#1
Do you guys record, say, a whole guitar take of a song and then just go through and punch-in where and stuff ups are? Or do you record each part of a song individually? eg. verse, stop, chorus, stop .etc
#2
Full Song, then do overdubs as needed. If you mess up you can definitely just do a punch in. I think there is more fluidity and a more uniform sound when you do it that way. Then if you want to throw in a clean guitar take or two in the chorus just overdub. That might not be everyone's cup of tea but I think it's the easiest and most common.
My Gear:
Guitars: Vintage LP, Martin DX-1, Epi Viola Bass,
Amps: Marshall JMD501
Effects: Empty Set right now
#3
the only problem i find with doin the entire song is that if you are switching from clean to distortion if you are off on your footwork its really noticeable. at the studio we like to do all the clean stuff then come in and let the guitarist play like 2-4 bars of the clean part with the distortion on and just trim back the fat til you get to the meat of the chorus. That seems to work for some but not others. Give both a try and see which one works out the best for u
#4
Rock,
I definitely think that's a great method. I know sometimes when I play I get into the mood and I forget about switching on my pedal in time which kills the take. On the other hand I love the live vibe you get from a straight thru recording. I definitely think your method is a handy one. Give both a shot.
My Gear:
Guitars: Vintage LP, Martin DX-1, Epi Viola Bass,
Amps: Marshall JMD501
Effects: Empty Set right now
#5
I usually do multiple takes all the way through for each instrument and vocals. Sometimes one of the takes is the keeper......and other times I make a composite track out of the best parts of the multiple takes.
Last edited by Afterhours at Dec 15, 2009,
#6
Well, I record on my own. I pretty much build layers upon layers. My method goes something like this:

-Drum Machine
-Synths/Keys/Midi
-Bass
-Real Drums (If needed)
-Guitars
-Vocals
-Tweaking

Another thing I like to do is finish half a song then either change it or completely throw it out. Why? I'm picky as hell

Edit: I didn't read what the original post said :p but I just record the whole take again. Usually, when I punch in, it doesn't sound that good.
Derpy Derp Derp Herp Derp
Last edited by lockwolf at Dec 15, 2009,
#7
I do it a bit differently.

I may do a full take, but rarely any of that full take makes it into the final mix.

I will go and do punch ins where stuff is needed, but I am RARELY happy with a any full take, and thats why any of the first take rarely makes it into the final mix.

Therefore, I guess you could say I break it up into chunks, like verse, chorus, breakdown etc while recording, and then do punch ins as necessary, then quantize and edit later.

Below is a section of a guitar track for a song I am working on for a few guys in my dorm.



By the time i am done editing etc, each full guitar track will look similar. It seems ridiculous...but its necessary in getting a tight and polished sound.
I've bought, sold, and traded more gear than I care to admit.
#8
i do a full take for most of it and overdubs are done with a punch in
ಠ_ಠ
<|>
/ω\



Tell me what nation on this earth, was not born of tragedy-Primordial
#9
I have done it both ways and just goin back to to what was said earlier its what works the best for you. I have to change my style (or methods) of recording when I go to the studio cause not everyone works the same and they are not comfortable doin it the way it makes sense to me. Oh yeah and lockwolf the trick with punch ins is if you are recording yourself go about 4 bars back from the spot u wanna punch and start playing along with the track and trim up the punch til its perfectly what u want/need
#11
Quote by Brendan.Clace
I do it a bit differently.

I may do a full take, but rarely any of that full take makes it into the final mix.

I will go and do punch ins where stuff is needed, but I am RARELY happy with a any full take, and thats why any of the first take rarely makes it into the final mix.

Therefore, I guess you could say I break it up into chunks, like verse, chorus, breakdown etc while recording, and then do punch ins as necessary, then quantize and edit later.

Below is a section of a guitar track for a song I am working on for a few guys in my dorm.



By the time i am done editing etc, each full guitar track will look similar. It seems ridiculous...but its necessary in getting a tight and polished sound.


I'm happy you can do it like that because that gives me stomach pains. That's quite a hack of takes. I think that kind of kills the magic of the recordings and liveness but super polished is not what I'm looking for. Do you do the same with other instruments or just guitar?
My Gear:
Guitars: Vintage LP, Martin DX-1, Epi Viola Bass,
Amps: Marshall JMD501
Effects: Empty Set right now
#13
Quote by Brendan.Clace
I do it a bit differently.

I may do a full take, but rarely any of that full take makes it into the final mix.

I will go and do punch ins where stuff is needed, but I am RARELY happy with a any full take, and thats why any of the first take rarely makes it into the final mix.

Therefore, I guess you could say I break it up into chunks, like verse, chorus, breakdown etc while recording, and then do punch ins as necessary, then quantize and edit later.

Below is a section of a guitar track for a song I am working on for a few guys in my dorm.



By the time i am done editing etc, each full guitar track will look similar. It seems ridiculous...but its necessary in getting a tight and polished sound.


As much fun as it would be to spend a lot of time tweaking a song like that, I'm one of those people who thinks that if you can't play it right in the studio, you can't do it live.
Derpy Derp Derp Herp Derp
#14
Quote by lank81
I'm happy you can do it like that because that gives me stomach pains. That's quite a hack of takes. I think that kind of kills the magic of the recordings and liveness but super polished is not what I'm looking for. Do you do the same with other instruments or just guitar?


On a professional record you want consistency of sound with no mistakes, it's not often you get a player that can do a perfect full take. In fact a lot of musicians genuinely cant play their shit at all which is why we have situations like this
#15
Quote by Beefmo
On a professional record you want consistency of sound with no mistakes, it's not often you get a player that can do a perfect full take. In fact a lot of musicians genuinely cant play their shit at all which is why we have situations like this


/me looks at Dragonforce...

Yeah, sadly few musicians can actually play their stuff right on record in one or two takes. And Pro Tools has helped make musicians lazy (Including myself, though I get it after the 3rd or 4th take :p). But, for those who can still get it right in one take, my hat goes off to you.
Derpy Derp Derp Herp Derp
#16
Quote by lockwolf
/me looks at Dragonforce...

Yeah, sadly few musicians can actually play their stuff right on record in one or two takes. And Pro Tools has helped make musicians lazy (Including myself, though I get it after the 3rd or 4th take :p). But, for those who can still get it right in one take, my hat goes off to you.


It's not about playing it perfectly. 9/10 times the bands can play it just fine however you end up with artifacts like string noise, a bad note, an out of tune string, and that happens ALL THE TIME. It's not about whether they can play it or not, its whether they can play it consistently, perfectly, without string noise, without going out of tune, or ANY other problems. If you want a polished sounding recording that runs with the pros, you need to be doing this. That isnt only punch ins might I add, however it is quantizing and general editing of the take.

EDIT:

Heres the final L guitar track. I am working on the R now, and then to do the harmony tracks...YAY

Those big chunks are punched in choruses, and I still may go back and do them.

453 fade files in that track right there.....YAY
I've bought, sold, and traded more gear than I care to admit.
Last edited by Brendan.Clace at Dec 15, 2009,
#17
Quote by CatharsisStudio
liveness = suckass ness?

Actually when I think of live sounding I think of Harvest by Neil Young or The Black Keys or Jacob Golden. Guys who record in barns, parking garages, abandoned factories who capture real reverb and not WAVES or PT LE Plugins. You also get some great sounds by the Beatles. Half the crap in the 60s were recorded on things way worse off than what we have in our personal studios but the quality now a days matches nothing to the old ambience.
My Gear:
Guitars: Vintage LP, Martin DX-1, Epi Viola Bass,
Amps: Marshall JMD501
Effects: Empty Set right now
#18
Quote by lank81
Actually when I think of live sounding I think of Harvest by Neil Young or The Black Keys or Jacob Golden. Guys who record in barns, parking garages, abandoned factories who capture real reverb and not WAVES or PT LE Plugins. You also get some great sounds by the Beatles. Half the crap in the 60s were recorded on things way worse off than what we have in our personal studios but the quality now a days matches nothing to the old ambience.


what the
Last edited by CatharsisStudio at Dec 16, 2009,
#19
Quote by CatharsisStudio
what the


Not everyone plays metal
Derpy Derp Derp Herp Derp
#20
If u can go for the whole song perfectly then its better to just record it straight away... but If cant... I think by parts is the better choice...

cos.. In the end.. You'll want your recording a perfect sounding one rite...
#22
Quote by lockwolf
Not everyone plays metal


that has nothing to do with metal.


Nothing at all.

go back and read what you said and tell me if that makes any sense at all. because dude it doesn't yes analoge gear is tons better everyone knows that BUT. the whole reverb thing and recording in parking lots. thats hillarious cause it would sound god awfull. also don't even bash waves their plugins are 100% professional as are their reverbs i mean their CLA collection literally captures the true essence of the 1176 blackface
#23
Quote by CatharsisStudio
that has nothing to do with metal.


Nothing at all.

go back and read what you said and tell me if that makes any sense at all. because dude it doesn't yes analoge gear is tons better everyone knows that BUT. the whole reverb thing and recording in parking lots. thats hillarious cause it would sound god awfull. also don't even bash waves their plugins are 100% professional as are their reverbs i mean their CLA collection literally captures the true essence of the 1176 blackface


it makes perfect sense. I'm very careful when it comes to choosing a room to record in cause of natural reverbs and delays. I even have sound box's for amps so that I don't get room effect's in my bass and guitar track's. i have even rented out indoor basketball courts just to record snare's and high tom's for the room effect's. and if I may say so natural reverbs and delays sound a million times better then any plugin or hardware counterpart.
A painter paints pictures on canvas. But musicians paint their pictures on silence.
#24
Quote by CatharsisStudio
that has nothing to do with metal.


Nothing at all


Actually, it does. Most metal I've listened to makes use of all that raw digital sounds and processing. You don't see many metal players going out and recording outside of a studio.

I personally like to use the room as a way to help create the sound. I live in a condo which has a racquetball court. Nobody ever uses it and one day I'm gonna use it to record something crazy. Of course, I need a ton of mics for capturing the room the way I want to but when I do, its going to be fun.
Derpy Derp Derp Herp Derp
#25
Fellas it's all about what's best for the song U don't see much about recording outside the studio because of the control u can get in the studio. I mean bonham recorded in afreakin alley outside the studio or in the bathroom
#26
Quote by lockwolf
Not everyone plays metal


Exactly. As for wanting a perfect recording I think that is a great way to look at it but you also have to think about the little nuances and noises that sometimes make it in to the songs. The Beatles have tons of stuff that "shouldn't" be in recordings but it adds to the mystique. Just like a song such as Barbara Ann by the beach boys was a take of them sitting around a table with their girlfriends. It was one take and became a huge hit. I'm sure there wasn't great technique but it's a cool vibe. Just depends on your wants. Now I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing.
My Gear:
Guitars: Vintage LP, Martin DX-1, Epi Viola Bass,
Amps: Marshall JMD501
Effects: Empty Set right now
#27
Quote by CatharsisStudio
that has nothing to do with metal.


Nothing at all.

go back and read what you said and tell me if that makes any sense at all. because dude it doesn't yes analoge gear is tons better everyone knows that BUT. the whole reverb thing and recording in parking lots. thats hillarious cause it would sound god awfull. also don't even bash waves their plugins are 100% professional as are their reverbs i mean their CLA collection literally captures the true essence of the 1176 blackface


I'm not saying WAVES is useless. It serves its purpose. It's one of the standard top notch plugins. I used plugs for compression/limiting/exciters all the time. But still ... true reverb is better than a digitized version of it. Just like recording a true tube amp is better than plugging in to amplitube or some pod farm. They serve a purpose ... to emulate the true sound source but they never quite get there.
My Gear:
Guitars: Vintage LP, Martin DX-1, Epi Viola Bass,
Amps: Marshall JMD501
Effects: Empty Set right now
#28
Quote by rockisalive
. I mean bonham recorded in afreakin alley outside the studio or in the bathroom


When the levee breaks was recorded in a building stairwell. Definitely some big drum sounds there.
My Gear:
Guitars: Vintage LP, Martin DX-1, Epi Viola Bass,
Amps: Marshall JMD501
Effects: Empty Set right now
#29
I just want to say, yes digital software is an emulation but I bet most couldnt tell the difference. Ryan is also right, this has nothing to do with metal it is to do with commercially produced music.
#30
Quote by lank81
Actually when I think of live sounding I think of Harvest by Neil Young or The Black Keys or Jacob Golden. Guys who record in barns, parking garages, abandoned factories who capture real reverb and not WAVES or PT LE Plugins. You also get some great sounds by the Beatles. Half the crap in the 60s were recorded on things way worse off than what we have in our personal studios but the quality now a days matches nothing to the old ambience.


This isn't the 70's. Please stop living your life in it. This is 2009. We do things a lot differently, and honestly, if I listen to a LZ album, the only thing good about it, is the musicianship. 90% of the time, the sound quality is CRAP compared to today. If LZ re-did one of their albums today, I guarantee that a new album would destroy any they ever did in terms of sound quality.
I've bought, sold, and traded more gear than I care to admit.
Last edited by Brendan.Clace at Dec 16, 2009,
#31
Quote by lockwolf
Actually, it does. Most metal I've listened to makes use of all that raw digital sounds and processing. You don't see many metal players going out and recording outside of a studio.

Uh just wanted to point out
The album showcases a very lo-fi, raw brand of black metal. Allegedly, this album was recorded outdoors in a Norwegian forest on an 8-track recorder
that was for the album "Nattens madrigal - Aatte hymne til ulven i manden" by Ulver. Also a lot of black metal was recorded in large open areas and used a lot of the natural reverb.
#32
Quote by teethdude
Uh just wanted to point out that was for the album "Nattens madrigal - Aatte hymne til ulven i manden" by Ulver. Also a lot of black metal was recorded in large open areas and used a lot of the natural reverb.


And those albums sound awful. The only reason they do this is to "preserve their true black metal sound and non-conformism"
I've bought, sold, and traded more gear than I care to admit.
#33
okay, most of led zeppelins stuff was recorded in a huge studio with glyn john producing, or his brother or his dad. or whatev using a giant neve board in a nice treated big ass studio.

nothing beats a nice beautiful treated room. ask michael wagner that. with tons of room mics.
#34
Quote by Brendan.Clace
This isn't the 70's. Please stop living your life in it. This is 2009. We do things a lot differently, and honestly, if I listen to a LZ album, the only thing good about it, is the musicianship. 90% of the time, the sound quality is CRAP compared to today. If LZ re-did one of their albums today, I guarantee that a new album would destroy any they ever did in terms of sound quality.


I highly doubt all old gear would get ditched for new gear. I do think their would be a mixture but also I think the audio dynamics would be preserved as well. Today's recording techniques cut out a lot dynamics to get it to be louder to fit "commercial standards". Its not always great to follow the crowd or the standards. A great album to listen to which shares modern day with old standards (dynamics) would be Empyrean by John Frusciante.
My Gear:
Guitars: Vintage LP, Martin DX-1, Epi Viola Bass,
Amps: Marshall JMD501
Effects: Empty Set right now
#35
Quote by CatharsisStudio
okay, most of led zeppelins stuff was recorded in a huge studio with glyn john producing, or his brother or his dad. or whatev using a giant neve board in a nice treated big ass studio.

nothing beats a nice beautiful treated room. ask michael wagner that. with tons of room mics.


I was referring more to the whole staircase situation.
I've bought, sold, and traded more gear than I care to admit.
#37
My Fault....Mouth=Shut.

Good Conversation though
My Gear:
Guitars: Vintage LP, Martin DX-1, Epi Viola Bass,
Amps: Marshall JMD501
Effects: Empty Set right now
#38
Quote by lank81
I highly doubt all old gear would get ditched for new gear. I do think their would be a mixture but also I think the audio dynamics would be preserved as well. Today's recording techniques cut out a lot dynamics to get it to be louder to fit "commercial standards". Its not always great to follow the crowd or the standards. A great album to listen to which shares modern day with old standards (dynamics) would be Empyrean by John Frusciante.



nothing will ever beat the old vintage gear but thats just because we try to base everything off it and never try to advance forth.