Building a Classic Rock Song From the Ground Up

[Bob Womack]

I've chronicled the rather interesting process I used to record recent a classic rock combo song from soup to nuts, performing all the parts solo. You can read about it, HERE.

Bob

[KevWind]

Hey very cool Bob. Great info.
First let me say I really like the notion in the song of being "Best Friends"... That is the glue (compression ) that has kept my marriage intact and improving for 37 years now .

I basically understand everything you are describing engineering wise, and find it really interesting, so thanks .

Interesting idea about doubling the bass run with a regular electric, I will have to give that a try.

For clarification on the lead guitar parts that you describe as "tripled" do you mean you monitored the 1'st part and played two more separate parts ?
Also how did you pan those ?

I have never tried singing a later vocal part first, but it makes perfect sense as far a s warm up mechanism .
For the backing vocals again to clarify, you did three takes of each of the three part harmony, so 9 tracks total ?

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Hey very cool Bob. Great info.

Thanks!

First let me say I really like the notion in the song of being "Best Friends"... That is the glue (compression ) that has kept my marriage intact and improving for 37 years now .

Yeah, in their marriage, my parents modeled making your spouse your best friend and that became the kind of marriage I wanted. I was fortunate to find a lady who wanted the same.

I basically understand everything you are describing engineering wise, and find it really interesting, so thanks . Interesting idea about doubling the bass run with a regular electric, I will have to give that a try. For clarification on the lead guitar parts that you describe as "tripled" do you mean you monitored the 1'st part and played two more separate parts ? Also how did you pan those ?

You've heard of "doubling?" That's the practice of recording a single take and then exactly duplicating it with another take, then panning them outboard to make it sound fatter. I take it a step further and triple it - three takes. The second and third copy were executed listening to the first and matching the performance. I ran the best copy right up the center and panned the other two out about halfway from the center. Why three? The brain is a "difference engine." It notices differences between two takes in a glaring way. Sometime back I was reading up on a studio guitarist (was it Steve Hunter or Dick Wagner?) and he let out of the bag that he never records two. It is always one or "the magic three." Three blend better than two because the brain stops acting like a difference engine and hears a chorus instead. It has been an incredible production find for me. I often run the two secondary takes a bit lower than the master take in the mix.

I have never tried singing a later vocal part first, but it makes perfect sense as far a s warm up mechanism .
For the backing vocals again to clarify, you did three takes of each of the three part harmony, so 9 tracks total ?

Yes, panned across the sound field so that the image widened considerably at the choruses.

Bob

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

Thanks!Yeah, in their marriage, my parents modeled making your spouse your best friend and that became the kind of marriage I wanted. I was fortunate to find a lady who wanted the same.You've heard of "doubling?" That's the practice of recording a single take and then exactly duplicating it with another take, then panning them outboard to make it sound fatter. I take it a step further and triple it - three takes. The second and third copy were executed listening to the first and matching the performance. I ran the best copy right up the center and panned the other two out about halfway from the center. Why three? The brain is a "difference engine." It notices differences between two takes in a glaring way. Sometime back I was reading up on a studio guitarist (was it Steve Hunter or Dick Wagner?) and he let out of the bag that he never records two. It is always one or "the magic three." Three blend better than two because the brain stops acting like a difference engine and hears a chorus instead. It has been an incredible production find for me. I often run the two secondary takes a bit lower than the master take in the mix.Yes, panned across the sound field so that the image widened considerably at the choruses.

Bob

Hey thanks, that is what I thought on both questions (but wanted to clarify ) And I suspected the guitar "triple" was panned ...center-45-45 . I have doubled and panned 45-45, but will have to try the triple technique , again thanks , Kev

[MikeBmusic]

Good read!

[QUOTE=KevWind;5469907]Interesting idea about doubling the bass run with a regular electric, I will have to give that a try.
[QUOTE]
A good idea, adding 'upper harmonics' so that listening on a system with no low end (earbuds, computer speakers, for example) will still have a discernible 'bass' line.

Your process is not unlike mine, although there are differences - I use EZDrummer, for example, and at the scratch end of recording, will use a single loop to set timing. If there are breaks or tempo changes, I'll figure out where these are when recording the scratch acoustic guitar track. Then I start modifying the drum track - changing the parts for chorus, etc, putting basic fills in.
My next step is almost always the electric guitar rhythm part(s), and I mike up an amp now 95% of the time, I just prefer the sound to using a sim.
Then I do the bass part, followed by keyboards (if there are any) - I use a 76 key workstation for both internal sounds and to drive VSTis via MIDI.
Vocals are next for me lead vocal always first. Then harmony/backup parts.
I've found for my own workflow, doing the lead guitar parts after the vocals I the best way, so that the lead compliments transition points.
Like you, I've done a rudimentary mix while tracking, so the final mixing is just a continuation.

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by MikeBmusic

Good read!

Thank you!

I've found for my own workflow, doing the lead guitar parts after the vocals I the best way, so that the lead compliments transition points.

Yeah, and often the guitar fills are call-and-response to the vocals. This is really the first time I haven't done the leads last, but as I said, I was a little excited by the lick I'd developed. The fills on the choruses were, in fact, call and response to the scratch vocal, by the way.

Bob

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by MikeBmusic

Good read!


A good idea, adding 'upper harmonics' so that listening on a system with no low end (earbuds, computer speakers, for example) will still have a discernible 'bass' line.

Another way to accomplish this (if you don't have access to an electric) is boost the bass slightly at about 150hz and someplace between 400 hz and 600 hz where ever it isn't "honking" (often at close to 500 )

[Brent Hahn]

There are more strategies for helping a bass part to get heard.

1. Play "short," with definite cutoffs. It's easier hear notice little notes, even low-pitched ones, when there's silence in between them.

2. Play back toward the bridge, where the harmonic balance tends more toward the high ones.

3. Do numbers one and/or two with a pick.

4. Introduce a little distortion during mixing, maybe on a parallel channel. Soloed it'll sound lousy, but a tiny bit in the mix can make the bass part easier to hear without sounding nasty. Kinda like that tiny bit of anchovy in your Caesar dressing.

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by Brent Hahn

There are more strategies for helping a bass part to get heard.

1. Play "short," with definite cutoffs. It's easier hear notice little notes, even low-pitched ones, when there's silence in between them.

2. Play back toward the bridge, where the harmonic balance tends more toward the high ones.

3. Do numbers one and/or two with a pick.

4. Introduce a little distortion during mixing, maybe on a parallel channel. Soloed it'll sound lousy, but a tiny bit in the mix can make the bass part easier to hear without sounding nasty. Kinda like that tiny bit of anchovy in your Caesar dressing.

Good points. You may have noticed that I used your #1. In fact, my first pass felt too staccato so I added a little bit of a legato feel on the second pass and that's the pass that I kept. There's another thing you can do to accomplish your technique #2 - use a Jazz Bass. That's what I used and specifically because it has a pickup back at the bridge that I blended with the front pickup to help with articulation as well. I love that sound! Interestingly, I started out creating the bass part with a felt pick but ended up shifting back to fingers. I'm doing a lot of work with my fingers these days.

I haven't tried #4, but I know that several players use it. I'll have to see what it brings to the table.

The business of paralleling the bass performance with a guitar adds a certain, mmm.. "grit" to the high end that is interesting and I haven't been able to reproduce any other way. It is probably due to the human inability to exactly sync up, causing a little delay between the two. Whatever, I liked the sound.

Bob

[MikeBmusic]

Yeah, I use a jazz bass (Squier), and a pick - hey I'm a guitarist, not a bassist!

[Brent Hahn]

Originally Posted by MikeBmusic

Yeah, I use a jazz bass (Squier), and a pick - hey I'm a guitarist, not a bassist!

When that bass is in your hands, be a bass player :-) . It's a different mindset. The good news is, you can fake it.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Brent Hahn

When that bass is in your hands, be a bass player :-) . It's a different mindset. The good news is, you can fake it.

Ha ! Maybe I will look into a bass guitar and fake it .... lord knows I fake being a recording engineer every time is sit at my desk

[Brent Hahn]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Ha ! Maybe I will look into a bass guitar and fake it .... lord knows I fake being a recording engineer every time is sit at my desk

And for navel-gazing extra credit: next time you're faking being a bass player, don't just play along with the drums... "be the drummer."

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Brent Hahn

And for navel-gazing extra credit: next time you're faking being a bass player, don't just play along with the drums... "be the drummer."

Not sure I get what you mean. I don't play an actual drum kit, but normally I do not use pre recorded drum loops, if that is what you mean ?
I usually program in sampled acoustic drum beats (with a midi keyboard), starting with the kick then snare , toms, hi hats, etc. Do I get extra credit or maybe at least a star ?
I do like the idea of the method Bob used, and record tapping on my desk then go to the sampled sounds .

[Brent Hahn]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Not sure I get what you mean.

I mean if you're playing with a live, human drummer, mentally put yourself in his or her place as if you're the one playing the drums, while all along you're actually playing bass or guitar or whatever. A bit woowoo, I know, but go with it. You may find a synergy (or call it "tightness" or"pocket") that you didn't have before. It's a very tiny, primitive version of the thing that tells a flock of birds to all make a hard left at the exact same instant.

You can do this with pre-recorded drums, too. But only to a degree, because the drummer can't do it back.