Recording Vocals

[smy1]

or u can just tell them to quit being a bitch and use headphones..thats what i do !

I really don't understand this attitude ... I mean, who are you to say that?

While many musicians (especially the not-so-good-ones) are drama queens and primadonnas, the engineer/producer is only the lackey who's job it is to make the musician deliver the greatest possible performance.

If they don't feel well, you'll get a mediocre perfomance and a less-than-stellar end result.

I sometimes feel that a bunch of people on this board don't understand this principle: we (the engineers/producers) are just stooges, we don't matter in the long run because we can be replaced easily. Even guys like Andy and Colin Richardson can be replaced easily. There's still Machine, Andy Wallace, Terry Date and 4875395 other producers/engineers left to do the job in similar quality.

The "you moron musician asshole"-attitude that I've seen quite regularly on tech-boards MAY be okay for a little demo-studio without regular commercial interest, but it's just not working if you are trying to get anywhere and be there for the long haul.

My good friend Jeff "Critter" Newell said it best when he said: "the really good producer makes the band feel at home and steers them in the right direction while making the band believe that THEY got all these great ideas themselves".

 

[Phase]

I My good friend Jeff "Critter" Newell said it best when he said: "the really good producer makes the band feel at home and steers them in the right direction while making the band believe that THEY got all these great ideas themselves".

All good points but it still doesnt shed the "Im better than you" attitude. . This kind of insane pompus attitude is all over the internet revealing how brilliant Producers and engineers feel in relation to artists. Of course not all--it looks like Andy acts like a brother and thats the way it should be

But many have revealed their hearts and show they look down on the bands that hire them

How many times have you heard, " just change the bass track and the bassist will never know." Like somehow you have the right to lie to the people paying you.

 

[Brett - K A L I S I A]

Sometimes it's not a right but a duty (and the people paying is not always the band) and if it's shit and needs to be done again, it's shit, no other way to make it sound good (which is why you're paid for). Other than that I agree with you

 

[madbutcher]

Sounds like a pretty damn smart idea what Dave said.

The only time I ever tried using monitors in the room where I tracked, I couldn't get anywhere near a decent level without getting feedback. As soon as I almost even turned up my mic pre level the feedback was piercing my ears in the control room. How do you handle that?

 

[Nebulous]

I'd go for something a little less technical and make myself something along the lines of these:
http://www.customaudiodesigns.co.uk/auralex/xpanders.htm

Use foam that's as thick as you want. Works decently well, obviously depending on how loud you have the monitors and if you're bothered by the sound of them with the mic.

 

[smy1]

All good points but it still doesnt shed the "Im better than you" attitude. . This kind of insane pompus attitude is all over the internet revealing how brilliant Producers and engineers feel in relation to artists. Of course not all--it looks like Andy acts like a brother and thats the way it should be

But many have revealed their hearts and show they look down on the bands that hire them

How many times have you heard, " just change the bass track and the bassist will never know." Like somehow you have the right to lie to the people paying you.

I can only speak for myself here, but usually I am better than the band at knowing what can be done with a song in the studio (otherwise they wouldn't be hiring me). And musicians that I work with like working with me because I make them sound a little different from what they are used to by suggesting things. Overall that is called "improvement" or "evolution" or just "fresh perspective".

The producer's job is to deliver a recording of the highest quality, both on a sonic and an artistic level. If that means the whole drums have to be redone at night by a session drummer, or programmed, so be it. It doesn't mean that you feel "superior" to the musician. It just means that the musician isn't skilled enough to play what he WANTS to play, so you substitute it to reach the ultimate goal, the quality recording. Half a year down the road, the musician will be happy, because he doesn't have to feel ashamed for his crappy playing on the debut album. Another thing I usually suggest is to strip down the music/arrangement and go for stuff that is easier to play (and often sounds better) if it fits the song.

I think there is a big difference in looking down upon bands and secretly working behind their backs to make them look better than they are, which effectively means you are working FOR them, while making them believe it was all them (as musicians very often like to believe). That's what the Critter-quote was all about.

And of course: Brett is right. If the label pays the bill, it's the producer's duty to fix stuff, if the band likes it or not.

 

[AStacy2]

I tried a bunch of the techniques you guys talked about and the phase inverting on a track where the singer wasn't singing worked the best for me for sure.

I read somewhere that Andy recorded a few albums (Nevermore maybe??) with the singer in the control room with monitors cranked. I wonder if he used this same method?

 

[brandy]

Even if it is OT, that was smy1 said is realy realy important.

Be a smart guy and make your clients feel good and comfortable - the more relaxed they are and the more they can concentrate to make music and then: the better the stuff you record.

A great record is mainly made by great music (inkluding songwriting, playin skills etc).

Soundreplacement and Reamping etc. are just tools. There are so many engineers out there who can do that. It is so important that the band can say that there is only one person (you) who made them feel, sound and look that good.


To be on topic again:


There are described 2 techniques:

The one with flipping the phase of one speaker:

pro:

- Its easy

con:

- It might sound a little bit strange when standing exactly in the center of a phase reversed setup. I don't know if any singer could perform well in that scenario.

- You should have a realy dead room for that, cause reflections and combfiltering can makes the playback not cancelling out.


The one with the twice recorded take - one with singer, one without:

pros:

- you can track even bigger choirs with that technique
- everyone feels comfortable
- you can use multiple mics
- it will give you much better results relating to bleed than the use of headphones (i am talking about a choir wich might need 20 headphones)

cons:

- you have to be carefull when editing, combining, moving etc the takes.

Usually we are used to edit a lot, puzzling together the best parts, tuning intonation, moving stuff to fix bad timing etc.

In that case you first have to record the "without voice" take bevore moving anything, then you can

a) make a mixdown processing the take and the phase flipped take for now working with a blled-free take

b) you edit both tracks in sync. That means that you have to cut and moove the voiceless take as well.

You might only record the without-voice-take one time, you can then make as much takes and dubs as you want.

Compile the take, edit timing. Then make the mixdown with the phase flipped take, then do the autotune/melodyne work.



brandy