I find that often the unuseable parts of each take tend to occur in the same places. The "not tight" parts of a song show up real quick when comparing several takes and you find the rough spot is always in the same place.
Is one take a thing of the past?
- Thread starter 5stringer
- Start date
I find that often the unuseable parts of each take tend to occur in the same places. The "not tight" parts of a song show up real quick when comparing several takes and you find the rough spot is always in the same place.
So then really....what approach is the bigger waste of time?
There might be another question here - "a waste of time for whom?"
I find if I record 4 or 5 parts I spend a ton of time listening to each one and deciding which to use. If I would've just got it right once and moved on I wouldn't even worry about it. One takes more time for the person comping/mixing - the other takes more time for the person playing to get it right.
I think I often record multiple takes because I'm often creating as I go (songwriting) - so it's not nailed down before I start - but if the song was complete in my head I think I'd try more for the one good take approach because there's a fixed idea I'm shooting for. That means I do have to lock the song down and practice it that way though.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
ShofB
Sometimes here...
One from the past
At a studio I used to work in as an engineer we had a band that used to record there a lot. One of the guitarist was really good and most times his first take was really good and a keeper. He would always find one little spot that was a little off (to his ears ) he would always moan about how he could "do it again" and it would be better and blah blah blah. This was on tape so there was no keeping of multiple takes for the most part. Since there was no real producer (except for the band, you know how that is) we would start the endless overdub process. Of course while he could play another solo he could never duplicate what he had done and after an hour or so or trying we would have something usable (to his ears) which was never as good as the original.
Finally on one session he got into a shouting match with the rest of the band and it came out that he was upset that he didn't get as much recording time as some of the other. He totally missed the concept of getting it right the first time. If they had everybody pay for the time they used it would have solved that but...
At a studio I used to work in as an engineer we had a band that used to record there a lot. One of the guitarist was really good and most times his first take was really good and a keeper. He would always find one little spot that was a little off (to his ears ) he would always moan about how he could "do it again" and it would be better and blah blah blah. This was on tape so there was no keeping of multiple takes for the most part. Since there was no real producer (except for the band, you know how that is) we would start the endless overdub process. Of course while he could play another solo he could never duplicate what he had done and after an hour or so or trying we would have something usable (to his ears) which was never as good as the original.
Finally on one session he got into a shouting match with the rest of the band and it came out that he was upset that he didn't get as much recording time as some of the other. He totally missed the concept of getting it right the first time. If they had everybody pay for the time they used it would have solved that but...
BroKen_H
Re-member
^^^ This ^^^
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
I'm currently reading an excellent biography of the drummer Jon Hiseman and referring to a March 1965 recording session, I found this, which I found really interesting;
DM60
Well-known member
It seems like there are many "buggy whip" makers on this board.
Because of the new technology and a different way to look at music, I don't even think linear until my song is near finished. There is no one take as there is no song until I decide to create a linear version of it. It's a sketch, just notes and chords and sounds. No form, no shape, just a spirit of a song trying to be birthed. To live, to take on a life. Create something that wasn't there before.
Being able to play something for 3 minutes, and 90% is repetitive, doesn't make you a better or worse artist. Just means you are trained enough to repeat. This talent means a lot in a live setting, but I think it means nothing when creating/recording. A person can make a mistake on stage and it doesn't kill the whole night or even the song. But on a recording, if it is wrong, eventually it will get noticed, forever. Therefore, imperfection is not an option.
I'm not making buggy whips, technology is moving me forward and I either change with it or become a relic. I accept the change and the opportunity to make something different in my little hole where I record. Try to bring life to something that was just there in my head. Random notes and thoughts until it isn't.
Because of the new technology and a different way to look at music, I don't even think linear until my song is near finished. There is no one take as there is no song until I decide to create a linear version of it. It's a sketch, just notes and chords and sounds. No form, no shape, just a spirit of a song trying to be birthed. To live, to take on a life. Create something that wasn't there before.
Being able to play something for 3 minutes, and 90% is repetitive, doesn't make you a better or worse artist. Just means you are trained enough to repeat. This talent means a lot in a live setting, but I think it means nothing when creating/recording. A person can make a mistake on stage and it doesn't kill the whole night or even the song. But on a recording, if it is wrong, eventually it will get noticed, forever. Therefore, imperfection is not an option.
I'm not making buggy whips, technology is moving me forward and I either change with it or become a relic. I accept the change and the opportunity to make something different in my little hole where I record. Try to bring life to something that was just there in my head. Random notes and thoughts until it isn't.
JG96
Active member
I feel like one take is a thing of the past for the most part. Time is money. Often its faster to punch than get a perfect take. There are also those who get a perfect track just for bragging rights.
Personally I think the one take mentality yields more lively and energetic sounding tracks. That being said doing a million takes just to get one perfect take can be counter intuitive. The best performance is not always the most perfect one but with technology it can be!
On my bands last album we tracked the instrumentals live. I know I re did my bass part completely on one track and did a punch in on two other tracks. 2 tracks were (semi) perfect takes
. Lead guitar licks got punched on 2 tracks and rhythm on one.
Technology can be cool if used in moderation. Cheating (piecing together a million takes) is definately whack.
Personally I think the one take mentality yields more lively and energetic sounding tracks. That being said doing a million takes just to get one perfect take can be counter intuitive. The best performance is not always the most perfect one but with technology it can be!
On my bands last album we tracked the instrumentals live. I know I re did my bass part completely on one track and did a punch in on two other tracks. 2 tracks were (semi) perfect takes
. Lead guitar licks got punched on 2 tracks and rhythm on one.Technology can be cool if used in moderation. Cheating (piecing together a million takes) is definately whack.
foxje79
New member
Nope
I always go for the whole song. Of course, I am not disciplined enough to nail it in its entirety, and I am meticulous about meter, so I use punch in/out for correcting mistakes. The only exception, I feel, to this is recording vocals. My vocals range from singing softly to screaming my head off, so I must do multiple passes of vocals in order to reset gain levels on the mic.
I always go for the whole song. Of course, I am not disciplined enough to nail it in its entirety, and I am meticulous about meter, so I use punch in/out for correcting mistakes. The only exception, I feel, to this is recording vocals. My vocals range from singing softly to screaming my head off, so I must do multiple passes of vocals in order to reset gain levels on the mic.
Armistice
Son of Yoda
Well I'm setting up the mics tonight to record something that needs two run throughs on acoustic guitar, and it's 3.5 minutes long, so I'll see how I go with the one take thing...
With some of my stuff, I know it well enough that time is better spend attempting single takes than dealing with comping later, but it depends upon exactly where the instrument fits into the mix. Dual L / R tracking acoustics can be relatively forgiving of minor "not quite right" notes...
With some of my stuff, I know it well enough that time is better spend attempting single takes than dealing with comping later, but it depends upon exactly where the instrument fits into the mix. Dual L / R tracking acoustics can be relatively forgiving of minor "not quite right" notes...
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
And why not ? That's like criticizing someone for cooking a meal rather than warming up leftovers in a microwave and letting everyone know !
history of the mixdown
you're right, there was a time when one pass per track was all you had - today, with 24 or 32 channels each going to a seperate track that is not the case. Today I suspect most recordings are "pieced together" by stitching in overdubs, etc. I have been fortunate enough to work with real "pros" who could get it right in one take even when working with others. That's a lot harder than it sounds.
There is an urban legend, which I cannot say for sure is true or not, which goes that in the "old days" Sir George Martin, when recording the Beatles had a golden rule - all vocals had to be done in one take - According to the legend, his thinking was even if there were mistakes, the first take would always have the most energy and sound the most "live" Don't know if its true or not, but it makes sense to me.
Have a good day.
Gary Ferguson
you're right, there was a time when one pass per track was all you had - today, with 24 or 32 channels each going to a seperate track that is not the case. Today I suspect most recordings are "pieced together" by stitching in overdubs, etc. I have been fortunate enough to work with real "pros" who could get it right in one take even when working with others. That's a lot harder than it sounds.
There is an urban legend, which I cannot say for sure is true or not, which goes that in the "old days" Sir George Martin, when recording the Beatles had a golden rule - all vocals had to be done in one take - According to the legend, his thinking was even if there were mistakes, the first take would always have the most energy and sound the most "live" Don't know if its true or not, but it makes sense to me.
Have a good day.
Gary Ferguson