Guitar, Bass, Drum and Vocal Pop-punk band - Boring recordings...

  • Thread starter Thread starter get2sammyb
  • Start date Start date
G

get2sammyb

New member
Like I mentioned in the title of this post, we are a pretty simple laid out pop-punk band. As we only have one guitarist our recordings can sound a little boring. Are their any tips and tricks to make them more exciting?
 
OKAY here's a few ideas....

You could....

1. Start out the song with just guitar and high hat, and on the second line slam the meters with Full Bass and drum groove.

2. Use an accoustic guitar and muffled drums or Djiembe for a different sound.

3. Add a cheezy casio keyboard track (Strings or organ through a guitar amp all distorted)

4. Buy a cheap mandolin and add a few licks (They are very easy to play most guitarists pick it up quickly) Under $100.00 at Musicians Friend.


:D There are tons of more ideas to spice up the basic guitar band, Harmonica, Accordian, Slide guitar, keyboard all in moderation can offer flexibillity and a nice chane in sound.


Dom:p
 
I will have a look into some of those things... thanks.
 
Write better songs. If your songs bore you, imagine how your audience will react.
 
COWBELL and TAMBOURINE.

Mixed way in the back - Almost inaudible. You shouldn't even notice it unless you mute them. Oldest trick in the book.

John Scrip - www.massivemastering.com
 
Yo Sammy+:}

Get a good drum machine -- play through some of the Latin rhythms and, suddenly, one will get your groving -- have your hands on your Ax as you listen and start doing a riff, a progression, anything that strikes your head at that moment.

I do this all the time and get some interesting results, at least to me. {Ahh, Bear of Blue, "The River Turned Muddy When You Turned Me Down," a classic that you refuse to acknowledge}

When you do some tracks, start messing with the reverb; try anything you have never tired before; do delays, do rooms, do stage reverb and do them on each instrument until you find something that makes you say, "Hot Damn."

That's my suggestion or suggestions -- One other thing, find an old song that you consider a standard -- REWRITE THE WORDS AND MAKE THEM FUNNY, THEN, do the music and vocals.

Have some fun. Happy St. Patrick's Day and cheers to the "little people."

Green Hornet:D :p :D :cool:
 
you could always add more guitar tracks.... harmonizing parts, octaves, finger picking, solos, etc... just won't be able to do it live. :)
 
There is only so much you can do at the mixing and mastering stages to juice up recordings that were boring when tracked.
A boring guitar track with reverb added when mixing will come across as a boring guitar with reverb.

However, at the tracking stage, nothing works better than recording as many live, off the cuff tracks as possible. After jamming to some intense material, record the entire band but only set out to keep the drum tracks. Afterwards, re-record any parts that need to be redone against the drum tracks. The excitement from any live sessions that are kept in the recording will permeate through the rest of the project.

Cy
 
I agree with the tambourine statement. Often, I'll try and figure out why a recording I'm listening to is so exciting, and it's tambourine.
 
I've heard many bands in my time that had some serious potential, but they didn't know how to break their songs up so it didn't sound like that same droning thing through the entire song(s). Here are some things to try...

1. Build up instruments...start with just drums...or guitar...whatever, then after each measure introduce another instrument. This helps coast you through some otherwise stale parts. Likewise, remove some instruments at parts, so maybe just the bass and drums are jamming sans guitar...that sort of shit.

2. Change shit up. Take a nice pause in you song somewhere and kick back in...don't just play the same rhythm through the whole damn thing. Some parts might call for hitting the guitar chord and just letting it ring through the measure as opposed to playing frantic strumming. Songs are all about contrast, and if you've got none of that, your screwed and the song will most likely be unmemorable.

3. Each song should have it's own life or space. Play it that way. Don't have 20 songs that all sound the same very few bands can get away with this...with the exception of the Ramones.

Some of these other ideas are good to help mix if you've already recorded. Also, if you're still mixing, and you've miced all the instruments separately, then you should be able to experiment with just turning the volume down on certain instruments at different times to see how that sounds...

Good luck young man!
 
The tips before were quite nice... But I have some to add:

Use SHORT songs... Most 'classic' punk songs are short - and there IS a reason for that.

Listen to blink182... They have arrangements that seem to cure your problem....

Double up your rhythm guitar. (Yes I mean two SEPARATELY recorded tracks that play the same and panned left and right).

Double the vox (at parts) to get a stronger push. (You may even add a higher octave or so)

Add background vocals (-> Bad Religion)

Add a lead guitar

Add synth pads
Don't give the shit about being able to play it that way live.

aXel
 
This is the situation of the band I'm recording right now. The songs are all in Dminor and they all go verse-chorus-verse-chorus-verse. I've seen these guys play live and the whole set sounds like one long boring song (what did I get myself into?).

So we have tracked all the instruments and are working on vocals right now. They are wanting me to "spice up" the songs-- as if it's my fault the songs are boring. It puts a lot of pressure on me and I'm beginning to resent it. I'm afraid I'm going to blow-up during a mixing session and berate these guys for their lame songwriting... :D

Anyway, backing vocals and weird background vocal parts are really helping us. For instance, during a small instrumental break between verse/chorus I had the singer lay down three tracks of some evil sounding whispers. I added a little delay and panned two of the tracks and kept one in the center. Wow! It really sounded cool and added some interest to an otherwise boring song.

Try filling in the gaps between vocal parts with whispering, yelling, guitar feedback, a quick bass lick or something. A little bit can go a long ways. Hope this helps (God knows I need some)!
 
I added some falsetto background in beach boys style to a punk rock song and it REALLY spiced it up (don't wanna say that it was lame before - hey it was MY song :D :D)



aXel
 
The obvious is try to change the guitar part itself.

Don't just use power chords and octaves. Even folks who don't know how to play guitar think that sounds boring. Every single pop punk band is doing that, what makes you think you're so special you can get away with it? :) Instant blink 182.

Throw in some single note riffs and get a violent, visceral take (not just a sloppy one, it has to be just right). You don't have to double track for it to sound good (see Queens of the Stone Age's first record, Van Halen I, and Led Zeppelin II). As a matter of fact, double tracking guitars is the quickest road to BORING-ville.

I'm pretty sure the best selling pop punk album of all time (Green Day's Dookie) was just one guitar

Unless you've got a real 1958 or 59 remember:

Les Pauls + modern high gain amps + 4x12 cab = generic sound, with no character whatsoever. Oh, and don't forget to stick a 57 on it. It must be fun to not have to *think*.

I am amazed at the amount of folks who still use this combo and expect their records to sound different. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Try a hollow body guitar, some single coils or p-90s, and a small amp set to explode (the mic doesn't know you're not using a half stack) for some more character.

Of course, I say all this, but if your guitar player is playing boring parts with a business-as-usual attitude, it doesn't matter what you use, it's going to sound boring. Listen to the refused, does it matter what amps they're playing? nope the parts themselves are exciting.
 
"Dont try to change me, baby."

Wow, so very very general dgrady, and I disagree with almost all of it. . .

Let's see, you just totally changed the band's sound/arrangements, told 'em to stop double tracking (one guitar on Dookie, what?!?), and insulted the gear they wished they had (because more often than not, the problem is that they ARE using the tiny, busted amp that came with the Harmony starter kit instead of a Mesa).

Stylistic conventions aside, of course it matters what amps the Refused is using. Everything matters!

Of course, if you're being facetious, I completely agree with everything you said. :)
 
"Wow, so very very general dgrady"

Uh, actually I was being pretty specific. Don't play generic guitar lines, get an exciting and visceral take, don't double track, use different guitars and amps (I even specified pickups!). I even had examples, too.

"Don't try to change me, baby."

Pop punk, I hate to admit, is rock n roll too. If you've found a way to make rock n roll *boring* you're doing something fundamentally wrong and probably need some cold advice. Some people are content with their hack tricks that enable them to not have to think (i.e. 57s on a 4x12, I came up with that myself, honest!) The original poster IS trying to come up with something different, that's why he posted, same with me. I'm sorry if I jarred some preconceived notions. Just don't complain when styles change and you're left as an imitator of a sound and style that's no longer in fashion, which is about the worst place an artist can be.

Double tracked guitars in the right hands (Jimmy Hetfield, Al Jourgensen) can sound cool. My gripe is that most folks use it as a 'hack' production technique (which it is), that ends up taking all the attack, pick scratches, and vibe out of a take. It smooths everything out to the point that it sounds like melted cheese

Oh, and Mesas, besides my personal gripes against them, are the most generic sounding amps available. EVERYONE is using them, so don't expect your records to sound exciting and unique if you use them as well. Expect to get compared to everyone else. Just another way that folks don't have to think about what they're doing.

Actually I saw the Refused at MJQ here in Atlanta, one of their last shows. (We are the mythical Coca Cola City that they sing about.) Those guys' right wrists were so freaking accurate that, no, they could've tracked that record with Pro Juniors and still it would've sounded ballsier than every single band that's tried to rip them off since.

No, I'm not being facetious :).
 
I've analyzed Dookie for ten thousand hours since I became interested in music production and I can tell you that the guitar is double tracked. Seperate takes, too. The rest of the production is incredibly straight forward; it sounds like it could have been recorded in any one of our home studios. It sold ten million copies because it had good songs.

Oh yeah, there is the answer:

Write good music.
 
High...

Already wanted to post some days ago, but then everything was gone as I hit the 'back' button on my damn 'Internet keyboard'... So this time in notepad...

dgrady76, I, too have to disagree with a lot of the stuff you say. Most pop punk records use double tracked guitars, and (though I haven't yet checked) I am pretty sure too, that green day uses them in the dookie or nimrod albums...

So you state that the 'standard' setup les paul + 4x12 and modern amp will cause the sound to be boring unless you use a 'real' 58... Do you own one?? Yes? Lucky one... No?? Why do you cite the stuff being heard everywhere else around?? I have to admit that I like the sound of other guitars than the trusted paula better, but that is just my taste. I play hamer (with humbuckers and P90), parker (fly deluxe) fender (strat ultra rw and US statndard tele mn) and squier (a lot of modifications but that baby's got good wood and that makes it sound!) and a '68 Gretsch. I haven't yet found the paula I would have liked, tested about 50 new 'identical' teles to find the one I bought, so I am kinda anal with guitar sounds. Nevertheles I've heard VERY nice paula/mesa or paula marshall or paula hughes/kettner sounds.

Power chords/octaves simply are the way to get the sound less fat, so I think they are inevitable in the pop punk domain...

One of the more important things is the 'how' of your double tracking... Do you use two different guitar sounds (or even different guitars)? May help a lot... Are the tracks being played well enough as to be REALLY together most of the time? Do you have rhythmic variations on one track to announce a break, bridge or so (may be really cool)... I find that I am not a good enough instrumentalist to do heavier double tracking, but my band's guitarist is... I'm dying for that sound. If the tracks are not exact enough, you' surely get that 'marshmallow sound' that I hate, too...

Then again, I think you ARE kinda right with your 'new approach' stuff - completely different approaches in guitar sounds may help a lot in getting a new 'fresh' sound. Nevertheless, I think it is more in the song, in the arrangement and even in the mix (all mixes done the same way; You may e.g. use a sidechained gate on guitar with sidechain on bass to get the double tracked parts more interesting) than in the double tracked guitar itself. And then you get to the point that it does not matter which amp is used... So we might be thinking of the identical stuff, but somehow I misunderstood you :D ...


aXel
 
Seifer - You analyzed Green Day's "Dookie" for ten thousand hours? What new information were you getting at hour 3,434? Hell, what new information were you getting at hour 30? You still came up with the bottom line, though- the songs were great.

What if dookie came out today, though? In this world of Blink 182, Sum 41, would green day's sound stand out? You can't seperate a record from it's context, though, and in 1994 Dookie was a refreshing change in terms of its sound and style from Seattle's dirge rock (and that includes the way Billie Joe approached the guitar) without that difference it would have sold half of what it did.

All I'm saying is, you want to be exciting? You want to stand out? Play your friggin guitar a little differently- if you can't figure out a way to do that and still make it kick ass, then I guess you aren't really gonna be the rock legend you already are in your mind.

volltreffer, you said "dgrady76, I, too have to disagree with a lot of the stuff you say. Most pop punk records use double tracked guitars, and (though I haven't yet checked) I am pretty sure too, that green day uses them in the dookie or nimrod albums..."

that's my point exactly. every pop punk record uses that device, so why continue the trend of being mediocre and derivative? I wasn't arguing that double tracking wasn't used, I was arguing that it is so overused that its just plain boring sounding.

My point with the '57 or 58 is that it is a guitar with character- most modern pauls have no character, they're heavy metal guitars- it was an extreme example not meant to be taken literally. The bottom line is that most les pauls that have been on the racks in the past years (pre-burst bucker) have sounded like soulless smudge sticks. People like em cause they have a consistent sound. Sure, they're consistent, consistently *boring*.

I was just offering an opinion on how to approach things. When I track a mediorcre guitarist, sure, I'll double track him, same with a mediocre vocalist. But if I have someone with strong hands and a good sense of rhythym- we'll do one take, sometimes (rarely) two amps at once. It sounds way more real, way more violent, and way more rock n roll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top