|
Post by M57 on Sept 9, 2021 4:03:17 GMT -6
As a DIY singer/songwriter I've gone through a couple of different phases in terms of how I track lead vocals. More recently I've been 'chunkifying' the song and singing a single verse/chorus at a time. Based how things go I usually put in around 3-5 takes, then move on. After I've recorded the entire song, and while comping the takes I usually need to re-record a line here and there. I've always felt that one major advantage of the system is that I remember exactly what each take feels like and can reproduce what I like and fix or experiment with what I don't like on each subsequent take. But the other day, for some reason I just let the virtual tape roll and sang it all the way through ..four times. Here's how I ended up comping the takes. For whatever reason, there was no need to punch any individual lines. Surprisingly I got pretty much everything I needed despite the fact that with each subsequent take I wasn't really aware of where previous sub-par performances were. Unexpectedly, generally speaking I feel like I sang more in tune than when I record using my usual system. Looking at which take I pulled each line from, it looks like I was peaking in takes 2 and 3 ..which if I recall is about the same with the chunkify system. Certainly, I used less actual recording time. I don't know that I'm going to switch my system, but the session was eye-opening for me. I'm curious how others approach tracking vocals ..both in DIY settings and when they're sitting behind the desk tracking others.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Sept 9, 2021 4:46:22 GMT -6
I’ve done it both ways. I think I usually track in chunks more often than the whole song. I think it just depends on what we’re feeling and the vibe of the song. More often than not, we’re doing chunks, then comping. I try to limit to 3-4 takes, but sometimes it’s more. I hate comping. So tedious.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Sept 9, 2021 4:50:35 GMT -6
I think this is a really personal thing. As a session vocalist it was really common for me to go into a studio and record the song line by line. Mostly, because I had never seen or heard it before and was in the room with the creator. When I record songs for myself I always just do 3 or 4 takes of the whole song and comp it from them. If for some reason I can’t get what I need from that then I know it’s not the day for recording. Now that I do most of my session vocal work out of my home studio I use this method and often just ask for the time I need to properly rehearse the song, so I can just do a few takes and comp it. Doesn’t mean I won’t have to punch something here or there, but I find the performance to be more organic.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Sept 9, 2021 5:09:06 GMT -6
I think this is a really personal thing. As a session vocalist it was really common for me to go into a studio and record the song line by line. Mostly, because I had never seen or heard it before and was in the room with the creator. When I record songs for myself I always just do 3 or 4 takes of the whole song and comp it from them. If for some reason I can’t get what I need from that then I know it’s not the day for recording. Now that I do most of my session vocal work out of my home studio I use this method and often just ask for the time I need to properly rehearse the song, so I can just do a few takes and comp it. Doesn’t mean I won’t have to punch something here or there, but I find the performance to be more organic.
Soothing to hear again and again that professional singers use comping too...
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Sept 9, 2021 7:14:38 GMT -6
Comping has been industry standard for 40 years. Read up on the ANALOG comping box David Foster had built in the early 80s.
I do full song. Always. Unless there’s a really technically challenging bit, where I might loop through a few extra times AFTER the 3-5 takes….nearly never, as it means someone screwed up picking the key for me. And that guy is an OCD mofo!
I usually get warmed up with unrelated material and/or exercises….record 2 takes….break…come back and record another two. Recent stuff I did for my buddy I just blasted through it 3 times and called it done. It tooks a lot more creative comping than I typically need to do-meaning splitting lines between takes and such. But also it’s like is lower, and that’s always troublesome for me—keeping low notes in tune vs mid/high.
|
|
|
Post by standup on Sept 9, 2021 7:34:05 GMT -6
I’m often doing demos for a song I just wrote, and I don’t really know it yet. Often I’ll record all the choruses, then each verse, comping where there’s an obvious issue.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Sept 9, 2021 7:45:28 GMT -6
I think this is a really personal thing. As a session vocalist it was really common for me to go into a studio and record the song line by line. Mostly, because I had never seen or heard it before and was in the room with the creator. When I record songs for myself I always just do 3 or 4 takes of the whole song and comp it from them. If for some reason I can’t get what I need from that then I know it’s not the day for recording. Now that I do most of my session vocal work out of my home studio I use this method and often just ask for the time I need to properly rehearse the song, so I can just do a few takes and comp it. Doesn’t mean I won’t have to punch something here or there, but I find the performance to be more organic.
Soothing to hear again and again that professional singers use comping too...
I'm also not opposed to using some melodyne to fix things as needed. lol. Seriously though, even Mario Lanza made punches. Some are audible due to the time period, but many are not. Pavarotti used to record numerous high Cs so the recording had his most resplendent!
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Sept 9, 2021 7:55:40 GMT -6
I've done and do a lot of different things. I try to do what the singer is most comfortable with. I also try to get them out of the booth a lot, so that they don't go stir crazy. Sometimes I think that is more important than the other stuff. Often it 2-3 full takes and then listen to the most recent. Then I can usually judge where they're at and see what we should do next. If they like most of it, we check the other takes for replacement lines on things they didn't like. If there's nothing to be mined on some of those phrases, we'll punch them in. IF their general mood is I can do better than what's here," they go back out for more takes. Sometimes at that point is when I suggest going in chunks, or just doing verses and putting choruses on their own track or some other method.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Sept 9, 2021 8:08:35 GMT -6
I prefer to sing all the way through too. Then maybe punch in problematic lines as needed. Although I am not a meticulous tracking person. Cubase makes comping pretty easy though, when its needed.
Some songs that are less worked out, yes, record line by line.
|
|
|
Post by subspace on Sept 9, 2021 9:09:35 GMT -6
Comping full takes after performing is a hallmark of the self-producer, don't think there's really a better approach.
I only record other vocalists, so I only do full takes until their voice gets "there" and from that point I probably have a window of 2-4 inspired takes before they start to grind it out, so I do not burn that window running full takes. Get in, get what I need and moveon.org. That's the luxury of having someone listening live and picking your spots while not having to be in performer mode at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by tkaitkai on Sept 9, 2021 11:26:31 GMT -6
For lead vocals, I typically record every section of the song separately and do 3 - 6 takes per section. Comp the good bits onto a single lead vocal track.
From there, it depends on how fussy/nitpicky I want to be. I usually like to have a double and a triple panned hard L/R. If it's session work, I usually just comp these from unused lead vocal takes. But for personal stuff, I like to comp/tune/edit the lead vocal first and then record another 3 - 4 takes per section for the double/triple, just to get the timing as close as humanly possible before using Vocalign.
Everything else (i.e. harmonies, backgrounds, etc.) usually gets two takes to use as a stereo pair. Generally less picky about these than I am with leads. I also loooooooove having a single low octave panned center underneath the lead vocal. Doesn't always work, but it's a great way to add extra heft to choruses, especially with other harmonies/BGVs going on.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Sept 9, 2021 11:44:25 GMT -6
I personally always do at least 2 full takes no matter what. I don't care what the insturmentation is usually. Now this isn't over dubs, this just a full take. Those full takes almost always have better energy and feel than anything after it. Comp something from the full takes then patch with the spots.
You have to take good notes and know where there weak spots are and were to spend your time. But I find it rarely leaves me with nothing.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 9, 2021 12:52:07 GMT -6
Yeah I like this way, and it’s the way it has been done for pretty far back I guess. I didn’t realize until a few years ago that even in the 8 track days studios still had other 4 tracks and 2 tracks in the studio. So they could lay vocals across the 4 track for example and solo/mute stuff and feed that as one track to the 8 track. (Splicing as well) Then 16/24 tracks became the master deck, the 2/4/8/16 track machines could be the overdub decks, saving the master tape from unnecessary trips across the heads. I don’t know how many actually did this stuff, but pretty much anyone could have.
I’ve always felt recording is where we learn what a song is, and you can’t really perform it until you know it. So line by line is valuable too, and if there’s time after a few months of ‘knowing the song’ can try to record the vocals as full takes, might be some magic. The flow for me is full takes.. I’m struggling lately punching in, for my own music anyway. The feel is off, which makes the timing and accents wrong, which leads to wrong attack and etc. which makes me question the lyrics, so it’s a very relevant topic for me
|
|
|
Post by bluegrassdan on Sept 9, 2021 14:22:26 GMT -6
I always have the lead singer sing the whole song. The vocal timbre changes as the voice warms up, and you can end up with a first verse that sounds less engaging or a last chorus that sounds tired if you go section by section.
Harmony vocals are usually overdubbed section by section in order to match phrasing.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,937
|
Post by ericn on Sept 9, 2021 15:13:31 GMT -6
The idea of being able to edit easily was one of the biggest draws of tape vs wire recorders or cutting disks.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Sept 9, 2021 16:14:11 GMT -6
Soothing to hear again and again that professional singers use comping too...
I'm also not opposed to using some melodyne to fix things as needed. lol. Seriously though, even Mario Lanza made punches. Some are audible due to the time period, but many are not. Pavarotti used to record numerous high Cs so the recording had his most resplendent! Pavarotti Overdubed didnt knew that… I thought overdubbing was only used in popular music.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Sept 9, 2021 16:25:02 GMT -6
The idea of being able to edit easily was one of the biggest draws of tape vs wire recorders or cutting disks. I think that also was the reason why many of us were keen to see working digital tracking systems. Editing can be a time saver when used wisely. I had a hard time to learn the when and why. The best reason to me is when the feeling is naild …copy paste is in this case a wise decission. Having the desire to have something pretty consitent… but damn we are no robots. If I have 12 bars straight I copy this to the next part... why should I waste time getting something similar with tracking again. Ok I can track it again for my ego... come on. God invented the DAW for using its advantages for the good.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Sept 9, 2021 18:22:02 GMT -6
I'm also not opposed to using some melodyne to fix things as needed. lol. Seriously though, even Mario Lanza made punches. Some are audible due to the time period, but many are not. Pavarotti used to record numerous high Cs so the recording had his most resplendent! Pavarotti Overdubed didnt knew that… I thought overdubbing was only used in popular music. as a classical engineer, i can tell you with full disclosure that I've never done more editing and more picky editing on any projects ever. Nothing comes close to editing classical stuff. It can be crazy.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Sept 9, 2021 19:36:16 GMT -6
Pavarotti Overdubed didnt knew that… I thought overdubbing was only used in popular music. as a classical engineer, i can tell you with full disclosure that I've never done more editing and more picky editing on any projects ever. Nothing comes close to editing classical stuff. It can be crazy. I thought these guys know thier parts so well that they do liitle edits like putting takes together. Now you tell me they do crazy stuff like 8 bars from here two from there? How is that possible when the Orchestra goes into strong rubato parts? Sounds like a nightmare to me....
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Sept 9, 2021 21:47:10 GMT -6
as a classical engineer, i can tell you with full disclosure that I've never done more editing and more picky editing on any projects ever. Nothing comes close to editing classical stuff. It can be crazy. I thought these guys know thier parts so well that they do liitle edits like putting takes together. Now you tell me they do crazy stuff like 8 bars from here two from there? How is that possible when the Orchestra goes into strong rubato parts? Sounds like a nightmare to me.... Well orchestra is a bit different. Other than movie score stuff. But most major orchestras never do full recording sessions, just record live performances. This is due to costs as they are union and the stage is union. So they usually get 3-4 full performances and if you're lucky the unions will agree to patch sessions after 2-3 of the concerts. During that time, its a mad scramble to try and get those few spots that maybe weren't as clean as they tend to only be 20 or 30mins long. And it can really depend on how the orchestra takes the project in general. If they feel its a good project then they practice individually and really work to nail stuff. If they don't, then you get kind of a wash. . I do mostly chamber music stuff now and yes we comb through it all the time in great detail. But as you said, they know their parts and music super super well. Depending on the piece they could have been performing it for 30+ years since they were 10 or something. But that's a 2 edged sword. Because not only do they know the music inside and out, so does EVERYONE else that is going to listen to it(generally). So you can't let stuff slide, you really chase perfection. All while trying to impart your own sound/interoperation on the music. Which can be a balancing act onto itself. tempo wise, it's rarely an issue for a couple of reasons. 1) again, they know this music so well they play it SUPER consistently. I've only had one session my life where the musician didn't just nail stuff all the time other than tiny details. And that was a brand new commissioned piece. Or i guess there are works(Lizts's Sonata in B minor for instance) that are just ultra hard in general, those tend to get edited up a lot 2) The music is not locked to any set tempo like a rock/pop/whatever tune. It flows in and out with the musicians emotions and perceptions on what they want it to do. Tempo is one of the things artists like to explore and make "their" own to an extent. Now, yes, if they were at 140bpmish for a big section and they overdub areas at 130bpm it is painfully obvious. But thats part of my job as a producer to make sure they stay in the ball park. I've had projects where we hit 400+ takes for a piece. Can be a brutal editing process that takes months sometimes. They are all still amazing live performers too. But recording is a microscope process for Classical folks. sorry for the thread derail!
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Sept 10, 2021 4:54:30 GMT -6
I thought these guys know thier parts so well that they do liitle edits like putting takes together. Now you tell me they do crazy stuff like 8 bars from here two from there? How is that possible when the Orchestra goes into strong rubato parts? Sounds like a nightmare to me.... Well orchestra is a bit different. Other than movie score stuff. But most major orchestras never do full recording sessions, just record live performances. This is due to costs as they are union and the stage is union. So they usually get 3-4 full performances and if you're lucky the unions will agree to patch sessions after 2-3 of the concerts. During that time, its a mad scramble to try and get those few spots that maybe weren't as clean as they tend to only be 20 or 30mins long. And it can really depend on how the orchestra takes the project in general. If they feel its a good project then they practice individually and really work to nail stuff. If they don't, then you get kind of a wash. . I do mostly chamber music stuff now and yes we comb through it all the time in great detail. But as you said, they know their parts and music super super well. Depending on the piece they could have been performing it for 30+ years since they were 10 or something. But that's a 2 edged sword. Because not only do they know the music inside and out, so does EVERYONE else that is going to listen to it(generally). So you can't let stuff slide, you really chase perfection. All while trying to impart your own sound/interoperation on the music. Which can be a balancing act onto itself. tempo wise, it's rarely an issue for a couple of reasons. 1) again, they know this music so well they play it SUPER consistently. I've only had one session my life where the musician didn't just nail stuff all the time other than tiny details. And that was a brand new commissioned piece. Or i guess there are works(Lizts's Sonata in B minor for instance) that are just ultra hard in general, those tend to get edited up a lot 2) The music is not locked to any set tempo like a rock/pop/whatever tune. It flows in and out with the musicians emotions and perceptions on what they want it to do. Tempo is one of the things artists like to explore and make "their" own to an extent. Now, yes, if they were at 140bpmish for a big section and they overdub areas at 130bpm it is painfully obvious. But thats part of my job as a producer to make sure they stay in the ball park. I've had projects where we hit 400+ takes for a piece. Can be a brutal editing process that takes months sometimes. They are all still amazing live performers too. But recording is a microscope process for Classical folks. sorry for the thread derail!
For me, it's on topic because it frees the mind to do it. My dad is a classical lover I once read a Bernstein interview, and he said something like this, "There is no perfect thing even if you try to be perfect". I think that perfectionism is nothing that feeds a relaxed workflow.
Now I try to learn to do the Pareto Principle, 80% is enough, and I finish. The fun thing is, when I listen 6 months later, I think the spots that worried myself in tracking are OK - mistakes are part of our lifes.
I think that the possibilities of digital technology can drive us to do things that are no longer healthy for us in the process. Back to popular music, does it bother me that the Boss hits scoops or hits wrong notes in Hometown back in the 80s. Question does it bother Springsteen? I guess no.
Otherwise, they would have done it again and again.
I think the workflow is much more relaxed when I try not to be perfect. It's good when it's 80% consistent, even Sinatra sung wrong notes, and he had the gift to hear the perfect pitch.
What a pain for him when there was no going back. But the thing was brought to an END. And there is a big trap, some projects get edited to death.
In popular music I say use it wisely, mistakes can make a song shine / charming.
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Sept 10, 2021 8:03:28 GMT -6
I have found when working with various vocalists that it works much better if they sing the song completely and then we comp from the 4-5 takes. But, just as often, the singer really doesn't know the part so we end up doing verse by verse and comp the multiple takes. I can hear that it feels a little less "together" with the more granular approach to recording. many songs are telling a story. It's important that the flow through the song works. Nothing worse than finishing and finding the first chorus was much stronger (belting) than the last chorus. Doing full pass takes makes it more possible to keep the performance going in the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Sept 10, 2021 10:06:16 GMT -6
I have found when working with various vocalists that it works much better if they sing the song completely and then we comp from the 4-5 takes. But, just as often, the singer really doesn't know the part so we end up doing verse by verse and comp the multiple takes. I can hear that it feels a little less "together" with the more granular approach to recording. many songs are telling a story. It's important that the flow through the song works. Nothing worse than finishing and finding the first chorus was much stronger (belting) than the last chorus. Doing full pass takes makes it more possible to keep the performance going in the right direction.
When I struggle with a part, a lay-out the melody using a VI piano sound.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Sept 10, 2021 11:46:28 GMT -6
Well orchestra is a bit different. Other than movie score stuff. But most major orchestras never do full recording sessions, just record live performances. This is due to costs as they are union and the stage is union. So they usually get 3-4 full performances and if you're lucky the unions will agree to patch sessions after 2-3 of the concerts. During that time, its a mad scramble to try and get those few spots that maybe weren't as clean as they tend to only be 20 or 30mins long. And it can really depend on how the orchestra takes the project in general. If they feel its a good project then they practice individually and really work to nail stuff. If they don't, then you get kind of a wash. . I do mostly chamber music stuff now and yes we comb through it all the time in great detail. But as you said, they know their parts and music super super well. Depending on the piece they could have been performing it for 30+ years since they were 10 or something. But that's a 2 edged sword. Because not only do they know the music inside and out, so does EVERYONE else that is going to listen to it(generally). So you can't let stuff slide, you really chase perfection. All while trying to impart your own sound/interoperation on the music. Which can be a balancing act onto itself. tempo wise, it's rarely an issue for a couple of reasons. 1) again, they know this music so well they play it SUPER consistently. I've only had one session my life where the musician didn't just nail stuff all the time other than tiny details. And that was a brand new commissioned piece. Or i guess there are works(Lizts's Sonata in B minor for instance) that are just ultra hard in general, those tend to get edited up a lot 2) The music is not locked to any set tempo like a rock/pop/whatever tune. It flows in and out with the musicians emotions and perceptions on what they want it to do. Tempo is one of the things artists like to explore and make "their" own to an extent. Now, yes, if they were at 140bpmish for a big section and they overdub areas at 130bpm it is painfully obvious. But thats part of my job as a producer to make sure they stay in the ball park. I've had projects where we hit 400+ takes for a piece. Can be a brutal editing process that takes months sometimes. They are all still amazing live performers too. But recording is a microscope process for Classical folks. sorry for the thread derail!
For me, it's on topic because it frees the mind to do it. My dad is a classical lover I once read a Bernstein interview, and he said something like this, "There is no perfect thing even if you try to be perfect". I think that perfectionism is nothing that feeds a relaxed workflow.
Now I try to learn to do the Pareto Principle, 80% is enough, and I finish. The fun thing is, when I listen 6 months later, I think the spots that worried myself in tracking are OK - mistakes are part of our lifes.
I think that the possibilities of digital technology can drive us to do things that are no longer healthy for us in the process. Back to popular music, does it bother me that the Boss hits scoops or hits wrong notes in Hometown back in the 80s. Question does it bother Springsteen? I guess no.
Otherwise, they would have done it again and again.
I think the workflow is much more relaxed when I try not to be perfect. It's good when it's 80% consistent, even Sinatra sung wrong notes, and he had the gift to hear the perfect pitch.
What a pain for him when there was no going back. But the thing was brought to an END. And there is a big trap, some projects get edited to death.
In popular music I say use it wisely, mistakes can make a song shine / charming.
I agree with you for the most part. In fact, as a producer I always tend to push for the takes where the energy and emotion fit the moment more so than the notes. I don't care if the notes aren't 100% perfect. Because often to do that you have to remove the emotion to get the mechanics down right of playing the instrument. If they are good enough and know the music then the mechanics aren't important and you can play with the emotional context of the performance. Which is always more fun. The argument though is again, classical folks are in general recording pieces of music that have been recorded hundreds if not thousands of times. Their audience is "smart" and they know the notes and everything in between and get analyzed and scrutinized to death. So it's a bit of a balancing act and why I don't always win the "this take is better because the energy is right" argument.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Sept 10, 2021 12:25:59 GMT -6
The argument though is again, classical folks are in general recording pieces of music that have been recorded hundreds if not thousands of times. Their audience is "smart" and they know the notes and everything in between and get analyzed and scrutinized to death. So it's a bit of a balancing act and why I don't always win the "this take is better because the energy is right" argument. ..and everyone knows that the likes of Bach, Mozart, and Chopin never made mistakes while performing ..and were able to cover them up by turning them into something equally and stunningly musical.
|
|