they stay together)... do shit work and they will look elsewhere.

Everyone has an ego... if you give them shit back (because they gave you shit in).. then they will not have credibility for word of mouth advertising.

 

[miroslav]

... or sometimes it's the loudest girlfriend present. . .

 

[AtoDeficient]

Thanks everyone for the insights so far.

I am mostly worried that a band's poor performing abilities may affect how other local acts see me as a studio. .

It's a unique business, recording. . . Not too many other careers where the ability and talent of your customers has such a direct impact on YOUR ability and talent . . .and financial success. But each project will push you to overcome. To find new ways of achieving, improving YOUR ability and skills. Not to mention improving the greatest engineering skill of all- Studio politics, which at the local band level is really alot of the job, and the other part is what you are doing now- working with the un-initiated, untalented, etc. . . yours is a concern at the local level though, because no one will be asking, "Who produced that CD?". . . They will be asking, "Where the hell was THAT recorded?" . .

 

[Steenamaroo]

I duno how much it's worth worrying about.

I think people can tell the difference between shit that's well recorded and good stuff that's badly recorded.

But still, I reckon average Jo will blame the band even if the problems are with the engineer cos he doesn't know better.
Seems that if you don't know what's going on behind the scenes you just assume everything is the band's fault.

 

[Capt Hair]

This is where it comes in handy being an all around competent musician, guess it kind of goes back to the whole producing vs. engineering from a few posts ago. While interning I did encounter a band "the local band" that were just not quite there talent wise. The engineer I was assisting noticed the drummer wasn't getting good takes during a somewhat complicated transitions they had written (metal bands). He called him in, asked him what was going on, and the whole band said it was a hard part to nail. The drummer went back in and laid down one more track. And he said, that they were good and he got all he needed. An hour later after they had left, he told me to playback and punch him in at the transition point. So he went into the live room, got on the drum set, and we recorded over the sections they had messed up, next day they came in they were shocked at how everything sounded lol, the transitions he was mucking up were just about perfect .

He said, "you do what you got to do to make the customer happy and to make sure you don't have anything floating around that you don't want your name on."

That definitely stuck with me^

 

[dreib]

I duno how much it's worth worrying about.

I think people can tell the difference between shit that's well recorded and good stuff that's badly recorded.

But still, I reckon average Jo will blame the band even if the problems are with the engineer cos he doesn't know better.
Seems that if you don't know what's going on behind the scenes you just assume everything is the band's fault.

^^
Ive heard plenty of really good recordings with terrible playing/singing songwriting etc.etc. You cant control whats going into the mics but you can control the quality of whats going into the mics, if you know what I mean? If they are a shitty band I guess all you can do is make them the best sounding shitty band as possible.

 

[jndietz]

I guess being an engineer makes me a little more critical than the average Joe. I pay attention way more to a recording now than I ever have in my life.

 

[grimtraveller]

^^
If they are a shitty band I guess all you can do is make them the best sounding shitty band as possible.