Stewart. Do you realise....
 

In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
Often the traditional tree mic setup will sound just
fine with a decent drummer and kit. Otherwise, it's lots of time and
work.

Three, I meant three. ;-)

I don't mind it being a lot of work. We get paid by the hour:-)
(or is it a flat rate for a project now in your neck of the woods?)

Depends. Staff or freelance makes a difference, but in broadcast you
rarely get enough time - the musician costs are so high. If they are
making the record, that's a different matter.

But a drum track has to live, sound natural. It is my belief that it
cannot be achieved with a click track and recording one drum at a time.

Absolutely. IMHO you'd end up with a possibly technically good but
artistically dead track - you might as well use a machine. But that's only
a guess. I'm sure it's been done.

I try to avoid pop music. I am a little averse to musical bricklaying:-))
Life's too short. Though I do like to listen to the finished product.

I'd love to do more of both. But there's not much around these days.

Funny you use the word "tree" that's a Decca term (do a web search) for
the classical microphone set up devised by Roy Wallis and Arthur
Wilkinson, back in the days when the British Army had muskets, and
Pontius was a pilot.

Yes. It was a Freudian slip. I meant three. Overall, shared snare/high hat
and kick. Of course if it's a small band you might want two overalls to
spread it a bit stereo wise.

--
*When you've seen one shopping centre you've seen a mall.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
I don't mind it being a lot of work. We get paid by the hour:-)
(or is it a flat rate for a project now in your neck of the woods?)

Depends. Staff or freelance makes a difference, but in broadcast you
rarely get enough time - the musician costs are so high. If they are
making the record, that's a different matter.

I was amazed at the cost of musicians in the UK.
They earned in a day what most people earn in a week.
The MU was incredibly strong. There was a three-hour minimum,
and one couldn't go into overtime without unanimous agreement.
If one musician was in a hurry to get home, the session was over.
Then there was the question of overdubs, one hour extra for each
IIRC

There was a brilliant percussionist, Tony Carr who could overdub
tambourine and triangle at the same time (double rate) He held
the tambourine in his left hand, with the triangle suspended in a
stand, and the beater in his right hand. Try to play fours on the inside
of a triangle. Not a simple task. He earned his money:-)

But a drum track has to live, sound natural. It is my belief that it
cannot be achieved with a click track and recording one drum at a time.

Absolutely. IMHO you'd end up with a possibly technically good but
artistically dead track - you might as well use a machine. But that's only
a guess. I'm sure it's been done.

Yes indeed. I have done it more times than I care to remember. With a
professional drummer it can take you an hour to put down a three-minute
track. Deadly:-((( That's why we used to call it musical brick-laying:-)
Have you come across the term before?

I'd love to do more of both. But there's not much around these days.

The problem is that the same few people get all the work. It is exactly
the same with promising new players. They don't get studio gigs because
they don't have experience. And they don't have experience because......
But because everyone gets the same rate, only the best get booked.
I have often thought that a tiered tariff might be better.


Funny you use the word "tree" that's a Decca term (do a web search) for
the classical microphone set up devised by Roy Wallis and Arthur
Wilkinson, back in the days when the British Army had muskets, and
Pontius was a pilot.

Yes. It was a Freudian slip. I meant three. Overall, shared snare/high hat
and kick. Of course if it's a small band you might want two overalls to
spread it a bit stereo wise.

My mentor Arthur Lilley, always went for simple microphone placings.
As far as multi-microphone he used to say: "If you are going to tell a lie,
tell a big one, and mic up every single drum"

I think you need an overheard pair, to get some stereo into the picture.
I like a tightly placed hi-hat mic too, and pull that over to one side. Do
you spread your stereo image as the drummer sees it, or as it would be
if you were standing in front of the kit?


Iain

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
I don't mind it being a lot of work. We get paid by the hour:-)
(or is it a flat rate for a project now in your neck of the woods?)

Depends. Staff or freelance makes a difference, but in broadcast you
rarely get enough time - the musician costs are so high. If they are
making the record, that's a different matter.

I was amazed at the cost of musicians in the UK.
They earned in a day what most people earn in a week.
The MU was incredibly strong. There was a three-hour minimum,
and one couldn't go into overtime without unanimous agreement.
If one musician was in a hurry to get home, the session was over.
Then there was the question of overdubs, one hour extra for each
IIRC

There was a brilliant percussionist, Tony Carr who could overdub
tambourine and triangle at the same time (double rate) He held
the tambourine in his left hand, with the triangle suspended in a
stand, and the beater in his right hand. Try to play fours on the inside
of a triangle. Not a simple task. He earned his money:-)

But a drum track has to live, sound natural. It is my belief that it
cannot be achieved with a click track and recording one drum at a time.

Absolutely. IMHO you'd end up with a possibly technically good but
artistically dead track - you might as well use a machine. But that's
only
a guess. I'm sure it's been done.

Yes indeed. I have done it more times than I care to remember. With a
professional drummer it can take you an hour to put down a three-minute
track. Deadly:-((( That's why we used to call it musical
brick-laying:-)
Have you come across the term before?

I'd love to do more of both. But there's not much around these days.

The problem is that the same few people get all the work. It is exactly
the same with promising new players. They don't get studio gigs because
they don't have experience. And they don't have experience because......
But because everyone gets the same rate, only the best get booked.
I have often thought that a tiered tariff might be better.


Funny you use the word "tree" that's a Decca term (do a web search) for
the classical microphone set up devised by Roy Wallis and Arthur
Wilkinson, back in the days when the British Army had muskets, and
Pontius was a pilot.

Yes. It was a Freudian slip. I meant three. Overall, shared snare/high
hat
and kick. Of course if it's a small band you might want two overalls to
spread it a bit stereo wise.

My mentor Arthur Lilley, always went for simple microphone placings.
As far as multi-microphone he used to say: "If you are going to tell a
lie,
tell a big one, and mic up every single drum"

I think you need an overheard pair, to get some stereo into the picture.
I like a tightly placed hi-hat mic too, and pull that over to one side.
Do
you spread your stereo image as the drummer sees it, or as it would be
if you were standing in front of the kit?


Iain
My best recording of drums was exactly that by using a pair of condenser
above but angled to the side - though for SR work I like snare, toms, kick &
hi-hat individually mic'd gives more 'clout' (not a techical term I'm afraid
:-)) is easier in the mix and avoids chance of acoustic feedback.

Mike

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
I think you need an overheard pair, to get some stereo into the picture.
I like a tightly placed hi-hat mic too, and pull that over to one side.
Do you spread your stereo image as the drummer sees it, or as it would
be if you were standing in front of the kit?

Invariably as from the front of the kit, since near all my stuff is for TV.

--
*Would a fly without wings be called a walk?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Mike Gilmour" wrote in message
...
Iain
My best recording of drums was exactly that by using a pair of condenser
above but angled to the side - though for SR work I like snare, toms, kick
& hi-hat individually mic'd gives more 'clout' (not a techical term I'm
afraid :-)) is easier in the mix and avoids chance of acoustic feedback.

Mike

And if the kit is a rock kit, then "clout" is what it is all about:-))

Iain

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
I think you need an overheard pair, to get some stereo into the picture.
I like a tightly placed hi-hat mic too, and pull that over to one side.
Do you spread your stereo image as the drummer sees it, or as it would
be if you were standing in front of the kit?

Invariably as from the front of the kit, since near all my stuff is for
TV.

--
*Would a fly without wings be called a walk?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Does that generally mean inconspic? i.e. Matt black no shiny stuff.

Mike

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

In article ,
Mike Gilmour wrote:
My best recording of drums was exactly that by using a pair of condenser
above but angled to the side - though for SR work I like snare, toms,
kick & hi-hat individually mic'd gives more 'clout' (not a techical
term I'm afraid
:-)) is easier in the mix and avoids chance of acoustic feedback.

See my earlier comment about noise gates on toms.
Of course, if it's the sort of gig where you get a chance to pull them
when needed, fine. But if they have to be left up all the time, I find
they muddy things up far too much. Especially considering how infrequently
they're used. ;-)

Of course, if you use a noise cancelling type of mic on toms, like an
SM58, you'll improve separation over my favourite U87. However, the
quality suffers so much I'd prefer to just rely on the overheads.
But as much in this game, it's purely a matter of taste. Not much is set
in stone.

--
*If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never tried before

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

In article ,
Mike Gilmour wrote:
Invariably as from the front of the kit, since near all my stuff is
for TV.

Does that generally mean inconspic? i.e. Matt black no shiny stuff.

Not really - 'silver' mics and chrome stands are still used. If the
production specified all back, they'd have to pay the extra hire charges.

I'm told that in the early days of TV, no mics of any description were
allowed to be seen. Must have made miking up an in shot band fun. Although
they'd not have used anywhere near as many as these days - the mixer might
well have had only a dozen or so channels for everything. And maybe not
enough mics 'in the cupboard' to fill it. ;-)

--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mike Gilmour wrote:
My best recording of drums was exactly that by using a pair of condenser
above but angled to the side - though for SR work I like snare, toms,
kick & hi-hat individually mic'd gives more 'clout' (not a techical
term I'm afraid
:-)) is easier in the mix and avoids chance of acoustic feedback.

See my earlier comment about noise gates on toms.
Of course, if it's the sort of gig where you get a chance to pull them
when needed, fine. But if they have to be left up all the time, I find
they muddy things up far too much. Especially considering how infrequently
they're used. ;-)

Of course, if you use a noise cancelling type of mic on toms, like an
SM58, you'll improve separation over my favourite U87. However, the
quality suffers so much I'd prefer to just rely on the overheads.
But as much in this game, it's purely a matter of taste. Not much is set
in stone.

--
*If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never tried
before

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Thanks but I wouldn't dream of taking a U87 on gigs - especially near
drummers, the '58's are mostly unbreakable but I've had a drummer break the
casing just below the head, Shure repaired it free of charge (thanks guys if
you read this). Now for recording (not live) its a different matter, things
seem to be a bit more civilised somehow :-)

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mike Gilmour wrote:
Invariably as from the front of the kit, since near all my stuff is
for TV.

Does that generally mean inconspic? i.e. Matt black no shiny stuff.

Not really - 'silver' mics and chrome stands are still used. If the
production specified all back, they'd have to pay the extra hire charges.

I'm told that in the early days of TV, no mics of any description were
allowed to be seen. Must have made miking up an in shot band fun. Although
they'd not have used anywhere near as many as these days - the mixer might
well have had only a dozen or so channels for everything. And maybe not
enough mics 'in the cupboard' to fill it. ;-)

--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?

Dave Plowman London SW

To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Jules Holland wouldn't leave many spare mic's I guess?