Guitar tracking

["Evil" Aidy]

Hey!

This my first post on this forum. I'm quite a noob to the whole "home recording" thing.

Been using my setup for about a year now (Firpod w/Cubase SX3) I've always come here and found help where necessary from other members posts but I couldn't find anything relating to the follwing:-

Whats the most preferred way or most popular for recording guitar tracks professionally i.e would it be best to record the a track through the whole song first and then go back on edit minor imperfections by playing them again OR by recording the different riffs individually and then kinda cut and pasting them together.

For instance if you play like a verse and chorus perfectly rather than playing it again - just paste it to the next time that riff appears in the song? Is it too noticeable?

A friend (collegue) of mine said this was the most popular method in modern metal?

All opinions appreciated.

 

[smy1]

I only record with the cut & paste method. It's much faster for me and I usually don't know the songs I record, because I just come up with the riff a few minutes before I record it. Most of the time I build my songs like that: play a beat, jam to it, record a riff I like, quad-track it, jam to the beat, record the next riff, etc. ...

It is absolutely not noticeable.

 

[BassTard]

[QUOTE="Evil" Aidy;6344636]
For instance if you play like a verse and chorus perfectly rather than playing it again - just paste it to the next time that riff appears in the song? Is it too noticeable?
[/QUOTE]

Yes, this is done quite often - I don't like it very much, but I find myself doing it frequently. A lot of bands do need every bit of time... And sometimes it's ME, 'cause I can't stand anymore takes of the same part over and over again.

Stuff to point out:
- Many listeners won't be aware of copied parts, but they'll notice it subconsciously.
- If you layer 4, 6, 8 or even more rythm-guitars to get that wall-of-sound, copying will be less obvious.
- If you recorded a single riff for some time (about 30min - 1 hour), take a break! Otherwise the result will be getting worse.

I love live-takes (whole song in one piece) but you need good musicians to do that. Whenever the schedule allows it, I would get a new take for every repeating part (and perhaps rearrange them in order to get a cool suspense for the song). In any case - go for a quick live-take first, it'll help you as a kind of reminder, feeling-guide and it will contain some "magical" moments you won't be abled to recreate aftwerwards.
Modern listening-habits tend to like the perfection of copy-paste but I seriously think it's awful - one of the reasons why so many bands out there sound exactly the same.

Bottom line: it's a matter of taste.

 

[Torniojaws]

It's a good time-saver and most people won't even notice well looped copypaste jobs (badly looped ones WILL be noticed, beware!).

 

[-J-]

I really enjoy playing a song all the way through; I like to feel like I'm somewhat playing with a live band where one take is all I got. Gives me a sense of urgency and an adrenaline rush. At the end of the song, there's a sense of satisfaction you don't get with playing a little bit here and there and cutting and pasting. Might not be the cleanest, but feels and sounds the real-est to me. If I screw up, I play the whole thing again, or start at a definite stopping point within the song and play that through to the end. The more guitar I get to play, the better.

 

[Jarkko Mattheiszen]

I only record with the cut & paste method. It's much faster for me and I usually don't know the songs I record, because I just come up with the riff a few minutes before I record it. Most of the time I build my songs like that: play a beat, jam to it, record a riff I like, quad-track it, jam to the beat, record the next riff, etc. ...

It is absolutely not noticeable.

That's exactly what I do.

Furthermore, if you want to copypaste a part (eg. a chorus) and make it less noticable, just record some of the tracks again to give it a little variation. For example, if you're quad tracking rhythm guitars and copypaste them to the rest of the choruses, rerecord only the center tracks on the pasted parts. You'll still save some time and the result doesn't sound that copied to the listener.

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

huh

Although I can see the copy paste thing I tend not to do it myself personally.

 

["Evil" Aidy]

Hey! Thanks for the feedback - I like the idea of re-recording some of the double tracks and maybe those that are panned differently now and again to give it variation. I'll try 'em all and see whats best!

Thanks again everyone.

This forum is AWESOME.

 

[BassTard]

Just a little notion that I had right now.
Did anybody notice a change in the way of songwriting since copy-paste is possible? How about your own songwriting and how about the metal releases?

IMHO there is a big difference in todays metal because of PC-based recording. But I never spend time thinking about the relevance of copy-paste... perhabs I should, because it's one of my most used operations (whilst writing - not recording).

 

[Torniojaws]

I think it has made composing songs much more efficient and especially quicker than in ye olde days, when you had to get the entire band in the same room for a few hours (impossible! ). And you can then send the project files to other band members and let everyone do their own arrangement or mix of it, and then see which ones are the best ideas. That way everyone can do their own ideas when they have the time - or feeling!

 

[Fifth_Horseman]

I tend to write songs on the guitar, not on the PC... though for quite a while I have been recording all riffs I write, I still do arrangements pretty much while playing. I try different orders of riffs and improvise on the fragments.
Only a completed song gets recorded and tabbed.
This makes alot of sense for me also because I tend to use variations each time I use a riff in a song... a different rhythm, a different ending leading to another riff etc.

 

[JBroll]

I prefer recording one track the whole way through for my own stuff but since I know few people who can pull that off consistently enough (or motivate themselves to try doing so) I've had to learn the cut-and-paste nonsense.

Another idea is to set them up to record the whole song and take the parts that sound good. A lot of people will get hug up on this riff and that riff but if they're decent players they'll take it fine and nail things consistently enough for you to not be wasting a lot of time.

Jeff

 

[scorpio01169]

usually i only cut and paste a part where the vocalist has a prolonged growl that he cant do real long and i extend it

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

I prefer recording one track the whole way through for my own stuff but since I know few people who can pull that off consistently enough (or motivate themselves to try doing so) I've had to learn the cut-and-paste nonsense.

Another idea is to set them up to record the whole song and take the parts that sound good. A lot of people will get hug up on this riff and that riff but if they're decent players they'll take it fine and nail things consistently enough for you to not be wasting a lot of time.

Jeff

Ditto Jeff I tend to want to truck through it in one take personally, but it's not a common thing to do

 

[nwright]

I've never been one to copy and paste sections...And, actually, I never really thought about it. I'm surprised to hear so many of you doing it.

I always try to record an entire track...I then go back and punch in the parts I messed up the first time. It is time consuming, but I just don't think I could copy and paste a whole song by verse, chorus, etc...I don't think I could live with myself to know that in a critical environment like recording, I couldn't/wouldn't do complete passes. That's just me and my OCD's or something, though...

Also, I haven't been lucky enough to work with bands who could use a metronome well enough to do this to begin with, other than my own band. Our drummer is the only drummer in our "scene" that I know of to use a metronome...Actually, he recorded 100% of his parts for our EP and the upcoming CD all by himself, no scratch tracks or anything...Most bands around here don't do that.

 

[Torniojaws]

I'm surprised to hear so many of you doing it.

Composing and recording are two entirely different things I first compose a song and arrange it based on the copypaste demo. Once I have the full song ready structurally etc, then I record the guitar lines "fully".

 

[Jarkko Mattheiszen]

I always try to record an entire track...I then go back and punch in the parts I messed up the first time. It is time consuming, but I just don't think I could copy and paste a whole song by verse, chorus, etc...I don't think I could live with myself to know that in a critical environment like recording, I couldn't/wouldn't do complete passes. That's just me and my OCD's or something, though...

Of course it would be ideal if the players could nail the song being recorded on one continuous take, but in my case that happens almost never And like I mentioned, I use the "rec->play one riff->stop->rec->play another riff" technique only when I'm writing the song at the same time. If I'm recording a song that's already done and familiar, I record as far as I can without screwing up. When I do, I punch in before the mistake and continue playing as long as I can before I fuck it up again

 

[smy1]

I can't understand the "I want to play it in one take otherwise it feels like cheating" opinion in this thread.

Modern metal is very often about extreme precision. Especially when quad-tracking even the best players will fuck it up somewhere in a 4:30-6:00 minute song. I used to record with tape (analog or digital) back in the 90s and had to play my songs from beginning to end (with the occasional punch ins) and I absolutely hated it. It was uselessly time consuming.

Can I still play my shit live? Yes. Do I ever want to go back to recording everything in a single pass? Never.

It is simply a waste of time and you can only afford to do it if you have nothing else to do in your day ...

 

[James-Doolan]

ya thats what we do (cut and paste i mean) and i dont see any problem with it. I thought thats what everyone did it made sense to me.

Do most big bands record this way? I think they do or at least i thought they did now im not so sure.

 

[smokescreensam]

I always prefer to do a few takes all the way through then pick out the best ones and put them together into the best take for example verse from one take, then chorus from another. Seems to work best for me.
By the way Aidy, it's a small world aint it! didn't realise you visited here. Hows the new stuff coming along?
Sam