Sneapsters,
*THIS THREAD WILL BE EDITED SEVERAL TIMES TO ADD INFORMATION*
I would like to give back to the forum a bit with a thread about guitar tracking. A lot of these things may have been mentioned on this forum before, but I'd like to have them all complied into one thread that is going to help anyone who wants to achieve a better guitar sound from step one.
1. The Player
Everything starts in the hands of the person who is playing the instrument in question. The real truth of the matter, is many musicians think they are pretty hot shit until they walk into a session to record and track their first few takes. Many people are really inexperienced with making a record, and it's more than likely that any musician you have the pleasure of recording may have tracked at a number of studios prior to yours or the one you're working out of, and tracking etiquette was far from up to par. There are important things you need to take into consideration as soon as the first take is over.
A. What kind of record are you making?
Before you even assess the ability of the player that you are going to be recording, it is essential that you have a firm understanding of the kind of record that you will be producing. What I mean by this, is that is really isn't always appropriate to "overproduce" a performance. You can't jump the gun and demand that a player do things note-by-note, chord-by-chord, riff-by-riff, or even section-by-section; the band and you need a cohesive vision for what they want their final product to sound like. At this point in the game, you also need to consider the quality of the other performances that preceded the guitar tracks. Here is an analogy that I made that I think is very helpful.
A record's production quality is a lot like male pattern baldness. As you age, before you bald, you have a full head of hair, which may have a few gray hairs here and there, dandruff underneath, a few scars and skin discolorations atop your head, and some minor hair damage, which is being hidden by the wealth of hair around it. A record can be seen in the same way, because you may track instruments that have tuning imperfections, are mildly off tempo, have small noises laced throughout the tracks, have small editing or comping errors, and are not recorded up to par; the case is, that all the minor oddities are being enveloped in the big picture of things, making it overall seem like a relatively well-done and cohesive performance. As one loses hair, the view of the skin of the head becomes clear, as well as any visible mars; In the case of the production, as tracks are refined and cleaned up, the tracks around them seem messier and messier, and a standard must be upheld in order to make things cohesive again. If a single instrument remains that is either performed or edited to a lower standard than the rest, it is similar to the last tuft of remaining hair on an old mans head that just seems ridiculous and out of place, and ruins his overall image. In the end, when a man is completely bald, there is a sense of unification because there is no remaining hair on the head. Any skin imperfections can easily be treated, dry skin can be moisturized, and the head can shine, much like your final product
Before I digress, my point is that if your project is aiming to feel a bit more "live," record guitars a bit more loosely. If you want it to sound stupid tight and mechanical, then do things a little bit more surgically. Personally, I really prefer getting a great performance from a musician than comping strings of notes together; doing things this way has a lot more "character" than doing things note-by-note, and character is something that is missing from many genres of music today. Sometimes, you'll need to be a little more anal about your tracking, depending on the musician AND the instrument in question, but if possible, shoot for several great takes of a part, and edit pieces of it together to get your "final" take.
B. What kind of player are you dealing with?
Now that you have a vision for the record you're going to be making, you slide your magnifying glass over the player in question. Every band member you deal with is going to have a different plateau for their musicianship. Some guitarists are machines, and are seasoned players who have a knack for playing in time, play cleanly, and avoid making extraneous noise with their hands during or in between riffs; on the other hand, some guitarists you will meet write riffs or sections of songs that are clearly out of their ability to reproduce at the drop of a dime, or even after upwards of forty takes. The largest issue here is where to draw the line, and what to do to make things happen. One of the greatest advantages you can have as an engineer, is the ability to play several instruments proficiently. What happens when you and the band decide you want to create a super polished production, that is devoid of playing errors and tuning discrepancies,and the guitarist isn't up to par? I touched upon this briefly in the previous section. You have a few options here:
a. track things note-by-note (generally leads to artificial sounding takes, for a good reason, I may add)
b. track things riff-by-riff (often works out much better, but with a genuinely sloppy player, you're still in trouble)
c. replace the musician (ORLY)
Now, option c. is going to likely make a great deal of people upset, but the truth of the matter is, I don't give a shit.
When I record a band, I make a contract that reads similarly to the following:
You have x-amount of takes to properly record any particular section of your song. If you cannot proficiently perform your own material, you have two options:
a. You forfeit the right to your instrument and either I or another musician will track your parts.
b. You refuse, are dismissed for tracking for the day, and are responsible monetarily for all of the time you booked for that said day.
Does that sound harsh to anyone? It sounds realistic to me. If you don't want that to happen to you, don't record with me, or better yet, practice your damned parts. I don't want to waste my time listening to you suck at your instrument, and allow your ball-licking playing to take a nasty beer shit all over the record I'm making for you, and neither should you. To this date, I have had zero arguments about any poor tracking related issues, because most bands are happy to have their material tracked proficiently, sounding great, and it to benefit their final product, all while spending LESS MONEY on their record, because it was done right the first time, in a significantly shorter period of time.
Sounds like a winning combination to me, and anyone here can GLADLY take a stab at my practices, because I find it important to deliver a final product that adheres to a greater standard, the bands I work with are extremely happy when I'm done with their record, and I still get paid.
*THIS THREAD WILL BE EDITED SEVERAL TIMES TO ADD INFORMATION*
I would like to give back to the forum a bit with a thread about guitar tracking. A lot of these things may have been mentioned on this forum before, but I'd like to have them all complied into one thread that is going to help anyone who wants to achieve a better guitar sound from step one.
1. The Player
Everything starts in the hands of the person who is playing the instrument in question. The real truth of the matter, is many musicians think they are pretty hot shit until they walk into a session to record and track their first few takes. Many people are really inexperienced with making a record, and it's more than likely that any musician you have the pleasure of recording may have tracked at a number of studios prior to yours or the one you're working out of, and tracking etiquette was far from up to par. There are important things you need to take into consideration as soon as the first take is over.
A. What kind of record are you making?
Before you even assess the ability of the player that you are going to be recording, it is essential that you have a firm understanding of the kind of record that you will be producing. What I mean by this, is that is really isn't always appropriate to "overproduce" a performance. You can't jump the gun and demand that a player do things note-by-note, chord-by-chord, riff-by-riff, or even section-by-section; the band and you need a cohesive vision for what they want their final product to sound like. At this point in the game, you also need to consider the quality of the other performances that preceded the guitar tracks. Here is an analogy that I made that I think is very helpful.
A record's production quality is a lot like male pattern baldness. As you age, before you bald, you have a full head of hair, which may have a few gray hairs here and there, dandruff underneath, a few scars and skin discolorations atop your head, and some minor hair damage, which is being hidden by the wealth of hair around it. A record can be seen in the same way, because you may track instruments that have tuning imperfections, are mildly off tempo, have small noises laced throughout the tracks, have small editing or comping errors, and are not recorded up to par; the case is, that all the minor oddities are being enveloped in the big picture of things, making it overall seem like a relatively well-done and cohesive performance. As one loses hair, the view of the skin of the head becomes clear, as well as any visible mars; In the case of the production, as tracks are refined and cleaned up, the tracks around them seem messier and messier, and a standard must be upheld in order to make things cohesive again. If a single instrument remains that is either performed or edited to a lower standard than the rest, it is similar to the last tuft of remaining hair on an old mans head that just seems ridiculous and out of place, and ruins his overall image. In the end, when a man is completely bald, there is a sense of unification because there is no remaining hair on the head. Any skin imperfections can easily be treated, dry skin can be moisturized, and the head can shine, much like your final product
Before I digress, my point is that if your project is aiming to feel a bit more "live," record guitars a bit more loosely. If you want it to sound stupid tight and mechanical, then do things a little bit more surgically. Personally, I really prefer getting a great performance from a musician than comping strings of notes together; doing things this way has a lot more "character" than doing things note-by-note, and character is something that is missing from many genres of music today. Sometimes, you'll need to be a little more anal about your tracking, depending on the musician AND the instrument in question, but if possible, shoot for several great takes of a part, and edit pieces of it together to get your "final" take.
B. What kind of player are you dealing with?
Now that you have a vision for the record you're going to be making, you slide your magnifying glass over the player in question. Every band member you deal with is going to have a different plateau for their musicianship. Some guitarists are machines, and are seasoned players who have a knack for playing in time, play cleanly, and avoid making extraneous noise with their hands during or in between riffs; on the other hand, some guitarists you will meet write riffs or sections of songs that are clearly out of their ability to reproduce at the drop of a dime, or even after upwards of forty takes. The largest issue here is where to draw the line, and what to do to make things happen. One of the greatest advantages you can have as an engineer, is the ability to play several instruments proficiently. What happens when you and the band decide you want to create a super polished production, that is devoid of playing errors and tuning discrepancies,and the guitarist isn't up to par? I touched upon this briefly in the previous section. You have a few options here:
a. track things note-by-note (generally leads to artificial sounding takes, for a good reason, I may add)
b. track things riff-by-riff (often works out much better, but with a genuinely sloppy player, you're still in trouble)
c. replace the musician (ORLY)
Now, option c. is going to likely make a great deal of people upset, but the truth of the matter is, I don't give a shit.
When I record a band, I make a contract that reads similarly to the following:
You have x-amount of takes to properly record any particular section of your song. If you cannot proficiently perform your own material, you have two options:
a. You forfeit the right to your instrument and either I or another musician will track your parts.
b. You refuse, are dismissed for tracking for the day, and are responsible monetarily for all of the time you booked for that said day.
Does that sound harsh to anyone? It sounds realistic to me. If you don't want that to happen to you, don't record with me, or better yet, practice your damned parts. I don't want to waste my time listening to you suck at your instrument, and allow your ball-licking playing to take a nasty beer shit all over the record I'm making for you, and neither should you. To this date, I have had zero arguments about any poor tracking related issues, because most bands are happy to have their material tracked proficiently, sounding great, and it to benefit their final product, all while spending LESS MONEY on their record, because it was done right the first time, in a significantly shorter period of time.
Sounds like a winning combination to me, and anyone here can GLADLY take a stab at my practices, because I find it important to deliver a final product that adheres to a greater standard, the bands I work with are extremely happy when I'm done with their record, and I still get paid.
