Recording songs in different sessions- issues together

[if6was9]

I've been recording this band a song at a time. It was working out well for us doing 2 days at a time and then the ocasional day of overdubs. Spread out over a couple of months.

Now that the demo is pretty much finished, they are worried that each song sounds too different from each other. I tried to get a similar balance between each song but there are differences- there's different guitar tones and bass is a little different too. Also the drums were a bit worse on 1 track since the heads were quite worn on that songs session.

How do you guys battle this? I pretty much mixed each song by itself to get the best mix for the song, then A/B'd it with the first tune we did which they were very happy with to see if the balance could be brought into line with this and if certain instruments jumped out as too different. I tried to use similar verbs and effects on vocals and such to get a simlar atmosphere between the songs too.
They are an old school doom band so I've gone with natural drums and I don't have Di's for most of the guitars since I didn't have a re amp box when they were recorded.

Also they wanted to get it mastered by someone else, would this help much? I've gotten projects mastered before but never with this in mind. They're thinking of scaling down their plans on its release now due to the differences between songs, including opting to not get it mastered( i have given them versions where I've mastered it)

 

[TheDriller]

Hey Ciaran,
i haven't really had problems with this before, as i tend to mix to the character of the individual track anyway, and i kind of go for an "isntinctive consistancy" if that makes sense.

a few points off the top of my head:

-the latest version of Reaper has a "project-in-project" feature, which allows you to open several projects in tabs, i don't know if you are still using version 2 or if you have gone ahead and upgraded like you were considering the last time i saw you. this feature could be useful for re-mixing the songs to achieve consistency

-this really should have been brought up at the beginning of the project, that a side effect of such a dispersed tracking timeline can be loss of consistency across the album/ep. i would do my best to explain to the client that this is the way things turn out with that kind of project schedule.

-i would assess whether that disparity in tones is _really_ that bad, or whether it will have a truely negative impact on the release. if this is the band i think it is, then i'd wager there is no harm in having a bit of variation across the album.

 

[16S]

Dude, post some short clips if you can

 

[::XeS::]

Advice: take detailed pics of everything you use in these case (drums micing, preamps, inputs, cab micing, amp settings). It save you to remember or try different settings from the first session.
If the drummer used a brand new set of skins the first session, it was his fault if he continue to use those skins (expecially if he knew he had to record other songs).
Anyway, you can take multiple samples of the "good" drums (kick, snare, toms) and blend them to the miced tracks of the "bad" drums so you'll have a more similar sound.
For the guitars, if you have DI's and a reamp box, reamp all the songs with a new sound...

 

[beyond dead]

the obvious things like sample replacing with better samples, and using similar mixing strategies will work, but only so much.

when it comes down to it, the main reason may be the way the arrangement of the music/album

I often use different amps for guitars on some songs, and different drum samples, depending on what best suits each song.

I wouldnt sweat it if I was you, cuz its most likely not your fault that it sounds inconsistent. The most important thing is that the band is happy with the album.

I would position it to them in a way that implies that the inconsistencies are a good thing. tell them that it sounds that way because their music is so diverse, and that it gives them character as a band.

as long as the material has decent flow as far as RMS is concerned, and it sounds good, the only other thing you can do is try to use your tools as much as possible to gain as much consistency as possible. be careful not to overdo it with the tools, cuz its better for it to sound a bit inconsistent from song to song than if the songs are ruined with over use of samples/tuning ect. I can see how using too much sample replacement may have negative results for this genre.

good luck

 

[Force666]

Have them send the tracks to a good mastering engineer. This is exactly the job description of a good ME. Taking 10 mixes and turning them into 1 album.

For next time, if possible i'de recommend breaking it up into more cohesive sessions. As in, all the drums the first couple days or whatever...and take DI's and do all the vocals as close together as possible. Then even though they are breaking up the time, they will be more consistent track to track.

 

[lolzgreg]

I always recommend DIs for everything and midi for keyboards in ALL cases.

I generally do midi drums first for the band to track to. Real drums are the LAST thing. Usually a band knows if they want to finish their album with you, so it's not an issue.

 

[beyond dead]

I generally do midi drums first for the band to track to. Real drums are the LAST thing.

hmm this is interesting to me. I have been doing things oppositely. I can see the logic in recording drums last, because it is easier for a drummer to gel/groove to a finished mix, rather than just a click track.

I was thinking the best way is just get the guitarist to lay scratch guitar tracks for the drummer to track along with. problem being that guitarists often play differently without a drummer, because they dont have the drums to keep them on time.

but as i feared, you have convinced me that Im gonna have to take EVEN MORE INITIATIVE to program drums too lol.

my problem is that bands never want to spend time on preprod. let alone program all the drums for their album before recording. I dont know how many of the local drummers egos could handle hearing what the drums should really sound like for their music hahaha. I dont think it would permit them to track this way.

I have lost so much business since I raised my standards, its unbelievable! People are afraid to record with me cuz I`ll steal their blankey lol

 

[Force666]

I generally do midi drums first for the band to track to. Real drums are the LAST thing.

Wow, that seems like a really hard way to work. Spending the time to program drums that aren't going to be used? And to me, the drums dictate the rest of the performance so much that I can't even begin to imagine how much harder that makes it to track drums, which are already the hardest instrument to track.

 

[lolzgreg]

hmm this is interesting to me. I have been doing things oppositely. I can see the logic in recording drums last, because it is easier for a drummer to gel/groove to a finished mix, rather than just a click track.

I was thinking the best way is just get the guitarist to lay scratch guitar tracks for the drummer to track along with. problem being that guitarists often play differently without a drummer, because they dont have the drums to keep them on time.

but as i feared, you have convinced me that Im gonna have to take EVEN MORE INITIATIVE to program drums too lol.

my problem is that bands never want to spend time on preprod. let alone program all the drums for their album before recording. I dont know how many of the local drummers egos could handle hearing what the drums should really sound like for their music hahaha. I dont think it would permit them to track this way.

I have lost so much business since I raised my standards, its unbelievable! People are afraid to record with me cuz I`ll steal their blankey lol

Most drummers I know do not have the aptitude to GROOVE, they're lucky if they can play to a click. One of the projects I recently worked on I gave the drummer scratch guitars and a click and he couldn't even follow. Just scratch guitars... it was a nightmare

If you program drums to be 100 percent on time, the band cannot argue with you when you tell them "you're playing off time." I also HATE the idea of having to track drums, then quantize them, then continue with tracking. Most people who record with me don't have a $5000 budget to allow time for this. Programming midi drums does not take that long at all and it's always dead on.

When the mix is done, the drummer will have EVERYTHING playing on time for him to lock in to. The emphasis on certain parts will also be there already, since you are sort of "pre mixed" and it will help the drummer play more dynamically (if they're good).

I'll tell you this, I'm by no means a pro-engineer, but I like to think that I'm learning a lot of helpful and relevant things.

As I said before, DIs for bass and guitars and MIDI for keyboards are a must. Vocals and drums are last in the process.

 

[beyond dead]

Wow, that seems like a really hard way to work. Spending the time to program drums that aren't going to be used? And to me, the drums dictate the rest of the performance so much that I can't even begin to imagine how much harder that makes it to track drums, which are already the hardest instrument to track.

you would have to program the drums pretty close to the real thing too, so the guitarist/ bassist could lock in with them, or else you would run into troubles. scratch tracks are a must though.... fuck it sucks when you track drums for an album, tear down and start recording guitars, to find that the drummer left out 2 bars here, 4 bars there, and went into the chorus 2 bars early on every song! (this will happen if you let the band run the recording)

If the band is serious about the project (ie recording an album, not a demo) they should make a full preproduction first. with drums, guitar, bass, vocals, keyboards, whatever, so that they know exactly what they want it to sound like.

That way you can track instruments in whatever the fuck order you want too. So many upsides. I would never pay money to go to a studio if I hadnt already recorded/ mixed the song myself before to prepare

 

[lolzgreg]

Wow, that seems like a really hard way to work. Spending the time to program drums that aren't going to be used?

A LOT OF THE TIME you will be using the MIDIs for the drums. Let's say that the drummer isn't good enough to play the songs to their potential. You can essentially replace him with the MIDI drums, if you know how to really work them. Most people cannot tell the difference.

Also, do you track in some of the most astoudning live rooms in the world, or do you sample replace drums? A midi file with concrete velocity information and perfect timing is a hell of a lot better for triggering samples than a drum track with a shit ton of bleed with mistriggers and a tone you may not end up using at all.

My method has worked on every recording I've done. You don't have to agree with me, or even regard what I have to say, but it works when I do it.

 

[beyond dead]

Im highly regarding what you are saying. the idea of tricking the drummer into thinking that it is their performance is genius as well. As long as you change the samples after they track, perhaps even blend samples of their kit. haha I think you may have got me on to something. Is it difficult for you to convince drummers, and bands to record this way?
edit: I have trouble getting drummers to do this, any positioning statements you use, or something?

 

[lolzgreg]

If the band is serious about the project (ie recording an album, not a demo) they should make a full preproduction first. with drums, guitar, bass, vocals, keyboards, whatever, so that they know exactly what they want it to sound like.

I pre-produce every band I work with. That is the stage where we do MIDI drums. You also have to realize not every band has a producers ear. Sometimes drummers will write parts that are too busy or not busy enough, same with guitarists and anyone. Having the drums down where you can change them on the fly is a blessing.

I make a big deal about every band I record. If I'm doing a project, I'm gonna expect to get kicked in the nutz a few times along the way to make it to its potential. This is what seperates the engineers from the engineers, if you know what I mean. Everything I do represents ME and the band, so I'm sure as hell going to do my best to make it rock.

 

[lolzgreg]

Im highly regarding what you are saying. the idea of tricking the drummer into thinking that it is their performance is genius as well. As long as you change the samples after they track, perhaps even blend samples of their kit. haha I think you may have got me on to something. Is it difficult for you to convince drummers, and bands to record this way?

Also, whenever you track drums, make a great multi-sampled kit of the drummers set. That way, if their timing is horrible, use a VST instrument to load the samples and make a digital kit out of their set. They REALLY won't have an idea then.

No band I have ever recorded has argued against it. I simply explain it all to them, how it will be best for their outcome of their record if they trust me to do things the way I do. I don't engineer people who don't trust my methods.

 

[beyond dead]

people not trusting methods is the biggest problem. I have been operating at unprofessional level, recording demos for crappy bands. I have recorded a few really tight bands who had their shit together, but the ones who required extreme editing/sample replacement, seemed to be the ones who were the most hell bent against using it lol. They dont have money for new skins, and they insist that I dont use samples. the cliches go on and on.

It wouldnt be so bad if these guys just accepted that they were coming to me to make them sound good, so they need to let me do what it takes to do so.

but, I think the manner in which you go about the process is perfect. thanks for the tip!

 

[Force666]

I can quantize performed drums faster than I can program midi tracks. Maybe if it we're some more Rock oriented stuff.....but still, probably not.

That's great if it works for you! But I think you'de be pretty much in the minority of people who would want to work that way.

A LOT OF THE TIME you will be using the MIDIs for the drums. Let's say that the drummer isn't good enough to play the songs to their potential. You can essentially replace him with the MIDI drums, if you know how to really work them. Most people cannot tell the difference.

Disagree (of course mainly with the OH/cymbal work)

Also, do you track in some of the most astoudning live rooms in the world, or do you sample replace drums? A midi file with concrete velocity information and perfect timing is a hell of a lot better for triggering samples than a drum track with a shit ton of bleed with mistriggers and a tone you may not end up using at all.

No. Never had a problem triggering a live performance. Mistrigger = cut the hit out...easy as pie.

My method has worked on every recording I've done. You don't have to agree with me, or even regard what I have to say, but it works when I do it.

That's great. More power to you. It's good that you hold yourself in such high-regard with every post you make.

Sorry dude, but all I did was comment on your post. Your reply was quite condescending.

It seems like a really hard way to work to me. That's fine if it works for you, no problem there. Although, I don't think too many people will agree that it's the most streamlined way to work.

 

[beyond dead]

I pre-produce every band I work with. That is the stage where we do MIDI drums. You also have to realize not every band has a producers ear. Sometimes drummers will write parts that are too busy or not busy enough, same with guitarists and anyone. Having the drums down where you can change them on the fly is a blessing.

I make a big deal about every band I record. If I'm doing a project, I'm gonna expect to get kicked in the nutz a few times along the way to make it to its potential. This is what seperates the engineers from the engineers, if you know what I mean. Everything I do represents ME and the band, so I'm sure as hell going to do my best to make it rock.

well said. I really need to be alot more picky with the bands I record. Im more concerned with making good music than churning out a million shitty demos. Its only worth my time to work with a bands if they are willing to do a proper preproduction. If I`m going to put my name on it, and If I am going to take any ownership over the music, I have to have my heart in it 100% if Im working on a mix with a poor arrangement, sloppy performances, and an unorganized band, Im not even having fun any more

 

[beyond dead]

I dont feel his post was condescending... I think he realizes that it is a bit of a radical approach, but I see the logic in this method as he does. Its really quite brilliant if you ask me! I dont see very many tight drummers, I could name a few drummers in famous bands that blow ass

 

[lolzgreg]

That's great. More power to you. It's good that you hold yourself in such high-regard with every post you make.

Sorry dude, but all I did was comment on your post. Your reply was quite condescending.

I wasn't trying to be condescending, can you point out where I was doing it? I apologize for any offense you may have taken to my post.

Also, if you're being sarcastic, I would love to know as well. It doesn't read well over the internets.

A lot of recording when you don't do it for a living is about convienience. I wish I could edit drums faster than I could program them.

I also don't tend to use real drums on recordings when the band doesn't have the budget or the desire to go to a great studio to track them.

If I can get better results with MIDI that is very well programmed, then that is the answer.