Music fans check in. A question.

[coloradodem2005]

Do you think that when a band records a record in the studio, that a band should record it together as a band or is it okay if they record their parts and overdub on their own? I just started thinking based on something on the radio. They were doing a CD-side of the old Aerosmith record "Toys In the Attic". That album is the shit. It had a soundbyte of Joe Perry talking about them doing their recent blues record in part so they could jam in the studio together, because they didn't do that at all on "Just Push Play". I am not a big fan of JPP but love Toys. Toys they recorded in the studio together. THere are bands who do that and there are bands that don't. One I know that does not record in the studio together is Dream Theater. But, I still think they are great and so is their music. What is your opinion.

[mstrsplinter326]

1. there is no right or wrong

But songs recorded together will probably sound better live, and generally mean more talent is involved.

But not always.

[Steve Beatty]

5. Agreed

Sudio and live are very different.

I see nothing wrong with recording in diff tracks in the studio but that can be somewhat problematic at live events.

[NashVegas]

6. Agreed

Especially if the main driver doing the recording is a control freak who has a specific idea of what they want the final product to sound like.

[fdr_hst_fan]

2. I see nothing wrong with it-

the Beatles did it all the time!

[coloradodem2005]

3. Which?

Recording together or recording separately?

[info being]

4. I recently recorded an album, and...

since I'm a solo act, everything is overdubbed. You can read a review of it here: http://1stepahead.typepad.com/blog/2004/07/my_opinion_beca.html

[rocktivity]

7. These days, recording live is really more of a luxury

It used to be that you recorded live because there was no other way to do it. It also meant that you had to be a real musician because there was no money to waste on bad takes.

In these high-tech times, overdubbing is no doubt more cost-effective than recording live, especially since you can now fine-tune even the vocals if they aren't right. And I believe that the majority of today's bands HAVE to overdub because they simply don't have the level of musicianship recording live requires--it's left to the production team to "make up the difference."

An older band like Aerosmith, who "grew up" on recording live, have the musicanship, work experience and extra production money to pull it off--and besides, they play blues-based rock. Dream Theater, on the other hand, are probably much better off overdubbing because their music is a lot more complex.

So to answer your question, I like the idea of bands playing live in the studio simply because it means that they CAN play. But bands who don't aren't necessarily lacking in artistic integrity or artistic ability--they're simply being cost-efficient. Wasting money on bad takes is STILL a no-no!

:headbang:
rocknation

[coloradodem2005]

8. I would agree.

n/t

[Zorra]

9. Most bands that have a decent record deal usually record dubbed tracks

on studio albums. Say you are a guitar player, and you have written a guitar solo for a tune. The advantage of dubbing is that you can record that solo as many times as you want until you (and sometimes the producer if s/he has too much control) feel that you got it right, and then use that track in the mix. The same is true for each individual musicians' part in the mix of a tune. It is often more convenient for the rest of a band to allow individual musicians to lay their tracks individually, because they don't have to be there when another band member is laying a track, which can sometimes take a lot of time.

It is unusual for a band to record all the tracks on a tune together at one time unless they are strapped for cash to pay for studio time, and the finished product is usually not all that great unless a band is exceptionally tight and very lucky.

In most cases, the drummer will lay down the first track with a click track playing in headphones so that the meter of the drum part is on, and when s/he gets it right, the track becomes the basis for the mix. Then, usually, the bass player lays down a track, and when that track is acceptable it also becomes part of the mix, and this forms the basis of the rhythm that the rest of the band will follow when recording their parts, etc.

If a band gets along really well with each other, sometimes it is a lot of fun to have the whole band together in the studio, and sometimes certain musicians in a band have more artistic control, especially if they are the songwriter. If certain members of a band don't get along that well, it can be a huge pain in the a$$ to always have the whole band together in the studio.

Also, studio time costs big bucks and things usually need to be done as efficiently as possible.

There are a lot of different factors that go into making a good record, and it's hard to say what the best way to go about it is for every band, but I preferred the freedom of laying tracks individually most of the time. But sometimes having a band together in the studio is a blast.

It is rare that every member of a band is satisfied with their individual performance when playing a tune. Usually one or more band members feels that they could have done it better and would like to try again. Then this blows it for the person who laid the best track of their life. Of course, that individual track could be saved and edited into the final mix, but then, what's the point of playing live together if you are going to dub anyway?

And some days you got it, and some days you don't.

[Magrittes Pipe]

10. I don't give a rip.

The finished product is all that matters.

[TopesJunkie]

11. I don't give a rat's rear end -

And Pink Floyd bites!

:)