Why do you record at home?

[mshilarious]

Ironically, I am exactly the reverse. I used to play, solo and in bands, for years, and I always thought I would do that until I drop.

Not really that ironic; it's ironic for me because I sell recording gear.

I have a ton of stuff in my head that I could record, but I can't record until the kids are in bed and then usually I'm too tired. So it's much easier to practice drums at 7pm or whatever (I am just learning drums). I do like the stuff I have recorded, but when I think about the effort involved . . . it's just easier to be in a band.

Also, I need to finish my pipe organ, that project has stretched out over two years now I don't ever need to record that, or play it actually, because I'm going to get other people to play it for me by submitting MIDI files, which I will record and post mp3s on my site. But I won't ever have to listen to the mp3s, I can just listen to the organ

 

[miroslav]

... it would take years to spend that $10G on studio time.

I dunno Glen...
I just saw a typical high-end studio listing the daily rate for their "Studio A" at $1850 (Odds On Records and Studios/Las Vegas).
So it looks like you can eat up $10k in 5-day's time tracking in a high-end commercial studio, and I'm sure that the per-day doesn't mean 24hrs worth.
I've heard of a lot of bands chewing up $10k (or more) on a single album...so I'm not sure how you are figuring 10-albums worth of recording in a high-end, multi-million dollar studio....
…though I get the feeling you are just talking about laying down basic tracks and not from start to finished master.
Still...I kinda’ doubt you will get 10 albums worth out of $10k if you go into a high-end studio.
And if it wasn't going to be a high-end, multi-million dollar studio and a true sonic & gear experience...I would rather be in my own studio.
There are a lot of *good* studios with cheaper, $100/hr rates…but that isn't the typical rate for high-end studios unless you're going in at weird off-hours and working on "standby". Most seem to be in that $250/hr range.

I'm not saying you can't get a decent amount of time/work down for $10k...I just don't see 10 albums worth. You would have to be like a freaking surgeon!
I don’t think I would want to just work non-stop for 10hr clips/day because the clock was ticking.

But your point is taken....and it might be worthwhile to go into a high-end studio and cut drums or maybe if you need to track a real string section or some horns...etc....and save stuff like the guitars and DI shit and mixing for your own studio.
It's a different way to work I guess, though I do like the comfort and privacy of my own studio.
I can scratch where and when I want to.

 

[miroslav]

However, as I got older, I increasingly lost interest in performing . . .

I kinda' had the same thing happen...though it wasn't so much a loss of interest in performing as it was an increased interest in spending time recording.
The only parts about the band scene that turned me off (and helped push me towards recording)...were the 1) lack of interest by some band enthusiasts to do anything else but the same boring covers and 2) the often wacky manner in which band players bounce in/out of bands, never settling in on one for a solid length of time...or they quit when you least expect it.
You just start to gel...only to find out that the bass player is getting married and his wife-to-be doesn’t want him gigging any more.

But now, after being nothing but a studio rat for many years...I've been wanting to get back in a band one more time before I'm really too old to want to do that kind of grind...and yeah, it IS a grind! The thought of dragging gear around from bar to bar isn't very appealing...especially if it means doing the same old tired covers!
Though I would like a band situation that does "eclectic", but solid Rock/Pop covers and also originals...and confine the gigs to no more than a couple/month and only in decent places.
I have NO desire to just grind it out at any/every bar in the area, and I certainly wouldn't try do it for the money!
I have a bud who has bounced from band to band and is always looking to "make some money", and it's kind of depressing, as he can never find the right situation...and he's a really good player.
It's just the nature of the band scene... ...and this economy hasn't helped those people.

OK...sorry for the segue into the "band" topic.

 

[johnsuitcase]

I got into recording years ago, from having a 4 track to demo my band's stuff. We'd go into a commercial studio and cut the songs, and I didn't really have any interest in what the engineer was doing.

Then, as I got a little older, I started getting interested, and eventually my band would go into the studio with the understanding that we only needed an assistant to help with patching things, finding mics, etc.

Before long, I was assisting at a studio, then freelancing.

THEN, I decided to put together a portable rig to record my own band. After that a few other friends called me to record their bands, so I did. Then my wife insisted I quit my 'day job' and do music full time. Now, with two little boys at home, I spend a good deal of time doing Mr. mom, and weekends and evenings doing location recording at people's homes and rehearsal spaces.

So, having said all that, here's what I observe about home recordists:

Having a home studio is great double-edged sword. If you use it, you can discover a lot about your strengths and weaknesses, your compositional skills, etc, without spending money dinking around in a pro studio. Unfortunately, most people with home studios barely use them at all. If you added up the total hours they spend in a year, it's less than 100.

Also, there are very few musicians who can make decent home recordings. By 'decent' I mean something that a listener who isn't a friend or family would actually listen to more than once. Most stuff self-recorded at home sounds terrible. Sorry, but it's true.

There's a big industry built around selling the dream of the home studio. People make a lot of money telling you that you don't need 10 or 20 years of experience to make decent recordings. That's a lie. No gear will ever replace an experienced, talented engineer.

I think the gear available to home recordists is fantastic. It's entirely possible to make a record that sounds as good as anything on the radio, at home, with less than 10k worth of gear. And maybe 1 out of 1000 musicians can do it themselves, without years of learning.

But, while anyone can buy a really good tennis racquet for under $1000, very few, if any, can teach themselves to play and join the pro tour. Even those working with coaches and trainers take years and years of daily work to get good enough.

Making records is exactly the same.

Build a home studio, I think they're great. But don't kid yourself that you're going to make great recordings without spending a loooong time learning how. Not a few months, not a few years, doing one session a month. I'm talking 10 years, working every day.


I don't mean to sound like a spoil-sport or that I'm pooh-poohing the home studio revolution, I just get tired of seeing Presonus ads that basically portray some kids making a great record with their home computer and the latest Firewire interface. I realize it's marketing , but it's disingenuous at best.

 

[cavedog101]

I kinda' had the same thing happen...though it wasn't so much a loss of interest in performing as it was an increased interest in spending time recording.
The only parts about the band scene that turned me off (and helped push me towards recording)...were the 1) lack of interest by some band enthusiasts to do anything else but the same boring covers and 2) the often wacky manner in which band players bounce in/out of bands, never settling in on one for a solid length of time...or they quit when you least expect it.
You just start to gel...only to find out that the bass player is getting married and his wife-to-be doesn’t want him gigging any more.

But now, after being nothing but a studio rat for many years...I've been wanting to get back in a band one more time before I'm really too old to want to do that kind of grind...and yeah, it IS a grind! The thought of dragging gear around from bar to bar isn't very appealing...especially if it means doing the same old tired covers!
Though I would like a band situation that does "eclectic", but solid Rock/Pop covers and also originals...and confine the gigs to no more than a couple/month and only in decent places.
I have NO desire to just grind it out at any/every bar in the area, and I certainly wouldn't try do it for the money!
I have a bud who has bounced from band to band and is always looking to "make some money", and it's kind of depressing, as he can never find the right situation...and he's a really good player.
It's just the nature of the band scene... ...and this economy hasn't helped those people.

OK...sorry for the segue into the "band" topic.

This should be a thread and topic all to itself. I dont mean that as a criticism for this being in this subject at all but as a point of having a great serious discussion of the merits of live performance and peoples attitudes about it.

I play out regularly in a cover band and while it does have its drawbacks (mostly playing for the same wages as I did in 1975) theres nothing better than cranking up the gear and doing what you can to get people happy.

Where would you post this?

 

[mshilarious]

Bands make gigging harder on themselves than it should be. Nobody needs to bring an amp to a bar that has a decent PA (corollary: don't play gigs at bars without decent PAs). Just go direct, use your pod, whatever. Sure, you can hear the difference, but only you can, no one in the audience cares. Most of them aren't even listening, or if they are, they are just listening to the vocals.

Set up one mic for the drums and learn how to balance your own kit. Or don't; again, no one really cares. In fact, the drunks who are already at the bar and drunk at your 5pm soundcheck will be happy that they don't have to listen to you pounding out quarter notes on each drum while the soundguy gets all happy with his mix.

Setup in fifteen minutes, load out in five, get paid. If it doesn't increase your paycheck, don't do it.

 

[johnsuitcase]

Bands make gigging harder on themselves than it should be. Nobody needs to bring an amp to a bar that has a decent PA (corollary: don't play gigs at bars without decent PAs). Just go direct, use your pod, whatever. Sure, you can hear the difference, but only you can, no one in the audience cares. Most of them aren't even listening, or if they are, they are just listening to the vocals.

Set up one mic for the drums and learn how to balance your own kit. Or don't; again, no one really cares. In fact, the drunks who are already at the bar and drunk at your 5pm soundcheck will be happy that they don't have to listen to you pounding out quarter notes on each drum while the soundguy gets all happy with his mix.

Setup in fifteen minutes, load out in five, get paid. If it doesn't increase your paycheck, don't do it.

Wow, and you enjoy live more than recording?

Maybe you should become a DJ. Get rid of the whole performance part, too! Weddings pay great, and the work is minimal (I had a gig helping a guy who did weddings. It was the closest I've come to taking a hostage.)

I think your point is legit to a degree. If you're playing in a cover band or just as incidental music at a coffee shop, a mercenary attitude is warranted.

If you're playing music because it's your passion, you can't expect anyone to take you seriously or listen closely if you don't care. And you can't tell me playing a sucky sounding gig feels good.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I dunno Glen...
I just saw a typical high-end studio listing the daily rate for their "Studio A" at $1850 (Odds On Records and Studios/Las Vegas).
So it looks like you can eat up $10k in 5-day's time tracking in a high-end commercial studio, and I'm sure that the per-day doesn't mean 24hrs worth.
I've heard of a lot of bands chewing up $10k (or more) on a single album...so I'm not sure how you are figuring 10-albums worth of recording in a high-end, multi-million dollar studio....
…though I get the feeling you are just talking about laying down basic tracks and not from start to finished master.

Yeah, all along I have been talking strictly about *tracking*. As I said, I prefer to track in a big boy's studio, but I prefer to mix at home.

$1850 a day is not unusual. If you put in 12 hours, that's about $150/hr. Most bands/producers, though would prefer to get their money's worth and get as close to anl 18-hr day as they can and get an hour for close to $100.

A key phrase that I mentioned earlier was "ready to record". I'm not talking about walking into a studio and taking 25 takes for every instrument track, nor an I talking about using expensive studio time to write or re-write your compositions or arrangements. Big Boy bands have the budget to be able to afford that, but unless you have one of those Rolling Stone budgets where you light your joints with burning $100 bills and spend hours of studio time eating pizza between takes, I definitely don't recommend it.

*If* the band/artist does it right, they will actually PRACTICE before they hit the Big Red Button, will actually work out the arrangements and all the kinks, and show up at the studio sober and actually ready to play and to record, have a plan already set for their studio time, and have their overall shit together, there's not a whole lot of reason why they shouldn't be able to knock off a 60 minute album's worth of tracking in 10 hours of studio time. That's a 10:1 ratio of studio time to song time. For your average 4- or 5-piece rock band (like 99% of home recordists are) that is not an unreasonable budget target.

Of course for more complicated compositions or arrangements or larger bands it may take longer, and if you put Brian Wilson in charge all budget bets are off . And sure, there will always be intangibles that get in the way or expand the budget. But the more you prepare and practice and plan *before* you go in and before you hit that button, the less those intangibles rear their ugly heads and the more value you get out of your studio time.

And again, one does not go in in a 10 day stretch and record ten albums worth of tracks. You may record one album this month (1/10 for those reading this as a six-tear-old thread ) then spend the next month or three in post mixing and working with the mastering engineer and duplicator, working on cover art, etc. Then you may want to go out and hit the Altoona circuit or even just the local pub circuit promoting your album for a couple of months. In the meantime, you may be starting to write and practice new material for the next album, which you'll get into full swing doing after you've taken a couple of weeks off from musical exhaustion. Then the Holidays come along.

Before you know it, the earliest you're ready to hit the studio once again - if you're lucky, and even luckier, your band is actually still together, and even luckier still, that you sold your first album to more than your close family and groupies - will be spring of 2011. So you spend another two grand on studio tracking for you second album, Now you are on a pace of spending two grand a year on studio tracking time (assuming you don't suffer the sophomore curse on your second album and find your second album to be your band's flaming demise), meaning it's going to take you five years minimum to burn though that $10,000 that you'd otherwise be spending in 30 seconds on a couple of mics and pres to put in a home room of perhaps dubious quality.

I'm not saying you can't get a decent amount of time/work down for $10k...I just don't see 10 albums worth. You would have to be like a freaking surgeon!
I don’t think I would want to just work non-stop for 10hr clips/day because the clock was ticking.

Sure, you're right that ~10+hr days are not something everybody can pull off, let alone like. And OK, I'll be flexible on the 10-album figure - that was more for rough illustration than anything (it's easier doing math with lots of zeros ). But even if it were 8, 6 or even 5 albums, I think the point is still valid and strong. Most artists are very lucky to even have five decent decent albums in them in a ten year period.

But I still stand by the proposition that it's all about preparation, and that with that preparation, for the average rock/pop band, budgeting for a 10:1 ratio of studio time to song time is not unreasonable.

And that by amortizing the overall total costs over time instead of going into debt all at once from the start by buying the expensive gear yourself, you wind up both spending and saving your money much more wisely.

But your point is taken....and it might be worthwhile to go into a high-end studio and cut drums or maybe if you need to track a real string section or some horns...etc....and save stuff like the guitars and DI shit and mixing for your own studio.
It's a different way to work I guess, though I do like the comfort and privacy of my own studio.
I can scratch where and when I want to.

Yeah, part-studio, part-home projects can be an excellent compromise (though that makes it harder to buy those Neumanns and GMLs )

And again, both your and my POVs depend greatly on one's motivation and how they split it between "business" and "fun". Not that one can't have fun in the studio, but obviously the point you make about the scratch factor is very important to some.

And also this discussion is moot for those like John Bon Jovi and many others for whom the only difference between "home studio" and "pro studio" are the address.

G.

 

[dintymoore]

If I didn't have a home studio my wife would never see me.

 

[cavedog101]

I cant count how many bands of really good players I see going through the motions at gigs with no thought of providing quality entertainment for an audience. You cant be doing it for the money because its just not enough to live on for the most part. The bands I see promoting theirselves and their music generally put on high energy shows but again, its not about the money at that point. Choosing to play in venues with decent sound systems is a great choice, BUT you have to have something to offer in the way of energy and cohesive on-stage sound as well as a decent following before these kind of places will even listen to what you have to offer. The going through the motions attitude and stage presence usually translates into having one of two relatives in the audience and the strangers giving up on you after three or four songs. I dont care how good a musician you are, if you're not bringing it why would anyone bother to stay and spend their dough. A really good reason for kareoke being such a popular thing in venues that used to have live music on a regular basis. At least the drunk first time singers are entertaining in a trainwreck fashion.

People will still flock to bands that give a shit.Live music, be it copy or original, still gets people who love music out of their homes and off the couches.

But its not up to the venues . Its not up anyone but the players. And its all about the attitude. So what if you're rehashing songs you've played a thousand times. Pick stuff you like to play that you can make sound good and give it something of yourself. Theres this trend these days. A LOT of touring artists, when their not out doing their thing, are banding together for gigs at home and doing all sorts of copy material and having great times doing it. Or they're putting together jam bands with like-minded players and giving performances without thought of stardom but simply to PLAY.

Isnt playing what its all about?

Its been over 40 years since I first got paid to do this. I still enjoy it. I still can rock hard. I still get funky. And none of it is a lame attempt at anything . Its still fun. And people react to THAT.

The key is to find like-minded players. We have a great stage sound and still mic it all up. Its not a huge rig but its quality and we can handle any venue we play at. We're 45 mins from load-in to soundcheck. We all get there early as we dont like to be rushed. Everyone has their jobs to make a stage we all can enjoy being on. Theres no bitching or complaining or animosities. Its fun and this is the part we get paid for anyway. We play for free, they pay us to move the gear.

 

[mshilarious]

Wow, and you enjoy live more than recording?

Of course, and I don't have "sucky" sound. It helps that I know what I am doing and can build all of my own gear. I just carry around a little DI I made in my pocket, plug straight into anything, don't fuss about monitors (I play bass, so long as I can hear the note I'm playing in the mains I'm fine).

Musicians who can play their instruments do fine with a minimal setup. I used to run a pair of OH for a dude that was a really talented drummer; kit sounded perfect. I really only needed one, but I was recording too so I wanted stereo for that.

On the other hand, I've heard lots of dudes with Mesas and Fender twins that either had tones that would cut your head off or sounded like a thick tub of goo. I'd much rather hear a talented guitarist through a pod, wouldn't you? And if they are really really talented, they happen to sound great through a pod or a boutique amp. Funny how that happens.

Oh, what about all those bluegrass bands using a single mic, they must all suck real bad because the soundcheck takes all of five minutes, right?

Or the orchestras that use no amplification, just need 30 seconds to tune up (yeah, and 15 minutes to warm up, but ever notice how they don't warm up and stage anywhere near as long before intermission, but they still sound fine? It's because they keep warm *backstage*, which they could do before the opener, they just like the racket and they can get away with it).

Talent <> gear.

PS you suck

 

[Terry Wetzel]

Hey Guys

I'm not sure where to put this topic, so feel free to move it somewhere if need be.

Anyway, I was sick for a while. During that period I had a lot of time to think. I was lying in bed with a pounding headache, and I took a look at my computer (the one I record with.) I thought, "Man, recording is REALLY expensive. I still need all this software and equipment to complete my bedroom-studio. I'm not even considering room treatment!! Why do I blow all of my money on this stuff when I could just record in a real studio for 50 bucks an hour."

I live about 30 minutes away from a great studio, but something about it turns me off.

I think I record at home because it feels like I actually accomplished something. It's not just me playing songs. It's me setting up the "studio", writing, recording, editing, mixing, and mastering my songs.

So why do you guys spend over a thousand dollars on a home studio when you have access to a real studio? (you might not... if you don't, then it's kind of obvious why you have a home studio. Feel free to post something though!) But even if you did have a nearby studio, would you use it?


~Squibble94

Years ago when I was a working musician, My brother and I were the composing and arranging part of the band. We didn't read or write music and had no formal training but we knew how we wanted our recorded songs to sound. unfortunately transferring what we wanted verbally to studio engineers and/or producers was a missing factor in the final recordings. With a 3 hour per session budget we always wound up taking the closest mix results to what we really wanted. They were just demos but meant to hopefully impress a major label. That is why I started recording at home. Now I am the only one responsible for the end result and the financial investment has been well worth it. No clock to watch. No preswsure,(except when the war department calls dinner time). Back then studio time at Criteria in north Miami Beach was $60.00 per hour not counting the acetate disks, etc. $60 per hour adds up fast when you consider how reasonably priced home recording equipment is today.

 

[johnsuitcase]

Of course, and I don't have "sucky" sound. It helps that I know what I am doing and can build all of my own gear. I just carry around a little DI I made in my pocket, plug straight into anything, don't fuss about monitors (I play bass, so long as I can hear the note I'm playing in the mains I'm fine).

Musicians who can play their instruments do fine with a minimal setup. I used to run a pair of OH for a dude that was a really talented drummer; kit sounded perfect. I really only needed one, but I was recording too so I wanted stereo for that.

On the other hand, I've heard lots of dudes with Mesas and Fender twins that either had tones that would cut your head off or sounded like a thick tub of goo. I'd much rather hear a talented guitarist through a pod, wouldn't you? And if they are really really talented, they happen to sound great through a pod or a boutique amp. Funny how that happens.

Oh, what about all those bluegrass bands using a single mic, they must all suck real bad because the soundcheck takes all of five minutes, right?

Or the orchestras that use no amplification, just need 30 seconds to tune up (yeah, and 15 minutes to warm up, but ever notice how they don't warm up and stage anywhere near as long before intermission, but they still sound fine? It's because they keep warm *backstage*, which they could do before the opener, they just like the racket and they can get away with it).

Talent <> gear.

PS you suck

Apologies if I misinterpreted your post. I was under the impression that you were saying it was pointless to try to sound good if the crowd wasn't paying attention anyway.

I agree with you that talent shines through less-than-stellar gear, of course.

And no, sound reinforcement isn't required for an orchestra, though it is used on occasion.

I didn't mean to suggest that your sound was sucky, either, I've never heard you play, so it would be silly to suggest that.

My point was simply that if you don't care about what you sound like, you shouldn't be playing out.

Again, I clearly misunderstood what you were trying to say.

PS

Do I suck as a person, or professionally?

 

[miroslav]

And again, both your and my POVs depend greatly on one's motivation and how they split it between "business" and "fun". Not that one can't have fun in the studio, but obviously the point you make about the scratch factor is very important to some.

Oh for sure...motivation is key, but at the same time, having my own studio allows me NOT to be motivated as soon as I walk through the door and to stay motivated until I walk out.
Having my own is not just about the fun, which there is plenty of, it's also about working at whatever pace I'm in the mood for and comfortable with.
I'll be the first to admit that I actually LIKE moving slow in the studio, to take my time and ponder the situation...experiment with shit...etc. That's not saying I can't work fast and be totally focused.
When I've done work for others in my studio...I was all pro about it…had everything set up and wired and was always at least two steps ahead of the artists.
But when I'm working on my own stuff...I like savoring the moment, the act and process of recording.
It's NOT just about the finished product.
So from that perspective, having my studio is also an "activity" I can take part in any time I want…and not just a means to an end.

If had a full band, and we were all super-tight with the material and had already done some recording in my studio and now wanted to take it to highest-level possible...and we had the money…
…I would spend it on studio time, but it would have to be a real "dream studio"...some place that really had a major *WOW* factor for me and gear I can only dream about.

And speaking of money...the time I spend in my studio…the excess time that goes beyond they actual tracking/editing/mixing time...
…it doesn't cost me anything at all, so if I want to putz around...I can.

 

[mshilarious]

^
|
|
|

See that? I'm a helper monkey strung out from eating too many donuts. You don't need to worry that much about what I say.

PS

Do I suck as a person, or professionally?

 

[true-eurt]

Cause no one will let me NEAR their gear...

 

[Dr. Varney]

So why do you guys spend over a thousand dollars on a home studio when you have access to a real studio? (you might not... if you don't, then it's kind of obvious why you have a home studio. Feel free to post something though!) But even if you did have a nearby studio, would you use it?
~Squibble94

'Cos... 'Cos... It's cool?

I can't just hang out in a studio and mess about, at 50 quid an hour, can I?

I don't have a 'home studio'; I have a computer, hooked up to a mixer and some speakers on a desk... In a room, I'm considering soundproofing. I need a computer anyway, so spending the extra £500 on a gutar, amp and heaphones and a bunch of cables gives me the option of recording myself play, whenever I feel like it. Any time I feel like it.

The amount of stuff I record, that doesn't make it into a song, would cost a lot more than that in a year - I'd have to live in there, to get anything done. I have no idea how I would find the creativity to just experiment in a place where there were no beer and no ashtrays!

Dr. V

 

[miroslav]

I play out regularly in a cover band and while it does have its drawbacks (mostly playing for the same wages as I did in 1975) theres nothing better than cranking up the gear and doing what you can to get people happy.

Which is why I'm eager to do a band gig at least one more time in my life before I really get to old to want to.

AFA the covers...well, I can only view it from my own perspective. Everyone should play what they like...that's all.

There are a lot of covers I would enjoy playing...I just feel that it would be important to me to be in a band that also plays originals too (if not only).
My biggest beef is with the bands (and you see their ads all the time) who ONLY focus on the covers that are pulled off of some jukebox/Billboard top-100 chart or something...AND then they feel the need to play the songs EXACTLY as the original versions, down to every note.

That's just not my cup-o-tea.

I find that those types of cover bands ARE mainly into it for the buck...and that's why their set lists are made up of purely "safe" covers....done note-for-note whenever possible.
Granted...they will be crowd pleasers most places they play...BUT...that would be some real boring shit to me. I would rather stay in my studio and not bother.

I've attempted getting back into a band a few times over the last 10 years...and the minute we get to discussing the type of material we should be doing...that's about the time I'm looking for the exit.
Usually, at the start, everyone talks generalities and gives the impression they are open for anything...but then when it focuses on that same Top 100 set list that 30 other bands are doing in the area...I'm outta there.

The bands who are totally wide open to ideas and originality...most of the time end up being kids, still ful l of piss and vinegar...so it's hard finding the right group of guys when you're showing some gray hairs!

 

[miroslav]

So why do you guys spend over a thousand dollars on a home studio when you have access to a real studio?

If was only a thousand or two!
I've spent substantially more than that!

Hey...some guys like to lease a car and some prefer to buy the same car.

 

[squibble94]

So where's Greg L when you need him? This thread has split into recording and playing live. How'd that happen?