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

[socialleper]

Wow, there are a lot of assumptions being made in these questions.

"Feel" (a vague term that needs to be ditched along with "vibe" or "mojo") doesn't mean there are mistakes. Something can be technically correct and still have feeling. It isn't synonymous with sloppiness.
Similarly, recording something right doesn't necessarily require editing or dubbing. Sure, digital manipulation can be used to correct things; or you can just play it right.

 

[MoeTown1986]

I go for feel AND no mistakes.

 

[wraub]

It depends on the song... sometimes a "sloppy" feel is right.

 

[Pete Greenfield]

We prerecord everything on a Tascam DP24 and go into the studio fully prepared. Cuts the costs dramatically and gets you over 'recording anxiety'!

 

[Vooter]

I try to create my own special Skynyrd "Hell House" and learn every single note of every single song until I can play everything that's being recorded with both feel and accuracy--in my sleep. If I've done that and there's still a flub or two in an otherwise good performance, I'm happy to have the correct notes punched in. However, if I accidentally alter a line or a fill and it still sounds good--and the whole take sounds good--I'm also happy to just leave it as is...

 

[fretter]

The one time I was in a professional studio, I went by feel. Did all of my bass tracks make it on the final master? That's another question.

 

[JPaulGeddy]

Feel AND mistake-free is really the only real answer. If a mistake happens and it makes some sort of magic - then ok, leave it in. But never 'eh, good enough'.

That being said, as bass players, have to not get caught in the trap of worrying about every little bit of string noise or clack when listening to our own individual tracks. The mix takes care of a lot of that. Go listen to isolated tracks of some of your old favorites, they sound a whole lot different on their own.

 

[nightchef]

I prefer to record live with well rehearsed material. I have been known to ask the engineer to duck some dubious notes from time to time, but I prefer not having to do actual fixes.

I did once watch the legendary Bob Dawson at Bias studio in Virginia splice two takes together on 2-inch 24 track tape without it even being noticeable. Now that was nerve-wracking (for me, business as usual for Bob).

I was engineering a lead guitar session years ago with a friend of mine, a really stellar player who sometimes gets in his own way a bit in the studio. He was doing an 8-bar solo at a medium tempo, straightforward changes, nothing at all complicated about it. For the life of him he couldn't get a convincing take out. Lots of cool little moments, but nothing that hung together and felt right. In the end I spliced together 13 separate snippets from 9 different takes. (For those of you counting at home, that's an average of one edit every two and a half beats.)

And you know what? If you listened to that solo without knowing what a Frankenstein job it was, you might well say, "hey, that's a nice solo. Great feel."

What matters is the end result. Get there by any means necessary. I don't care if you recorded the whole band in one live take with a single mic hanging from the rafters or Pro Toolsed the living daylights out of it. If it sounds good, it is good.

 

[1bassleft]

Feel. It's cheaper.

 

[Charlzm]

The more posts I read int his thread, the less I understand what people mean by "feel".

My band tried to record live in the studio for our album. The idea was to do bass, drums, guitar and vocals live and then just do some fixes and overdubs later.

The singer had a sore throat, the guitar rig developed a buzz we couldn't track down and the lower snare head broke during recording, giving us an unplanned break in the middle while the drummer went to track one down.

We eventually replaced or re-recorded at least 75% of what we had.

I don't know about what other people call "feel", but the tracks I recorded in the control room months later allowed me to focus more on a tight rhythmic lock with the drums and rhythm guitar and to get overall better sounding takes.

 

[Charlzm]

I was engineering a lead guitar session years ago with a friend of mine, a really stellar player who sometimes gets in his own way a bit in the studio. He was doing an 8-bar solo at a medium tempo, straightforward changes, nothing at all complicated about it. For the life of him he couldn't get a convincing take out. Lots of cool little moments, but nothing that hung together and felt right. In the end I spliced together 13 separate snippets from 9 different takes. (For those of you counting at home, that's an average of one edit every two and a half beats.)

And you know what? If you listened to that solo without knowing what a Frankenstein job it was, you might well say, "hey, that's a nice solo. Great feel."

What matters is the end result. Get there by any means necessary. I don't care if you recorded the whole band in one live take with a single mic hanging from the rafters or Pro Toolsed the living daylights out of it. If it sounds good, it is good.

That's the Alex Lifeson method - improv a solo over a loop for many minutes and let someone else construct a part out of the best bits. Then, he would learn the Frankensteined final result.

 

[BwanaDust]

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...

Well... It's not a question of speed. One thing I've never liked about doing punch ins is the natural resonance of the instrument gets cut off when you punch in a part. Also... You tend lose a bit of your initial attack. Especially if you are anticipating the note a bit. Of course, most DAWs will capture that initial transient, even when it occurs before the punch point. The problem is, that if you adjust the start point of that wave file, to get all of the transient, you cut off more of the resonance (or even some of the preceding note).

Of course, you can mask it with some ambiance, but it's always bugged me. It's one of the things I always disliked about punching in with tape (and I could punch on a dime). It wasn't as bad with analog tape, but I really noticed it when ADATs came around. I started using two tracks for overdubs and live punches back in the ADAT days. It just sounded more natural to my ears. You may not notice it as much with a bass, but something that's really resonant like an acoustic piano, guitar, violin etc... you can hear the previous note getting choked off.

I do lots of work where the room tone is important to the overall recorded sound. I can't just add reverb to mask it. And it doesn't really take any longer than setting up a punch in/out point.

And by busing both tracks to a group, I can just add my effects to that and treat it like a single track, which takes a lot less time than the old way, working with adats. I'd have to bounce the two tracks down to one.

 

[DanGroove]

Well... It's not a question of speed. One thing I've never liked about doing punch ins is the natural resonance of the instrument gets cut off when you punch in a part. Also... You tend lose a bit of your initial attack. Especially if you are anticipating the note a bit. Of course, most DAWs will capture that initial transient, even when it occurs before the punch point. The problem is, that if you adjust the start point of that wave file, to get all of the transient, you cut off more of the resonance (or even some of the preceding note).

Of course, you can mask it with some ambiance, but it's always bugged me. It's one of the things I always disliked about punching in with tape (and I could punch on a dime). It wasn't as bad with analog tape, but I really noticed it when ADATs came around. I started using two tracks for overdubs and live punches back in the ADAT days. It just sounded more natural to my ears. You may not notice it as much with a bass, but something that's really resonant like an acoustic piano, guitar, violin etc... you can hear the previous note getting choked off.

I do lots of work where the room tone is important to the overall recorded sound. I can't just add reverb to mask it. And it doesn't really take any longer than setting up a punch in/out point.

Good explanation and I totally get it with lots of other instrument or big long notes. I was more reading the whole thing from a bass perspective. I've never had a problem getting seamless punches on most bass parts and usually Mandolin as it has a very fast decay. My luck has definitely been more mixed on other instruments.

Probably going to copy the text of your previous post now and save in a notepad file and look at for ideas next time I am running into that issue with a guitar or banjo part. Piano parts, I (unfortunately?) won't have that issue as they are played on a MIDI keyboard through a piano patch. Wish I had a nice acoustic piano to give me fits though.

 

[BwanaDust]

Good explanation and I totally get it with lots of other instrument or big long notes. I was more reading the whole thing from a bass perspective. I've never had a problem getting seamless punches on most bass parts and usually Mandolin as it has a very fast decay. My luck has definitely been more mixed on other instruments.

Probably going to copy the text of your previous post now and save in a notepad file and look at for ideas next time I am running into that issue with a guitar or banjo part. Piano parts, I (unfortunately?) won't have that issue as they are played on a MIDI keyboard through a piano patch. Wish I had a nice acoustic piano to give me fits though.

I'm lucky to work at a large performing arts school/center that has close to thirty pianos, from Steinway Model D, B and A down to uprights. Also have a Yamaha C6 Disklavier. Plus a bunch of great recording spaces (2 theaters, recording studio, Choir, orchestra and percussion rehearsal studios, and then some. Most of these spaces have a unique ambiance that I like to preserve. As I mentioned before, I have no problem punching in and out seamlessly. The main thing is that, as my monitoring has improved (currently have Barefoot Minimains and Genelecs at work and the most impressive Kali Audio LP6s at home), I have become more picky about little things that wouldn't bother me back in the eighties.

I also use midi for most of my personal piano recording these days. I love Ivory II. I have the studio grands and the Italian grand and they more than hold their own against the real thing.

 

[Gravedigger Dav]

I find it difficult to cop a feel without making mistakes.

 

[knumbskull]

I don't mind as long as it sounds good.

 

[rufus.K]

Feel.
Feed the others a good vibe.
When everyone else is recorded, maybe i can go back and fix me and whatever ducks happened.
But if im sterile for perfection's sake, then everyone is building on sterile.

 

[Yellow Bang66]

I go for feel AND no mistakes.

Both. Truth of the matter, Does the general audience actually listen that intently, any way?
Do you? Sadly, I don't think so. You' re your own worst critic, so Use your own Ears & inner metronome!
Yeah, You don't want any F' ups on a recording, But You Do want it to move & Groove, because it's you playing!
As a bass player You want the heads bobbing & the booties shaking= that's your job!

what do you want to be known for, A Bassist who's Technically perfect or the one who gets the booties shaking? It would break my heart if i heard someone say "he's good but, he's got No mojo, flavorless. vs. He' really rocks/grooves, but his chops... kinda suck. and it's on the record forever! It seems like they can fix your F' ups/mistakes on the recording, but they Can't fix your "Groove", yet.... So having a good Mojo/groove in your DNA is real Important! & I can always develop cooler chops in the shed. ; )