"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:46:18 +0300, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

Not that the two artists are in any other way similar (except their
professionalism, of course) but Bing Crosby also liked to "sit in
with the band", not facing them as one would expect a singer to
do, but actually "sit in". For an engineer this creates all kind of
problems. But he needed no foldback and no retakes either:-)


Who needs foldback when you can do it in one take? When you have a
band, though, as long as the conductor has foldback on a headphone you
have it covered. Either that or have him facing the booth window so
you can wave at him.


Vocalists find it ifficult to manage without foldback even on concert
performances. It really has nothing to do with the number of takes, but
they need audio cues, to hear their own intonation and the tempo
and pitch of the track.

Concert foldback balancing is quite a skill, much in demand. The
foldback balance usually bears no resemblance to the concert balance
itself.

Very very few singers can provide a one-take performance (even after
extensive rehearsal) In concerts, with the visual reference, slight
blemishes
in intonation and timing go largely unnoticed, but in recording they stick
out like sore thumbs. Hnce the needs for overdubbing, foldback and
multiple takes.

As recording technique has evolved, the standard of performance
has deteriorated probably directly in proportion. There is no need
to be able to "sing it in one" any more

At least nowaday using IEM you don't have the foldback wedge speakers
muddying the vocal channel if the vocalist doesn't like to get up close and
make love to the mic. I agree about the loss of 'sing it in one' and even
worse the use chorusing and looping in a song just makes it more artificial
sounding. There used to be a real pride and a measure of the musicians
quality to take it in one.


"Musical bricklaying" is here to stay for most forms of popular music:-)

Iain

"Mike Gilmour" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:46:18 +0300, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

Not that the two artists are in any other way similar (except their
professionalism, of course) but Bing Crosby also liked to "sit in
with the band", not facing them as one would expect a singer to
do, but actually "sit in". For an engineer this creates all kind of
problems. But he needed no foldback and no retakes either:-)


Who needs foldback when you can do it in one take? When you have a
band, though, as long as the conductor has foldback on a headphone you
have it covered. Either that or have him facing the booth window so
you can wave at him.


Vocalists find it ifficult to manage without foldback even on concert
performances. It really has nothing to do with the number of takes, but
they need audio cues, to hear their own intonation and the tempo
and pitch of the track.

Concert foldback balancing is quite a skill, much in demand. The
foldback balance usually bears no resemblance to the concert balance
itself.

Very very few singers can provide a one-take performance (even after
extensive rehearsal) In concerts, with the visual reference, slight
blemishes in intonation and timing go largely unnoticed,
but in recording they stick out like sore thumbs.
Hence the needs for overdubbing, foldback and
multiple takes.

As recording technique has evolved, the standard of performance
has deteriorated probably directly in proportion. There is no need
to be able to "sing it in one" any more

At least nowaday using IEM you don't have the foldback wedge speakers
muddying the vocal channel if the vocalist doesn't like to get up close
and make love to the mic. I agree about the loss of 'sing it in one' and
even worse the use chorusing and looping in a song just makes it more
artificial sounding. There used to be a real pride and a measure of the
musicians quality to take it in one.


Hi Mike.

I totally agree. Even though they are "straight stereo" very few
classical or jazz recordings are actually one take. There are usually
overlapping "patches" which are edited in to the main take.

It is not unusual at jazz concerts for the audience to be asked to
stay on for a while, for "encore versions" Most people in the audience
are happy to do this, to hear bonus tracks (which are of course second
takes for patches)

In my experience, many vocalists, and also
instrumental soloists can give a pretty good rendition on
about the third take (overdub to the backing track)
But they still think they can do better, and so we go
on, and on, and on, and on - jst because we can.
I can remember 72 takes of a 16 bar guitar solo.
After working all night, all of us were knackered.
In the morning we listened to T3 - it was brilliant:-)

I stopped working on pop productions when it became
de rigeur to record each drum (BD, Snare, TTs, plus HH
and cyms) not only on its own track, but separately against
a click track. It took most of the morning to put down a
three minute drum comp.

Regards
Iain

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 12:57:10 +0300, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

I stopped working on pop productions when it became
de rigeur to record each drum (BD, Snare, TTs, plus HH
and cyms) not only on its own track, but separately against
a click track. It took most of the morning to put down a
three minute drum comp.

John Bonham is no doubt spinning in his grave.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 12:57:10 +0300, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

I stopped working on pop productions when it became
de rigeur to record each drum (BD, Snare, TTs, plus HH
and cyms) not only on its own track, but separately against
a click track. It took most of the morning to put down a
three minute drum comp.

John Bonham is no doubt spinning in his grave.

Maybe. But he was a professional. A man who could
keep time for more that ten seconds:-) Many drummers
fill too often (that's their chance to shine) and let the tempo
run away during the fill.

The steadiest drummer of all just has to be Mick Fleetwod.
Just take a listen. Firm as a rock:-)

There was a studio bass player called Herbie Flowers,
who told how, every time he went to Heathrow in his
car, and entered the approach tunnel,.the music
on the radio disappeared He used to count the bars until
it came back. The band was rarely still in the same tempo.

Iain

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:12:07 +0300, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 12:57:10 +0300, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

I stopped working on pop productions when it became
de rigeur to record each drum (BD, Snare, TTs, plus HH
and cyms) not only on its own track, but separately against
a click track. It took most of the morning to put down a
three minute drum comp.

John Bonham is no doubt spinning in his grave.

Maybe. But he was a professional. A man who could
keep time for more that ten seconds:-) Many drummers
fill too often (that's their chance to shine) and let the tempo
run away during the fill.

Drum fills are like those dreadful cadenzas that little girl R&B
singers seem to sprinkle over every line they sing. Once every five
songs is more than enough.


The steadiest drummer of all just has to be Mick Fleetwod.
Just take a listen. Firm as a rock:-)

I think that Ginger Baker could match him, even in his most
drug-addled days. But if you listen, you will hear that Fleetwood
follows McVie, who is the real metronome of the band.

There was a studio bass player called Herbie Flowers,
who told how, every time he went to Heathrow in his
car, and entered the approach tunnel,.the music
on the radio disappeared He used to count the bars until
it came back. The band was rarely still in the same tempo.

Mmmm... if it was modern stuff it was probably played against a click
track, so it was Herbie who had lost it. I find it hard to keep time
while driving, there are too many confusing time cues coming from the
car.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:12:07 +0300, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 12:57:10 +0300, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

I stopped working on pop productions when it became
de rigeur to record each drum (BD, Snare, TTs, plus HH
and cyms) not only on its own track, but separately against
a click track. It took most of the morning to put down a
three minute drum comp.

John Bonham is no doubt spinning in his grave.

Maybe. But he was a professional. A man who could
keep time for more that ten seconds:-) Many drummers
fill too often (that's their chance to shine) and let the tempo
run away during the fill.

Drum fills are like those dreadful cadenzas that little girl R&B
singers seem to sprinkle over every line they sing. Once every five
songs is more than enough.


The steadiest drummer of all just has to be Mick Fleetwod.
Just take a listen. Firm as a rock:-)

I think that Ginger Baker could match him, even in his most
drug-addled days. But if you listen, you will hear that Fleetwood
follows McVie, who is the real metronome of the band.

Ginger Baker was never renowned as a tempo keeper, though
he was/is a truly remarkable performer. I worked with him on the
Graham Edge Band recordings (two drummers) Ginger hit the
snare some 10dB harder than any of the studio assistants could
do on the sound check. Mick Fleetwood was in great demand
as a session drummer, for his metronomic qualities.

AFAIK, he was responsible for the term "drum shrubbery"
Do you know what that is, Don? :-)

There was a studio bass player called Herbie Flowers,
who told how, every time he went to Heathrow in his
car, and entered the approach tunnel,.the music
on the radio disappeared He used to count the bars until
it came back. The band was rarely still in the same tempo.

Mmmm... if it was modern stuff it was probably played against a click
track, so it was Herbie who had lost it.

Herbie Flowers, was the most used session bass player in the
60s, 70s and early 80s in the UK. Long before anyone was
playing to click tracks. If he says the band had lost the tempo,
then I for one would not doubt him for a moment.

I find it hard to keep time
while driving, there are too many confusing time cues coming from the
car.

That's why you were not a session bass player doing three gigs a day,
earning more in a month than most people earn in a year:-)

Studio players spend a lot of time practicing tempo. They play 4/4
or 6/8 against a 7/4 or 11/4 track. It takes some doing. Then they
turn it round, and play 7/4 or 11/4 against a 6/8 track. Try it some
time, Don.

Regards
Iain

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...

"Mike Gilmour" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:46:18 +0300, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

Not that the two artists are in any other way similar (except their
professionalism, of course) but Bing Crosby also liked to "sit in
with the band", not facing them as one would expect a singer to
do, but actually "sit in". For an engineer this creates all kind of
problems. But he needed no foldback and no retakes either:-)


Who needs foldback when you can do it in one take? When you have a
band, though, as long as the conductor has foldback on a headphone you
have it covered. Either that or have him facing the booth window so
you can wave at him.


Vocalists find it ifficult to manage without foldback even on concert
performances. It really has nothing to do with the number of takes, but
they need audio cues, to hear their own intonation and the tempo
and pitch of the track.

Concert foldback balancing is quite a skill, much in demand. The
foldback balance usually bears no resemblance to the concert balance
itself.

Very very few singers can provide a one-take performance (even after
extensive rehearsal) In concerts, with the visual reference, slight
blemishes in intonation and timing go largely unnoticed,
but in recording they stick out like sore thumbs.
Hence the needs for overdubbing, foldback and
multiple takes.

As recording technique has evolved, the standard of performance
has deteriorated probably directly in proportion. There is no need
to be able to "sing it in one" any more

At least nowaday using IEM you don't have the foldback wedge speakers
muddying the vocal channel if the vocalist doesn't like to get up close
and make love to the mic. I agree about the loss of 'sing it in one'
and
even worse the use chorusing and looping in a song just makes it more
artificial sounding. There used to be a real pride and a measure of the
musicians quality to take it in one.


Hi Mike.

I totally agree. Even though they are "straight stereo" very few
classical or jazz recordings are actually one take. There are usually
overlapping "patches" which are edited in to the main take.

It is not unusual at jazz concerts for the audience to be asked to
stay on for a while, for "encore versions" Most people in the audience
are happy to do this, to hear bonus tracks (which are of course second
takes for patches)

In my experience, many vocalists, and also
instrumental soloists can give a pretty good rendition on
about the third take (overdub to the backing track)
But they still think they can do better, and so we go
on, and on, and on, and on - jst because we can.
I can remember 72 takes of a 16 bar guitar solo.
After working all night, all of us were knackered.
In the morning we listened to T3 - it was brilliant:-)

I stopped working on pop productions when it became
de rigeur to record each drum (BD, Snare, TTs, plus HH
and cyms) not only on its own track, but separately against
a click track. It took most of the morning to put down a
three minute drum comp.

Regards
Iain


Hi Iain,

72 takes, that must be mega frustrating and time consuming...and they'll all
be different listening after a nights sleep ;~) I've done maybe 10 or so
takes doing trails late night and thats enough for me, mostly its okay
hearing them back in the cold light of day...
Click tracks, some pop drummers can't keep time without them. Okay I suppose
for the use you mentioned but IMO when drummers rely on CT then it goes
along way to make music more mechanical and less spontaneous