When you record, do you go for "feel" or "no mistakes"?

[BurtMacklinFBI]

Feel takes priority, but I do feel like it's important for me to exercise some self-discipline and be cautious about the impulse to say "The feel is there, leave it!" My grunge knuckledragger instincts are such that I'm much more likely to leave a track too raw and unpolished and regret that later than I am to do the opposite.

 

[Mili]

I think time feel is a must!
And if a mistake is a wrong note, record should be mistake free!

 

[zontar]

Hey, if Zeppelin can leave in a squeaky drum pedal--& make it work--then feel is tops

 

[mmon77]

I chose "feel", because that's how I would record most times.

That being said, there are some genres of music where quantizing everything to the grid is just how things are done. I've been on a bit of a prog/djent metal kick lately, and all that stuff is heavily quantized and produced.

 

[tradernick]

Both

Great response.

Listen to Donald Fagen's Kamakiriad album for the epitome of studio geekiness which results in a record that feels awesome. I realize he's the exception.

If it's a flat out mistake? These days, there's no compelling 'let's leave the organic feel of the way it was played intact' reasoning that justifies not fixing it. You can fix a mistake digitally without losing feel.

 

[cnltb]

What's your approach to recording (for release)? Does the finished song need to be mistake-free? Do you quantize and move notes to get "perfection"? Do you record a take that sounds and feels good and say "yep, that's it"? Or somewhere in between?

I ask because I'm typically a "somewhere in between" leaning toward "if it's a good take with good energy and groove, don't mess with it". But I've worked with producers who would go through each beat and nudge the kick drum (or other parts) measure by measure if it wasn't exactly where they wanted it (and this was for a drummer with good groove). And I thought the final product sounded kind of sterile.

So I'm curious about others' practices and leanings.

To me, there can't be any mistakes and it has to feel right.

 

[jnewmark]

Since I'm usually a hired hand, although I typically know the other musicians and we work together often, I do whatever the producer wants me to do; if he wants a certain feel, I try to cop that. If he wants simple and perfect, I do that. There will always be overdubs, and once in awhile, we will change the structure, tempo, and even the key. But, bottom line, its whatever the producer wants at the session. Thank God for Pro Tools !

 

[Mannyinnewyork]

The recordings I've made are generally "as good as I can get it". No " bad" notes , but a pro player could surely have done a better job. My fan bass (daughter and wife) is very forgiving.
If I was paying a session player, I'd be a bit more critical - I'd expect feel and no mistakes. If mistakes were made, I'd make sure they were corrected.

 

[smtp4me]

I voted "other", because "both" was not an option. I usually try to record the track in one take, so that it has a consistent feel. I will then go back and fix what I consider to be obvious mistakes, but it does not have to be perfect. You can always find some part that could have been done better, and that rabbit hole should be avoided.

 

[JimB52]

Our producer believes in the performance. We aim for a great take, which doesn't preclude a mistake or two. He can get an errant not fixed more easily than redoing a good performance without a clam.

 

[morgansterne]

I listen for mistakes. If I can hear the mistake, I'll fix it. Whether that means pro tooling it or re recording.
Don't go zooming in to the grid lines to look for timing issues! Just use your ears!

 

[BassBrass]

No mistakes are where your head should be. 1. Feel (content) should be there in the music already. If by feel you are talking about trying harder and exaggerating, I'd say that actors know that trying too hard just makes it insincere, so the RIGHT FEEL is needed and that should be in the music before you record. 2. You don't need an astrologer to tell you (if you have experience) that a take in 5 minutes often "feels" much better (or worse) that a previous take because the atmosphere (the "feel") is actually different than 5 minutes ago. Another day is Definitely different feeling.
If you don't get the "feel" right the first time, occupy yourself for a few minutes or hours and try again. If by "feel" you are actually talking about certain technical aspects, like hesitations and other timing subtleties, that is another issue. Otherwise "feel" isn't something you can force and the Feeling of a moment is continually changing.

 

[Tony In Philly]

Apparently Cream's "Strange Brew" has a bum bass note in there, but it sounded great and they went with it anyway.

 

[Dave Siff]

For me, there's no excuse to put out a studio recording with wrong notes, especially if each player's parts are recorded separately. Of course you want great feel, too. But leaving a mistake that could be fixed without consequence would be like publishing a book with typos.
A live album, or playing live, is the polar opposite -- you get your one chance in that moment and if a wrong note or three happens, you've gotta live with it.

 

[BwanaDust]

Other.

When I record a bass part, I always use two tracks (sent to a mono group, which is where I'll add any plugins, etc.) I do this so I can punch in without using a count-in or auto-punch. It just feels more comfortable for me to start the recording a few bars back and then start playing. I alternate tracks for intro, verse, chorus, etc. I do it that way so I can concentrate on getting the feel and the notes spot on. Sometimes I get it on the first try. Sometimes I'll go through the same 16 bars for an hour, doing take after take until I get it the way I want.

While I have no problem editing someone else's project to perfection -- if need be and that's what they want -- I like to keep my own stuff as true as possible.

Of course, sometimes I do full takes on one track, but I am usually working out a bass line as I record, so using two tracks seems to work for me.

 

[FrenchBassQC]

I went with no mistake, we will groove the tunes when we'll do the live versions of them...

But during the recording, there's always groove that will fit the tune, but during live representations, there's like more room for that and improvisation.

 

[DanGroove]

Other.

When I record a bass part, I always use two tracks (sent to a mono group, which is where I'll add any plugins, etc.) I do this so I can punch in without using a count-in or auto-punch. It just feels more comfortable for me to start the recording a few bars back and then start playing. I alternate tracks for intro, verse, chorus, etc. I do it that way so I can concentrate on getting the feel and the notes spot on. Sometimes I get it on the first try. Sometimes I'll go through the same 16 bars for an hour, doing take after take until I get it the way I want.

Most DAW software has an auto punch feature where you can set the area to be punched and then start several measures back to get your groove going. It will automatically arm/disarm to the region you choose.

Edit: I just noticed that you mentioned "without using auto-punch" so obviously you knew that. Not sure why you are against using it though...

 

[ThinCrappyTone]

I do most of my recording at home, so in that scenario, with no time limits, it's mostly just a matter of persistence. Meaning, I should always eventually be able to nail both the accuracy and the feel. It just might take me 35 takes.

But in in cases where the luxury of endless redos is not possible, I guess it just depends. Which of the takes "works" better? Is the less accurate take full of distracting clams, or just loose? Is punch-in possible, to touch up an otherwise great take?

 

[skyline_01]

I always say before recording that I'm going to play what I feel no matter what, but then usually end up playing it very safe and sticking to simple go-to fills bc I get embarrassed easily and don't want to waste anyone's time.

 

[And I]

The two are not mutually exclusive.