| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Chris Knight
= Cult of Ray =
USA
899 Posts |
 Posted - 06/04/2003 : 12:31:48
|
Sure, everyone loves the sound of Mr. T's live to 2-track recordings, but how many of youse are infatuated enough with the principle that you would consider going the 2-track route for one or more of your own band's studio recordings? Personally, if I had a versatile backing band like the Catholics (with members coming and going amicably and according to the music's requirements), I could see myself doing at least half of my recordings live.
CAK
P.S.- I don't actually have a band, so don't let that deter you from responding. |
|
|
frank_black_francis
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
895 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2003 : 12:40:06
|
I like the live to 2-track recording, however, there are songs on BLD that i sort of wish i could hear Feldman's keys a little more...if there were multi-tracks....i could.....i still do think that live to 2-track rocks.
...and evolving from the sea, would not be too much time for me, to walk beside you in the sun.... |
 |
|
|
speedy_m
= Frankofile =
Canada
3581 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2003 : 12:43:31
|
| We are in the process of recording essentially live to two track. Only our lack of musicians is keeping us from going all the way live. |
|
|
|
El Barto
= Song DB Master =
USA
4020 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2003 : 16:10:23
|
| If I had a band I would only want to record live. Nothing can top the feeling and emotion that comes out of the music when you're playing along with the band. Everyone should record live...the quality of the recordings would definitely increase. |
|
|
|
PsychicTwin
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1772 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2003 : 16:23:20
|
I don't know if everyone should record live...that is a little absolute.
I'm definitely all for the visceral, no-bullshit results of doing so...the passion doesn't get dissected and reprocessed that way.
Still, there is a whole art in multi-track recording, and it can often produce results that surpass what is humanly possible live. It is a medium in itself, so to speak.
The bottom line, however, is that I prefer the vibe and sound of live recording. But multi-track recording also has a very viable, important place in music in my opinion. Both are fun, and if used in the right context, both can be the perfect way to record depending on what kind of artistic result you are going for. |
|
|
|
BLT
> Teenager of the Year <
South Sandwich Islands
4204 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2003 : 16:24:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by El Barto
Everyone should record live...the quality of the recordings would definitely increase.
It would also weed out a lot of half-assed bands! |
|
|
|
Chris Knight
= Cult of Ray =
USA
899 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2003 : 20:55:31
|
Amen to that, BLT.
Yeah, I guess live-to-multitrack would be fine, as long as there are absolutely no overdubs, punch-ins, etc. The advantages would include better control over the mix, the ability to add FX to individual tracks, and whatever else. I was gonna say "add samples", but I guess those could be "performed" with a triggering device. Grey area alert! |
|
|
|
Chris Knight
= Cult of Ray =
USA
899 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2003 : 20:58:39
|
| Forum code is the devil. |
|
|
|
blackpurse
= Cult of Ray =
USA
299 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2003 : 04:55:48
|
| Good topic. I'm so pressed for time alone that live to 2 track holds much interest for me! I actually pride myself in being a one-take player (because studio time is so dang expensive!). But on the other hand, I've worked with sound guys who in and of themselves were very musical and one who considers himself one of the band -- he learns the songs, the dynamics, etc. So when he goes live, he can give the band the quality sound that one would get in a studio. So I am of the school of thought that if you're thinking musically (not just wanking around, or covering up for your mistakes), that some multi-track recording has definite value. Live to 2-track works for Frank for the reasons stated by other writers, and I think it would work for bands I've been in as well. But I do enjoy the creativity and musicality that comes with mixdown as well. One just has to be careful not to cross that gray line of doing it for the sake of doing it. So call me the fence sitter. |
|
|
|
Scarla O
= Cult of Ray =
United Kingdom
947 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2003 : 05:40:25
|
I think PsychicTwin hits the nail on the head...Live to 2 track has its own virtues but the whole multi-track/overdub/editing malarkey provides an alternative which has its own advantages. Within good music there's clearly a place for both techniques however I for one (as someone that works solo) consider the digital multi-tracker to be just as much a musical instrument as I do the bass or the guitars. |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2003 : 10:14:16
|
Personally, i'd like to hear more 'studio' multi-tracking from FB&tC..
It's sort of a reversal..so many bands work hard to make their live show sound just like their record...but here we have a record that sounds like the live show. =)
I think it's cool and all, but there's another kind of magic that can come out of layered tracks. |
|
|
|
Atheist4Catholics
= Cult of Ray =
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2003 : 13:26:59
|
When I was at Berklee we all had to do a live to 2 track projects for our production and engineering major.
How about trying the Motown thing and using only one microphone in conjunction with live to 2 (or I guess it'd be live to 1 back then.)
www.mp3.com/clootie |
|
|
|
blackpurse
= Cult of Ray =
USA
299 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2003 : 05:16:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
Personally, i'd like to hear more 'studio' multi-tracking from FB&tC..
It's sort of a reversal..so many bands work hard to make their live show sound just like their record...but here we have a record that sounds like the live show. =)
I think it's cool and all, but there's another kind of magic that can come out of layered tracks.
I agree. And frankly, there's capturing the feel of guys who sat down to record, but I have genuine "live" recordings. They never, NEVER capture the live show. I believe you HAD TO BE THERE to see it. That's why you go see a band (people often correct me and say, "Don't you go HEAR a band", no I go to SEE them and HEAR them.
I don't even mind re-mixing -- to bring out parts you may have missed in a live to tape recording. On the other hand, I remember reading how some Smashing Pumpkins recording took 64 tracks and several retakes and overdubs and blah blah blah. That's just wanking (and covering up your mistakes!). Whenever somebody brags about how many tracks they're using, I remind them that 2 of the best albums ever recorded -- Sgt. Pepper and Electric Ladyland, were recorded 4 track. Next.
|
|
|
|
PsychicTwin
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1772 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2003 : 06:42:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by blackpurse
[quote]Originally posted by Dave Noisy
I remember reading how some Smashing Pumpkins recording took 64 tracks and several retakes and overdubs and blah blah blah. That's just wanking (and covering up your mistakes!).
i completely agree with you on that. that is MIS-use of multi-track recording. wankers. |
|
|
|
Omer
= Cult of Ray =
275 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2003 : 08:18:02
|
Well, I love the live feel as much as anyone, but there is somehting to be said for multi tracking. Simply put, it allows you to get the best out of your equipment.
I do wonder how Frank does the vocals for the songs - especiall y the quiet/loud ones. When we recorded our demo, I redcorded vocals seperately for the choruses and the verses in a couple of songs.
When we recorded the vocals, I kept having the engineer go back and play my part again, and I would over dub it again and again, for the frustration of him and the guitar player who could not hear any difference. In the end, it just took way too long time, and we did most of the songs in one or two tracks.
For the most part it sounds OK, but I still catch myself every once in a while for something that was not -quite - the way I'd want it.
So I guess it would've been a better record with more tracks and over dubs. |
|
|
|
Chris Knight
= Cult of Ray =
USA
899 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2003 : 11:27:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Atheist4Catholics
When I was at Berklee we all had to do a live to 2 track projects for our production and engineering major.
How about trying the Motown thing and using only one microphone in conjunction with live to 2 (or I guess it'd be live to 1 back then.)
www.mp3.com/clootie
I know you were joking, but I'd be willing to try live-to-two-mics once or twice IF the mics were stellar and the recording space had the right ambience. Heavy quirk rock with a '50s jazz-recording sound. Heh heh. Also, a part of me wishes I had tried for Berklee after high school, given what I now know about the (history of) the Boston music scene. Ouch!
You staunch multi-tracking proponents are all wusses. ;) |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2003 : 13:19:48
|
I dunno, what's wrong with wanting it to sound **exactly** the way you do?
I think i read that on Beck's Midnight Vultures, they spent something like 2 whole days on a 16 second section...i think that's fantastic and real dedication to what you're trying to create.
I'm not willing to bash either system. I'd say in general for studio albums, i'd rather see more use of the technology that's out there.
As i said in a previous topic, i sure would love to hear Frank harmonizing with himself again. Something we'll never get to hear with his current recording process. |
|
|
|
El Barto
= Song DB Master =
USA
4020 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2003 : 13:23:17
|
quote:
Whenever somebody brags about how many tracks they're using, I remind them that 2 of the best albums ever recorded -- Sgt. Pepper and Electric Ladyland, were recorded 4 track. Next.
Pet Sounds (*THE* best album ever recorded) was recorded on 1, 2, 3, and 4 tracks, I believe. |
|
|
|
Broken Face
-= Forum Pistolero =-
USA
5155 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2003 : 15:26:24
|
i think both are valid systems for recording and should be praised equally
something like dog in the sand is a fantastic album and the live recording really suits it. however, that being said, certain albums just couldn't be cut live. it would lose some of its magic. multitracking is good for a multi-instrumentalist like myself, who likes to put a few differnt instruments down per song i record (maybe i'm just an egomaniac...), but if i had a hot enough band, i'd love to do some stuff live to 2 track as well
-brian |
|
|
|
Atheist4Catholics
= Cult of Ray =
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2003 : 10:44:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by El Barto
quote:
Whenever somebody brags about how many tracks they're using, I remind them that 2 of the best albums ever recorded -- Sgt. Pepper and Electric Ladyland, were recorded 4 track. Next.
Pet Sounds (*THE* best album ever recorded) was recorded on 1, 2, 3, and 4 tracks, I believe.
This point is somewhat irrelevant because all these people bounced tracks and in the end had used as many as people do today. Yes, it's harder to have to bounce everything and yes, you lose fidelity. But when you have people in lab coats and rubber gloves handling the process (as the Beatles did) or you're mixing to mono (as in Pet Sounds) it tends to make up for the lack of tracks. Not to say that these albums aren't great acheivements. I just don't think they are great arguements against using more than 4 tracks.
BTW - Les Paul had already invented the 8 track in the 60's but it was ten years before it was actually used commercially (by Led Zeppelin I believe.)
www.mp3.com/clootie |
|
|
|
carsonwerner
= Cult of Ray =
USA
254 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2003 : 17:56:40
|
| I thought that "As my guitar gently weeps" was recorded with 8 tracks, and that was late 60's. I could be wrong, though. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
