Artkoudos said:
Hello everybody I am new in this forum but i've used it a lot of times in the past to get some tips for recordings... And now i decided to be an active member ! !
I have a project coming up on Tuesday. it's a Blues band. Normal stuff Vocals, Guitar, Bass, Drums and Saxophone ...
The Plan is to record live all of them to get the live feeling of the band (really important for this kind of music) and then overdub most of the parts to get a more clear sound without loosing the feeling...
The Guitar is an Epiphone, i don't know about his amplifier I am thinking to use two mics for close micing (SM57 and Senheiser 421) and then choose one of them. Additionally a Calrec half a meter away and experiment afterwards when i mix.
Just a D 112 for the Bass.
Drums: mic up each element and then stereo overheads. Which technique would you suggest?? More open sound spaced pair or a less wide stereo image to get more solid sound??
Vocals i'll probably use a U87 or a SE Electronics Z3330a and for the Saxophone AKG 414 or U87 again
Any Comments or Suggestions ???
Will be nice to get some extra Ideas from you guys
I didn't exactly catch everything you're recording with. Sounds like you have some good mics though. Care to dazzle us with what kind of preamps you have availble for the project?
I don't know if this the intention already, but just my side of the coin...
-I agree with the idea of recording everybody as a whole for feel. However, sometimes bands can't seem to get it together in a studio as they do live. Hard to beleive, but it does happen. Some musicians, as good as they are, might freeze up in a static environment.
So just feel out the situation. If they do sound great live, and what you record sounds amazing to you and the band, then none of my babble applies.
-Is the live recording final? Or have considered having the live recording and emphasing on something like drums and having the other tracks as scratch?
The reason I ask is, if it was me, and I wanted to get the best out of the situation, I would do the live recording but with my best sounds starting on the drums.
Then perhaps DI (or isolate) anything else that I could and call those "scratch guitar, scratch sax, etc."
I suggest it because, as good as it might sound in the moment, there might be things later on that might not match up EQ wise, performance wise....whatever be the case.
So later on, you can experiment with each instrument with special attention to that instrument. At that point you can start saying, "well maybe the 87 sounds best for vocals and the 414 sounds good for sax (your lead stuff).
It might be the other way around, or you might even choose to use the 57 for the sax instead. The whole point is, I wouldn't completely shut out the idea of overdubbing later on. It might even be brought up again anyway.
"Hey dude, I definitly loved the way the sax sounds and feels, but do you think we can try it again? I have a better idea for this part (or the entire thing)" That's a normal senario.
Plus you might even want to try a different room for other parts.
-I could care to try the 87 and/or 414 on the guitar cab, those mics work well for that. I'm not a big fan of the SM57 on a guitar cab (for digital anyway), but you might even wanna try that.
-For the bass, is that all you want? Just to mic it with a 112? Cause you can get some good sounds with just a mic, but maybe DI it just in case?
It gives you more to work with. Plus if the speaker is lacking on some of those frequencies that make a bass punch through a mix, DI helps.
The performance will dictate that, too. So if the guy is a pick player, then that gives you one sound. If the guy plays finger, then thats a completely different sound, which in turn needs slightly different approaches for tracking.
In fact, the U87 is a pretty good mic to have for micing bass cabs (plus DI).
-I agree with the notion that simple is better in many cases. Less jumble to work with and easier to track your sounds. However, you just have to really think about what's historically happening in the situation.
By that I mean, you have to keep in mind what the "blues sound" is. Just like if you had to prepare yourself for a jazz session. Or a rock session.
Traditional Jazz is not so incredibly busy on the drums. So you can get away with emphasising the important parts. In that case, the hi hat, the kick and the details on the snare. You would mix that a little more organically than you would blues.
Blues is a little puncher on the beat, so it can mix a little more aggresively. You can probably get a little more violent with compression, if thats what the music calls for.
So each has different emphasis. Just like a good producer once told me, "you know what that guy's problem is? (refering to this grammy engineer).
I asked, "so tell me, what is his problem?"
He tells me, "he's good, but he only knows how to mix one way".
I'm not saying you have to be world class, but simply stating that it's ok to think differently with all your new approaches. Reinventing yourself constantly if you will.
-Drums, well that depends. You want more overall "roomy" sounds, or a tight and focused sound? Roomy would mean things like higher placement of the overheads. Tight may mean things like tighter mic placement along with compression.
-Vocals, well you have two very good mics for that (traditionally speaking), but of course, that shouldn't be the first thing to reach for.
Other than that, that's just some babble from me. The only additional advice I have reall is: to listen to all the blues you can, then based on your best memory of that, use your ears and hit record.
