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

[Lee Flier]

Yeah, I understand that, but the OP was specifically trying to capture band chemistry in their recordings, and I suspect a lot of people on this forum are. And I'm just sayin'... trying to do that with a click can be counterproductive.

[rangefinder]

 

Yeah, I understand that, but the OP was specifically trying to capture band chemistry in their recordings, and I suspect a lot of people on this forum are. And I'm just sayin'... trying to do that with a click can be counterproductive.

 

 

Yeah, I think we can all agree on that. And if you want a "live" feel, and are willing to live with the result, well, there you go. Certainly back in the days of four-tracks, it was harder to argue against that approach (i.e. the early Doors albums are pretty much them recording live). But there is SO much more you can do in the post-production process now, and expectations of the audience are higher, that it seems much less rewarding in general to take that approach.

[kmart]

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.

 

Well if you knew someone would say that, why'd you bother with a total fabrication?

 

If you're talking about breaking out of the (relative) BPM completely...that's an entirely different topic, not a situation one should be using a static click for in the first place, and not the kind of thing one should be figuring out in the studio...

 

 

Are you talking 'figuring out what we want the songs to be', work tape, idea gathering kind of loose recording sessions? Then yeah, don't see the need for a click. That's the time to be creative, loose, let things fall where they may.

 

I was under the assumption we were largely talking about 'we figured out what the songs are/will be, and have moved on to 'documenting' stage of things.

[BATCAT]

 

Are you talking 'figuring out what we want the songs to be', work tape, idea gathering kind of loose recording sessions? Then yeah, don't see the need for a click. That's the time to be creative, loose, let things fall where they may.

 

 

Actually, I'll tell ya why a click can be useful those in those situations- if you capture something really cool but want to either a)try totally different drum parts against the existing other parts or b)want to redo other parts that at times in the song play without drum acompanyment.

[Lee Flier]

Yeah, I think we can all agree on that. And if you want a "live" feel, and are willing to live with the result, well, there you go. Certainly back in the days of four-tracks, it was harder to argue against that approach (i.e. the early Doors albums are pretty much them recording live). But there is SO much more you can do in the post-production process now, and expectations of the audience are higher, that it seems much less rewarding in general to take that approach.

 

 

Recording without a click and using all of the post-production techniques available today are not at all mutually exclusive, as I mentioned earlier in the thread. Just because you record without a click does not mean you're limiting yourself to "recording live in the studio." All it means is that you've left an important mode of musical expression (tempo) intact.

[Lee Flier]

Well if you knew someone would say that, why'd you bother with a total fabrication?

 

Total fabrication?

 

I was merely hoping that people would understand what I meant without having to parse my explanation even further. I guess that was a vain hope.

 

If you're talking about breaking out of the (relative) BPM completely...that's an entirely different topic, not a situation one should be using a static click for in the first place, and not the kind of thing one should be figuring out in the studio...

 

But that's exactly my point and where I disagree completely - it's not a different topic. Even after all of the more obvious aspects of the arrangement have been worked out, spontaneous things can and IMO should still happen in the studio, and one thing that happens quite often is that the tempo shifts a bit. Not really enough that anyone would notice, but unconsciously in response to the groove. Or there may be a place in the song where everyone drops out and the band might drop back in in such a way that it changes where the beat is - which may not have been planned out in advance, but it might really provide a dramatic moment, and it would totally not work if you were playing to a click.

 

Those are just a couple of examples of things that happen all the time and are part of what makes music magic. Yes, you should do pre-production and know basically where the song is going, but if you know every note and every beat of where it's going, it's "consistent" to the point of being boring. You might as well press a button on a sequencer. And that's what a lot of modern recordings often sound like - not because the people are necessarily un-talented or the song sucks or the arrangement sucks, but just because of little things like they cut to a click when they really didn't need to, autotuned a perfectly good, expressive vocalist when it wasn't necessary, cut and pasted the first verse into the third verse instead of doing another take, edited a drum track to line up perfectly with a grid... all these little things add up to a boring, un-expressive track.

 

But I'm not here to "argue" with anybody. If what I'm saying doesn't resonate with you or make any sense to you, and you really believe you can get just as great a performance using a click, then by all means carry on using one. I'm saying what I'm saying for the benefit of people who DO know what I'm saying and are therefore bothered by the idea of using a click. I'm saying if you're one of those people, you don't have to use one and shouldn't listen to anyone who insists you have to. Most of the reasons people give for needing to use a click (making editing easier, using sequenced parts or time based effects along with the live tracks, etc.) can be overcome with today's technology. So the only real reason to use a click is if you really do want the entire song to be in perfect tempo all the way through. And for some songs, musical genres, etc., you might. But many recordings that you think are in perfect tempo because the groove is so locked in, really aren't, and it's not because they planned in advance to change the tempo, it just happened that way. Unconscious variations in tempo can be a GOOD thing.

[Lee Knight]

Yeah, I understand that, but the OP was specifically trying to capture band chemistry in their recordings, and I suspect a lot of people on this forum are. And I'm just sayin'... trying to do that with a click can be counterproductive .

Absolutely. I'll tell you... the only time I use a click is when the band really isn't good enough to sound great without a certain type of Pro Tools surgery. Or the genre of music just outright calls for that kind of post manipulation. (A lot of modern stuff does, a lot doesn't) Otherwise...

...lay it down free of the constraints of a click. It's feel great. Unless you aren't great.

[kmart]

Total fabrication? I was merely hoping that people would understand what I meant without having to parse my explanation even further. I guess that was a vain hope. But that's exactly my point and where I disagree completely - it's not a different topic. Even after all of the more obvious aspects of the arrangement have been worked out, spontaneous things can and IMO should still happen in the studio, and one thing that happens quite often is that the tempo shifts a bit. Not really enough that anyone would notice, but unconsciously in response to the groove. Or there may be a place in the song where everyone drops out and the band might drop back in in such a way that it changes where the beat is - which may not have been planned out in advance, but it might really provide a dramatic moment, and it would totally not work if you were playing to a click. Those are just a couple of examples of things that happen all the time and are part of what makes music magic. Yes, you should do pre-production and know basically where the song is going, but if you know every note and every beat of where it's going, it's "consistent" to the point of being boring. You might as well press a button on a sequencer. And that's what a lot of modern recordings often sound like - not because the people are necessarily un-talented or the song sucks or the arrangement sucks, but just because of little things like they cut to a click when they really didn't need to, autotuned a perfectly good, expressive vocalist when it wasn't necessary, cut and pasted the first verse into the third verse instead of doing another take, edited a drum track to line up perfectly with a grid... all these little things add up to a boring, un-expressive track. But I'm not here to "argue" with anybody. If what I'm saying doesn't resonate with you or make any sense to you, and you really believe you can get just as great a performance using a click, then by all means carry on using one. I'm saying what I'm saying for the benefit of people who DO know what I'm saying and are therefore bothered by the idea of using a click. I'm saying if you're one of those people, you don't have to use one and shouldn't listen to anyone who insists you have to. Most of the reasons people give for needing to use a click (making editing easier, using sequenced parts or time based effects along with the live tracks, etc.) can be overcome with today's technology. So the only real reason to use a click is if you really do want the entire song to be in perfect tempo all the way through. And for some songs, musical genres, etc., you might. But many recordings that you think are in perfect tempo because the groove is so locked in, really aren't, and it's not because they planned in advance to change the tempo, it just happened that way. Unconscious variations in tempo can be a GOOD thing.

 

 

1) You said something couldn't happen, full stop, when it easily could. There was no subtext or reading between the lines to be done. I am not a mind-reader, so if your intent was to type that, yet have me/everyone else understand that you actually meant something else entirely, well, there's the disconnect.

 

2) Here's where we're going to have to diverge by necessity. What it seems you are generally advocating is to allow things to happen as they may in the studio. I am not independently wealthy. Nobody I've ever played/recorded with has been either. And I've never encountered a studio that operates on a charity model.

 

Simply put, studio time costs money, and allowing the flexibility and freedom you are advocating has not, and I'd bet will not, ever come into the accounting equation for me when recording. Time is money, there's a deadline, 'x' amount of work has to be done by deadline 'y', etc. Working all of this out ahead of time is part of pre-production. The times I've recorded where adhering to a relatively strict schedule has not happened...the results have always been less than stellar.

[rangefinder]

Well, both sides of the debate seem to have made their points effectively.

 

Personally I think kmart's point about being efficient with studio time is a real and serious issue. And it's not only $$$, but creative energy. I don't want to be futzing around any more than necessary. If a song would benefit from a shaker loop in verse three or whatever, I want to be able to press a couple of buttons, and it's DONE. Then I can get on with something else. If I'm missing out on a subtle three-minute "group-mind" accelerando that couldn't be effectively automated without destroying the feel, oh well.

 

But it's all trade-offs, so there's no "right" answer.

[Lee Knight]

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?

 

 

Oh boy. Of COURSE you're expecting "spontaneous magic moments"!!!!! I record until I get spontaneous magic moments. I mean, yes, you can "assemble" it in the studio, but by and large, even the stuff we say we hate cause it's too commercial, depends on spontaneous magic moments. Great singers and players know how provoke spontaneous magic moments from themselves and others.

 

That is what music is.

[BATCAT]

 

Oh boy. Of COURSE you're expecting "spontaneous magic moments"!!!!! I record until I get spontaneous magic moments. I mean, yes, you can "assemble" it in the studio, but by and large, even the stuff we say we hate cause it's too commercial, depends on spontaneous magic moments. Great singers and players know how provoke spontaneous magic moments from themselves and others.

 

 

I think rangefinder has a point, though, in that for many of us posting here the goal is to get into the studio and record the best version of the songs possible with the budget we have. Sometimes those financial and time restraints are pretty daunting, and speaking from experience, this can be pretty challenging and stressful and devoid of "magic moments" at times, even when the end result is good. You can't expect some kind of transcendent experience for everyone every time you go in, especially when dealing with the sort of timetables many small bands are using.

[Lee Knight]

Oh boy. Of COURSE you're expecting "spontaneous magic moments"!!!!! I record until I get spontaneous magic moments. I mean, yes, you can "assemble" it in the studio, but by and large, even the stuff we say we hate cause it's too commercial, depends on spontaneous magic moments. Great singers and players know how provoke spontaneous magic moments from themselves and others. That is what music is.

 

 

As a matter of fact...

 

I was producing an album for a band TapWater. They've just finished a production with producer Jeff Berlin of Los Lobos. But back when I worked with them, what... 7 years ago, they were still great that early on. Anyway, one of the singers had a habit of shouting spontaneous outburst, or playing a guitar riff slightly... or very different each time. In other words, he had a habit of trying to provoke some sort of "spontaneous magic moment".

 

As I edited together the best bit of their performances, I'd consistently came back to bits where he was throwing a wrench in it. Cause this would have the effect of the other good players or singers, tracking with him concurrently, to react. To be a foil in the moment. And the magic was always happening around these particular moments it seemed.

 

So yeah, you can assemble. But as you get to be pretty adept at being in the moment musically, that is indeed where the magic is.

[Lee Flier]

Oh boy. Of COURSE you're expecting "spontaneous magic moments"!!!!! I record until I get spontaneous magic moments. I mean, yes, you can "assemble" it in the studio, but by and large, even the stuff we say we hate cause it's too commercial, depends on spontaneous magic moments. Great singers and players know how provoke spontaneous magic moments from themselves and others. That is what music is.

 

 

Thank you. You saved me a lot of typing.

 

Geesh.

[Lee Flier]

 

I think rangefinder has a point, though, in that for many of us posting here the goal is to get into the studio and record the best version of the songs possible with the budget we have.

 

 

I think that's what ALL of our goal is, except those who are independently wealthy and/or have their own studio. All we're discussing is different ways to achieve that. I don't see what the point is of recording music at all if you don't expect SOME magic to happen. And a lot of times what people end up doing is attempting to create that magic in post production, after the musicians have gone home. I don't think that's the best approach or even the most "efficient," is what I'm saying. What I've noticed is that a LOT of things that people think are going to save time and money, really don't. I've seen far more time wasted futzing around in post production trying to "fix" a {censored}ty groove than creating the conditions for getting a good groove in the first place.

[Lee Knight]

I think rangefinder has a point, though, in that for many of us posting here the goal is to get into the studio and record the best version of the songs possible with the budget we have. Sometimes those financial and time restraints are pretty daunting, and speaking from experience, this can be pretty challenging and stressful and devoid of "magic moments" at times, even when the end result is good. You can't expect some kind of transcendent experience for everyone every time you go in, especially when dealing with the sort of timetables many small bands are using.

 

 

I understand this point of view very well. But experience has shown me it isn't really needed. But I agree that when you're new to recording, it may not be apparent exactly how to create situations that inspire those "transcendent experiences".

 

This is why going clickless can be a great way to do it. But you need then to think of tracking like a photography session. more shots that you think you need. But with recording, you have the danger of peaking and riding down the backside of that peak, never to return up the hill. So... being aware of that, you know that the band may have only a limited amount of takes in them before they lose their interest to a degree and the takes start sounding worse.

 

So you approach the first couple of takes of a particular tune like a tennis serve. You know you've got another shot at it, or 3 or 4. So dont' sweat it. But sweat with inspiration. Go for it. Groove hard. Like you were in front of a Friday night crown at midnight. You know?

 

You've got a few shots at this...

 

Thinking in terms of "safe" will only give you a take that is mistake free. You need to push that a little, find the balance through running a few takes. Then pick the magic one, not just the one without {censored}ups.

 

Once you do crest the peak, move on to another song using the same method. Be brave on the first serve. You've got another 3 or 4 shots at it.

[Lee Flier]

1) You said something couldn't happen, full stop, when it easily could. There was no subtext or reading between the lines to be done.

 

 

But it only "easily could" in a very limited context: playing subdivisions within a fixed tempo. To me, that should be obvious without reading between any lines, and to me, it's still too limiting.

 

 

2) Here's where we're going to have to diverge by necessity. What it seems you are generally advocating is to allow things to happen as they may in the studio.

 

 

No, that's not what I'm advocating at all and, again, I think I've already made that clear. But I'll repeat myself: Yes, do your homework. Have the arrangement worked out. Have your parts worked out and know them cold. But leave space for some things to happen as they may. If you insist on controlling every aspect of every note, the result is flat and boring. Is that really so difficult to understand?

 

 

I am not independently wealthy. Nobody I've ever played/recorded with has been either. And I've never encountered a studio that operates on a charity model.

 

 

Doing what I am suggesting doesn't require spending tons of extra time in the studio. In fact it's easier to get a good take that way. I've done loads of low budget recordings, and in my experience the way I advocate is actually the quickest way to get the best out of musicians who are inexperienced in the studio and make them feel comfortable. And certainly, more experienced musicians also benefit from having a degree of freedom.

[BATCAT]

 

I think that's what ALL of our goal is, except those who are independently wealthy and/or have their own studio. All we're discussing is different ways to do that. I don't see what the point is of recording music at all if you don't expect SOME magic to happen.

 

 

Sure. It's just that even when you're creating something very inspired, some parts of the process can be pretty damn workmanlike.

 

But certainly I agree re post production. You can add inspiration at that point if it wasn't there in the first place.

[Lee Knight]

...some parts of the process can be pretty damn workmanlike.

 

 

The point being, it doesn't have to be. And the less workmanlike it is, the more likely magic will happen.

[Lee Flier]

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

 

 

Yes, of course. See the other Lee's post.

 

 

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.

 

 

Not really anymore. Not when there are tools like Beat Detective which will allow you to add something like a loop and have it follow what the band played instead of the other way around.

 

 

So why not embrace it, or (if you must) hate it but use it anyway?

 

 

Because I don't find the tradeoff acceptable, in terms of the end result. That's the very reason I hate it so much. I think the benefits of going clickless far outweigh the drawbacks, and the more technology advances so that it's perfectly capable of following the musicians' feel instead of making the musicians follow a predetermined click, the more that benefit to drawback ratio increases.

[BATCAT]

Lee Flier and I have gone back and forth on this for years. Lee is very much a live in the studio old style cat. I love that. I, on the other hand, totally embrace recording to a click. And assembling, and fixing and what have you in Pro Tools. But I love clickless and free as well. The better the band, the quicker it'll be without a click. The worse the band, the more you may need a click to take advantage of the sleight of hand fixes Pro Tools offers.

 

I dunno, plenty of extremely tight bands have used clicks during recording. I think the ideal is to be comfortable either way, then you'll never be complaining.

 

I probably sound more "pro-click" than I actually am. It's just that I'm pretty accostomed to studio situations where there's no band, where I might just be coming into the studio and tracking drums to some scratch guitar and bass that somebody tracked at home a week ago, and so obviously I'm playing to a click and there isn't anything to be gained by me wishing for some kind of band interaction. My performance might get chopped up and edited, and what I'm actually playing to might not give me much clue at all what the finished song is going to sound like. It's not always an inspiring way to record for me, but being willing to work this way has allowed me to be part of some albums that turned out great.

 

I've had to use one enough that it isn't much of a deal either way for me, in fact at this point it's so familiar I kinda prefer it.

[Lee Flier]

The better the band, the quicker it'll be without a click. The worse the band, the more you may need a click to take advantage of the sleight of hand fixes Pro Tools offers. (and yes Lee, I know you can do that without a click. but for this style of "band is lacking so let's Pro Tools the {censored} out of them", a click, unfortunately still rules)

I actually have not even found THAT to be the case all that often. Again this is a subjective taste thing, but... in my experience a band that isn't very good can't play very well to a click anyway. They get tense and stressed out and there's no groove. You can hear them tentatively laying back and listening for the click, then rushing for half a bar to catch up when they realize they've gotten behind it. And personally, I'd much rather hear some variations in tempo (and maybe "fix" a few of the worst ones) than deal with the uninspired result of a band trying to keep up with a click when they aren't used to it. Some inexperienced bands can actually groove quite well together when they're not thinking about trying to play to a set tempo, and again, my priority is going to be capturing the more inspired performance.

I'll usually try it both ways in a case like that. If they really can play better to a click, great. If they're getting a better groove without it and you can hear them struggling to deal with the click, I'm not going to keep pushing them to use it.

[Lee Flier]

I dunno, plenty of extremely tight bands have used clicks during recording. I think the ideal is to be comfortable either way, then you'll never be complaining.

 

I'm perfectly "comfortable" playing to a click, but I still complain.

 

I probably sound more "pro-click" than I actually am. It's just that I'm pretty accostomed to studio situations where there's no band, where I might just be coming into the studio and tracking drums to some scratch guitar and bass that somebody tracked at home a week ago, and so obviously I'm playing to a click and there isn't anything to be gained by me wishing for some kind of band interaction. My performance might get chopped up and edited, and what I'm actually playing to might not give me much clue at all what the finished song is going to sound like. It's not always an inspiring way to record for me, but being willing to work this way has allowed me to be part of some albums that turned out great.

 

Totally understand this, and I've worked on projects like that too and really enjoyed them. I'm mainly talking about situations where there IS a band... which I figure there is for most people on this forum, it being a forum for bands and all.

[Lee Knight]

Just to clarify.

I'm saying the unthinkable. Sometimes a band's groove sucks. I just don't want to hear it. They don't want to hear it. In that case, I coach and coddle them along with a click. Then I "FIX THE {censored} OUT OF THEM".

I not suggesting anyone should agree with this. I have, however, made plenty of sub par bands bands ridiculously good, considering. And yes, I am going to hell.


And Lee, I think if you don't like music played to a click, don't use one. Either producing someone else or being on the floor. We're in total agreement.

[Lee Flier]

LOL... I understand that Lee. I'm just saying if you're going to fix the {censored} out of it anyway, I STILL think you can often get a better starting point by not using a click, if the band is really struggling to keep up with the click to the point where they're too stressed to groove at all. That is why I try it both ways in a case like that.

[Lee Knight]

I dunno, plenty of extremely tight bands have used clicks during recording. I think the ideal is to be comfortable either way, then you'll never be complaining. I probably sound more "pro-click" than I actually am. It's just that I'm pretty accostomed to studio situations where there's no band, where I might just be coming into the studio and tracking drums to some scratch guitar and bass that somebody tracked at home a week ago, and so obviously I'm playing to a click and there isn't anything to be gained by me wishing for some kind of band interaction. My performance might get chopped up and edited, and what I'm actually playing to might not give me much clue at all what the finished song is going to sound like. It's not always an inspiring way to record for me, but being willing to work this way has allowed me to be part of some albums that turned out great. I've had to use one enough that it isn't much of a deal either way for me, in fact at this point it's so familiar I kinda prefer it.

 

 

Of course. Agreed. I love both systems and each has a different advantage and a different result.