How many separate sessions in studio it takes...

[emanresu]

... to really get the idea of how much work it really takes to make a good recording?

By "separate" I mean, separate works. Not the same one.

For me, it was 4 crappy ones before the reality sank in.

edit: I rather meant that, how many displeasing sessions it took after just started?
Or was your very first one a brilliant one already?
Sorry for the confusion.

[AllanAllen]

Have your stuff together it should take a day to get an album recorded. Then take a break and mix it on another date.

If the engineer is still setting up mics after an hour, leave.

You should have sent a gear/line up chart ahead and a professional should have it all planned before you show up.

[Litterick]

ECM artists are allowed two days to record and one to mix.

[AllanAllen]

ECM artists are allowed two days to record and one to mix.

Are you an ECM artist?

[princeplanet]

...

If the engineer is still setting up mics after an hour, leave.
...

If the drums are complicated, or there is a specific request that needs some experimentation, then you will need to allow for some extra time with the set up.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

Have your stuff together it should take a day to get an album recorded.

You don’t tell us how experienced you are at this, so I can’t comment on your opinion. But I can tell you that my first recording session was in 1960 and I’m still active - so I’ve done a bit of session work. Very few quality albums are recorded in one day, even in digital formats.

Recording a full band together live is not the norm. If you do it this way, the time it takes is proportional to the minimum level of quality in performance that you’ll accept, and that's at least somewhat proportional to your budget. Certainly, errors that can now be “corrected” in post processing used to require redos. Engineers can improve pitch discrepancies, timing errors and other technical flaws digitally. But they can’t make solos sound more inspiring, they can’t add interest to a lackluster solo or phrase, and they can’t make a cut swing when it didn’t. So even for low budget recording of full bands at one time, it’s still the norm to record a few takes of a tune and pick the best one. Except for the most seasoned studio pros, it takes a few passes to find inspiration and anything close to technical perfection in the best take.

Many albums are recorded part by part over a basic rhythm section track (or worse, over a click track), and the players are never even in the same room together. If you do this in a studio, it multiplies the recording time by the number of individual sessions. Many parts are recorded in home studios and delivered remotely for inclusion in the raw mix. Pros often email their parts to the engineer(s).

Quality studios are even reluctant to release recordings for mastering that don’t reflect their high standards for performance. I once did a session at Sigma for a mediocre local band recording two tunes for a 45. We spent 4 to 5 hours on it, during which I had to show the second guitar, bass, and drums how to change a lot of what they were playing. I did this both on their instruments and on the piano. When the vocalist / band leader was either satisfied or out of money, he decided that what we had was fine, and the band packed up. The engineer asked me to stay behind.

When the rest of the band left, he told me that the best take was so bad that he wouldn’t release it for use because it would reflect badly on the studio. He said that he heard what I was playing while showing the others how to improve their parts, so he knew I could do better - and he asked me to redo their parts in the spirit of helping both the band and the studio. I did it, and the final product was released with me as 5 of the 7 instruments on it. The record was still weak, and
I doubt that it sold 100 copies. I expected this and asked for payment up front in lieu of royalties - I think I got $75. FWIW, today it’s an internet classic. Google “George Lane and the Ranchers” and you’ll find it - the sides are Where Mary Goes and The Devil and His Disciples.

If you take your band into a studio and record a dozen tunes in a day, you’ll most likely end up with at least 9 or 10 mediocre takes that would never make it to commercial release. You can’t fully correct individual parts digitally unless each instrument was sonically isolated and recorded with separate mics. So unless you’re all studio pro level players, a one day session with multiple players recording together is highly unlikely to deliver a high quality recorded album ready for post processing, mastering, and production.

[AllanAllen]

It all depends on the band. If you have serious guys who can leave the alcohol and weed out of the studio, you can get a lot done.


I also think the band should make demos on their own and have things worked out ahead of time. Work out as much as you can, the recording is forever and time is expensive.

The studio is where your art becomes a product. You don’t innovate at the studio, you create a product there.

Of course don’t write solos note for note, but have a plan. See Ron Carter example below.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

It all depends on the band. If you have serious guys who can leave the alcohol and weed out of the studio, you can get a lot done.

On how many sessions have you played?

If you’re at the level of Ron Carter, I’m happy to accept your opinion on this. But even if that were the case, you’re incredibly naive if you believe this is any more typical for most bands than Ron Carter is for most musicians. In my experience, very few full band recordings of 10+ tracks made in one day are even suitable for demo use.

[AllanAllen]

I’ve done one hired gun studio session and I dunno, 10 sessions with various original rock bands I was in.

I don’t see why recording a jazz group would be different. Actually I think the jazz group should be a smoother session.

If you want to nitpick every note and try over and over for perfection you might as well just write/memorize the solo you want to be recorded. Or wait to record in the first place.

I don’t think it’s art, or magical, at the studio. I think it’s painful to play in a dead room with headphones and I do my best to make it go by as quickly as possible.

We can agree to disagree. You’ve got way more experience than me. Maybe I got lucky a few times. The times it went bad, someone was unprepared or intoxicated.

[delo054]

I prefer to record live, in the same room, no headphones and in many cases the first time the group has performed the songs together. Each of these albums were recorded in 1 to 4 dates (one recording day for each ensemble on the album to perform the tunes). They aren't perfect but they are a captured performance, for me that's what performed music is all about.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

I’ve done one hired gun studio session and I dunno, 10 sessions with various original rock bands I was in.

I don’t see why recording a jazz group would be different. Actually I think the jazz group should be a smoother session.

If you want to nitpick every note and try over and over for perfection you might as well just write/memorize the solo you want to be recorded. Or wait to record in the first place.

I don’t think it’s art, or magical, at the studio. I think it’s painful to play in a dead room with headphones and I do my best to make it go by as quickly as possible.

We can agree to disagree. You’ve got way more experience than me. Maybe I got lucky a few times. The times it went bad, someone was unprepared or intoxicated.

The question is what the sessions you describe produced. If they ended up as commercial quality recordings, you accomplished something great. If they captured a unique spirit and conveyed it well enough to land the band a recording contract or opened the door to a successful career, my hat’s off to you. But most such recordings fall far short of this.

What’s saddest to me is that so many bands and performers with great potential shoot themselves in the foot with the false economy of failing to invest in a good producer and proper recording of their best work. They schedule one day in the studio to save money, they produce it themselves, and they settle for whatever that produces.

FWIW, I think those recordings by DD are mighty fine. This was facilitated by his and his bandmates’ approach, abilities, and highly recordable choice of repertoire. It sounds to me like little postproduction processing was done and that mixdown and mastering were relatively easy. If I’m correct, this facilitated efficient production. It’s also not typical, especially for larger or more complex instrumentation and/or program material.

[AllanAllen]

The question is what the sessions you describe produced. If they ended up as commercial quality recordings, you accomplished something great. If they captured a unique spirit and conveyed it well enough to land the band a recording contract or opened the door to a successful career, my hat’s off to you. But most such recordings fall far short of this.

What’s saddest to me is that so many bands and performers with great potential shoot themselves in the foot with the false economy of failing to invest in a good producer and proper recording of their best work. They schedule one day in the studio to save money, they produce it themselves, and they settle for whatever that produces.

I agree with this. I would do things differently now and not spend all that money on recordings that ended up 5% better than the demos we made on our own.

[pauln]

In my experience, a working band doing it in one day, multiple takes, mutual agreement on the best takes is typical. What often takes additional sessions is if there is a singer, especially if they are the main feature of the recording, who may have just sung "scratch vocals" to get the rest of the band quickly through the initial session. They will then return another day to focus on getting the final vocals down.

[teeps]

Solo artist?

[emanresu]

I rather meant that, how many displeasing sessions it took after just started?
Or was your very first one a brilliant one already?
Sorry for the confusion.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

I rather meant that, how many displeasing sessions it took after just started?
Or was your very first one a brilliant one already?
Sorry for the confusion.

That all depends on your goals and standards. It’s a rare perfectionist who’s happy with one take on anything. But many bands and artists settle for weak recordings, whether it’s because of budget, ignorance, inexperience, unwarranted optimism, or similarly flawed justification.

Remember that it’s often not known how good or bad a recording is until post processing has been done. Good engineers know pretty well if they’ll be able to turn raw tracks into a good recording. It’s the same kind of process that lets fine winemakers know what a freshly made wine will taste like when it’s aged to its peak.

Also, the musicians who played on a recording often hear it differently from the producers, engineers etc. And they all may hear the finished product differently from those who have to sell it.

[DawgBone]

I spent about four hours doing 40 or 50 takes of a one minute solo last saturday. I've done so many one day and done recording sessions that produced little but half assed garbage that we bought our own gear and can take all the time we need in the recording phase. I am really shooting for a "sound" this time. I"m behind schedule on a grant funded recording but would rather be late and good than on time and mediocre once again.

If you can crank one album worthy song out in a studio per day you are really cooking IMO. A studio-live jazz recording may not take so long especially if there are no vocals. I've found that doing everything live has some serious drawbacks and at this stage I would just as well piece it together. Hopefully I can make a full length album worth a shit this time.

[AllanAllen]

I spent about four hours doing 40 or 50 takes of a one minute solo last saturday. I've done so many one day and done recording sessions that produced little but half assed garbage that we bought our own gear and can take all the time we need in the recording phase. I am really shooting for a "sound" this time. I"m behind schedule on a grant funded recording but would rather be late and good than on time and mediocre once again.

If you can crank one album worthy song out in a studio per day you are really cooking IMO. A studio-live jazz recording may not take so long especially if there are no vocals. I've found that doing everything live has some serious drawbacks and at this stage I would just as well piece it together. Hopefully I can make a full length album worth a shit this time.

Have you heard the Sue Foley album Pinky's Blues? Came out like 2 years ago. She did it all live in the same room, sounds like being in a blues club to me.

Not arguing your process, just recommending a well recorded modern blues album.

[pamosmusic]

That all depends on your goals and standards. It’s a rare perfectionist who’s happy with one take on anything. But many bands and artists settle for weak recordings, whether it’s because of budget, ignorance, inexperience, unwarranted optimism, or similarly flawed justification.

Remember that it’s often not known how good or bad a recording is until post processing has been done. Good engineers know pretty well if they’ll be able to turn raw tracks into a good recording. It’s the same kind of process that lets fine winemakers know what a freshly made wine will taste like when it’s aged to its peak.

Also, the musicians who played on a recording often hear it differently from the producers, engineers etc. And they all may hear the finished product differently from those who have to sell it.

I mean this also depends on what kind of recording you’re looking for.

Kind of Blue — 2 dates
A Love Supreme — 1 date
The Shape of Jazz — 1 date

So that’s the three most influential jazz albums of all time, a grand total of four dates.

Jazz folks tend to rehearse extensively offsite and then record live in a pretty quick process.

Then again, Maria Schneider takes more time to record for obvious reasons.

I had a friend who recorded a really beautiful sort of rock-big band album and he was in the studio probably a dozen times with different sections.

So it all depends.

Caveat: I hate recording.

[DawgBone]

Have you heard the Sue Foley album Pinky's Blues? Came out like 2 years ago. She did it all live in the same room, sounds like being in a blues club to me.

Not arguing your process, just recommending a well recorded modern blues album.

No worries. I'll definitely have a listen. She lives in this area still I think and was gigging with Jimmie Vaughan on occasion but now that Jimmie is sick he canceled all his summer tour dates.

I'm currently limited to tracking over click tracks, building it from the drums, then add bass, rhythm guitars, lead guitar, and vocal. I know it's not ideal but really there is no "ideal" per quite a few different trips to the studio using differing methods. We use one take performances, without a bunch of punching in and out so it still gets a pretty raw, live feel. I've done the whole band tracking at once as well and ultimately you're using headphones so to me it's all the same kind of limitation regardless of how it's sliced. I'm heading to a legitimate pro studio for the vocal tracking and mixing and then splurge the dough on quality mastering and print up.

[delo054]

Thanks for the nice words nevershouldhavesold it.

A well performed, quality performance makes mixing and mastering as easy as it can be.

If anyone in this post is interested in help in regards to mixing or mastering your project, please feel free to reach out. You can use the albums above as reference. I offer competitive rates and if you prefer more pop oriented examples of my work, I've mixed and mastered music for contemporary artists, audio books, ESPN, NFL, XGames and more. I'd be happy to provide links to other examples.

[fep]

High-quality recordings are being produced in home studios. By high-quality, I mean Grammy-winning.

No need to be under the restrictions of a budget or the time clock of a professional recording studio. I wouldn't want to be. It's probably easier for most people to get a better performance without the added pressure of a professional recording studio. I think being able to record at home is just part of being a musician these days.

Certainly, the tracking at a minimum can be done at home. Although recording a live band may be problematic at home unless you're willing to dedicate multiple rooms to your home studio.

Peter Sprague in my town does just that, he uses several rooms to do live band recordings:

[Bop Head]

High-quality recordings are being produced in home studios. By high-quality, I mean Grammy-winning.

No need to be under the restrictions of a budget or the time clock of a professional recording studio. I wouldn't want to be. It's probably easier for most people to get a better performance without the added pressure of a professional recording studio. I think being able to record at home is just part of being a musician these days.

Certainly, the tracking at a minimum can be done at home. Although recording a live band may be problematic at home unless you're willing to dedicate multiple rooms to your home studio.

Peter Sprague in my town does just that, he uses several rooms to do live band recordings:

As we are jazzers: Wasn't Rudy Van Geldern's first studio actually the living room in his parents house?

[jazzshrink]

As we are jazzers: Wasn't Rudy Van Geldern's first studio actually the living room in his parents house?

That's true, although it should be noted that, "...he convinced them to design the house with recording in mind. The living room would double as a live room in which musicians performed, and double-paned glass was installed between the living room and a purpose-built control room.” Here's a brief article on the Hackensack home studio.

[AllanAllen]

“Mom, dad, I know I just graduated from optometry school, but you should put a studio in the living room for me.”

- RVG