Tuesday, 4 March 2008

Metal Meltdown: Back in the studio again

I have been pretty and busy and haven’t been posting much on account of said business. Science is going like science goes (badly mostly), my parents have been moving and required help, my boss is sending me alone to a conference unrelated to my work as his delegate and at night time I have been in the studio.

I have a few things to write about the studio. Most non-musicians don’t realize how much work and time (and money) is spent in the recording studio to bang out just one song. To my plebian band mates, who thought that recording eight songs was a terrific idea, I can only blame their poor short-term memories for forgetting pour last more modest efforts. Thus far we have spent nearly every day of the last three weeks in studio. This means that my daily schedule looks something like this:

Wake-up 8am

Go to the lab 9-10am (sometimes later)

Take the BH to physio 4pm

Make/eat dinner 5-6pm

Go to the studio 6-7pm

Get home 12am

Pre-production/samples/lyric writing/going over material for the next day 12am-3am

Going insane (anytime)

Yes, you read it right. Waking up at 8am – SLACKER! But I’m also going to bed fairly late and to compound this I have (and have had for years) pretty sever insomnia – so sod off. But I digress.

The studio is not a place where one comes, plugs in one’s instruments and everyone jams out Kumbaya with a few microphones and then calls it Miller time.

First, there is no tape. With the advent of direct to disk recording, 95% of the world’s albums are recorded direct to a hard drive. Second, every instrument is recorded separately. Third, setting up the sound for an instrument can take hours (in the case of guitar) or even days (in the case of drums). To take an example from this recording, it took the engineers (there were two during the initial drum set-up day) eleven microphones and six hours to make our drummers drums sound like drums and not cardboard boxes. It took two days to record drums for eight songs, not including drum setup.



Part of our drummer's setup in the isolation room.


The reason one records all instruments separately is to preserve separation, prevent microphone bleed, and to ensure that everything is on separate tracks and can be mixed and edited separately. Edited you say? Yes, edited. I will return to this later.

Following drums, we took about a week to record guitars (putting us behind schedule). Each guitarist had to double track guitars (to make it sound thicker) meaning that each track had to be identically played. Following this, I recorded bass and have just recently completed vocals. I’ve always thought yelling into a microphone for four hours at a time was a good proposition – until one loses his voice.

Recording in parts like this means several things. One is having all the arrangements and tempos set out well in advance. In our case we had to program all the guitar arrangements by computer and create proper click tracks (tempo guide tracks) for the recording. It may sound trivial, but despite having so-called complete computer arrangements, it still took me nearly 20 hours of tweaking, testing, mixing and bouncing guide and click tracks for our drummer. That does not include the programming of the two keyboard parts nor the acquisition/arrangement of samples for the recording.


The benefit of recording to disk is myriad. Recording to HD allows for unlimited tracks (theoretically), high-bit digital recording (usually 24 bit), the use of digital effect plug-ins rather than the use of expensive outboard equipment, and the GUI allows for the visualization of waveforms for easy punch-ins (takes from the middle of song for example) and for editing1. The disadvantage is that with old tube gear and analogue recording, there was always a bit of ‘give’ where everything didn’t have to be perfect. The finest mixing boards and vintage tube gear were forgiving. That said, nothing sucked more than having to redo take after take to get that perfect track on a given song. Digital recording picks up every little nuance, every little scratch and sound that one makes – even to the extent that one hears little things in playback that one would never catch on the original take. It’s this cold meticulous perfection and the fact that it’s relatively easy to edit songs visually that digital recording has run amok. Every recording that you have likely ever heard (with the exception of maybe most classical and some jazz) has been heavily edited and processed to the point where it’s just so clean and perfect that bands, just to keep up and to not sound like they recorded something in their basement also have to have everything digitally recorded, processed and then edited. One irony is that the Garage Rock bands (all the ‘The’ bands) have their sound tweaked digitally to make it sound like it was recorded on old crappy vintage gear after it’s been cleaned and polished to sound perfect.

In our case, following a number of guitar takes the engineer proceeded to edit some guitar tracks not because they were off time, but because they had to be ‘mechanically’ perfect and sound like they were played by a robot. The problem with modern pop-rock music is that there is increasingly less room for things to sound human and to have those little imperfections that make the music feel real. The question then is whether to go the human route or to have one’s recording perfect? An extreme case of this was a band that came through the studio recently. The producer insisted that the drums be recorded without cymbals (to prevent bleed) and then have the cymbals recorded later. Similarly each guitar chord was recorded separately and then composited together. Madness.

I’ll be glad to be out of the studio soon.

____________________________

1. Editing usually involves the ‘cleaning’ of certain tracks of noise, muddy fades, guitar string noise, and other extraneous sounds. Occasionally this involves actually digitally fixing mistakes made by musicians such as waveform nudges and in more extreme cases, pitch correction for singers. The caveat is, of course that if one really can’t play or sing, then the editing becomes obvious. Lindsey Lohan is a good example.

It should be noted that classical music rarely has any of this high tech trickery. One reason is the technical superiority of musicians trained for a decade and a half on a given instrument. The other reason is that the perfection of the arrangement of the modern orchestra and the amphitheaters in which they're situated has been ongoing for hundreds of years - possibly the longest studio mix in history. It is no coincidence that the instruments are situated where they are within the orchestra in order to sound their best.

7 comments:

langmann said...

I am one of those strange people who likes his music to sound real, which is why I rather listen to live concert recordings than what you guys are currently up to. There is something to be said for the human element of a recording. Van Morrison is interesting in that he has occasionally done a single recording of his music.

It is also a reason why I like classical music, as you say there are hundreds of years of theory and practice that go into the product. The problem with modern classical is that they seem to have forgotten what the classics were all about - they are supposed to "sound good" to the general listener. Currently this techical stuff sounds like crap.

As to Conrad Black, if only Jean Chretien could be finally charged for the Shawinigate stuff and be placed in the same cell as Conrad. It would indeed be fitting justice. On the other hand, Conrad, like Saskatchewan, has given Canada a suitable middle finger, something that needs to be done more often.

How are you paying for the recordings?

Necator said...

Beleive it or not...there's a lot of arguing going on about certain mixing/editing aspects that the engineers want to foist on us. I'm trying to keep it as real as possible, but things don't always work out the way you want them to.

But none of this is a recent pehenomenon with regard to popular music. Zeppelin, Yes, Rush, Pink Floyd all had loads of overdubs, punch ins, effects, and editing. Except back in those days - they actually cutting tape.


We're paying out of pocket - as usual.

hear hear for JC. And to BM if what Schreiber is alleging iss true (which I reckon likely isn't).
Black may have stuck up his finger, but it cost him in the end.

Congrats on the new job!

langmann said...

Yeah agree about the punch ins. Some bands made them a part of the act itself, Led Zep, Floyd for sure did, in some ways a mockery of what they were doing and in other ways an exploration of what was seen as a whole new artform.

You're right, almost nothing ever works out in life the way one wants - except for some odd few who seem to have diamonds shoved up their rear ends by God or the Universe.

Well I hope at the end of the day the recording is worth it. What do you think the prospects are of a return for your layout? Also where will we be able to buy this new sound? And are you planning on selling it online as MP3? I'm still interested in what you guys sound like.

Wish the BH health, thanks for the reply regarding new job. Now that I have one I can blog again.

King Aardvark said...

I definitely agree with you guys on the live vs heavily edited thing. I generally don't respect musicians who can't sound good live.

There's a difference between Pink Floyd and what's editing to experiment whereas a lot of chumps these days use done by other acts. Pink Floyd used editing to cover up for how sucky they are.

Carlo said...

It's weird how people can go to extremes about different things. There are the bands who want every single chord to sound as though it's perfectly isolated from every other, while other people will ONLY listen to vinyl.

A long time ago I began hating electronica and techno because of the complete lack of the human element behind the music (I've since enjoyed the odd track), but I do appreciate a well recorded, well produced album. Mind you, like 90% of people don't have the equipment to notice it anyways.

It's like when Julie and I got a cheap surround-sound system. It makes a HUGE difference in quality that, contrary to what nay-sayers will claim, is easily perceivable by anyone.

Necator said...

The problem gets really convoluted given our hifi existence. We're used to 5.1 or even 7.1 audio in films, live theatre is mic'ed and popular music (by this I mean essentially anything on the radio) is so mastered that anything sounds thin by comparison. I've heard a number of awesome bands do off the floor recordings (basically live, played all at the same time) that we technically spectacular - but they just don't stand up to heavily produced records because they sound thin, tinny, and it's almost always evident that it's live (which is good for live record but not always for a studio record). the problem, is that people want a big shiny giant full spectrum sound with no noise and flawless execution.

Moreover, there is another problem, namely recording in HD and in 24 bit and directly to hard drive. This picks up EVERYTHING. I've even heard voices or doors being openned /close picked up by guitar pickups!

In the old days, things were direct to tape and usually through reams of tube gear that smoothed out the sound, but arguably gave it a lower def. Kind of like turning down the sharpness nob on a TV - things are more fuzzy but evberything looks kind of nice and you can't see flaws or wrinkles in an actor's face.

Classical is not immune either. Although most of these instrumentalists are in a separate class from pop (there are of course exceptions), the design of instruments, the orchestral seating, design of amphitheaters all has a lot to do with the sound. Ever wonder why choirs are almost always recorded in Chruches (other than the obvious religious aspect) - it's because of the reverb. I've heard the same guitar pieces in a class room and in a hall and it makes all the difference. The natural reverb usually smooths out the notes, makes string noise less perceptible, etc.

Anyway, it is what it is and according to the guy mixing us right now, he seems to think that we've had very few edits and next to no digital trickery. I take solace knowing that non of my bass tracks were edited (except during pauses to get rid of electronic hum and the odd finger noise) and all of them were full takes with the exception of two that were deliberate punch-ins. Wish I could say that for the rest of the guys....

King Aardvark said...

Well good for you for keeping it as real as reasonably possible.

And Carlo, when I first glanced at your comment I thought it said "I began hating harmonica" and thought that, while such a feeling is understandible, it just didn't pertain to this discussion.