How much is too much?

[shadowtippy]

I play in a trio: guitar, drums, and bass. Lately, we have started recording some stuff that we really enjoy playing. The "problem" is that the guitard is adding track after track to the recordings. I'll admit that it sounds good, but it no longer sounds like us. Am I wrong in thinking that the recordings should sound, not exactly live, but close to the way we do perform the songs. Or, should I suggest that we add some horns, keyboards, and try to find a choir to back us so it (recording) sounds nothing at all like us?

 

[grifff]

It really depends on what you want. It's all about personal preference. I'd say don't add too much stuff that you can't perform live, your audience might think you are lacking something that they heard on the record.

 

[jaywa]

Unless you're going to be adding one or two players when you play live, and/or you intend to cover some of those parts with backing tracks, you better keep your guitar overdubs in check or your live performances are going to be disappointing (to say the least) to people who have heard you on record.

If you're recording someplace where cost is no object, go ahead and let your guitarist put down 4 tracks, play it back and when he's done, say, "sounds good, now how do you plan to cover all that live?" And then play the song live as a 3-piece right then and there and hopefully he'll realize what a pickle that puts him in.

The last thing you want is to be known as a band that sounds great on record but can't deliver live.

 

[TheHegemon]

I agree with Grifff, personal preference. I prefer the record to sound like you would play it live. I always looked at it as if I cant do it live I cant do it

 

[Craig_S]

If you're using it for promotional purposes, keep it clean and real as you can. If it's just for the band to listen to, have fun with it. You can always drop the additional guitar tracks.

 

[DeluxeRed]

You're not stuck with just the one mix. Make several alternate versions of the song. If you then have to decide on one definitive version, you can get many different opinions on which people like best, though ultimately, someone is going to have to make a decision (that's the producer's job).

Lots of acts, big and small, have studio versions they'll never pull off live. Some use backing tracks (Queen - BR), some use additional musicians (Pink Floyd - CN), some play completely different versions of the songs (ZZ Top), some use both hands and both feet to get close (Rush).

If you are making a demo to sell your band's live performance, you don't want those to be studio tracks anyway--anyone can make a karaoke mix these days. You want your live show demo to be live.

 

[Marko 1]

It seems to be a common occurrence when a musician starts recording. Often the don’t know how to restrain themselves.

I have a great guitarist buddy who went from musician to songwriter… we listened to his first album, and man, it was horrid. He just didn’t seem to know when to quit.

He came to my studio recently and we discussed it, and I think we got across to him what he did wrong. I suspect his next album will be cleaner.

 

[WarriorJoe7]

you can have the extra dub tracks as remixes but you should have a stripped down version.

 

[Korladis]

My band is only three people, but we have a friend from another band who's playing with us live so as to be able to perform both guitar parts.

When recording, we try not to do too much stuff that we won't be able to pull off in concert, and keep it to things that won't be too sorely missed, like intros and outros and stuff like that.

 

[Rick Auricchio]

Now you know one of the major reasons to have a producer. He's like the director of a film. Keeps some control over the project.

Of course, a producer handles budgets and a lot else, but keeping the project under control is one of the main things.

 

[kalle74]

I think of it this way... If it´s an album:

Record and overdub whatever supports the song (simply doubling the guitar lines over and over doesn´t go), get crazy with the orchestration (keys, horns, percussion etc.). Make interesting choices. After all, a record should last a long time (i.e. it´s great if you find something new in the mix on your 14th round through the record).

Come live performance, the arrangements should be changed into something that goes well in live settings, or more people brought in to perform the piece (I guess backing tracks are an option, too...).

If it´s a demo: get it close to your live sound.

 

[Bochafish]

I remember reading that when Boston went on tour after their big first album, everyone was let down by the live sound because the recordings had so many guitar tracks, and it sounded empty on stage. That being said, those songs still get played on the radio 30+ years later, so maybe it wasn't a bad idea.

 

[scottbass]

You're not stuck with just the one mix. Make several alternate versions of the song. If you then have to decide on one definitive version, you can get many different opinions on which people like best, though ultimately, someone is going to have to make a decision (that's the producer's job).

Lots of acts, big and small, have studio versions they'll never pull off live. Some use backing tracks (Queen - BR), some use additional musicians (Pink Floyd - CN), some play completely different versions of the songs (ZZ Top), some use both hands and both feet to get close (Rush).

If you are making a demo to sell your band's live performance, you don't want those to be studio tracks anyway--anyone can make a karaoke mix these days. You want your live show demo to be live.

+1. Lots of opportunities. Ain't digital recording great?

BTW I once saw a Clapton concert in his pre-treatment days. They closed with "Layla". There was no piano - I guess no one thought of that!

It really SUCKED!!!