Recording ethics

[MadAudio]

Track by track. I really wish we could do it as the whole band, at least as a scratch track to build upon. Unfortunately, I'm stuck with a stock soundcard with 2 channels of input. I have trouble recording DRUMS, let alone the whole band.

Well, that to me is your biggest disadvantage. Without seasoned musicians, you'll NEVER get the recordings to sound as tight or energetic as your live performance.

 

[dkerwood]

Well, that to me is your biggest disadvantage. Without seasoned musicians, you'll NEVER get the recordings to sound as tight or energetic as your live performance.

True dat. I tried to do a recording of my church praise team track by track.

ABSOLUTELY HORRID.

Now they're asking me, "where's that CD we made?" and I don't have the heart to tell them, "Sorry guys, you all just really suck..."

It's a question of control versus "tightness". I think I'd rather have a little more post recording control... I may try it again, though, mixing the drums, bass, and rhythm guitar down in before the computer, panning it where I think I want it, and then put the vocals, lead guitar, and incidentals in after the fact.

FWIW, I did our first church praise team CD this way, and it worked out very nicely for the most part. Of course, back then I was recording bass, electric guitars, vocals, synths, and drums over the basic track which included piano, 2 acoustic guitars, and 4 singers.

 

[Feanor IV]

Well, I've got no experience on any of the above, but it's a very interesting thread and I have to admit that I do agree a bit with everyone of you.

First of all, the thing is, what you guys quoted as "fucked" is not exactly as you got it. Because this guy here is putting in a lot of time, patience and effort in the project. That's SO not the same with someone saying "I won't rerecord any shitty parts, because it's borring". How can you even compare the attitudes? A musician who IS willing to give everything for a good result is a totally different case than the one dkerwood is talking about.

Second, well, if I had to play a solo that I couldn't play very well, I'd probably ask to be replaced. I have written a piece for classical guitar that I simply CANNOT play. That's it. How would I record it? I'd either have to sit down and PRACTICE and become really good, or hire someone to play it for me AND give proper credit. I've seen guys who were really unwilling to play/record/practice/rehearse and the only real solution in my opinion is to tell them "ok, I'm serious about this and your attitude is holding me back. Choose whether you want to start working professionally or you want to be replaced." I don't see anything wrong about this. Always keeping in mind that they didn't even WRITE their own parts.

 

[pointfive]

Dkerwood, I think you stand in a pretty good position to replace the parts as needed, and tell the musicians you're doing so.

Recording takes a lot of time. You know this. Any musician truly invested in a musical project should know this as well. If your bassist doesn't want to spend her time recording, you can say, "Don't worry about it then, I'll do your parts." When you say this, you're essentially giving her the choice; putting the ball in her court, as it were. I've done this very thing and it worked out okay.

If you need to do it on the sneak, then in my opinion, there are probably deeper issues with the members (egotism, underlying tension, etc.) that will eventually cause things to hit the fan.

Cloneboy hit the nail on the head when he said "The reality of his situation is that some members aren't up to snuff and are UNWILLING to put the time in to record it right." Avoiding this fact won't help your recordings or your band; and while facing it may be awkward, it will be better in the long run, in my opinion.

If you're concerned about the performance credits in the album's liner notes, it sounds like you're worried that putting your bassist's name would be kind of like lying if you were the one who tracked bass on some/all of the songs. I wouldn't think of it this way. I'm my band's guitarist, but I've recorded bass parts when necessary. But I'm not the bassist. Thus, I wouldn't be credited under "bass" in our album's liner notes. Few people care about that level of detail anyway, and it would confuse most fans to see 2 names under "bass" (unless, of course, you had two bassists). People just want to know "Who plays bass in this band?" and don't care if someone else stood in for a few phrases on track 6.

 

[funkydrummer]

i think we should ask billy corgan and see what he thinks.

 

[Kasey]

i dont see it as an issue at all. Different players can create different textures. i have a two man "band" but so far there are about 20 people that have taken part in the recording of our album. Most of them are singers, since i love huge choirs, but some are drummers and guitarists and bassists and uke players, even though between me and my bandmate we can play all those things, and very well i might add.

 

[LeeRosario]

well like I said before, you do whatever it takes to get your sound. Even if you have to throw a dog in the mix, whatever floats the boat.

 

[RickW]

I'm just tired of recording and want to have a nice demo that we can send out to get more LIVE gigs.

I've recorded numerous band demos for the sake of them getting gigs. The whole point (to me, anyway) is to get the band to sound like a live band without all the recording tricks. You're looking to get gigs, afterall, so why try to make the band sound different than they are? If your musicians can't cut it in the studio playing your songs and you want to replace their parts, then you're not only deceiving them, your deceiving the clubs that you want to work at. It's not going to be a true representation of your band, so why bullshit them? Let the band record...how it sounds is how it sounds. Your live show (visually) is not going to matter on a CD, but the energy put into the music IS. If you don't have that...or the chops...it'll be noticable. It's that simple. There are a billion bands out there looking to get gigs. You have to stand out. If the visual thing is your bands strong point, then make a live video.

Now, if you were going for a retail type product, then my answer would be different. Either way, it's all just opinion. I can't disagree with anyone here because of that - and the fact that we all have different experience. I'm not at Cloneboys level yet, so I can't relate. But he has a major point regarding the marginal ability of musicians. Not only is that a rampant problem in studios (where it really stands out), but it seems that the bands involved with those musicians (such as yours) don't want to deal with the problem and would rather hide that fact than replace the members. If people can't play on a level you need, or at least a level equal to your own, then what the hell are you doing with them in the first place? I'm starting to rant now. Sorry.

 

[grn]

cloneboy said green day doesn't record their parts. for the record, yes they do. now bon jovi I don't know.

 

[dkerwood]

I've recorded numerous band demos for the sake of them getting gigs. The whole point (to me, anyway) is to get the band to sound like a live band without all the recording tricks. You're looking to get gigs, afterall, so why try to make the band sound different than they are? If your musicians can't cut it in the studio playing your songs and you want to replace their parts, then you're not only deceiving them, your deceiving the clubs that you want to work at. It's not going to be a true representation of your band, so why bullshit them? Let the band record...how it sounds is how it sounds. Your live show (visually) is not going to matter on a CD, but the energy put into the music IS. If you don't have that...or the chops...it'll be noticable. It's that simple. There are a billion bands out there looking to get gigs. You have to stand out. If the visual thing is your bands strong point, then make a live video.

Now, if you were going for a retail type product, then my answer would be different. Either way, it's all just opinion. I can't disagree with anyone here because of that - and the fact that we all have different experience. I'm not at Cloneboys level yet, so I can't relate. But he has a major point regarding the marginal ability of musicians. Not only is that a rampant problem in studios (where it really stands out), but it seems that the bands involved with those musicians (such as yours) don't want to deal with the problem and would rather hide that fact than replace the members. If people can't play on a level you need, or at least a level equal to your own, then what the hell are you doing with them in the first place? I'm starting to rant now. Sorry.

I mistyped that. I'm still interested in making a good CD, and not necessarily a verbatim presentation of us live. I don't want to produce it to the point that we can't play the basics of the songs live, but I do want to still produce a CD that replaces that spark of "live music" with a little more musical presentation.

As far as my fellow musicians... well, I can't expect a bassist of two years to keep up with my chops (I've been bassin' for 8 years now, after playing guitar for 3 years before that, and drums for 3 years before that). Our drummer played through high school and then gave it up for 20 years. He's been back now for nearly a year, but he's still coming back to speed. Frankly, I'm more concerned about dedication to the band than about talent. I've played with a lot of talented folks who didn't give a crap about the band, and ultimately, the band suffered.

And these guys totally deliver live. It's just in the sterile recording environment when they start to clam up. I suspect that it would just take some time to get them more comfortable in studio... Unfortunately, we need a demo of some sort asap. People can't remember songs and get excited about bands without the repetition that a CD can provide. And many of the venues we're trying to get into won't even consider us without a recording.

I'm just trying to produce a product that won't perhaps be an "album", but something that I can distribute without feeling embarassed.

 

[Adam P]

Why not just record the band "live" to stereo 2track then?

 

[LeeRosario]

I'm just trying to produce a product that won't perhaps be an "album", but something that I can distribute without feeling embarassed.

Well now you are starting to understand how serious the issue is. I was told here that it wasn't, but if I believed to what other people had to say all the time, then I wouldn't need to think for myself.

In the moment, it might not seem important, but when you aren't able to land those gigs cause you lost work to bands with better material, then it will sink in.

So I think as of right now, that's your biggest concern. How are you going to tie the studio recorded material with the live? If there is no good recorded material, there won't be any live.

The demo is just the demo, studio and live are two serperate focuses. You need to approach each with two different frames of thinking.

And you see, you're not the only who worries about these things. If the engineer is the type to over-fix your performances, then you are in for a ride my friend.

I rarely hear edited performances that don't sound humanly altered. Alot of them comming from guys with 40 times my experience. And it's never in the moment that you notice it. It's always after the thing is done and ready to show.

So I'm almost seeing that you have two options:


a) you either have your bandmates record as best they can, and then cross your fingers if the engineer decides to edit the shit out of the material to make it *somewhat* appealing

or

b) you decide to record the parts the way you hear it in your head, hoping it will come out exactly as you plan it, with little or no editing afterwards.


So you really have to be a producer and decide what outcome you're willing to play with.

If I was you and I knew I could get the parts better myself, then I would do it. Then later on, when my band is more comfortable with recording and I can find someone who can capture that, then I have them come in and do it.

On the surface, you're still selling your band. That's if what you play live somewhat resembles what you do on CD.

If you turn in something that's super edited and you can't pull it off live, then you over produced and you just shot yourself in the foot.

 

[rayc]

Bass Players of the World Unite

Woww Nelly,
As a bass player I'm getting a little paranoidreading this thread.
May I venture that there's a reason that the lead guitarist plays lead & the bass player plays bass & each side has a strong opinion about the other.
Anyway....
Time to get a better soundcard I guess dkerwood. The 2 I/O card is dandy for a home recording soloist but things are getting bigger for you in there. P'haps the band members could/should kick in for an upgrade - after all they'll benefit in the end.
Cheers
rayC

 

[noisewreck]

There's no payment involved. It's just home studio recording, and I'm trying to get it as tight as possible.

What I don't want to do is play something that's not able to be duplicated by one of my band members. For example, I play the drums a lot heavier and more deliberately than my drummer does. It's just that once I hit record, his playing is a little hesitant and awkward. Without that live energy, the playing energy goes through the floor. My bassist does the same, although to a lesser degree.

I'm doing everything that I can so that this can be THEM playing. I've crossfaded between as many as three or four takes to get a solid take... I've dictated bass lines, I've suggested drum riffs...

A good engineer isn't just someone that knows all the technical stuff. They're also able to make the musicians feel comfortable. If they do fine when playing live and get the jitters when the red light comes on, then constantly harping on them and suggesting riffs and stuff isn't necessarily going to make them feel comfortable. If anything, with some people it might make them even more nervous and timid. They may need more practice, but their psychological state is also important.

What makes it worse is that my bassist hasn't even finished recording yet. She absolutely hates spending time recording...

Why does she hate recording? Getting to the bottom of this would most likely help you coax that perfect take from all the other musicians.

 

[grn]

also just to put on the record for cloneboy, plenty of bands cannot cut it live and record all of their own stuff in the studio. look at blink 182.

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

also just to put on the record for cloneboy, plenty of bands cannot cut it live and record all of their own stuff in the studio. look at blink 182.

If it *is* them on the album (debatable) it will be edited, cut-n-pasted, punched-in, and otherwise manufactured to such a high degree that you would have been better off using session musicians.

 

[Fishmed]

This thread has been a good read.

I have worked with many bands that have NEVER been in a studio before, so I have learned to ease their fears and try to make them feel as comfortable as posible. There are those people who know their stuff; those that know it, but just clam up under nerves knowing that they are being recorded; and then there are those who should have stayed home and practice... or just plainly should have stayed home.

I would agree that working on projects with talented musicians is MUCH more enjoyable than pulling your hair out watching someone playing their part for the "umpteenth" time and not sounding any better than the first take. For the not so talented bands, I try to encourage them as much as I can, but move them along as quick as I can to end the suffering.

 

[Jack Russell]

A Bit of a Tangent

Wow. Great thread. I sympathize with you about wanting to get the best sound you can, but honestly, I think you should find better musicians and start over. Someone made the point above that if you think you can play good live but not in the studio, you are wrong. I agree with that. Good musicians sound great live OR in the studio.

Sounds like the guys in your band are holding you back, if you are redoing many of the parts for them. A rule of thumb: if your own demo sounds better than the band, then you are in the wrong band.

You can try taping rehearsals so that the band members can start to get over the shock of hearing themselves on tape--and they'll hear quickly how they are limited. Perhaps they will learn from that and improve? Then you can get better results on the studio.

Here's another dilemma which I'm having. I play in a trio (bass). We are thinking of doing a tune I composed on piano (piano with bass/guitar/drums/voice). It was rather complicated, so I scored it out and had a piano player play the track for me when I made the demo. It sounded great! But, frankly, we are just a guitar/bass/drums trio and none of us can really play piano. I know I can't even do it, and I wrote it! So:

1) Would you think it is ethically o.k. to play to a tape of the piano track live?

2) Would it be ethical to have the band do the song on a CD, with the piano "played by ____" on the CD?

Methinks both are o.k., as long as the pianist gets credit. What do you think?

 

[gullfo]

Here's another dilemma which I'm having. I play in a trio (bass). We are thinking of doing a tune I composed on piano (piano with bass/guitar/drums/voice). It was rather complicated, so I scored it out and had a piano player play the track for me when I made the demo. It sounded great! But, frankly, we are just a guitar/bass/drums trio and none of us can really play piano. I know I can't even do it, and I wrote it! So:

1) Would you think it is ethically o.k. to play to a tape of the piano track live?

2) Would it be ethical to have the band do the song on a CD, with the piano "played by ____" on the CD?

Methinks both are o.k., as long as the pianist gets credit. What do you think?

I think people use MIDI all the time, so what's the difference between a MIDI track and a "taped" track? so long as the audience/fans/paying customer are not being told this is a totally live performance, then I think you're fine. of course it would be nicer to have your guitar player learn the part so you can ad lib it live and take it places where your recording cannot go... or someone in the band could rehearse enough to play it live on piano... might add another dimension to the band...

if the piano player played it, the I don't think there is anything wrong with crediting the player - keeping in mind the consequences of any contractual obligations or possible future claims.

 

[Jack Russell]

if the piano player played it, the I don't think there is anything wrong with crediting the player - keeping in mind the consequences of any contractual obligations or possible future claims.

HAHAHA!!!!!

I laugh because we are SO far from being signed to anything.... and he's one of my best friends.

But thanks for the opinion.