Average # of vocal takes/comps?

[bcfromfl]

To those of you who are "working" recording engineers, what would be a guesstimate of the average number of takes or comps in a 4-minute solo vocal recording? My current project is recording my voice to "Laura", with just a Bosendorfer piano accompaniment. I'm a trained singer, but I'm finding I'm doing a large number of takes, because I don't like my tonal quality there, or a bobble elsewhere... I have Logic 9, which makes it extraordinarily easy to comp, but it got me to wondering if this is "normal"? Plus, every time I make the decision to alter a ritard or pause on the piano, I must completely do over the audio track -- which gets to be exhausting!

Do pros like Brian Stokes Mitchell, Barbra Streisand, etc., just walk into a studio, do a couple takes beginning to end, and leave the rest for the engineer? Or might there be a couple dozen takes, fixing a word or two, that sort of thing? I know it boils down to the skill of the singer, but I'm trying to gauge where I'm at. Am I just being a perfectionist doing it myself, or do others end up doing the same thing? I can imagine the studio time gets incredibly expensive if you get too anal about it...

Also, extending this question a bit...were the legends of the past, like Frank Sinatra, Elvis, Judy Garland, etc., really REALLY amazing, or did their recordings require a lot of massaging?

Thanks for your input!

-Bruce

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

To those of you who are "working" recording engineers, what would be a guesstimate of the average number of takes or comps in a 4-minute solo vocal recording? My current project is recording my voice to "Laura", with just a Bosendorfer piano accompaniment. I'm a trained singer, but I'm finding I'm doing a large number of takes, because I don't like my tonal quality there, or a bobble elsewhere... I have Logic 9, which makes it extraordinarily easy to comp, but it got me to wondering if this is "normal"?

Don't worry too much about it, it's not abnormal.

We do a lot of vocalists at our place, and it's impossible for me to give you an "average" that has any real meaning, because it all depends upon the vocalist, the producing style of the producer, the type of music and the difficulty of the piece, whether any one of the folks involved is having a good day or a bad day, and how much budget the client has to work with (somone with a larger budget may be more meticulous and picky on the individual take quality.)

But with all that listed uncertainty aside, typically the vocal is going to wind up being a surprisingly complex patchwork of takes, punches, comps and fly-ins, so if that's what you wind up with as well, don't worry about it too much, as that's not unusual.

You're right, it can get exhausting - on both sides of the glass. And it can get expensive in time as well as money to make the process any more difficult than it has to be. The good news is that makes for a nice incentive to improve and practice so that the next time you can cut through the song faster and with less edits, but in the meantime, as log as the result sounds good, that's more important than how you got to that result.

G.

 

[miroslav]

Maybe you should first workout exactly what/how you want to play, and then go for the actual recording...that will help you cut down on the extra takes.
AFA "average" number of takes...well, whatever it takes.
If you are going to nitpick every syllable...it might take quite a few.

Some people will do 50 takes or more until they get what they want out of a single, continuous performance. But that can be tedious, and there is a point of diminishing returns because your performances can start to fall off or become rather methodical instead of spontaneous and immediate with too many takes.
So then you do only a few really good takes and comp for the best final take.

I usually go for 3 solid takes, but if really needed, I will do 5…and then just comp from that.
More takes than that, and it will be too much work editing through a couple of dozen takes...but then, some folks WILL keep going take after take.
It's up to you how much you want to work on editing all those takes VS accepting some stuff even if it’s not perfect from end to end.
Maybe you’re being too critical of your performances…?

 

[bcfromfl]

Thanks to you both for your insightful responses. I'm new to recording, and this experience has brought new dimension to my thoughts about singing...first...am I not as "good" a singer as others may be because I'm requiring several takes to get a result I'm happy with...and second...is a recording with multiple comped takes really an unrealistic representation of a singer's craft if it can't be duplicated live?

Yes, I am very critical of what I sing, especially when a recording is meant for others to listen to...and inevitably be critically evaluated by those with discerning ears. Makes me especially self-conscious!

I'm attempting to make the recording as "transparent" as possible and not hidden behind a lot of EFX, but on a difficult piece each blemish stands out like a sore thumb! With the rubato piano, not only do I have to remember lyrics and style, but also where and how much of a ritard or pause I programmed for the accompaniment at each spot. Lots to think about...and easy to make annoying errors!

-Bruce

 

[Paulie Jay]

I have Logic 9, which makes it extraordinarily easy to comp, but it got me to wondering if this is "normal"? Plus, every time I make the decision to alter a ritard or pause on the piano, I must completely do over the audio track -- which gets to be exhausting!

Don't forget that with Logic 9 you have Flex Time! If you like the vocal just nudge it around until it works with the piano

 

[bcfromfl]

Thanks for the great tip! There's just too much to learn about Logic! To think of all the hours that got zapped with the Delete key...

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

and second...is a recording with multiple comped takes really an unrealistic representation of a singer's craft if it can't be duplicated live?

I think it's both a matter of purpose, and of degree.

First, purpose: if your purpose is mostly simply to make a good-sounding music production - i.e. a high-quality studio recording - then whether you can reproduce it live is mostly irrelevant. If you're looking, however, to make a demo recording to represent what you actually sound like to get live gigs, then obviously over-use of studio tricks to make you sound like something you're not is disingenuous and likely to bite you in the ass.

But even for the demo recording it's a matter of degree also. The human ear tends to be more forgiving to a live performance than to a recording; you can get away with stuff mostly unnoticed in a live performance that would - just like you say - stick out like a sore thumb on a recording. What sounds fine on stage may not sound as good on a recording, even if the reproduction is exactly the same. In that light, slightly manufacturing a studio performance to make up for that difference and let the studio recording give the impression of the same quality as a live performance is arguably perfectly acceptable. But taking it so far as making it sound like you can actually sing in tune when in reality you can't is probably pushing the demo recording too far .

G.

 

[bcfromfl]

Thanks, Glen. That's a great answer to my question! After thinking about it a bit more, it's not like I can't sing a vocal straight through "perfectly"...it's just not always probable with everything else I'm concentrating on when recording (or matching my timing to variable instrumental tracks). So, you've put my mind at ease a bit, that others do it, and it's considered acceptable when a polished result is the goal.

I think I'm averaging about 12-15 takes to get a result I like. Sometimes I'll be spot-on and get it on the first or second try. This is all pretty new to me, and I guess I wasn't prepared for the subtle, yet significant differences between singing live and preparing a good recording!

-Bruce

 

[miroslav]

^^^ Right ^^^^

I think some folks make too much of the "is it real or is it Memorex" thing.

Yes, there are those types of recordings that fall almost 100% in the "documentation" category rather than the "production" approach, so you don't ever want to touch them up in any way...but in most cases for Rock/Pop/Country/Rap/etc, the recording process IS a production that involves multiple steps with all kinds of tweaks/adjustments at each step...
...so comping from several takes is not really a misrepresentation of your skill set because they are still your real takes...there's nothing fake about them.

 

[bcfromfl]

ahhhh...."documentation" vs. "production"...that adds a bit of depth to my understanding of all this! Thanks, miroslav -- I'm definitely getting more comfortable with this process...

-Bruce

 

[grimtraveller]

This is slightly off topic, and I don't know if this is still a regular practice, but certainly through the 70s, 80s & 90s, live albums were regularly touched up so you never really knew to what extent the 'live' recording really was live.
Since the onset of multitracking in the late 40s/early 50s, artifice has been as much a part of music production as electricity. Personally, I think at the end of the day what matters is the end result. And there are any number of ways to achieve that. Nonetheless, a performance is a performance and if you can do it in one pass, do so. Sometimes the impression is given that a one take recording is not possible, which is daft. While Glen is right in saying that people are more forgiving of live errors as opposed to recorded ones, performances that kick are more than possible. Once they were the norm. This here is a thread that kind of covers the topic raised by your question.

 

[bcfromfl]

Thanks, Grim, for that link to the other thread. I read it through, and now I'm feeling a bit "insecure" again...but perhaps I shouldn't compare what I'm trying to do against what I'm assuming is mostly rap and rock vocals being discussed in the other thread. If most folks who posted in that thread are satisfied with 3-5 takes, maybe the vocal quality they're shooting for isn't the type that will be examined under a microscope. Perhaps what they're doing is more about the lyrics, or rhyme, etc., and not in addition to precise vocal qualities and techniques. Like, the goal of the takes Ice-T would do is completely different than what Barbra Streisand would do, and the audience (or those who purchase recordings) evaluates the vocals differently because of additional (or different) standards of expectation.

Who's to say, I guess...

-Bruce

 

[frederic]

Bruce,

Remember that you are going to be your worst critic, and you need to keep that in mind while listening to your tracks. The little nuances that may irritate you greatly, may actually sound just fine to everyone else. I'm not suggesting you don't strive for the best of your ability, but be reasonable.

Only one singer I've worked with could nail a track on the first take very consistently. Everyone else, regardless of age, experience and training, needed to record over and over. That's okay, that's what cut and splice is all about whether it's done with a razor blade or a piece of software

Remember though, at some point you're going to exhaust your vocal capability for that moment in time, and you need to walk away and take a break. Forcing tracks when you're frustrated, tired, or just out of sync from doing it over and over, well, doesn't really help.

Go outside for a short walk, have a drink of water, read a short while, whatever it is that relaxes you. Then give it another shot when you're refreshed.

Years ago when I recorded lots of amatures, I'd force them out away from the mic on the 10th try, to take a break and rest. More often than not, those 10 tracks usually had enough material to slice and dice and make a complete one, as intended.

 

[bcfromfl]

Thanks for those thoughts, Frederic. I'm a professional singer with nearly 40 years of singing experience, and have various singing obligations during the week, whether it's my Sunday church gig, practices, lessons, etc. I have to balance carefully how much time I devote in the studio on a weekly basis, to make sure I'm not going to over-strain and prevent me from performing well when I need to. So frustrating when I have these recording projects calling to me! I want to get them done!

You're right...I'm definitely my worst critic -- but my voice coach comes in a close second! She's primarily the reason behind my being so meticulous with the recording I mentioned, and I think it's partially due to her having a different idea or expectation where the vocals need to go than I do. I definitely want it to be right, though, but am also frustrated because I can't seem to get a good take on the first or second time through.

I chose a difficult song to learn on with respect to recording audio. Perhaps I need to temporarily set it aside and move to one of my other projects that might not be quite as demanding -- they also have more instrumental tracks which will tend to cover up small vocal flaws.

-Bruce

 

[grimtraveller]

Frederick's advice there, like Glen and Miroslav's is sound stuff. I didn't mean to get you feeling insecure and I feel kind of rough for doing so. What I was doing really was showing that there is no one way that is the perfect way, not even the 'one take'. And that there are a variety of thoughts on the matter so your approach was by no means unusual or wrong or somehow inferior.
If I was to think about all the vocals I've recorded or those of my friends over the years, out of the 100s of times, maybe a dozen, if that, were first time takes. I tend to record vocals in sections of the song anyway. Like I said earlier, it's the end result that matters. As enjoyable as recording and mixing is, it's a means to an end and the listener generally won't care what the process was. The fans want action, not waffle !!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Like grimmy said, there is no one way or one answer.

So much depends upon who's calling the shots also. Different artists, engineers or producers have different styles in the studio. It's like the difference between movie directors; whereas one will have the actors go through a scene thirty times getting every piece of dialog done precisely, others don't even give the actors a script and let them fly, getting everything in one take no matter what.

Neither one is a reflection on the actors themselves.

One of my partners at the studio is one of those thirty-take guys. He doesn't even give the singer a chance to get the whole song through in one take, even if they could. He'll start recording, and as soon as he hears a phrase that isn't precisely what he'd like to hear in his mind's eye he'll stop the recording and go back and punch in from there, recording until he hears the next little difference, re-punching from there, etc. He doesn't just do this with vocalists, but with instrument tracks as well.

But the interesting thing is he does this exact same thing with the best session cats we have come in as he does with the newbs who have never been in front of a mic before. It's not a reflection on the quality of the musician, but rather of the style and preferences of the producer.

I am rather more laid back in my approach than that and tend to let the vocalist/musician breathe and improv a bit more, so my timelines tend to not have quite as many punches and fly-ins and such as the other guy's, and the "feel" of the resulting production is a bit different, but in overall quality of recording and production we're both going to put out a fairly equally decent product.

But just because one does not need to get the whole thing down in one take doesn't mean they should remain forever satisfied with needing a million edits. It's wrong IMHO for you to get down on yourself for not making it through a recording in one or two takes; don't worry, that's OK. On the other side of that coin, though, I'd still effort to improve your skills so that as you do this more and more, you need less edits; it makes the session shorter, faster and more efficient (and more fun ).

But that doesn't mean that you should be disappointed because there are re-takes and punches required. It's not unusual, even for great singers.

G.

 

[bcfromfl]

Wow, I'm definitely saving this thread...maybe even printing it out! Thank you both, Glen and grim, for helping me wade through this somewhat murky issue. I'm enjoying the philosophical bent to this thread, because I think that's really where this question needs to go.

Recording is a new world for me, after all these years singing live...and since it's a special moment frozen in time, allowing for replay after replay...it requires a level of perfection that may not always be possible live. (Although, when I watch DVDs or videos of favorite singers in concert, I'm always impressed by those performances. Maybe in a concert, though, there's so much audio "sloppiness" going on that you don't hear the minor bobbles and glitches?) I guess I'd never thought about that too much, and was surprised a bit when I discovered how much attention was necessary to "get it right."

I'm envious of the talent you recording engineers have! I've always prided myself on having great ears, but you all take that one step higher, in how you hear what's being presented to you, and then, how best to emphasize or enhance those sounds. Not only that, but after working with Logic about a year, I definitely have a greater appreciation for the technical stuff too!

"The fans want action, not waffle!" Love that!!

 

[benherron.rrr]

what an intresting thread.

I am no where near being professional in either the the vocal field or the recording field. I know exactly what people mean when they say that you are your worst critic, music I write that I am imbarrassed by seems to spark the smiles on the few people who have listened to any of my work, I personally get really nervious of anyone hearing anything, mainly because I spend alot of time doing a song, and I constantly belive the world will hate it, I can only dream of proforming live, and while I take alot of pride in the fact that everything I know musically from my stylistic tastes to my instrumental and recording skills. I use recording as a way of training, I always try to get the perfect take no matter what, as it helps me firstly as a musician to better myself, and in a sence I feel like the end result is real. much like I will never use autotune I seem to belive comping is a form of lying to myself and my ability.
However after reading this I am starting to ask myself if comping may be a helpful thing, If I am forever nit picking, getting myself worn out and depressed thinking I am a rubish vocalist. If I tell yself the truth I will delete a take even if 99% of it is perfect as I am so hung up on "the perfect take".
After mentaly thinking this way for so long I feel like all expression and love for singing has worn away and Im so adiment on the perfect proformance so I can impress my friends and tutors. thus radically degrading my voice's quality, as strange as it sounds I feel that I am budding each day becoming a better vocalist likeing my voice more but at the same time I get depressed by it more because Im not achiving the result in the mic as I get when Im walking round the house. Now to learn how to comp. . .

sorry for my tangent

 

[mcmetal]

I like to think of recording as a valuable tool for improvement.For one thing it doesn't lie because it's not a friend or a relative who's scared of hurting your feelings.

If it takes you several takes to get your desirable end result it doesn't mean your no good.No one's perfect and a recording will point out every flaw that's there.The good thing is it provides you with the opportunity to focus on those flaws and become a better performer.

Do as many takes as needed and then strive to accomplish that when performing.I compare this to a cover band who does a song well.It's funny cause folks will say the cover band sounds just the real thing.Only the "real thing" is usually a produced recording that was comped by multiple takes.