Band Recording to get the drum tracks down (only): Is this still the norm?

[backtoblue]

 

We have NO budget and are doing this ourselves. Wish us luck!

 

 

Been there, done that, gonna do it again. Where there's a will there's a way. Good luck!

[J.Paul]

I'll be unsubscribing from this thread now

[caeman]

I was asked by a musician friend to play drums for her album that she had written. I said, "okay, you an play to a click track with me so I can get the right tempo and dynamic feel of your song and you should be good." Her response, "I've already recorded the piano parts. You will have to record to that."

 

Her tempo was all over the place. I declined after trying to play one song as it was simply impossible. She failed to understand why.

[New Trail]

 

I'll be unsubscribing from this thread now

 

 

??

[J.Paul]

 

??

 

 

Well

I invested at least 10 minuetes of my time trying to articulate and express what I felt was the appropriate response.....and :

1) you're getting pearls of wisdom in many of these responses from folks that sound like they have a clue. You're already in good hands and don't need my perspective.

2) but you're not recording (or monitoring) in traditional methods so you're not meeting the same level of advice that is bestowed.

3) Also you never replied to my asking why you would question your bandmate's method and not just support him (or her)....

[Lee Flier]

If you're recording instruments separately and not doing a live take of the bands as a whole, IMO it's usually a mistake not to use a click. For a whole bunch of reasons.

I disagree, but I'll get to that when I finish reading the rest of the thread.

[Lee Flier]

Don't be a fool son! Use the click! I can hear it now, "I'd like to throw a sample of a nice________ in this tune but I'm not going to cut and paste each one. You guys really should have used a click."

 

 

You don't need a click to trigger samplers or sequencers. You can just overdub a cowbell playing quarter notes through the whole thing and use that (muted in the mix) as a trigger.

 

 

How about, "Man this sounds great except for the second verse. Let's just grab the first verse and plop it in there. We cant. The timing is messed up in the first verse. {censored} we really should have used a click track."

 

 

How about doing another take where the second verse is done well instead of doing a (boring) repeat of the first verse? Or if you simply must cut and paste, if the studio has Pro Tools you can use Beat Detective to construct a tempo map that follows what the drummer actually played and you can then stretch other stuff to the tempo. That's making the machine serve the humans instead of the other way around.

[Lee Flier]

Anyhow... I think you guys had the right idea New Trail. There's absolutely nothing wrong with recording together as a band "live," and certainly nothing wrong with recording without a click track. IMO clicks cause more trouble than they are worth, even though I know it's "the norm" anymore. My band has never used one, and when I record other bands in my studio I never suggest they use one unless they say they want it. And I have yet to say to myself later "I wish we'd used a click."

 

All that said, I agree with the basic idea that you start with at least good drum tracks. If it's possible to record bass and rhythm guitar at the same time as the drums, great. If not, you can probably at least plug a direct guitar in and have someone play along with the drummer. But you get much better results in most cases if you let the drummer drive the bus - i.e. don't make him play to a track that's already recorded. Let him set the groove and the tempo for everyone else. Once you have good drum tracks, it's a cinch to pile other stuff on top of it - though, again, if you can record at least the rhythm section all together, so there's some good interaction between you, that's ideal.

 

Some bands benefit from having the singer do a guide vocal or at least give them vocal cues e.g. "first verse," "chorus," "break," etc... and some don't. Either way it's really important to do your pre-production. Have everything rehearsed COLD. Rehearse the songs with no vocals if you're recording that way. You should be able to play the stuff in your sleep by the time you hit Record.

 

There are always exceptions, but as a "default" method for getting good results fairly quickly on a budget, it's a good way to go.

[New Trail]

Lee Knight: Great Post! I wish you lived near us and would engineer for us!

 

 

.....Some bands benefit from having the singer do a guide vocal or at least give them vocal cues e.g. "first verse," "chorus," "break," etc... and some don't. Either way it's really important to do your pre-production. Have everything rehearsed COLD. Rehearse the songs with no vocals if you're recording that way. You should be able to play the stuff in your sleep by the time you hit Record.......

 

 

I wish we had had live vocals. It would have made everything SO much easier. I wish we had had headphones with individual mixes. I wish now that we had recorded 'for drums only' WITH a click track and everything DI'd. But we didn't.

[BATCAT]

Sigh... I don't think using a click is always the best way to record, but I have little patience for people on any instrument who say they can't/won't play with one. Seriously? You're unable to play along with a metronome?

 

I know Lee and I (who have both done a whole lot of studio recording, though I'm sure she has many more hours than me) have somewhat different preferences regarding clicks- ok, I understated that- vastly different precerences, but I know we both know every band, every studio situation, every song is different.

 

For people coming from a background of "play the song as a band until you have it cold" doing a studio recording without a click is sometimes (often?) the better way to go.

 

In my case, though, I usually demo my songs to a click, alone, when I'm in the writing process. (so drums can be added later and parts can be redone) All the other parts the band adds to the demo are done to that click, and all the working out or vocal parts or re-doing of basslines or whatever is done along to drums that were played to a click. By the time we do a proper studio recording I'm so used to the click I don't even notice it- it just seems like a natural underpinning of the song.

 

Also, I've done a fair bit of stuff (often as the drummer) where it's , say, the singer/guitarist of a band, plus a producer, but they're doing an album that's going to have all kinds of {censored} on it. There is no band to rehearse with; the recording of all the parts might be done over many sessions. It situations like this ist is very often extremely helpful to record with a click.

[Lee Flier]

Sigh... I don't think using a click is always the best way to record, but I have little patience for people on any instrument who say they can't/won't play with one. Seriously? You're unable to play along with a metronome?

 

I certainly can play with one, but I hate it. I like the tempo to be able to breathe in response to the music.

 

In my case, though, I usually demo my songs to a click, alone, when I'm in the writing process. (so drums can be added later and parts can be redone) All the other parts the band adds to the demo are done to that click, and all the working out or vocal parts or re-doing of basslines or whatever is done along to drums that were played to a click.

 

Yeah, see, a lot of people work this way, and I {censored}ing HATE it. Really, truly despise it and only do it in case of dire emergency. Not that I have a problem with doing a songwriting demo in whatever way it takes to get the idea down. But I always start from scratch when recording a song "for real" - never want a drummer to play over a demo that was cut to a click. I like having the drummer be the one to set the tempo throughout the song. I like having the option to cut basic tracks without headphones. And there's always the chance that the band comes up with a better arrangement than what's on the demo, which if they feel obliged to stick to the demo, will never come to light. All of these things make for more interesting and emotionally compelling recordings, IMO. I'd rather go to the dentist than play a bunch of parts over a demo that was cut to a click. Bleh.

 

I realize there are situations where that's an appropriate way to work. I'm not saying anyone who wants to work that way is "wrong." I just don't think anyone should be afraid to say "I don't want to cut to a click" if that's how they feel. You don't have to apologize for it and it doesn't mean you're a bad musician if you don't like clicks. There are benefits to recording without one that are greatly overlooked. That's all I'm saying.

[New Trail]

 

I certainly can play with one, but I hate it. I like the tempo to be able to breathe in response to the music. .....

 

 

I agree. I like the ebb and flow in the music that you can only get from recording live. Recording to a click track comes off sounding sterile to me, partly because you're so conscious of playing in time that creativity and spontaneity suffers.

[caeman]

Playing with a click track takes practice. It is a skill to develop, like any other musically-related skill. Once you get comfortable with it, you relax and it is no longer a big deal. Only the drummer really needs it, since he is supposed to be driving the tempo for the rest of the band mates who should be following the drum's tempo in the first place.

[Lee Flier]

Yes, everyone should be able to play to a click. Practicing to a click is a good way to work on your time, no matter what instrument you play. But to me, you practice to a click so you can record without one.

 

And you don't want to practice to a click all the time, or you get too dependent on it. Our drummer is also a drum teacher, and he has a really good exercise that he teaches his students: program a click so that it goes for 30 seconds and then shuts off for say 15 seconds (at first), then comes back on, repeatedly. Play along with the click during the 30 second stretch and then try to maintain your tempo when the click cuts out. See how far off you are when it comes back in. As you get better at maintaining your tempo, increase the length of time the click is off. It's a cool exercise and not just for drummers.

 

All that said, most of my favorite records have a lot of subtle variations in the tempo throughout the song, that really give the song life, even though you may not notice them because the band is grooving and tight. Tempo is a whole form of expression that gets stifled when you use a click, and I'm pretty sensitive to that. So... 99% of the time I don't record with one.

[New Trail]

 

.....All that said, most of my favorite records have a lot of subtle variations in the tempo throughout the song, that really give the song life, even though you may not notice them because the band is grooving and tight......

 

 

Yeah, I think about some of the SRV stuff that REALLY speeds up, but sounds great, or the Allman Brothers music that actually has tempo changes. You can't use a click track for that stuff.

[rhino55]

I was pretty happy with the last time we went in. I wouldn't have thought to do it this way except for some extenuating circumstances.

 

I wanted to track live for cost purposes and also to get a live feel. We were all set to go, but the AC went out in the studio the day before we were scheduled

 

I have a large band with some guys that work during the day and others that are full time players and are gigging every night. Re-scheduling became a nightmare. The studio felt bad, even though it wasn't really their fault, and offered to multitrack everything at the same price point. If we would have done it that way, I felt like my performance would have suffered. I much rather play live than play to a track in a studio. The compromise we came up with was as follows:

 

Drums, bass, guitar, and a scratch vocal (90% of which ended up being used) were all done together with a click. I turned it way down or off on most stuff and just followed the drummer.

 

The next session we did Trombone, saxophone, and trumpet together. For some of the stuff, the 3 of them are all going off at the same time, it took a handful of takes on those songs to get one that everyone was happy with. The option was there to do each horn separately but, it was agreed by the players and the engineers, that the extra energy in the live takes was well worth the extra work. What we ended up with were these moments of jazzy chaos.

 

The last session was for all the extras; accordion, organ, more guitars, and percussion.

[BATCAT]

I agree. I like the ebb and flow in the music that you can only get from recording live. Recording to a click track comes off sounding sterile to me, partly because you're so conscious of playing in time that creativity and spontaneity suffers.

 

 

That highlights part of my point, though. When you get to the point where playing with a click doesn't make you feel "so conscious of playing in time" that anything you're doing suffers, then it's no big deal.

 

Again, it really depends on the circumstances. I'm just saying a click doesn't have to be the enemy.

[BATCAT]

program a click so that it goes for 30 seconds and then shuts off for say 15 seconds (at first), then comes back on, repeatedly. Play along with the click during the 30 second stretch and then try to maintain your tempo when the click cuts out. See how far off you are when it comes back in. As you get better at maintaining your tempo, increase the length of time the click is off. It's a cool exercise and not just for drummers.

 

 

Yes, that one- and variations on it- are a really good excercise for player of any instrument!

[BATCAT]

 

I agree. The ability to play with a click track is a good one to have. Unfortunately we had never as a band played to a click track, so to introduce one at a recording session seemed like a bad idea. I have done recordings where only the drummer used a click track, but he was used to it, so it worked.

 

 

Then yes, it would have been a bad idea. However, just a thought for future recording: IME, even if you have no intention of recording the final version version to a click, for many songs, it's very illuminating and useful to rehearse it/demo it with a click (in addition to without) during your preparation for recording.

[Lee Flier]

 

That highlights part of my point, though. When you get to the point where playing with a click doesn't make you feel "so conscious of playing in time" that anything you're doing suffers, then it's no big deal.

 

 

I think that even if you're not conscious of it anymore, its still a big deal, because it still constricts you to a degree. You can't vary from it even if you want to, unless you or someone has programmed the tempo change in ahead of time which may be beside the point. I feel that playing music at its best is in part an unconscious process, and your working methods will lead you in certain directions that may or may not be conducive to turning in your best performance. A lot of magic moments happen unscripted, and if you're performing within parameters that are too rigid, you lose the ability for those unscripted moments to happen. So a lot of times the result is "consistent" and "professional," but boring.

 

 

Again, it really depends on the circumstances. I'm just saying a click doesn't have to be the enemy.

 

 

No, it doesn't have to be. For certain people and/or certain songs or types of music, it can be appropriate. I'm just saying I think it's a mistake to assume you have to use a click. Because a lot of people will tell you that: "Oh, don't EVER record without a click. You're not a real professional if you do that... you're a pansy if you can't play to a click..." etc. That's a load of crap.

[rangefinder]

 

Yeah, I think about some of the SRV stuff that REALLY speeds up, but sounds great, or the Allman Brothers music that actually has tempo changes. You can't use a click track for that stuff.

 

 

Sure you can. Even garageband (a low-end DAW) lets you automate tempo changes, either gradually or abruptly. It just requires the band to figure out in advance what their approach is going to be, rather than just "feeling" it. If that's too limiting on creative freedom, oh well, I guess you have to do without it.

[kmart]

 

You can't vary from it even if you want to, unless you or someone has programmed the tempo change in ahead of time which may be beside the point.

 

 

This is actually totally and completely untrue.

 

Someone who truly understands how to play with a click well can play ahead or behind the beat to make things feel like they are pushing or pulling. It's a skill to develop, but it's done all the time, and that's with a static BPM and not even considering programming in actual tempo changes to a click track.

[Lee Flier]

This is actually totally and completely untrue. Someone who truly understands how to play with a click well can play ahead or behind the beat to make things feel like they are pushing or pulling.

 

I knew someone would say that.

 

Yes, you can play different subdivisions around a click to a degree. But you can't vary the BPM, and many of those spontaneous magic moments involve breaking out of the tempo completely. I don't understand why this is so difficult to explain, or if people are just so dug into the idea that you must play a click, that they can't admit to its shortcomings.

[BATCAT]

 

I think that even if you're not conscious of it anymore, its still a big deal, because it still constricts you to a degree. You can't vary from it even if you want to, unless you or someone has programmed the tempo change in ahead of time which may be beside the point. I feel that playing music at its best is in part an unconscious process, and your working methods will lead you in certain directions that may or may not be conducive to turning in your best performance. A lot of magic moments happen unscripted, and if you're performing within parameters that are too rigid, you lose the ability for those unscripted moments to happen. So a lot of times the result is "consistent" and "professional," but boring.

 

 

A lot of the musical situations I'm in have a really wide gulf between the mindset involved in writing/recording and that involved in actually performing the songs. In some cases, the music being written and recorded is never performed by a band all playing together in the same room until after the entire recording process is complete. I don't mind more band-centric creative mechanisms, but fate or whatever has pushed me into different situations most of the time. Most of the writing I'm involved in is more studious assembly than any kind of band chemistry. That said, you can have moments of epiphany and inspired performances while assembling track-by-track along with a click. I understand the value you put on band chemistry, but in my life that tends to end up being more of a factor in live performance than recording.

[rangefinder]

I knew someone would say that. Yes, you can play different subdivisions around a click to a degree . But you can't vary the BPM, and many of those spontaneous magic moments involve breaking out of the tempo completely. I don't understand why this is so difficult to explain, or if people are just so dug into the idea that you must play a click, that they can't admit to its shortcomings.

 

But... are you REALLY expecting "spontaneous magic moments" during the actual RECORDING process?

 

I mean, during the creative process, do whatever you want. Who cares?

 

But to me, the recording is where you assemble the whole thing, and the click (automated and/or ignored where appropriate) is the framework, and it gives you a TON more flexibility in the post-production process. So why not embrace it, or (if you must) hate it but use it anyway?