Only vocals and acoustic guitar?

[Per Burström]

How many of you make songs with just the vocals and acoustic guitar? I write my songs starting with acoustic guitar, and I also record them that way. And then I might try to add other instruments, but I really prefer the songs with just the guitar and voice. What's your view on uploading these simply versions to Spotify and other streaming services?

/Per

[Al Acuff]

Keep in mind the old saying, "You only get one chance to make a first impression."

How about posting some examples of your recordings here?

[raysachs]

I record for nothing more than my own enjoyment, and occasionally send a link to a Soundcloud track to a couple of my friends who I grew up playing music with. So I'm not going for a polished recording - I'm not a good enough player or (especially) singer for that. That said, it just depends on the song and my performance.

I have a Spire Studio 8 track digital recorder. I almost always start with a single recording of acoustic guitar and vocal into one condenser mic. Occasionally I'll also record the guitar from a direct line so I have a clean guitar track as well as the mic-recorded guitar/voice track. But the way I tend to use it is to blend a combination of the direct line guitar recording with the track that has both guitar and voice to get the best overall guitar sound from two recordings of the same performance, maybe with a bit of stereo effect. Sometimes that it. Just acoustic guitar and voice.

But because I'm not a good singer at all, I'll often record a second vocal track and back it down in the mix so it's not really even audible as a separate track, but somehow blending a second, lower volume, vocal track takes a bit of the edge off of my poor singing. And sometimes I'll add lead guitar or second rhythm guitar. I've done some stuff that's all electric and in those cases, I tend to have a couple of rhythm guitar tracks with the second just playing rhythm accents. And generally some kind of lead guitar track on those all-electric songs.

But 90% of the time it starts with a single mic recording guitar and voice together and then I decide whether I want to add anything to it from there.

-Ray

[Andy Howell]

There’s nothing wrong with just guitar and vocals providing that - across a number of tracks (ep/LP as well as streaming) you get some genuine variety in your sound. I do this most of the time but make sure I vary keys, picking patterns and even tubings to give max variety. If that makes sense.

[Mbroady]

I start off with guitar and vocals just so i can take a step back and see if the song is lacking or if it needs works both musically and/or lyrically

If, after i record it, then work on it some more, I will lay down guitar to a click track or rhythm track, then add vocals. If after this step it still moves me I will might add some bass and rythem tracks, if the song calls for it. Some songs work ok with just guitar and vocal, but some songs just need more..... (drums base, etc). I try to keep it mimilistic, but sometimes i get carried away and add way to much.

Also. I’ve come to accept that my recordings/songs wills never sound like they do in my head, and I’ve learned to accept that that is ok

[Brent Hahn]

When it comes to recordings, I think too little is better than too much. And I think they're both better than too long.

[RustyAxe]

I usually record acoustic guitar and vocals together (Blumlein technique). I might take another guitar track direct (it can be useful later in post). Then I'll add bass, a lead guitar, maybe a keys track (synth, piano, strings), maybe harmony vocals.

It's a way to communicate to band members how I want the song to sound. Not necessarily note for note (good musicians sometimes bristle and being told what to play) but for the groove and feel ... the overall effect. Also the isolated tracks can be useful for working out harmony parts with those who don't/can't do so themselves.

None of it for public consumption. Internet fame is over-rated.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Brent Hahn

When it comes to recordings, I think too little is better than too much. And I think they're both better than too long.

Boy do I agree with this Even having been right in the middle of the late 60's era of the exultation of In a Gadda Da Vida et. al .........
I think it is very hard to keep anything over a max 3 or 4 minutes, truly interesting.
It never ceases to amaze me that people performing live and especially at open mics drone on thinking it is somehow artistic, when far to often it is just interminably boring .

Back to the OP yes I do a fair amount of just acoustic guitar and vocal. Seems to me the "trick"and the art is to make just a guitar and vocal, fill up the sound stage ...

[keith.rogers]

If you can produce a "radio ready" final mix, you'll have the best chance of folks listening.

Clearly, there have been some successful artists in the past that are primarily just singer-songwriters, and albums made almost entirely of just their guitar playing and voice. It's just not as common today because it's, frankly, not very commercial, so "labels" rarely pick up something like that. At least not from what I see. Even the folks I see performing like that (solo) would not put out an entire album of material with just them - they always have some tracks with other musicians adding instruments and/or voices.

It depends what your goal is, of course. Some people put their recordings on SoundCloud, ReverbNation, et al, solely for the purpose of distributing/sharing them so friends and occasional strangers can listen. The bar is not too high for that, but if you want to monetize or get a wide audience, e.g., via Spotify, you'll want to really have polished performances, recordings, and mix/masters (IMO). Using reference tracks of similar, finished recordings by professional artists is a good practice if that's your goal.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Boy do I agree with this Even having been right in the middle of the late 60's era of the exultation of In a Gadda Da Vida et. al .........
I think it is very hard to keep anything over a max 3 or 4 minutes, truly interesting.
It never ceases to amaze me that people performing live and especially at open mics drone on thinking it is somehow artistic, when far to often it is just interminably boring .

I think good story songs are the exception. One of my songs that always gets a good reception comes in at about 5:30. It was nominated for Song of the Year in 2006 in the New Folk category at Just Plain Folks. It didn't win but it got a little airplay on some folk stations.

[RustyAxe]

Originally Posted by keith.rogers

Clearly, there have been some successful artists in the past that are primarily just singer-songwriters, and albums made almost entirely of just their guitar playing and voice. It's just not as common today because it's, frankly, not very commercial, so "labels" rarely pick up something like that. At least not from what I see. Even the folks I see performing like that (solo) would not put out an entire album of material with just them - they always have some tracks with other musicians adding instruments and/or voices.

Preach on, brother! I did a CD with a singer/songwriter a couple of years ago. He's a great writer, good guitarist, mediocre singer. I had suggestions to add additional instrumentation (piano, string pads, electric guitar, etc) and female vocals, but he was adamant that he wanted only his vocal and guitar and my vocal and bass. In post processing it became clear that my harmonies were spot on pitch, but his weren't, making those passages discordant ... and rather than re-take his vocals, he opted to drop the harmony, which resulted in a more or less successful (but boring) outcome. What resulted was a good representation of what we would play live as a duo, but it really didn't POP, and would have little commercial appeal. It wasn't a project I am particularly proud of.

[Brent Hahn]

Originally Posted by keith.rogers

If you can produce a "radio ready" final mix, you'll have the best chance of folks listening.

I sort of agree. So many people feel like they need to over-gild their lily to make their recording "a real record." Especially if they fantasize about charging money for it.

I do get carried away sometimes. but in general, my fantasies tend toward either giving someone a slightly-embellished souvenir of what they just heard me do live with one guitar, or giving a successful artist an glimpse of what their own "real record" might sound like if they were to make one from my song. So I lean in the direction of simple.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by jim1960

I think good story songs are the exception. One of my songs that always gets a good reception comes in at about 5:30. It was nominated for Song of the Year in 2006 in the New Folk category at Just Plain Folks. It didn't win but it got a little airplay on some folk stations.

Oh Don't get me wrong it is quite doable ( and congratulations on the nomination BTW well done ) And there are a number of compelling songs longer than 3 or 4 mins . But then writing a compelling song of any length is not easy (otherwise we would all be hit songwriters )

I was just venting as I attend and help put on, one of the best organized longest running Open mics in the country , and lately there has been a slew of pretty marginal long song performances, that make me squirm in my seat

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by KevWind

I was just venting as I attend and help put on, one of the best organized longest running Open mics in the country , and lately there has been a slew of pretty marginal long song performances, that make me squirm in my seat

Ahh... I'll agree that a bad long song is much worse than a bad short song.

Many years back I was a pretty regular participant in a local songwriters' meet-up, the purpose of which was to offer suggestions and criticism for whatever song you decided to play that night. It was a once-a-month thing and there were usually 15-20 people in attendance (not everyone chose to play a song every month). It wasn't a cheerleading session. The criticism was always meant to be helpful but it was criticism nonetheless. However, the people who stuck with it and accepted that their songs had room for improvement would often come back with a reworked version of a previous song and it was almost always a better version for having run the gauntlet. Some that attended were folks who participated in some of the local open-mics. I've no doubt the quality of those open-mics was enhanced because of those meet-ups.

[Mbroady]

Originally Posted by jim1960

Ahh... I'll agree that a bad long song is much worse than a bad short song.

Many years back I was a pretty regular participant in a local songwriters' meet-up, the purpose of which was to offer suggestions and criticism for whatever song you decided to play that night. It was a once-a-month thing and there were usually 15-20 people in attendance (not everyone chose to play a song every month). It wasn't a cheerleading session. The criticism was always meant to be helpful but it was criticism nonetheless. However, the people who stuck with it and accepted that their songs had room for improvement would often come back with a reworked version of a previous song and it was almost always a better version for having run the gauntlet. Some that attended were folks who participated in some of the local open-mics. I've no doubt the quality of those open-mics was enhanced because of those meet-ups.

I have and still attend meet-ups for song criticism. It’s both fun and educational, especially if the other participants are skilled writers. I think every suggestion should be taken with a grain of salt but all suggestions should be listened to and evaluated with an objective (as much as possible) eye/ear. 9 times out of ten there is a consensus if a song is lacking. And when, in a room of 5-15 people, all agree, it’s best to let go of any attachment and rework your song.