Recording ethics

[dkerwood]

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.

I saw a band once that didn't have a bassist. Their drummer tracked all the bass parts and the band just played along with the bass track. You do what you have to do, I guess.

For what it's worth, my problem is not the talent level of the musicians. It's just their inexperience in the studio... I'll find some way to fix all of this, but tossing my band members out is NOT a viable option. Sort of like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[SongwriterChic]

Your music, your sound

If the musicians can't get it the way you want it to sound, by all means, do it yourself if you have the talent to do so. If they have ears at all, they will notice the difference. I say get it out there up front and take your chances of offending the fragile artist ego. You know how we are.

 

[Cody Suit]

My Band

in my band, me (the drummer) and the bass player are the one's who play the guitar for the recordings, because we taught our guitar player how to play and she's still getting better. we write the songs....music's not her ultimate goal but its ours... she has no problem with it.

 

[Jack Russell]

in my band, me (the drummer) and the bass player are the one's who play the guitar for the recordings, because we taught our guitar player how to play and she's still getting better. we write the songs....music's not her ultimate goal but its ours... she has no problem with it.

In that case, i think it can work. That is, doing parts for a weaker player and "molding them" to learn them as you go. Sometimes a band's strength is in its social bond--not it's chops. On the one hand you can keep searching for excellent musicians, who will end up quiting in most cases (haha!), or you can hang tough with a friend (lover?) with whom you share a very deep goal or intellectual idea.

Good musicianship can be learned, after all.

Tina Weymouth, bassist, of the Talking Heads didn't know a thing about bass when she 'joined'. She was simply the girlfriend of the drummer, and the band was sick of auditioning bassists who overplayed David Byrne's songs. Or they had egos, and David couldn't work with them. (Can you imagine the Talking Heads doing anything but Byrnes' songs?) Eventually, they just trained Tina to play what David gave her.

She ended up being a top notch player. But it took TIME!

 

[mithra6]

I see two things here.

The first scenario is: if the band is basically you with backing musicians (I don't remember if you stated this is the case). If this is so, then all bets are off. This is the reason I have hesitated finding muscians for myself. If it's your music, then you can do what you want.

The second scenario: It's a band in the normal sense (even if you write the music). I would have a sit down. If they sound great live, then I would frame it as: "You guys are great musicians, but recording is also essential and is different than playing live. That said we need to spend alot more time to make sure everything is perfect". If the bass player hates recording, well that's part of business nowadays. If she can't do it, then ask her if it's ok to play her parts in the studio and you'll even credit her.

The main thing either way is to be upfront. Problems MAY happen if you are up front, but problems WILL happen if they found out you are sneaking around.

I think the drummer will come around if he's willing. Maybe you can record a scratch track to a metronome and have him play along with it?

I'm not the greatest musician in the world but I remember in the late 80s the first time I went to a studio my friend and I knew our stuff backwards and forwards. We recorded a demo of 4 songs in like 2 hours. We did everything almost on the first take. Sometimes musicians forget that what makes a musician good is not just chops, but consistency AND professionalism. You play what you are supposed to play when you are supposed to play it.

 

[gkg1]

Who actually owns the rights to the songs? and Does that answer effect what you want to do?

 

[LeeRosario]

Who actually owns the rights to the songs? and Does that answer effect what you want to do?

Bingo, you have asked the question that has torn apart so many panties in this industry you would of thought Victoria would of told us the secret already.



If I remember correctly, all the members involved in the musical formation of the song have legal rights to the song. That's the difficult part to establish.


Because if you write the lyrics and your girlfriend writes the guitar line, who gets the credit? And the answer is both.

So logically, that would very much affect the carreer path of the song. Cause if you decide to split from the duo, your girlfriend still has part of the rights to that song. Unless you can arrange to have her sell you the complete rights, you can't touch that song without unleashing a legal bitch slap.

For example, I believe Bieler Bros (Skindred, Nonpoint) had to negotiate 4 songs from Epic when they signed Burn Season. The 4 songs where written when the band was orignally signed to epic, but since they failed to promote the songs successfully, Bieler Bros negotiated to obtain the rights from Epic to get another stab at hit singles.

It actually gets more complicated than that, but that's when you start going into distribution of royalties and who gets paid how much for what.

If you write the lyrics and the melody to the hit song "Jo Jo PoonJab" when the other members only added contributing parts, technically you can get a bigger cut for having the bigger part of the creation, but I think alot of bands end up distributing evenly by stating something like "Lyrics by so and so....Music by so and so..."


It does get silly complex....thank god for entertainment lawyers (or not).

 

[Jack Russell]

Sometimes musicians forget that what makes a musician good is not just chops, but consistency AND professionalism. You play what you are supposed to play when you are supposed to play it.

That nails it. If you are young and this is your first band, you need to learn your first lesson: the music biz isn't any different from any other money-making enterprise. You are just like a company that is trying to produce and sell a product. If your bass-player has a hissy-fit about recording and getting it right, then tell her to GROW UP. It is part of the work. If she can't play the parts, tell her to work on them in her spare time, stop wasting YOUR time, and GROW UP.

If someone came into your office at your day job and said, "I don't like filling out invoices--I'm cranky, and I want to take a nap..." would you expect that person to last long?

It is a competitive world, and there is really zero margin for error or incompetence. The more competitive the market is (such as the music industry) the more professional you have to be.

Unless, of course, you just want to do it as a hobby and jam with friends to pass the time for kicks. There is nothing wrong with that. Just don't expect to make a career of it.

 

[Treeline]

Jack's reponse is right to the point. Maybe part of the problem is that everyone may have different expectations and a different sense of the project he /she is involved with.

If I'm nervous and inexperienced about laying down a track, then I am either (a) going to obssess about it to a point where I become useless, or (b) take the mosh pit approach, lay the damn thing down and hope nobody notices the glitches. It's a bit of a reach to attain the next level - being willing to do five takes to get something right. Or ten, or whatever. It may be really painful for your bass player to hear herself play because a raw track tends to be brutally honest. That's rough! And the only way to deal with it sensibly is to plow through it, take the pain and embarrassment, learn humility from the result, and then learn technique from the result as best as she can.

The band I'm involved with developed from some friends getting together for the hell of it and then someone asked them to play a birthday party. That was about three years ago and last month they released their first album ( www.rustyromance.com ).

It's a live band first and foremost and the tuning adventures, forgetting lyrics, cracking of voices and so on that we all think of as performance "problems" actually work for them. They have been able to connect with a local audience by being themselves on stage and off. So the "warts and all" vibe that goes with a live performance carried over onto the CD, because it was recorded in live sessions with no overdubs. The mixing and mastering involved some edits and there were some tracks that got some pitch processing. And the result is not a polished Nashville pro studio recording. But it is very much what you will hear when you see the band live.

For a small production run, the CDs have been selling like hotcakes locally, in competition with local work that is much, much more polished. Why are they selling? I think its because the music is unusually honest and accessible. the band's market wants hot and smooth, sure, and the band has its moments. But what the market wants from these guys more than that is musical credibility. That is what the CD delivers in spades.

So think about what your band's target market needs from the band. What do you want the band to deliver? Is it going to be a live band or a musical project band? Either approach can be musically honest, but only as long as your message to your market is in synch with what you create and deliver.

 

[Nandoram]

What makes it worse is that my bassist hasn't even finished recording yet. She absolutely hates spending time recording, and won't do it for more than a half hour at a time. I've managed to get her to record 2 songs' worth of bass, and 3 songs' worth of backup vocals... but that still leaves me a little short. She works a lot, and when she's off work, she refuses to spend her "day off" in studio.

Should I just record her bass part without her consent?

You should record her bass part, and to hell with what she thinks. She doesn't have what it takes now, and with her attitude, she never will. If I was a musician, I would want to learn as much as I could about my instrument: especially recording. My skills as a guitar player quintupled when I started recording myself... I learned so much about what worked, what didn't... I found myself doing all kinds of amazing things I didn't know possible. If she wanted to progress as a player, she would not "refuse" to spend her day off in the studio. Fire her and get a bass player that is committed, and that can play well live and in the studio.

 

[dkerwood]

Fire her and get a bass player that is committed, and that can play well live and in the studio.

Hmm. She's been with the band for two years playing bass and singing backup, playing keys and singing for a year before that, and just singing backup for a year or two before that.

It's not an issue of commitment.

I think it's more of an issue of spending her day off sitting in the "studio" and playing through the same songs over and over again that she doesn't care for. I can't blame her for that. I hate it myself... especially when the project depends on other people besides me.

Is it so surprising that we'd rather be rocking onstage than playing each song ten times into a recorder? To me, recording in this fashion is sort of a necessary evil.

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

I think it's more of an issue of spending her day off sitting in the "studio" and playing through the same songs over and over again that she doesn't care for. I can't blame her for that.

In my experience someone that knows their parts will get entire songs less than 3 takes or punch-ins.

 

[dkerwood]

In my experience someone that knows their parts will get entire songs less than 3 takes or punch-ins.

I agree. 10 was an exaggeration, perhaps.

I just like to have at least 3 solid takes to choose from, so she'll typically record about 4 or 5. Then, depending on how I'm feeling, I might suggest a different style or phrase for a specific section, and we'll punch those areas in - just so I can have that on the editing canvas. Repeat the process with backup vocals, although she'll usually nail those right off and we'll be happy with two... and occasionally use both tracks at the same time.

My drummer obsesses about the "perfect take", so he'll do WAY more than necessary- sometimes 10 or more- but usually about 5 or 6 takes will appease him (he really doesn't like punch ins, so if I ask for a specific phrase, he'll do the whole take over).

Me, I like the energy of the first take, especially on guitar. So I'll practice the track once and then will do only one take 90 percent of the time. I find that after that, my voice and my guitar playing start to lose energy and I end up using the first take anyway.

I'll usually do a couple more takes of incidentals - extra vocals, lead guitar lines, etc, etc... and I'll be done.

Of course, a lot of it is my fault with my inexperience in recording. I'll try a few takes one way, and then discover that I didn't like it. So I'll change it and we're back to square one. Move a mic here, tweak a preamp there, nudge the EQ a tad... and now we get to start over with the process. It can get tedious.

Is there a better way to do this when you're dealing with new equipment or techniques? I mean, it'd be nice to get the bugs out before the musician is there ready to record, but the "studio" only exists when we're ready to record, and a lot of this tweaking I can't do when my style of playing differs so greatly from my colleagues.

 

[Nandoram]

I think it's more of an issue of spending her day off sitting in the "studio" and playing through the same songs over and over again that she doesn't care for. I can't blame her for that. I hate it myself... especially when the project depends on other people besides me.

I understand more, but still... if it takes her so long.... her skills aren't where they should be. But if she's an asset live-wise, then okay. If you're okay with it. But she obviously has no interest in the CD project if she doesn't want to take the time.

I still say lay down the bass line yourself, and move on to another aspect of the project... don't wait around for her.

 

[Nandoram]

IOf course, a lot of it is my fault with my inexperience in recording. I'll try a few takes one way, and then discover that I didn't like it. So I'll change it and we're back to square one. Move a mic here, tweak a preamp there, nudge the EQ a tad... and now we get to start over with the process. It can get tedious.

Is there a better way to do this when you're dealing with new equipment or techniques? I mean, it'd be nice to get the bugs out before the musician is there ready to record, but the "studio" only exists when we're ready to record, and a lot of this tweaking I can't do when my style of playing differs so greatly from my colleagues.

It sounds like you need to have more of a methodology before you have the folks come in. That methodology is going to save you time in the long run. Have your notes ready... how to mike everything, placement, sound treatments, and agenda.... so that all the player has to worry about is the performance. You can have the methodology done on your own time.

If it's taking a lot of time to prepare for the recording and your player is there waiting... well, then, it's frustrating. Like being in a movie for a 1 minute part, and you get there at 600am, and you end up shooting your part at 8pm. You've been waiting all day, and it's frustrating.

 

[Nandoram]

In my experience someone that knows their parts will get entire songs less than 3 takes or punch-ins.

Cloneboy, you've said a lot of stuff in this thread that a lot of people don't want to hear. But it makes a lot of sense, and a lot of it can only come from experience and time in the trenches. Thanks for some good insights.

 

[LeeRosario]

Well it's always something to take in with a grain of salt. Not everyone is lucky enough to see a 1-taker in action.

Especially ones that throw up after a most virtuoso-20 minute-straight through-piano solo with no flaws.

By the far the weirdest yet oddly most magical thing I've ever seen.

 

[dkerwood]

It sounds like you need to have more of a methodology before you have the folks come in. That methodology is going to save you time in the long run. Have your notes ready... how to mike everything, placement, sound treatments, and agenda.... so that all the player has to worry about is the performance. You can have the methodology done on your own time.

If it's taking a lot of time to prepare for the recording and your player is there waiting... well, then, it's frustrating. Like being in a movie for a 1 minute part, and you get there at 600am, and you end up shooting your part at 8pm. You've been waiting all day, and it's frustrating.

I know all about this, but unfortunately, there are two ways to do this IMHO, short and complicated, or long and simple. I could haul in my 20 channel live board and wire everything up all over my drummer's living room and then just punch in what channels I want for a specific take...

Or I could use my mini mixer to run one or two lines all over the room but have to move them around and adjust levels all over the place. Six in one hand, half dozen in another.

What I'd like to know is how I can get a decent methodology going when I do maybe one major home recording project going every 2 years or so, and the "studio" is never permanant? I'm doing the best I can, but then I come onto this forum and discover that there are better ways of doing things than how I'm doing them....... and how I've done them for years...

I won't deny that my slow method is part of the problem. But I do get frustrated when I am ready to record and I ask her to get her bass out of the car, and she refuses, saying, "It's cold" or "I thought you just wanted me to come over to hang out... I didn't know you wanted to record."

I know that's her way of saying that she's not in a music performance mood, but still... I'm not in a "let's drag this 3 day project out for 3 months" mood, either.

 

[Robert D]

But really, this kind of thing is done all the time. Paul McCartney played drums on a couple of songs on the White Album, after all. As long as people in the band are cool with it, it's really not a big deal.

Ringo was very NOT cool with it, and walked out of the sessions. Paul had to send him flowers and beg him to come back. This kind of thing happens all the time, very true, but usually at the hands of the producer who makes the tough calls and takes the heat from the band. When the producer is also in the band, DANGER WILL ROBINSON!! (dryer hose arms flailing) I haven't read the whole thread, so maybe this was covered. I've faced this many times myself. I play guitar, bass, drums, keyboards, etc. , and sometimes it's hard to bite my lip and go with a track that I think I could do better. But if I'm doing a band thing, then it's a band thing, and I do solo projects when I want that much control.
Just my take,
RD

 

[chessrock]

You can cover inconsistent playing live with a great stage show and enthusiasm...

Actually, you can't.

You only think you can. If you actually believe this statement is true, then you have issues with reality.

.