how long does it take for you to record a perfect take?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bball_1523
  • Start date Start date
bball_1523 said:
dang how do you double/triple them without screwing up? haha especially 220 bpm shredfests?!?!

as for two mic'd stereo, how do you effectively do that? I have one behringer keyboard amp that I play my boss gt-8 with and I am wondering if I had two SM57's mic'ing the amp, if it would work out well for stereo recording? any interesting techniques with mic'ing?
Click to expand...

Sorry, no real shredding in my repetoire! LOL The only stereo guitar recording I do is with one of my modelers. I've usually got a '57 close mic'd on one of the Jensens in my Fender Blues Deville. I'm talking about doubling tracks by recording them that way, and then just using two alike passages. Of course they're never identical, but panned out a little and EQ'd differently, it works. Drop 10ms of delay left and 17ms right, and you've got the biggest Fender Twin on the planet.
 
I've learned that unless you're recording the centerpiece of a song (guitar-wise) it's always best to track the whole song in one take, then do it four more times, and then to immediately go back and then take the best take from each section and just glue it all together. It sounds less sterile that way and there's no "it sounds like they punched in" going on.

Unless of course you're using your guitar like Brian May or Omar Rodriguez, or various other guitarists who orchestrate complex parts that accent and change in timbre every few seconds.

As for really fast solos, when you can play that well, you can play that well twice. But a solo is sometimes an expression that cannot be duplicated, so it isn't!
 
mrhotapples said:
I've learned that unless you're recording the centerpiece of a song (guitar-wise) it's always best to track the whole song in one take, then do it four more times, and then to immediately go back and then take the best take from each section and just glue it all together. It sounds less sterile that way and there's no "it sounds like they punched in" going on.

Unless of course you're using your guitar like Brian May or Omar Rodriguez, or various other guitarists who orchestrate complex parts that accent and change in timbre every few seconds.
Click to expand...

hmm, that sounds more complicated than punching in.
 
The editing can be slightly more complicated, but the end result is a less strained, more relaxed guitarist. Believe me, I've sat there with guys for six hours on one part (Maybe 5 seconds?) just because they couldn't get a take that was as good as their first, so I always keep the best takes around and mix and match.

If you can't get a perfect take, it's always better to just go with a good one and not waste the time it takes to realize that.
 
mrhotapples said:
The editing can be slightly more complicated, but the end result is a less strained, more relaxed guitarist. Believe me, I've sat there with guys for six hours on one part (Maybe 5 seconds?) just because they couldn't get a take that was as good as their first, so I always keep the best takes around and mix and match.

If you can't get a perfect take, it's always better to just go with a good one and not waste the time it takes to realize that.
Click to expand...

that's odd, never heard of it that way, but if it works then it works.

How do you manage the change in dynamics?
 
Consistent players, otherwise it's compression. Not a lot, just to even the general levels out. With distorted guitar, it's not usually a problem.
 
mrhotapples said:
Consistent players, otherwise it's compression. Not a lot, just to even the general levels out. With distorted guitar, it's not usually a problem.
Click to expand...

so you are a recording engineer? Have you recorded a band that plays complex music?
 
Complex how? Technically or arrangement-wise?

My own band had some pretty tough parts; no real solos, but a lot of unison breakdowns where everyone was pushed to their limits and it worked out fine.

The idea is always the same though. If you record a take and the beginning is off, but you nail other parts, it's best not to lose momentum and to keep going and not miss out on some really good takes in some sections.

This way, say a four minute song, you only spend 16 minutes to a half hour recording one guitar and edit it all together, and if there are any parts that are shit or not satisfactory, you go back and fix it.
 
mrhotapples said:
Complex how? Technically or arrangement-wise?

My own band had some pretty tough parts; no real solos, but a lot of unison breakdowns where everyone was pushed to their limits and it worked out fine.

The idea is always the same though. If you record a take and the beginning is off, but you nail other parts, it's best not to lose momentum and to keep going and not miss out on some really good takes in some sections.

This way, say a four minute song, you only spend 16 minutes to a half hour recording one guitar and edit it all together, and if there are any parts that are shit or not satisfactory, you go back and fix it.
Click to expand...

interesting method. I'll have to think about it that way someday. I've always been re-recording until I get both tracks (stereo L/R) sounding good.
 
It doesn't work for everybody, but I've found that some people love doing it because there is less start and stop. I've gotten two rhythm guitars, solos and some accents done, for an 8 minute song, in about two hours this way.
 
I always record from start to end with one take. I like the practice.. :cool:

But usually if the song is mine, I've allready spent a day or two playing it over and over again while composing, and when recording it takes from 1 to 10 takes, depending from the difficulty of it.

I use very simplistic chords.. I once noticed that a whole song of mine was played with only two fingers on the fretboard simultaniously. LOL
The rhythms are a tad harder if you're ghugging and ripping and doing arpeggios at 180-210bpm.... :(

That's guitars..

Basses I usually throw in by inventing as I go along, usually some 2-5 takes.

If the song isn't mine and needs learning, the number of takes get multiplied.

But songs of the bands I play in..well they've been rehearsed to death, so usually one take will do. If I don't drop a pick or get an itch...
 
It will vary on how many takes I will go through to get the keeper. But I find it funny that once the red light comes on how many little itches you will get.

Sometimes if I have been recording many takes, I seem to get worse and I don't seem to get through the track as much as the previous take. That's when it is time to move on to something else or call it a day/night!
 
I always do each song with one whole take. If I mess up I start over from the beginning.

This makes it real hard, and takes awhile to nail it. Especially if I'm consciously thinking about messing up, or hitting a wrong note, then I usually do and have to start over. It also takes away from the performance because I'm worried about messing up.

I think I might start using punch-ins. But doing everything over & over again has helped quite a bit with my playing.
 
I usually have to get good and pissed off at myself to get a good lead guitar track. When I start talking to myself and saying;
"That ride fuckin sucks! I ain't living with it....Hell know!....god damn pussy sounding bullshit...I will nail this ride this time damnit...OR i WILL STAY THE FUCK HERE ALL GOD DAMN NIGHT UNTIL I DO GET IT RIGHT!!!!!"

At that point I'm getting pretty close to a keeper. :)

I very rarely get a lead right in the first take....but...I don't punch in and "repair" a flawed one..so mine are all done in one take (it just might be the two hundreth take that's all)
 
I've been recently doing the same thing as Mr. Hot Apples. Well, sort of. I might only do a verse, not the whole song, but I'll do 4 or 5 decent takes of the verse - hopefully one of the takes is a keeper in it's entirety, but if there's a flubbed note, or something, I'll just replace it from one of the other takes.

So often I'll have 5 or more tracks, then I'll listen and start deleting the worst ones. The trick is to not spend too much time making the decision to keep or delete. Then from the best 2 or 3, I'll piece together the final track. On a simple song, I may be able to go front to back in one pass, but on something with fingerpicking or a lead, I'll do it in chunks.

I never claimed to be much of a guitarist, so I just do what I have to to get a good sound. No shot to my ego by not doing it perfect in one take.

So I can be anywhere from 3 to 30 or 40 takes.
 
IronFlippy said:
A metronome is essential for PRACTICE, not performance. You wouldn't put a metronome on during a show, would you?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I happen to know a professional drummer who works with the likes of 38 special and skynard and he uses a click track with in ear monitors live. My guess is it's more common than you think.
 
On the general subject of doubling a track. If you can't play the same thing twice almost identically, then either A you don't really know the part and should practice it or B you suck and should practice.
 
We'll go at it a couple of nights before regrouping and trying something different.
 
HangDawg said:
On the general subject of doubling a track. If you can't play the same thing twice almost identically, then either A you don't really know the part and should practice it or B you suck and should practice.
Click to expand...
:D this is the first thing that crossed MY mind, but i didn't want to have to say it. :p have some chicklets. ;)

the old saw holds true here: amateurs practice until they can play it right.....the pro practices until they can't play it wrong.

i practice the part until i can lay it down without thinking about it, b/c when recording myself i've found that i'm much more focused on hitting record, not clipping anything, making sure it sounds good, making sure the part's got feel and that sort of thing. i don't have the mental bandwidth to worry about playing the right chords at the right time.

so i typically practice it until i can play it all the way through, correct, without thinking about it. come time to lay down the track, it's almost always the case that the first take is a keeper.

doubling is a little trickier, but if you've practiced it enough, you shouldn't have any problems. usually where my problem lies is in making the double sound different enough, so i spend a lot more time in working on the guitar and amp settings than i do on actually playing the double.

the answer, unless you're Allen Iverson, is "practice". yeah, i'm talkin bout practice. :D


cheers,
wade
 
Shit, I totally forgot about leads...

I don't plan them ahead. I always try to do them right on track..
And because I'm no good, if flawless they usually sound too much alike.
I'm actually pretty sure I'm soon hearing someone say I always play the same solo.. :(

So, unless, I've got a melody or something rehearsed and planned ready, the leads take usually some 20-1000 takes for me... :o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top