how picky are you on performance?

[bryan_kilco]

When is the point during tracking where you say "That's enough, this is the best we can achieve"?

The reason I ask is because I'm recording rhythms (at home, no real deadline) for our album now and while I'm fairly content with most of it, some of it I just want to redo but I've already spent a good amount of time on those parts. It's being remotely mixed and I just want the best possible performances.

I find myself struggling through a few of the riffs here and there. Yesterday I spent about an hour or 2 on this one riff and had trouble playing it all the way through, so I started punching in small sections. I got almost done with it, played both guitars back, then deleted it all.

It's times like that when I start to question my ability and how far I should really go to get the best takes. Definitely don't want our first release to have sloppy performances, but just how far do you take it?

 

[DavePiatek]

There's definitely a point of diminishing returns. I will say this: Creativity without limitation is dangerous. You can always say to yourself "I could do this a little better". My best advice is to set up a time frame where recording needs to fit. That way you're running up against a deadline and you'll be forced to make decisions.

 

[Terminus]

Pretty much the same here. I don't edit my guitars (or bass) much after the fact so I really kick myself in the ass to get it right when recording it. Sometimes I hit snag riffs and have to sit there and play it for an hour doing take after take, then go through and find the one out of a hundred that worked.

 

[bryan_kilco]

Pretty much the same here. I don't edit my guitars (or bass) much after the fact so I really kick myself in the ass to get it right when recording it. Sometimes I hit snag riffs and have to sit there and play it for an hour doing take after take, then go through and find the one out of a hundred that worked.

I know that feel. Only I just delete any bad takes I do right away. I do it until it feels right while playing the take and it sounds tight. A lot of times I think I nailed a take, then track the second guitar and find out one of them is off a little, then I'll have to punch in just a tiny section here or there.

I really don't want to have to resort to tracking in half-time or anything crazy like that.

 

[Trevoire520]

You'd probably be quicker to get a reasonable take and then edit it if necessary. Hours of doing the same riff must be horrible.

 

[bryan_kilco]

You'd probably be quicker to get a reasonable take and then edit it if necessary. Hours of doing the same riff must be horrible.

I usually don't get stuck for that long. If I go at it for 10-15 mins and am still struggling, I get up and take a break, have a smoke or a beer, and come back. 8/10 times that is all I need and I can get through it in the first shot after that. This riff last night was fucking my eyeballs out though.

 

[domingooo]

My guiness record was to record 342 takes of the same solo. an then... edited.

if sounds good... do it... no matter what..
There is no need to play things in one take. Elfs and orcs doesnt exists but i have enjoyed lord of the rings a lot. My perfect solo neigther.... but i enjoy listen to my edit ones...

is not a contest of "being the best guitar player in town"

 

[Terminus]

I've tried that slowing the playback rate down thing before, just hate the way it makes the pick attack sound. I'd rather just play bits of the riff and fade them all together, and that goes for editing too. Much rather do micro-punch ins than do it slower or push stuff around after the fact.

 

[mva801]

I'm as picky as I have time to be. I never really record myself so I have to find the best that can be done in the amount of time we have.

My advice to you is to either spend more time practicing this riff to the backing tracks, or change it so it's easier to deal with. It shouldn't take you more than an hour to nail a part you wrote. If it does, you might be overshooting. And if it takes you that long to play it right in that environment, how does it sound live?

 

[Genius Gone Insane]

It's ok if it's not played perfectly as long as the imperfections are the same on both guitars. That's my take. If you practice and you still can't get it right, you should at least be able to double your performance, which will sound half-decent.

 

[Daybreak]

I'm always probably way too picky, but then again, recording at home with no time frame does that to you, for good and for worse. I hardly sit for over an hour on one riff - I do the best I can, then edit. If I DO have a deadline, I will go out of my way and record the riff note by note, if it's what it takes, just to get it as tight as I want it to be. Then promise myself to practice the next song I'm recording more so I don't have to do stuff like that. If I don't have a deadline, then I'll just take a break, take a chill practice session and go at it the next day/later that day.

 

[JeffTD]

Relatively, depends on the goal. Do I want a lot of room mics in the drum mix? Then his feet better be on enough so that they don't have to be edited separately. Is there a complex lead section that matches a keyboard section note-for-note? I'll cheat on that a bit - it's going to be more forgiving.

 

[Nuno Filipe]

I usually do at least 30 takes for a riff, well not for power chords of course!lol But for me it´s almost always quadtracking, so takes much more time

I must say that I rarely pick my guitar to practice, even worse after learn to edit the shit. So, I usually struggle a little more with complex fast riffs with alternate picking. After those sessions, I always think to myself that I have to practice much more but I do the same thing over and over! ahah

And I must say that I am working on some projects that I cant even play some shit at the speed that I write!lol but I dont care much because it´s just a project and it´s not supposed to be played live as a band. But if it was, I would be the bass player! ahahah

But yes I am really, really picky, so picky that I dont even track my shit with bass or drums, almost always just the guitar and the metronome. Because playing with drums I cant hear if I am sloppy or not.

 

[B36arin]

I'd lie if I didn't admit that it depends on the musician and the kind of production. I'm not picky with myself when I'm recording demos, and when a musician isn't good enough I'll just try to have that person make fun and get the best possible takes without making it a stressful experience. But when I'm recording myself for something serious or a really good musician I get REALLY anal. I can spend ages tracking vocals.

 

[Alphanumeric]

Extremely, with myself and other guitarist especially.

I never go hyper editing like recording one note or punching in a few beats at a time, chopping stuff up and fading together. Record less than a section (verse, chorus) though, usually 1/3 of a section a time or a couple of bars a time. But generally its around 3-4 takes for chugging stuff for a whole section, and I edit this a lot by moving stuff around and use the best chugs for other places and punch it in. For a proper riff, well they can take 1 go or 50, melodies around 2 bars at a time and 5-10 attempts at each, then for solos, always record them in 1 take never in sections unless there's a pickup change, so they usually take 50-100 goes (this is all for tech metal though).

The worst thing though ... is the easiest stuff, strumming or background ambience, I am so so so conscious of timing when changing chords, which are often complex, the intonation, tuning, all the strums even no swing, no fretboard squeek etc, so now instead of billions of goes I record one chord at a time, do however many 8th, retune for correct temperament of the next chord, and I usually end up recording anything do with strums if they let me or when they've gone, because most people overlook them and can't play in time or cleanly with it.

 

[anotherpaul]

We tracked rhythm guitars for our latest record, spent a week or so, recorded double tracked rhythms for 10 songs. Took about 5-10 takes for each section. And then deleted all of it and recorded everything from scratch in two days with much better performance and pace.
When I was recording vocals myself the take count in one song for a single vocal track was often hitting 200s. For the other bands I record, it's usually about 5 takes for each part. Maybe I'm just a shitty singer.

 

[Spectivum]

I really don't understand chasing perfect timing with guitars, when we spend a lot of time humanizing midi drums. Especially solo arpeggios and fast muted alternate picking - you can tell on too many recent recordings these weren't tracked in speed, creating fake sounding midi guitars...

 

[Sethis]

Whatever helps you sleep at night man. lol

But I like imperfections too. And yeah, if you do it so "artificially" maybe you can also humanize it a bit. A squeak, a note slightly ahead of time, fret buzz etc

 

[anotherpaul]

you can tell on too many recent recordings these weren't tracked in speed, creating fake sounding midi guitars...

Some people don't hesitate to actually use programmed guitars for sweeps or tapping.
IMO certain styles benefit from super tight playing, but it's not always just tightness that is pursued when talking about doing lots of takes. Guitar is just as expressive as a voice. Guitarist doesn't just play a bunch of notes, but has tons of pick attack variations, palm mute aggression, bends and other articulations that can create massive FEELS and are sometimes hard to capture from the first take.

 

[jeid]

I think recording yourself is probably part of the problem. Is there anyone there during the takes to say "that sucked" or "that was great" ? If not, get one of your band members to essentially, produce you. Show them how to use your recording rig if they don't already know how. This will leave you to concentrate fully on your performance and not worry about the DAW side. Plus, it will seem more like a session rather than you playing guitar in front of your computer.