JPF Home Page Forums Musician Gear and Techniques General Technical Forum recording "live" in the studio

I posted a question under "Songwriting" but maybe some of you that check this section can answer better.

I want to record my band basically all at once, with very few takes. We just want to make a CD of about 12 songs (some are just piano/vocal, but some have drums, electric guitar, electric bass and a second voice) to give to our families as Christmas gifts.

I've talked to a bunch of studios already and can't seem to find one that is willing to sell us a block of time to record this way. They all have tried to explain to me that I absolutely need to record each track separately, that I'll want to do multiple takes, that I will need more than 4 hours per song, that nobody actually sings well enough to not need autotuner afterwards.

If I have someone come and do a remote recording, on the other hand, they are more than willing to just set up and record us concert-style, then take it back to the studio and mix it.

Can anybody explain why I would be required to use every bell and whistle available in the studio, whether I want it or not, or else not use the studio at all? I thought one reason for recording in a studio was to use the superior space. Is this just sales-pitch pressure I'm running into, or what?

For my purposes, $2500 for 12 songs is outrageous. It seems a reasonable price for what the studios are offering, maybe even a bargain, but they are offering way more service/product than what I am asking for. Even if price was not an issue, I would not want all the polishing and redubbing that they are describing. I like a clean, natural sound. Plus I like to have fun, and playing my instrument to a click track or a recording of the rest of the band, and retaking to get every measure perfect, does not sound fun to me. Sounds like tedium and torture. Also, I'm sure my band will not play well if we are not having fun.

Can anybody explain this to me or give me some advice on alternatives? Maybe this isn't something I can really do. ??? --Jean

First off, the studios that you are contacting that are giving you that response are probably project studios that do not have the capability to record a full sized band all at once, therefore they have to record you part by part.

As far as saying that no-one can sing without Autotune well pardon my french but that's bullshite. I just did a whole CD of 12 songs, no autotune was used on my voice and the funny thing is I'm getting compliments on how in tune my voice sounds. However it is true that there are a lot of singers that are a) not that good, b) too damn lazy to sing in tune.

4 hours per song isn't a bad estimate based upon mult-tracking a song and on how well the "average" musician knows their material. Can a song be done in less time? Yes. But that's an exception and usually it takes longer.

$2,500 for 12 songs is actually really damn cheap. Even for no bells and whistles. It takes a lot of work to get your clean, natural sound. Don't forget you're also paying for the rent on the room, the cost of the equipment and hopefully the engineer's experience.

It really sounds like you haven't found the right studio for what you want. I will say, you get what you pay for. But don't go somewhere just for the price. Find a studio with an engineer that understands what YOU want, and a studio that can handle the amount of inputs you need.

Food for thought.

Jody

Thank you, Jody!

Like I said, this is new to me, so I appreciate the help. I do have an idea what I want, but I have been surprised to find that the engineers aren't that interested in what I want, just want to tell me what I need right off the bat. Weird.

I do know that all of the studios I've talked to so far have room for my whole band--that was one of the first questions I asked. They all said they COULD record us together, had a see-through iso booth for the drummer in the same room with the piano, etc., but then tried to explain to me that I wouldn't want that. One guy brought up autotune on his own and did a 2-minute spiel explaining how every singer needs it. Nice to hear from you that there is one singer in the world who can stay in tune. I like to think I'm one of those, but if I'm not, I'm sure not going to pay someone to fix my pitch--I'll go home and practice instead.

I will be making some more calls next week. I really appreciate the insight. Thanks! --Jean

[This message has been edited by JL (edited 06-05-2004).]

You could purchase your own recording equipment and record your music live or set up in a quiet place and record. It isn't as hard as it sounds. A basic recorder about 3 microphones, a mixer may do it. Musician's Friend Catalog as well as other places have the equipment you need. Also get basic advice from any local stores that sell recording equipment. A bit of research goes a long way. Good luck.

A couple thoughts. I should note in advance that my experience is really outdated--I haven't owned a recording studio in some 25 years. However, I have a friend with one (little garage studio) and I'm trying to record an album of our Friday Night Group as a fundraiser for the school band program. So I have been thinking about your problem, because I've got one that's kind of similar.

First, there should be little problem recording the band live in the studio (a couple of provisos, though, that I'll get to). If the band is tight, and can do the song letter-perfect on stage, then they can do it letter-perfect in the studio. (And I wouldn't go into the studio with a song *unless* you could do it letter-perfect every time. These studio guys cost serious bucks.)

Second, the limitations are mostly limitations of the *studio*, not the musicians (or the engineer). The studio's got to have space enough to be able to semi-isolate the instruments and vocals from each other so there's minimal "bleed" so the thing can be mixed later. That's easier to do with an acoustic group than an electrified one, believe me. Unless you've got separate sound rooms you can put each person in (from which, ideally, they can see each other), you just about have to record each person separately.

Third. You don't have to do that. When I had the studio, we did occasionally record groups live, all together in one room, and forget the bleed. And sometimes it would come out just perfect. The band had to be good at bringing the lead vocal, harmonies on the chorus, lead instruments, &c., "forward," so to speak, at just the right times to minimize time and work by the sound engineer. (Bluegrass groups seemed to do this best, because they were accustomed to crowding around a single mike, and stepping backwards and forwards to emphasize particular performers.) Your sound engineer may have to do a number of takes to get the levels right, because he or she has got to know *exactly* what happens when in the song so he or she can make any crucial adjustments precisely at the crucial time. And again, studio time is expensive.

Fourth, y'all just may not physically *fit* in the studio. My friend's garage studio is like that: it's small, and I don't think more than 3 musicians could fit in there at any one time. In that case, the only option is for the studio to do the "mountain goes to Mohammed" thing and come to where *you* are and do a live-in-concert recording. (Alternatively, you can go to a bigger studio, and pay even more money. Not only time, but also space, is money.)

That's doable, but I can see where studio folks don't like it--you lose your control over the sound, because you're subject to whatever echoes, random noise, &c., is inherent in The Hall. (And of course, somebody's lugging some gear around, too--if they can. A lot of studio gear isn't very transportable, and sometimes it's even built in and can't be moved at all.) The trade-off your band and sound engineer should expect is you're going to get a "bootleg album" kind of feel out of the product--which isn't necessarily bad if the group is used to performing live most of the time anyway. At best, you're going to get what sounds like a note-for-note live performance.

And that is how we're going to have to handle recording the Friday Night Group. (There's about a dozen of us on a bad night, and maybe 18 on a good night--a pretty unwieldy group to record in a studio.) The gal who has the studio is going to have to bring her equipment down to the hall where we play, and spend some time setting up everybody's levels for everybody's songs, and plan on recording in one take an entire evening's performance, live. I've encouraged her to come down a lot and play with us, so she can be thinking how to translate what we do into dials and slides on her equipment to replicate it. From the band's stqandpoint, we've been plahing together for a year and a half, so everybody knows exactly what everybody else is going to do, and what to expect. And that will help a whole bunch.

This help?

Joe

P.S. Oh, and fifth--I'd forget "auto-tune, myself. How you sound is how you sound--and sometimes, if people were right on key, they wouldn't sound like themselves (and people wouldn't buy their stuff because they wouldn't recognize it). On the other hand, I presume y'all wouldn't be going into a studio unless you pretty much had the mechanics-of-music thing down. So I'd tell the studio to just put their fancy toy away.

I think one reason why studios get all insistent about the bells and whistles and doing it their way is *their name* is going to be on the product, and they want it to be as perfect as possible because their reputation's at stake. Bottom line, though, is if they won't do what *you* need, you need to find someone who will.

Ray--Thank you! I think my guitar player has something like that. The problem, for me, is that he just knows basically how to use it. I would like to have a more experienced sound engineer. Something to consider for the future, though.

Roxhythe--Thank you for your long and informative post. I really appreciate your taking the time. It seems you understand where I'm coming from.

You mentioned about the band being well-rehearsed, knowing how to back off on their individual instrument at certain parts of a song, etc. We are used to listening to each other, backing off for one person's solo, singing a little quieter on backup, leading or following as appropriate. We play together in front of an audience, so to speak, 3 times a month, with some new songs every time, and the songs for this CD project are all favorites. Like you said, if we can play it without glaring mistakes live, which we've done many times on every song we want to record, we can surely do it while being recorded. I can see re-recording a section if I play the wrong chord somewhere, but the likelihood of a big mistake like that is very slight because we know these songs so well. If anything, we play them better each time because we add some more color to them, but we aren't likely to mess them up. Anyway, we've all gotten good at taking mistakes and making them into something that sounds like it was supposed to be there. We've played together for more than 2 years, and the people in the band were musicians who heard me play and asked to play with me because they like the songs I choose and like to improvise, and they are all at a certain level of ability where we have nothing to be ashamed of musically.

Maybe the engineers are used to people who really don't have a realistic idea of how bad they sound and want the studio to make them sound like rock stars or something. That isn't us. We know we're not career recording artists, but we have enough talent to make a nice CD if somebody can just capture something close to what we sound like in person. We all have high standards musically, but our approach to music is not about perfection, more about creativity and enjoying that magic that happens when we play together and cooperate to make something good.

Your theory that the studio wants to take advantage of all of their capabilities because their name is going on the label makes a lot of sense to me. Can't really blame them for that. Maybe the ones I've talked to only want to deal with pros or big names that will help them draw in more big names. Still, being amateur doesn't always mean lack of talent or ability in music and I think some engineer might not mind working with us if they met us and heard us. I would prefer to be told "we don't deal with small potatoes" rather than talked into something more than I want. I'll keep looking for the right engineer/studio. Sounds like there might be somebody out there who will be a good fit for us and our budget.

Okay, gotta stop rambling here. Sorry!

Thank you for all the info and insight. This helps me so much to figure out what we need and what our options are. THANK YOU!!! --Jean

[This message has been edited by JL (edited 06-06-2004).]

Good luck in your quest for the right engineer/ studio for your project. I wish you had a space here in Nashville. I specialize in live recordings at gigs or in the band's practice space (I have no studio space.)
I suppose that many engineers get used to the multitrack, overdub, maximum separation approach to recording. It is simpler, though more time consuming, and results in clean tracks. I always overdub the 'real' vocal track after the initial take just for this purpose. However, I have always gotten better performances from recording the bands playing all together in one space. And, the performance is really what you're after, not some "perfect" Nashville thing.
Joe is correct about studios being careful of their reputations: I certainly don't put my name of any recording of which I'm ashamed. But, I also work as a live engineer, and am confident in my ability to make good live recordings.

------------------
"Take 276, you know this used to be fun."
John Entwistle

Thanks, Capt. Analog!

I appreciate your opinions and input!!

I wish your services were an option for us, too! Still helps to get your perspective on this, though. Thanks! --Jean

[This message has been edited by JL (edited 06-11-2004).]

My band recorded 5 tracks for our cd ("CRISIS and Diana Tyler") live, in-studio...all on one night.

Yes, there are flaws in the recording but, at the time (5 years ago), we just wanted to get the songs recorded and get "product" together for an upcoming big gig.

We rented off-peak time at Beachwood Studios (@ $75/hr.), which included the engineer's time and ear. We arrived around 6 p.m. and were home by 4 a.m. with a master disk.

Yeah, it was a crazy night, but it was a good experience.

You can hear the tracks--the good, the bad AND the ugly--at www.dianatyler.com/dtlisten.html


Please note that only the full band tracks were recorded during this session (Love Somebody, Jesus Saves!, No-Blues Blues, He's There, and Jesus is the Rock); the remainder of the cd was recorded separately.

Good luck! Let me know how you fare with your project...

------------------
www.dianatyler.com

[This message has been edited by Diana Tyler (edited 06-28-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Diana Tyler (edited 06-28-2004).]

Jean,
If you can not find some one to record this project, then you are talking to the wrong people. I would actually try to find an "engineer" and let them find you a recording studio or space. I have recorded tons of live albums and jazz records and tons of that stuff is all live. Bleed can be your friend in the studio and its a lie that every singer needs auto tune. Live in the studio records are hard some times but they are a blast to do it if the players are good.

I would suggest you find a way to chat with some of the older Jazz guys in town and ask them for advice. Lots of new jazz records are just slick pop records, but if you can find the best jazz engineer in town he should be able to handle this no problem. If you can not find some one locally you can fly some one in from another city for a couple hundred bucks.


------------------
Ronan Chris Murphy
Home Recording Boot Camp
"Recording School for the Rest of us"
www.homerecordingbootcamp.com

I own a studio in Texas and I produce and engineer all types of music. If someone offered me $200 to fly to another studio and record 12 songs of a full band, I would laugh at them.

I have recorded many bands who wanted to record as "live" as possible. If they were REALLY tight, I could get the rhythm parts in 3 takes, and then inevitably still have to do punch-in fixes of each seperate rhythm tracks. When I say rhythm I mean drums, bass, and sometimes electric rhythm guitar.
I would have the singer sing a vocal that the band could hear through headphones, but I wouldn't record his vocal, saving it for overdubs. Any acoustic instruments, lead instruments, lead vocals, and backing vocals are done as overdubs.

When I record a vocal overdub, I have to set the levels just right, which usually means that much of the first 2 takes are just practice - for me AND the singer. Most people aren't used to singing into a studio microphone. If they have stage experience, they will usually think the screen should be touching their lips. With sensitve condenser mics, they could damage the mic if I'm not careful, so unless I know the singer knows what they are doing, I always use a pop filter. Not so much to catch their P-pops, but to keep them at a consistent distance from the mic.

Setup to record a full band is very time-consuming. When I record drums I use seperate mics on the kick, snare, each tom, and two overheads. This is 7 mics and it is the bare minimum that I will consider using.

For the bass guitar I will run two signals into the board - one a direct feed and another from a mic on the amp.

Not only do all of these mics have to be set up, but I have to run each and every one through a signal chain consisting minimally of preamp,compressor,and EQ. With many instruments the signal chain is much more complex. Each of these pieces of equipment then have to be tweaked until I get the sound I need, not to mention trying to fix the hum the bass player's amp is making and having to wait for the guitar player to come back from the music store because he hasn't changed his strings in a month and I had to figure out why the sound on the guitar was so dull, then send him to get some more strings.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. I cannot afford to let anything come out of my studio that doesn't sound top-notch. Yes it takes time and a lot of effort to make sure it doesn't happen, but my clients love me for it, and my reputation stays intact.

If you want an experienced engineer to work for you, expect to let him do his job the right way and don't ask him to compromise his reputation just so you can save some money.
If you can't stand to pay that much (which really ISN'T very expensive), then get your own equipment and learn to use it yourself. You'd be very surprised when you tried to get a sound even half as good as your favorite album, and found it was a lot harder than you think.

Don't get me wrong. The reason I got into engineering years ago was because I couldn't stand to pay all that money to a studio to record my songs. Boy, have I learned a lot since then!

------------------
Chris

Diana--Thanks for the info!! I listened to a couple of tracks. Didn't find the "ugly"! I appreciate your sharing your experience! Thanks!

Ronan Chris--Yes, sounds like I need to find someone who has experience recording more acoustic stuff. Actually, I have already talked to a couple of engineers about this--well, just via email--and I'm very encouraged! I had to put this on the back burner for a couple of weeks, but I'm ready to get on it again. I'll post again when I have some news, but I sure appreciate your adding your advice and info! Thank you!! --Jean

[This message has been edited by JL (edited 06-29-2004).]

Chris--You sound exactly like the kind of studio and engineer I can't afford. That's okay. You're probably at the higher end price-wise, and worth the money.

Just to clarify...I didn't say I thought the studios or engineers were over-priced. I'm not trying to get something top-notch and pay a low price for it. It's more like I want to get a plain gold pinky ring for my 13-year-old and every jewelry store says they can't sell me anything less than a 2-karat diamond ring, if you know what I mean.

I'm just trying to record my church band. I really enjoy playing with them, and I think we sound pretty good. We all have day jobs; we're not trying to make it in the music industry or compete with Eric Clapton or anything. I just want to be able to give my extended family members a nice CD for Christmas. I do have high musical standards for myself, and I have been lucky to attract some talented people to play with me, but I'm not a perfectionist. I just want to capture how we sound live, and it doesn't have to be the kind of quality that you describe.

I appreciate your long post, though, and I have learned a couple new things. I will be checking with my guitar player about strings, for one thing! This gives me some new questions to ask the engineer about as well.

One little thing I noticed at the top of your post---I could be mistaken, but I think the person who posted above you, Ronan Chris, was talking about $200 just for the plane ticket, not $200 to pay an engineer.

Anyway, thanks for the reply! --Jean

[This message has been edited by JL (edited 06-30-2004).]

Maybe the studios' don't want to have their names associated with a less than perfect recording. If a simple live recording is all you want why not get a good 2-track recording machine and a pair of good quality mic's and record it yourself. I did that for years and always enjoyed the results.
Kenny
http://www.soundclick.com/pro/?BandID=189269