Question about recording acoustic guitar.

  • Thread starter Thread starter madison_sh
  • Start date Start date
M

madison_sh

New member
Hello, I'm wondering what techniques are used when the pros record an acoustic guitar in the studio. For example, when I listen to a professional recording, and there are absolutely no flaws, i wonder how they do it. Is it heavily chopped up and edited? Or do most record take after take until it's perfect? I ask because I'm recording a cover of Fast Car by Tracy Chapman, and we're doing tons of takes, but it seems like there's always a flaw; a note thats picked a little too light, a buzz, finger noise, a couple notes here and there that are a bit off tempo, etc. Why do professional recordings have none of this and sound almost TOO perfect?
 
Perhaps because the professional guitarist being recorded can do it that way?

Seriously, when recording a really good guitarist it doesn't take many takes or much editing.
 
Perhaps.. but when I hear those same people playing live they don't play nearly as well as on the album. There's a rawness or a bit of sloppiness that they have live that i get in my recordings and I can't seem to get it out.
 
madison_sh said:
Perhaps.. but when I hear those same people playing live they don't play nearly as well as on the album. There's a rawness or a bit of sloppiness that they have live that i get in my recordings and I can't seem to get it out.
Click to expand...

Proof of sloppy performance, or it didn't happen...

Even Al Di Meola has bad days live, but be damned sure, they are few and far between. Even in studio, he will take the best performance, and use it.

It is not about editing the hell out of a performance. It is about capturing a great one.
 
The skills for playing live and playing in the studio are different. And don't forget that you're hearing once, in real time, live, but there might have been 50 takes in the studio and you got to hear only the best.

When I was doing more complex acoustic stuff I could spend hours and hours trying to get a really good clean, in time, no buzzing etc. take. And it took me a long time to get good enough to do it at all - and I had to get in the perfect position with the guitar wedged in a way that it could move and I had to learn to breath quietly and not tap feet and learn how not to make squeaks on the strings etc. etc. Technique.

Editing is also not always possible, depending upon the piece... a reason I'm always putting stops and starts in my work.... nice edit points... :)

Live is different - there are different parameters to manage...
 
Agreed, good technique is key to making a great acoustic guitar recording. I have recorded ac guitar for some time now and I'm never completely happy with my performances, it's hard. Tommy Emmanuel said when asked if a certain technique is hard and he said "yes, It's like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube". One thing I like about recording is it forces me to examine my performances and I think it has made me a better player on the band stand too.
 
We're also never totally satisfied with a guitar track, even though someone from outside of the studio will listen to it and not hear anything wrong with it. It just seems like there's always something we could have fixed or done better but i guess that's just the way it is. People always tell me that the artist is never totally satisfied with his work.
 
madison_sh said:
We're also never totally satisfied with a guitar track, even though someone from outside of the studio will listen to it and not hear anything wrong with it. It just seems like there's always something we could have fixed or done better but i guess that's just the way it is. People always tell me that the artist is never totally satisfied with his work.
Click to expand...

Performance is the key - There's no denying that.
I'd say the greater majority of people still comp takes though.

Record a good take that you're 90%< happy with then record a few more donor takes.
Anything you don't like in the main takes gets replaced by a snippet from the others.

Armistice is right; There's not always a nice clean edit point, but if you have a full donor take you can find a nice edit point and just replace a little more than you needed to.
This is why I don't like 'dropping in' a section after the main take.
It's harder than it seems to over dub a few bars and have it sound like part of the performance. People often sing/play at a different volume when you drop them in.

Just don't get complacent. Still aim for that golden take.
 
" Nashville cats.."
"... And anyone who unpacks his guitar can play twice as better than I will.. "
 
Steenamaroo said:
Performance is the key - There's no denying that.
I'd say the greater majority of people still comp takes though.

Record a good take that you're 90%< happy with then record a few more donor takes.
Anything you don't like in the main takes gets replaced by a snippet from the others.

Armistice is right; There's not always a nice clean edit point, but if you have a full donor take you can find a nice edit point and just replace a little more than you needed to.
This is why I don't like 'dropping in' a section after the main take.
It's harder than it seems to over dub a few bars and have it sound like part of the performance. People often sing/play at a different volume when you drop them in.

Just don't get complacent. Still aim for that golden take.
Click to expand...

Agreed - often the 'second' take may be slightly different overall in tone/sound/how its played, so dropping in a full 8 bars., etc may not sound good, but if I have a bad 'section' of a good take, I will automate the volumes on the good take and on the substitute phrase to blend them together. By keeping them on separate tracks, I find it easier to adjust volume/eq as needed to make it sound seemless.
 
mjbphotos said:
Agreed - often the 'second' take may be slightly different overall in tone/sound/how its played, so dropping in a full 8 bars., etc may not sound good, but if I have a bad 'section' of a good take, I will automate the volumes on the good take and on the substitute phrase to blend them together. By keeping them on separate tracks, I find it easier to adjust volume/eq as needed to make it sound seemless.
Click to expand...

True enough. Sometimes it's flawless, but the slightest movement in player position can mean a little tweaking.
I was talking to someone about that recently - I played them 'Working Class Hero' to put things in perspective...
 
I did 5 lead guitar takes on a new song Saturday. When I went back and listened carefully to each one with reference to the rest of the mix, I used 90% Take 1 and a small piece of Take 3. :rolleyes:
 
Well, whoopdy do! You are better than all of us then! :)

LOL! I am just being silly. That is actually quite impressive. I can count on five of my friends hands, the amount of punches on my latest bass track. Do the math. I was sucking hard...

:o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top