Vocal Recording: 1 take vs. punch-ins?

[Zed10R]

I don't know where you get that from

I get that from the talk about how great adlibs and spontinaity are. I guess it all comes down to personal preference...

 

[cusebassman]

mmm tasty leftovers...

Another thread entertaining for the sheer fact that it is entirely opinion and situation based.

I try to run through as much at once as possible. However, I find for myself that if I don't like any full run-throughs (which happens some of the time), I will chop em up, usually down to the verse/chorus level. I've never gotten to the point where I was nitpicking over individual lines or phrases, which I've heard about, but never experienced with myself or anyone else.

On the other hand, I just recently recorded a friend playing a set of 10 songs he had written for piano, so we ran through the songs, mic'd vocals and piano at the same time. Vocals sounded all right considering he was focusing more on the piano playing, knowing we could rerecord the vocal tracks. However, after the fact we decided to redo vocals, in some cases simply because the piano bleed wasn't working to our liking.

So, we just set up an LDC, and he went to town. Banged out what we both thought were excellent takes of each song, all in one shot each, aside from one song that needed one or two sections reworked.

So, I guess it depends on the person, partly.

The other thing I should consider is that the songs my friend was recording were pieces he had written years ago, and has been playing for a long time. My stuff, on the other hand, is fairly new and subject to change, so yeah - that live studio run-through definitely brings out things you might not otherwise think of.

 

[joeym]

there's absolutely no reason to feel guilty about punching in.....or do you think the so-called professionals never punch in?

What everyone wants in the end is a good product and whatever you do to achieve that aim is good. Being a singer myself I tend to sometimes get stuck on a prticular line, because I don't like the feel or whatever, so yeah, I'll punch it in as long as it takes so that I'm satisfied.

 

[eddbud]

Hmm

Good post!

I use the punch method, but i find its more important to capture a usable take to sometimes push the track on and make progress.

I have played tricks before with singers by playing back takes they previously "didn't like"

 

[Concrete_Lake]

I personally think that your way better off with one take with no punches or fixes. The point of singing it 2 or 3 times all the way is that if you have a good singer that knows the song, you have a good chance of pulling it off. If not you have a good chance of robbing from another take that will match in intensity & emotion beacause the line or word will be taken from the same part of the jouney threw the song (for the singer) as what you are trying to replace. If the singer was starting to get a little short on air it will be the same in all takes. Where as when you punch the singer could likely have a full lung of air and it would sound out of place.

In the case of rap with the critical timing issues for fast phrases that are going to be blended, doubled, etc. I can certanly see a several take process just because of the more demanding rythmic qualitys of it.


I can also see punching every verse as an effective way of maintaining consistansy and power if need be. I just don't see two word here and there.

And of course if want to pay me good money to do 20 takes. Guess what. Twenty takes it is. Hell I'll set loop record and see you in a half an hour.

I guess if you got people beating down your door you can be choosy if ya want.

I'd personally rather turn down the skin head hate band and work with a younger band that is not super dooper, but pretty good.


Just my opinion.


F.S.

I completely 100% disagree. Sure, maybe if you've got Jeff Buckleys voice and you can nail a take perfectly in one pass then fine. But otherwise, why not create a perfect take from a multitude of takes? I'm not a pitch correction fan- but justifying comping is a lot easier.

Even with amazing singers I'll do at least three takes, unless it's clear that everything that needed to be conveyed, has been. Sometimes I end up doing ten or more takes of just a verse with certain vocalists; and even comp in syllables. Obviously this can take a lot of time, and isn't necessarily my favourite way to work, but you have to do what's necessary.

I just love that some people in this thread are sticking to their 'one take only' principle, oblivious to the fact that most of their favourite records produced in the last 10-15 or so years have been comped to amounts they couldn't conceive of. I've worked with reasonably big engineers that have done far more comping than I do..

 

[joeym]

I just love that some people in this thread are sticking to their 'one take only' principle, oblivious to the fact that most of their favourite records produced in the last 10-15 or so years have been comped to amounts they couldn't conceive of. I've worked with reasonably big engineers that have done far more comping than I do..[/QUOTE]


right on!

seems to be a matter of pride for some, though...

 

[jndietz]

Granted that really good singers can avoid mistakes in an entire performance, a lot of singers will cringe at their own minor 'goofs' even though to someone else the part sounds fine.

So, if you are the one doing the recording and the singing, then you are probably more inclined to redo a line or two.

The down side is that the levels might not be precisely the same if you punch in, especially if you come back on a different day.

How often do you record something, feel it was special, then a day later it suddenly sounds a bit ugly?

I've noticed this entirely way too much with my current vocalist. He's a good singer. His technique is not good. When he sings a part and I think it sounds just fine, he might absolutely hate it. Its very hit and miss.

I defnitely use the "punch-in" method.

 

[suprstar]

Is there anything EASIER to punch in than vocals? The wav's are practically silent between every word, every syllable even.. I record 3 or so takes, and start copying and pasting and dragging bits and pieces aroudn to create 1 super-track. Drums and cymbals that ring, guitar parts, etc - it's generally harder to find those zero's, so I tend to re-record the whole thing.

 

[vanillajack]

Im another crap singer, but I find that punch-ins can disrupt the emotion of the singing if not carefully done. Of course I can never do a 1 take jobby, but I would definitely try to split the song into obvious sections (ie verse, chorus, etc) so that the emotional build-up of the piece isnt lost.

but its for this reason i mainly stick to instrumental music

 

[Supercreep]

I'm usually still writing and arranging as I'm recording vocals... So I'll experiment and keep what works as I move forward.

 

[ad_weiss]

I don't limit myself to using only one technique. It all depends on the song you are working on as well as the singer. You have to make these decisions as you go, but you should always try different techniques. There is no reason to limit yourself to only using one technique.

 

[Alkaline1]

I do rap vocals...I try to do it all in one take and make note of the parts where i'm "struggling" and just slowly break down the verse/song to the point where it sounds good. There are plenty of room for mistakes at shows and live performances, but when it comes to recording I don't allow any mistakes since everyhing recorded will be pressed and sold, everything MUST be on point.

 

[doulos24]

I punch in the vocals but I never keep extras I just don't it's destructive record we sit there till it's right and on 1 track I've been known to track like that. My record so far is 16 hrs on 3 seconds of audio for a guitar solo yes I sat there going take 10,045 an go but it came out great finally

 

[Metal Marc]

I prefer one take, and my stuff is mostly one take. I have a very strong voice and can sing all day. Otherwise, it's whatever works.

 

[music-man]

If its a fairly short verse, I can do it all at once, but if its longer I usualy do it take by take. but I usualy write in a certain way to where it has to be done 1 by 1. I dont do small takes. usualy a good size. but once its finished you usualy cant tell it was done like that.

 

[miroslav]

I see that this is a 3-year old thread...but even so, they had DAWs back then, so why didn't the poll also include DAW comping as a choice?
I guess he was just talking about recording to tape...

Anyway...I usually do 3 complete takes to tape...dump to DAW...comp as needed down to one.
Any more takes than that becomes too much of a chore to edit/comp...and you get to a point of diminishing returns the more takes you do (most of the time, with most singers).
If there's a real tough part, I may just record a couple of extra takes of some difficult section or even single words, and then dump that into the DAW also along with the 3 complete takes...but on 7-out-of-10 songs I've been able to stick to the basic 3-take method.

And just to be clear, I will usually do a couple of practice runs first, just to warm up and also to get my levels set and what not. But IMO…you have to be careful not to blow past your "vocal peak" with too many practice takes. I find that the first 1-2 takes can be quite rich dynamically, though they can also have more sour spots and glitches until the vocal chords settle in, but they do have that “raw but rich” quality.
Then after a couple of practice takes, the voice seems to find a nice balance point where the takes start sounding the same, and then you usually can get about 3-4, maybe 5 takes before the voice start to get a bit tired and you can hear it drift into a new sonic zone.
Of course, that varies from person to person, so you have find where their vocal "peak" is and try to grab those best few takes. If you blow past the “vocal peak”…sometimes you can get back to it after several more takes, but it’s a crap shoot, and most times the voice just gets tired. Sometimes a break is the best thing to do.
But like I said...sometimes that very first "raw" practice take can have all the magic...so before you discard it, check it out. Maybe you will just need to comp (or punch in) on a few spots, and then no need for too many more takes after that. Even during the 2-3 practice runs…I will still run tape and record…and then unless there is some magic, I will just erase them when the real takes happen…but at least it’s there if you happen to grab some magic.

I try to follow my 3-take method for just about everything I record these days.
I mean…who wants to slog through 18 takes of drum tracks or guitars soles...etc!
Been there, done that…

Anyway…there’s NO shame in doing punch-ins or comping. That’s how it’s done every day in just about every pro studio…and by some of the best singers/players.
Sure…one CAN view recording as some sort of “documentation” process, where the goal is to just “capture” that one perfect take, and then not touch it afterwards.
But really…who records Pop/Rock/R&B/RAP/Country/etc music that way???

I view recording as a *production* process…and that means ANYTHING goes along the way to get that final mix sounding as best as you can make it!

OK...sorry if that came off as a mini-rant (the meds were kicking in as I was typing).

 

[dodgeaspen]

I can usually get it recorded in 1 take.

 

[dean1964]

Hey folks.

I remembered this article from a long time ago from George Massenburg's website. There are never any hard and fast rules - just tools and techniques.

http://www.massenburg.com/cgi-bin/ml/vocal_overdubbing.html

Cheers!

 

[ez_willis]

I can usually get it recorded in 1 take.

Me too, including the harmonies.

 

[2Kickdrums]

My vote most closely resembles the "punch-in" method.

Normally, when i/we record vocals there will be several takes on separate tracks.

We will then listen back and pick the best parts and cut/paste them into
a new main vocal track.

If you, or your vocalist can nail down the perfect vocal track in one take
every time...send him/her over. I need one of those!