Recording bluegrass: #set-up

[Chunky But Funky]

I have a few questions. #I separated them out to minimize confusion. #I did not find these addressed in my searches, so here goes. #This has been bugging me since I read how Chris Thile recorded his latest effort. #I thought huddled around two mics in stereo was "the standard". #If he felt it necessary to specify he recorded this way, it must no longer be the norm. #How do you record in a bluegrass setting? #Rhythm section / Overdubs, Iso booths, or gathered around a mic or pair of mics? #

Doug

[Kevin K]

Doug,
The group I'm in visited with the recording engineer a couple of times before going in to actual record. His experience was isolating each member and we had done a few demos that way but it didn't feel right even with the latest headphone technology out there. What we wanted to do was capture a live performance or like a jam session.
Our first try was to setup in a dead room with individual vocal mics and instrument mics in a circle and after setting the levels we recording a sample song. The results, it was a take. Everybody was comfortable, we could hear everything and see reactions and in one day (long day) we actually recorded enough songs for two cd's with no overdubs and only rerecorded a couple of songs. Sound quality was great and we were well pleased with the results. There was some bleed over that you could see digitally but that seemed to make the overall sound fuller for lake of a better word.

[mando.player]

Could you explain the dead room?

[Kevin K]

There was very little if any at all natural reverb to the room. Most hard surfaces (flooring, walls) had some treatment done to it.

[TonyP]

I think if you read up, there is no standard. It's how people are used to working, either the artist or the engineer. If the artist has no preference it's what the engineer wants and visa versa.
We have tried several ways and for us, the scratch track of the lead singer and his instrument, isolated from the rest of the rhythm instruments, then go back and track the vocals and lead instruments works. What we've also found is do one song, all the way, complete in one day. Then if you feel like you can do another, do another all the way. We tried the thing of just laying down all the scratch tracks, then going back over time. Didn't work out. My best advise is what works for you and your group.
Years ago we played on the radio live in a acoustically treated/dead room. The recording sounded great but we had no monitors and it was awful for us. I don't know if everybody is this way, but I had it explained to me thus. In a room you are used to a certain amount of bounce back/reverb. Outside, unless there is something close by, there is none of that, just the ambient noise that's there. But being in a room that is dead, for us, was totally disconcerting. It took a while to even get to where we could ignore it. Personally, I don't think it's a good way to record. Why do that and then synthetically put back in the "room"? It's also very expensive to do right. If you want to get "traditional about it", Les Paul, the father of multi track recording didn't do it that way, and still doesn't. His studio is a living room with everything in the same room,recording equip and all, last I heard.

[steve in tampa]

You might look in to dividers between the player's mics. Get the live feel without the bleed over.

[steve V. johnson]

TonyP speaks the truth.

For me, it's about the players. I don't want to take folks very far from the way they usually play, I want to make the tech work the way -they- work, not to make players adapt to the tech, even tho it might be the greatest, most wonderful, shiny smartest stuff in the world.

So, I'd find out how you usually play or rehearse, and I'd try to bring the tech to that. Along the way we might find that one player might not be at his/her best that way, one instrument might not come thru right, that sort of thing, and then we'd adjust. Trial and error...

A fair proportion of Irish trad recordings (the type of music I'm deepest into now, tho I've recorded all kinds) are made with all the players in the room, with instruments and voices close-mic'd and also room mics. "Bleed"... is important, I think. It's the sauce that all the instruments make in the room. It's what happens in a performance. I always hate to eliminate it completely, but sometimes that's necessary.

I would always just spend some time listening to how you rehearse and how you perform and I'd probably start with a stereo mic or a stereo pair and then either add a mic to bring someone out, or if one or more players had a problem, I'd record everyone but them and then try to overdub them.

It's tough to tell at a distance. Some folks have a tough time overdubbing...

stv

[foldedpath]

The big variable here is whether the musicians have much experience playing to a pre-recorded track, instead of live interaction. Some people are better at that than others. It's a learned skill, basically. Pro recording session players are really good at it, but many of us aren't (and I'm not that good at it myself).

If the band doesn't have that particular talent and experience, it might be better to try full-band playing with whatever acoustic gobos or other isolation you can manage, to keep the groove tight. You'll give up total control in how each instrument is handled in the mix, but oftentimes the groove and feel of the music outweighs that. I respect a well-recorded, individually tracked mix, but I also really like to hear sessions recorded live when everything is cooking just right.

[Spruce]

"Rhythm section / Overdubs, Iso booths, or gathered around a mic or pair of mics? #"

If you are good enough to nail a take that you are happy with within 1-3 takes, do it live and embrace the bleed....
That is the ultimate way to record the genre, IMHO.....
And the cheapest if you're paying for studio time. #By far.

"Get the live feel without the bleed over. "

Not if there's a banjo involved... # http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[evanreilly]

Mostly being a musician of his day and technology, Bill Monroe always did live, one-take recordings with his bands.

[earthsave]

The bleed over is the only issue we experienced when recording as a group. We wanted to record more like we play live, so set it up in a circle and the engineer tried to isolate as best he oculd. When we wanted to adjust the tracks during mixing, we'd still got a bit of bleed. Overdubbing and playing along with headphones was challenging. My very limited experience in the studio.

Definitely have your songs worked out and "perfected" before going in or you'll waste a lot of time and money. Have a few extras (throwaways) because some songs are just destined not to be or refuse to be recorded.

[Lefty&French]

...Definitely have your songs worked out and "perfected" before going in or you'll waste a lot of time and money. #Have a few extras (throwaways) because some songs are just destined not to be or refuse to be recorded.
Very good advice, IMHO!

[steve V. johnson]

"Very good advice, IMHO! "

Amen!!!

stv

[erick]

I record lots of bluegrass bands in my studio, Wellspring Sound. It's a pretty large ( 35 x 40') space and I find if I can seperate the players enough to minimize the bleed between instruments I can often fix small mistakes with overdubs while preserving the live feel. If there's a banjo in the group I put them in an isolation booth if they'll tolerate it !

Sometimes I'll have the lead singer just whisper a lead vocal line, and have nobody else sing harmonies or backing parts. Once we get the good feeling take rythmically, we overdub vocals individually or collectively. So much depends on the inclinations and experience of the players that it's hard to generalize.

Good luck with your project!
Eric Kilburn

[Doug Edwards]

The bleed over is the only issue we experienced when recording as a group. #We wanted to record more like we play live, so set it up in a circle and the engineer tried to isolate as best he oculd. #When we wanted to adjust the tracks during mixing, we'd still got a bit of bleed. #Overdubbing and playing along with headphones was challenging. #My very limited experience in the studio.
Same here. We've used a CAD E200 set to 360 degrees and gathered around it. The bass and some overdubbing of leads were added later.

This last time we used and extra condenser mic to the intial group recordeing to bring our guitar player's vocals in or out. We had the bass on a separate mic and added some additional parts and leads in later.

Works for us.

[Don Christy]

I don't know much about recording, but found the liner notes regarding the recording approach for Tony Williamson's CD Still Light of the Evening very interesting. The record was recorded at Mapleshade Records. The site is:
Mapleshade Records (http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/). NFI - just an interesting read.
Don

[Spruce]

"So much depends on the inclinations and experience of the players that it's hard to generalize."

That's the key right there...
The abilities of the players will cue you as to how to record them.....

[steve V. johnson]

Erick sez, "I record lots of bluegrass bands in my studio, Wellspring Sound. #It's a pretty large ( 35 x 40') space and I find if I can seperate the players enough to minimize the bleed between instruments I can often fix small mistakes with overdubs while preserving the live feel. "

There ya go, that's it. #

The tough part is to... "tune" the bleed. ... If you need to. Or better, to work out the ensemble sound by moving folks or mics or bring in a soft chair or cover a hard surface or even make something harder for the reflection, or other stuff like that so that the 'bleed,' the -ambience- works with the music.

In the '70's recording studios made their rooms really dead, and it was like being inside a pillow. #Sorta worked, but it didn't sound natural. #So, over the next few decades studios have returned to more natural sounding rooms.

It's sometimes a tough thing for folks recording at home or in rehearsal spaces, but professional engineers know their rooms and how to place a mic (or mics) to get distinct sounds from each instrument while they all play together.

Another nice factor is computer-based recording, in which a good engineer can edit and fix a rough musical moment and take a note from a different spot in the tune and repair the rough spot so that the ambience/bleed is the same. #Doing that on analog tape was possible, but whooooooooboy, it was -work-.

Mapleshade is that place in Maryland, right, where they do live to stereo in a big room. #Nice, true audiophile signal chain.

The Cafe's John McGann did a lovely Irish trad CD there with The Boston Edge. #It's real and true, and the playing is splendid. # For me, personally ... I'd rather have a bit less of the room in the sound... #But it doesn't keep that CD from being "in heavy rotation" at my house.

I think that Real Live, folks playing together in a room, is the very coolest way in the whole world to make records. #And all the technology of recording these days has, for me, made that a lot easier. # The spectrum of good stuff is so wide, now. #Recordings made by one guy with a computer and one, or two, or a dozen... (or none!) acoustic instruments in a bedroom, to a bunch of friends playing in a garage, or at a picnic or a studio or a festival... #And everything in between.
I love it.

stv