I have a decent question

[Khari]

It's a decent question in my mind, at least. It's the concept of the art of unity versus separation when it comes to songwriting. In other words, when you write and record a song, should you play it all together with a dozen or so mics in select areas, or should you go with track-by-track? It seems as though, if a band multi-tracks everything, their live shows ends up a little bit thin sometimes.. though it tends to be easier and progresses the song into a more polished blend.
However, if you play it together with the whole band, the live attribute tends to add a certain dimension, or soul, to a song that can't necessarily be found otherwise. But at the same, you don't have the ability to manipulate the sound quite as much. So in a total aspect, my question is.. which do you think is better? Thanks! Sorry it's so long.

[fuzzyhair]

Nah not too long...

I think multitracking is the way. For a live album of course do what you want, but for a recording you want it to sound perfect.

I think recording 1 instrument with 5 different mics throughout the area is cool.

[Seafroggys]

A combination of both.

I'm a fan of recording the rhythm tracks (drums, bass, guitar or keys) at once, then overdubbing the rest of the parts.

[Motleyguy]

It's a decent question in my mind, at least. It's the concept of the art of unity versus separation when it comes to songwriting. In other words, when you write and record a song, should you play it all together with a dozen or so mics in select areas, or should you go with track-by-track? It seems as though, if a band multi-tracks everything, their live shows ends up a little bit thin sometimes.. though it tends to be easier and progresses the song into a more polished blend.
However, if you play it together with the whole band, the live attribute tends to add a certain dimension, or soul, to a song that can't necessarily be found otherwise. But at the same, you don't have the ability to manipulate the sound quite as much. So in a total aspect, my question is.. which do you think is better? Thanks! Sorry it's so long.

Most of the time, in the studio, you do both. The whole band records, with everything mic'd (amps in iso booths of course). But the only thing often kept is the drums. Everything else is then overdubbed. This way you get the "performance" aspect, and the cleanliness of multi tracking. Hope that answers your question.

[mmmaaa]

Hi! I'm new here, my english isn't good and i can't post a new topic... i don't know where to ask i tried lots of another forums maybe here is anybody who know what is this song called? Please!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzaULVCM4Eo

Or anybody know the words she's singing?

[Neoteric]

god that post is random.

[mmmaaa]

god that post is random.

Yeah, I know it is and sorry for that, but I said, I can't post a new thread I don't know why I'm not able to... and i didn't find suitable topic so I asked in the one with a question, hoping anyone can help...

[Fraggy]

nah i'm a fan of multitracking myself.
especially for smaller studios and home setups, live recording would be a challenge, just due to all the variations of possible mic bleeding.

[Motleyguy]

If you're recording a studio album, you do everything as overdubs. That's why studios use recorders that allow you to do so. This way you get a much more polished sound. Exceptions to this would of course be classical music, and alot of jazz records, which are both very minimal in their production.

[Moseph]

There is no hard and fast rule for this (not even when you consider genre). The bottom line is that you do what the producer or the artist wants, and it is likely that the ultimate dictation of method will be budget concerns.

Some performers will want to do everything one track at a time, some will insist on playing all at once, and others will opt for the hybrid methodology that Motleyguy is talking about.

There are multiple factors to consider, both artisitc and logistical.

[Dies Irae]

If you're recording a studio album, you do everything as overdubs. lol

[Manimal]

Heres a question for you guys..

Whoever said a live recording gives something "special" to a performance of a piece is spot on in my book. Is there a way to record everything live, THEN take the entire performance and mix it down later?

[Motleyguy]

Heres a question for you guys..

Whoever said a live recording gives something "special" to a performance of a piece is spot on in my book. Is there a way to record everything live, THEN take the entire performance and mix it down later?

Yes. Mic everything, and run each of the mics into a seperate track. You'll need stellar mic placement, especially to avoid leakage, but that's how they do live albums. Mic everything on stage (well it's usually already mic'd anyways).

[Manimal]

Well...what do you record everything to? I assume you mean a mixer, however I don't know of any large format mixers that have seperate recorders for each individual track.

[chapeau okay]

its a called a computer

[Happy_Squirrel]

The easiest way is to record to a computer using a multitrack digital interface, like a firepod, for example.

[Motleyguy]

Well...what do you record everything to? I assume you mean a mixer, however I don't know of any large format mixers that have seperate recorders for each individual track.

Mixers don't record. Mixers mix. Recorders record. Whether it is a Hard Disk (HDD) stand alone recorder like RADAR, a Computer DAW system like pro tools/cubase, digital audio tape formats like ADAT (which uses VHS)/DAT/Sony Dash, or analog tape (1/2", 1", 2"). For home recording the best bet is a DAW system with an interface that has multiple mic pre's. With DAW systems you don't require a mixer, you mix in the software program.

[Manimal]

Can anyone link me to this equipment along with prices?

[Manimal]

its a called a computer

Whatever man. I don't know, therefore I ask.

If all learning something new requires is getting sarcasm from a*sholes like yourself, I'm willing to except the consequences.

[Motleyguy]

Can anyone link me to this equipment along with prices?

A RADAR system you would have to order from IZCORP (the creators). It would run you about $20,000 (I think that's the current price)

Look around on musician's friend for Pro Tools LE Systems like the MBox 2, or the Digi 003. The MBox 2 is around $800 for the deluxe factory version.

I don't think they make ADATS anymore, and analog tape isn't practical for someone without training, especially in a home environment. (Analog tape itself runs for about $200/reel)

Your best bet would be a USB or Firewire interface, like the Presonus Firepod, or a Pro Tools MBox set up. Look those things up on Musician's Friend for prices.

[Aus_rock_god]

It's a decent question in my mind, at least. It's the concept of the art of unity versus separation when it comes to songwriting. In other words, when you write and record a song, should you play it all together with a dozen or so mics in select areas, or should you go with track-by-track? It seems as though, if a band multi-tracks everything, their live shows ends up a little bit thin sometimes.. though it tends to be easier and progresses the song into a more polished blend.
However, if you play it together with the whole band, the live attribute tends to add a certain dimension, or soul, to a song that can't necessarily be found otherwise. But at the same, you don't have the ability to manipulate the sound quite as much. So in a total aspect, my question is.. which do you think is better? Thanks! Sorry it's so long.

Ahhh.

This is a battle I've been fighting for a long time: Keeping the quality of Multitracking while keeping the life of a live performance.

I've found that if the bulk of the song if WRITTEN in a live situation, then DEMOED live, you can use the demo as a scratch track.

You then record the drums to the scratch track, delete the scratch track, record the other instruments and then add all the fancy studio sh!t.

I find that playing to a digital click hammers the life out of a song. If you want an organic sounding studio recording you need a friggin good drummer.