"How To: Record An Album"

Recording Techniques, People Skills, Gear, Recording Spaces, Computers, and DIY

Moderators: drumsound, tomb

Post Reply
User avatar
fossiltooth
carpal tunnel
Posts: 1734
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:03 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Contact:

"How To: Record An Album"

Post by fossiltooth » Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:17 pm

Has recording become standardized or something? Whenever a young, self-financed band comes through with a strict budget, 8 or more songs to record, and an idea about how they'd like to do it, it seems they're all inclined to approach things more or less the same way. Let's call it "Plan A":

>2-and a half days to record basics for all songs. They always seem to say the same thing: "Preferably keeping guitar and bass tracks, but all that really matters is drums".
>2-and-half days to record all overdubs.
>2-and-a-half days to record all vocals.
>Mixing. (Depends on a variety of factors. Could be anywhere from 1 hour per song to one day per song)

Of course the amount of days and number of songs will vary from project to project. Hell, you could plausibly do it all in a one day. I remember watching Will Schillinger record and mix an entire six or seven song record in one day at Pilot that was easily of strong enough in quality for commercial release. I've done the same with surprisingly decent results. When working this way, the reasonable bands will usually be happy with somewhere in the neighborhood of getting keeper drum takes for 4 songs during each day of basic tracking. Tons of cool records (and crappy ones) have been made this way.

However, I'd have to say all of my favorite experiences as an engineer have been the ones where we devoted 1 day to the recording and mixing of 1 song. Let's call it "Plan B":

>Drum tracks, with or without a full band (or drum sequencing, picking final sounds as you go. Committing to each and every tone that goes down. Trying different snares, different tunings for that particular song
>Overdubs: trying different basses, different guitars, different amps, creating keyboard patches that work, trying different arrangements if necessary. Committing every step of the way. Track with EQ, track with compression. Make bold choices.
>Vocals: Doing it right the first time with a singer who is comfortable with music and won't have to think about getting the pitches right, and can just concentrate on engaging the 'audience'. If you can't start to get something really compelling in the first three takes, you're never going to.
>Mixing: Well, you're pretty much there already! You've thought about how to make everything in this song fit together everystep of the way. Adjust the balances, tweak effect and EQ maybe adjust the arrangement slightly. (hey, what if that glockenspiel waited until halfway through the second verse to come in). Revisit the next day with fresh ears if needed.

This can easily take more than one for a more dense arrangement, and simple rock trio or quartets could easily knock out 2 songs without compromise, but the mindset is the same. If you ask me, I've almost always been happier with the results of plan B.

The days in Plan A are long. 8 hours at the minimum, and often as long as 10 or 12 hours. The days in Plan B are always shorter. Anywhere from 4 to 8 hours, depending on the players' skill level and the density of the arrangement. Without fail this approach helps maintain perspective, and encourages an atmosphere that is conducive to real creativity.

So, why is the Plan A so damn popular? Is it really less expensive?

When a band ends up overdubbing everything because they feel like they're supposed to, are they really maintaining the "live feel" they say they're after? Whenever I recommend keeping the excellent scratch vocal we cut live on an sm7 in the control room for a song, the band rarely lets me, because deep down, they feel that's not the way they're "supposed" to do things.

When a band goes with Plan A, the whole-album-at-once method, if one song isn't shaping up, they're always reluctant to go back to drum tracking and start from scratch. "We're past that stage already. No going back now".

During a Plan A overdub session, the players don't want to sit around trying to get the perfect tone or the perfect for the track. They've got the other 6-8 songs they're overdubbing that day on their minds! And when it comes down to the last song or two, they're often too burned out from playing to focus.

With Plan A, you never hear the tones in context until the end, which could be days, weeks or months away. Sure, the bass sounded great against the drums. Who's to know for sure if the tone was a good choice until it comes to mix time.

Plan B, the "1 song, 1 day" method is great because it keeps people motivated to make 1 song into a complete success. After getting deep into the arrangement, it turns out the bass tone isn't right in context? No problem, let's go back a tick. The guitar part is fighting the vocal? No problem. The guitar is right there.

Don't get me wrong, a lot of my favorite records were recorded by sticking with "Plan A". I'm just sayin'. Plan B sure is nice, and it leads to a lot less fixing it in the mix. With Plan A, every step of the process is such a damn "big deal". With Step B, everything feels natural to me.

So, I ask, why the popularity of "Plan A" among my clients? Is it really less expensive?

After 4 days in the studio, you have either:
A) Bass and drum parts that the band is stuck with and reluctant to change, and a couple stray overdubs for 12 songs.
B) 4 well-executed, beautifully realized songs.

Which is more cost effective? Which is more fun? Depends on the band I guess.

Thoughts?
Last edited by fossiltooth on Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:39 pm, edited 9 times in total.

User avatar
Boogdish
takin' a dinner break
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 10:18 pm
Location: Lampasas, TX
Contact:

Post by Boogdish » Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:29 pm

I think part of the reason that Plan A is more popular is because in theory, not every member of the band needs to be there every day. If the drummer can only get monday and tuesday off of work to record then the band has no choice but to try and get an album's worth of drum tracks done in two days.

thethingwiththestuff
george martin
Posts: 1296
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 9:00 pm
Location: philly

Post by thethingwiththestuff » Sat Nov 03, 2007 5:19 pm

what about Plan AB?

plan ahead. record 5-6 songs a day for two days. switch instruments as you go according to the preproduction or demos, or according to the way things are interacting upon listening from the control room. keep bass, drums, and most guitars. use room mics, but in such a way that you can remove a track later without too much of a ghost being left behind.....again, it requires planning, and commitment to sounds at the start. mixing goes quickly because you've been listening to precisely how all instruments interact at once.

i find it difficult to do the one song a day thing... i need to sleep on the basic tracks before we start adding things. also, what if the album doesn't warrant radically different sounds for each track?

especially with the way things are going these days, i find bands hire me cause i am outfitted to capture more channels at a time than they can at home and they want to get it live. otherwise, they'd just multitrack it themselves.

User avatar
radical recording
alignin' 24-trk
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 3:02 pm
Location: North Florida
Contact:

Post by radical recording » Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:34 pm

Plan B sounds great to me.
Especially after tackling two seperate Plan A type albums that I've been working on since last January! Yeah, they'll sound great; yeah, I made decent money doing this--both of these clients show up one or two times a week to work on their album; regular paychecks I can count on--but the ones who come in and do a Plan B type situation are usually more fun.

Build a song in a day or two then move on to the next one.
"Caution: I drive worse than you!"

http://www.radicalrecording.com/
http://roypeak.com/

xonlocust
tinnitus
Posts: 1228
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 3:38 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Post by xonlocust » Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:07 pm

excellent thread - makes me think a lot about a project i have coming up...

User avatar
JohnDavisNYC
ghost haunting audio students
Posts: 3035
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 2:43 pm
Location: crooklyn, ny
Contact:

Post by JohnDavisNYC » Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:05 am

great post justin.

maybe we should start offering a 'one day-one song' flat rate... where there is no expectation for the amount of time in the studio, just the expectation of a great track... no 'but, like... don't we get like, 12 hours?'

i like that idea. i am kind of considering approaching the next phonograph album like that... i wasn't necessarily thinking of tracking AND mixing in one day, but approaching each song with a fresh setup, and not moving on unilt a song is done...

i think it would definitely lead to a more focused sound, approach, and vibe....

hmmm...

good stuff.

lets get a beer soon.

john
i like to make music with music and stuff and things.

http://www.thebunkerstudio.com/

drumsound
zen recordist
Posts: 7474
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Bloomington IL
Contact:

Post by drumsound » Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:37 am

The song a day is how we did the record that my blog is so behind on. The one thing I didn't like about the approach was that when it was time to mix I didn't feel as intimate with the tunes as when I've gone back to them several times while cutting vocals, ear candy and whatnot. My solution was that I double mixed most of the record. I did quick mixes that were almost like dating the record before the 'fine tooth comb' mixes that were like moving in and getting married. And it turns out one of the quick mixes made the final product and one song needs a remix (I don't think it really does, but the manager who's shopping the thing does).

I like both methods. When I tracking basics with a band over several songs and days I'll still make changes to snares and cymbals and guitars. I can sometimes use the scratch vocal (maybe just as a double).

I don't feel that the mix comes easier in any situation where there will be overdubs. You never know what else is going to be added to a track and even if when you're overdubbing and picking sounds that work mixing still requires a certain amount of 'fitting in" plus you still adding elements like compression EQ and effects. Plus during overdubs you are often forced to move quickly because the player is in whatever mood that dictates the speed.

standup
re-cappin' neve
Posts: 722
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:04 pm
Location: Washington, DC

Post by standup » Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:54 am

I played on a record years ago that was done in a few 3-day weekends.

Track 2 days, mix one, have 3-4 songs done. Not quite one song/one day, but a similar approach, and it keeps people focused. It was 4-piece garage rock, which helped.

DGoody
gettin' sounds
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Woodstock. NY
Contact:

Post by DGoody » Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:58 pm

I've been doing a song at a time, except mixing...... for me, it keeps things more spontaneous and fresh...... keeps the whole record from sounding the same.

I tend top work the other way only when things have to be done piecemeal or in different studios, etc...... otherwise, I like a song at a time......

It also keeps all the band members involved, for better or worse. There are times when we need to stop and move on to something else, which is cool...... but generally it's my preference.

Does take more time though, I think.....

mertmo
buyin' gear
Posts: 595
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 7:15 pm
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico

Post by mertmo » Sun Nov 04, 2007 4:07 pm

I did a record last year that was a variation on this theme:
3-4 hour session to capture the very basics of 2 songs. In this case, it was guitar
and drums. Then we took those two songs through to completion, final mix and all.
THEN we would do a new session, basic tracks for 2 songs, etc.
One of the coolest working methods I have ever tried. Having final mixes as you go
is a hugely encouraging way to work. 2 songs at a time was a blast, I hope I get to
do something like that again.

User avatar
fossiltooth
carpal tunnel
Posts: 1734
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:03 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Contact:

Post by fossiltooth » Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:00 pm

thethingwiththestuff wrote:what if the album doesn't warrant radically different sounds for each track?
In that case, go for Plan A, all the way.

If you're Nirvana, Pixies, Black Sabbath, or Sonic Youth, the 'whole-album-at-once' method makes sense most of the time. There's a great continuity to albums like Bleach, Surfer Rosa, Paranoid and Daydream Nation, that most comes in part from a similar setup for reach song.

Albums where the "production" really grabs me are often the ones that sound like they're constructed song-by-song. Think of Air, Queen, and Stereolab. Think of the Beatles, Beach Boys, Flaming Lips and Zeppelin. Can you imagine how their later work would sound if they went for the 'whole-album-at-once'?

Would "Killer Queen" be half as much fun as an acoustic guitar and vocal piece? Would "Julia" by the Beatles be as stunning as it is with an ornate arrangement? Probably not. Although they're so different in aesthetic, both are examples of great "Production". They're both perfectly self-contained songs that create a world unto themselves.

On the other hand, I also love albums that create their own consistent world. "Plan A" is great for this. So is "Plan C":
>Work things out in rehearsal until perfect.
>Record the whole band.
>Minimal overdubs, if any.

Plan A takes a great band who are willing to really work at things and analyze what feels right and what doesn't, during rehearsal. Plan C usually takes someone like Duke Ellington, or a rare synergetic stroke of luck. Pretty rare for normal Rock bands.

I think it takes a truly incredible band to make an great record all- at-once. Many new bands assume they're incredible, just because they would like to be. I can't blame them. The ability to be honest and objective about how things really sound and feel while playing is rare for many new, young bands. It takes tons of playing to slow down the process, and it takes a critical ear and mind to to honestly evaluate how things really sound.

How can one develop these skills? Here's my crack at an answer:

A: Play a lot and have a clue.
B: Try "Plan B", hook up with a good engineer and have half a clue.

toaster3000 wrote: maybe we should start offering a 'one day-one song' flat rate... where there is no expectation for the amount of time in the studio, just the expectation of a great track... no 'but, like... don't we get like, 12 hours?'
Great idea, but you've already hinted at the problem: Many bands have already developed some notion about "How You're Supposed to Record".

In the back of their minds, some people just assume "That's just not how a record is made". If anything, this might seem like a cheap, demo-y way to record to some new bands. It's easy to sell a band on a particular approach if you're a legitimate producer, producing a legitimate record. If you're an engineer or studio owner hired by a self-financed band, you've got the deck stacked against you. Consumer education, or (I bite my tongue) "marketing" might be necessary if you want 'Plan B' to catch on with bands who are well suited for it.

At its worst, plan A can feel like a job. Despite what they say, deep down in their blackened hearts some people can't really imagine recording being simple, fun, and truly creative. I can't stand to work with a player and see him/her act like they just have to get through this overdub so that they can move on to the next one, and the next one, and ultimately be done with it. Ideally, each take should be savored or be a learning experience. At its best, recording isn't some big systematic "process" with specific steps and methods. It can be as fun, exciting, inspiring, and as surprising (or perhaps as trying) as the music itself.

In my mind, Plan B more closely mimics the creative part of the songwriting process. Who ever says "I'm going to write the chords for my album now. Once I've absolutely finished those, I'll move on to the melody for all the songs. I'll take a break for a week and come back for the lyrics." I mean, who does that? No one who ever gave me goosebumps. I love the idea of living inside of one song all day. If you can live inside of it all day, stay sane, and find or create new things to keep you intrigued, imagine how a fresh new listener would respond... You heard the song 40 times in one day, and you worked your butt off to make sure you're still excited by the final mix. Sounds like a song I could fall in love with.
toaster3000 wrote: i like that idea. i am kind of considering approaching the next phonograph album like that... i wasn't necessarily thinking of tracking AND mixing in one day, but approaching each song with a fresh setup, and not moving on unilt a song is done...

i think it would definitely lead to a more focused sound, approach, and vibe....
Cool! can't wait to hear it. To be honest, I can't bring myself to listen to Phonograph very often... I'm secretly afraid that listening to your band too much will lead me to the ultimate conclusion that everything I've ever engineered sounds like garbage in comparison.
toaster3000 wrote:
good stuff.

lets get a beer soon.

john
I'm there.
Last edited by fossiltooth on Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:03 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Sloan
pluggin' in mics
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:05 pm
Location: Cordova, MD
Contact:

Post by Sloan » Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:52 pm

A+ thread. Would read again!
Image

User avatar
austin
takin' a dinner break
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: Baltimore
Contact:

Post by austin » Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:43 pm

Great thread.

I think the key to making "Plan A" creatively successful AND faster/cheaper is to commit to keeping at least a fair amount of the bass & guitars from the live takes. Of course this requires a well-rehearsed band, and a bit of extra work at the outset, to make sure both the sounds and performances are there for every instrument, not just the drummer.

My band made our last record this way -- 5 days total for tracking: 2.5 for live takes, and 2.5 for a few overdubs and vocals (though a couple of the vocals were live too). On the live tracking days, we were still able to experiment a bit from song to song (switching out snares, guitars, amps, etc), so every song sounds a little different, but we were set up in such a way that we could just play, and kind of get on a roll... Not for every band, but it worked for us.

I do see the appeal of spacing out the vocal takes, though... Having to nail 4 or 5 songs in a day is a lot more pressure (and more strain on the voice) than only having to worry about one...

Artifex
suffering 'studio suck'
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:02 am

Post by Artifex » Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:20 pm

I do see the appeal of spacing out the vocal takes, though... Having to nail 4 or 5 songs in a day is a lot more pressure (and more strain on the voice) than only having to worry about one...
On the other hand what would the vocals on Twist and Shout or Helter Skelter sound like if the Beatles didn't record the way they did?

Beerybobb
audio school
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:42 pm

Post by Beerybobb » Wed Nov 07, 2007 6:38 am

A+ great info.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests