What to do when recording costs spiral

[Stylon Pilson]

Haven't been on basschat for a while, thought I'd drop by to share my woes and hear the community's thoughts on my present circumstances.

I'm in a 4 piece at the moment, we decided to go into a recording studio. An estimate for the number of hours needed, and subsequently the total cost, was calculated by one of the other band members, and we all agreed to it. I said that I was happy to pay 1/4 as long as "things don't start getting silly". I went in, laid down my bass tracks in a morning, job done.

Now it looks like the total number of hours we're going to need is basically twice what was estimated. My thoughts on this state of affairs are as follows:

1. I can afford to pay the extra money
2. The end product is something that we all have a share in
3. The total cost coming out double is surely an example of "things getting silly" and I don't feel that this should go unremarked upon
4. Someone f***ed up, be it by making an overoptimistic estimate, or wasting studio time. If this is glossed over, then it will happen again

Anyone else been in this situation? How did you handle it?

S.P.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Stylon Pilson

[gjones]

After many recording nightmares with various bands I recommend the following.

1. Only record 1 or 2 of your best tracks

2. Record and mix them to perfection

3. Pay the recording studio

4. If you're happy with the results record another 1 or 2 tracks and repeat the process until you have your album

This way you can concentrate on getting the songs recorded and mixed as you want them to be, without compromising, and you don't have the worry that you'll run out of money before the final mix is done.

[BigRedX]

How many songs did you record?

How many hours were originally thought to be necessary for recording and mixing?

Do you know why the time taken has increased so much? Have you heard any of the recordings yet?

[Stylon Pilson]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1385998041' post='2294440']How many songs did you record?[/quote]

3 songs

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1385998041' post='2294440']How many hours were originally thought to be necessary for recording and mixing?[/quote]

The original estimate was based around 16 hours in total.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1385998041' post='2294440']Do you know why the time taken has increased so much?[/quote]

I wish I did. I think that the initial estimate was probably hugely optimistic, but I also think that some of the other band members went into the studio without an exact idea of what they were going to do, so spent a bit of time experimenting. If I personally had done that, then I would not be able to bring myself to ask the other band mates to contribute, but then that's just my approach - I plan what I'm going to do in advance, and then once I'm in the studio, I do exactly that unless the producer says otherwise.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1385998041' post='2294440']Have you heard any of the recordings yet?[/quote]

Rough mixes. Why do you ask?

S.P.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Stylon Pilson

[brensabre79]

[quote name='gjones' timestamp='1385997580' post='2294436']
After many recording nightmares with various bands I recommend the following.

1. Only record 1 or 2 of your best tracks

2. Record and mix them to perfection

3. Pay the recording studio

4. If you're happy with the results record another 1 or 2 tracks and repeat the process until you have your album

This way you can concentrate on getting the songs recorded and mixed as you want them to be, without compromising, and you don't have the worry that you'll run out of money before the final mix is done.
[/quote]

Not always economical that way though. Live drums take ages to set-up and record, if you do one or two tracks at a time you're paying for that set-up time over and over.

The thing i always say to bands is book a practice room, get amazingly good at playing the songs, then come to the studio prepared for one or two takes. If you're on a budget, getting the tracks down live then overdubbing bits is the way to go. Set up takes longer but at least you get everything down. You can then get rough mixes of everything and take them away. Decide which ones you want to add overdubs to or mix down and just go and do those. When you have a bit more cash you can go back to the others.

Writing in the studio is a decadance that few can afford these days.

[Graham]

I tend to use a ballpark figure of a day per song for recording, so three songs at eight hour days would be three days, so I'd probably see sixteen hours as a bit optimistic. Couls be done though, an old band of mine did three songs in two days, but with limited mixing - we called it a "live" recording.

I do think in your sort of situation, the studio is definitely the wrong place to be experimenting with structures/FX/tone etc, you should really know almost 100% of what you're going to do before you go in.

[gjones]

[quote name='brensabre79' timestamp='1386000447' post='2294468']
Not always economical that way though. Live drums take ages to set-up and record, if you do one or two tracks at a time you're paying for that set-up time over and over.

The thing i always say to bands is book a practice room, get amazingly good at playing the songs, then come to the studio prepared for one or two takes. If you're on a budget, getting the tracks down live then overdubbing bits is the way to go. Set up takes longer but at least you get everything down. You can then get rough mixes of everything and take them away. Decide which ones you want to add overdubs to or mix down and just go and do those. When you have a bit more cash you can go back to the others.

Writing in the studio is a decadance that few can afford these days.
[/quote]

It may cost more in the long run but you end up with better sounding tracks that you didn't have to compromise on because the clock was ticking. It's also a good way to audition the recording studio and engineer as well.

[BigRedX]

We did the first Dick Venom & The Terrortones EP in about 16 hours (one day for recording and two half-days for mixing), but it was done by being incredibly well-rehearsed, playing all the songs live, getting the right sounds as we recorded and only redoing the vocals as overdubs, and knowing exactly in advance what we wanted in terms of band sound and production and what we were going to add to the songs in the mix.

As others have said, if you're not recording (mostly) live you need to allow at least 1 studio day per song, and when you are paying for studio time by the hour, that is not the time to be experimenting with anything other than a couple of "mix tricks".

I think it's probably time for a band meeting to find out exactly why the recording has taken so long and see if those responsible for the over-run are prepared to shoulder at least some of the extra financial burden, although you should probably have discussed this in advance.

How are the rough mixes sounding? Are you almost there or is there still a lot more work to be done? What has changed from the songs that you rehearsed?

And finally what is the recording going to be used for?

[Stylon Pilson]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1386002604' post='2294502']
I think it's probably time for a band meeting to find out exactly why the recording has taken so long and see if those responsible for the over-run are prepared to shoulder at least some of the extra financial burden, although you should probably have discussed this in advance.[/quote]

I think that it's mostly just down to the optimistic original estimate. I think we're all equally culpable for accepting it without question.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1386002604' post='2294502']
How are the rough mixes sounding? Are you almost there or is there still a lot more work to be done? What has changed from the songs that you rehearsed?[/quote]

The rough mixes sound fine, it's not going to go beyond the revised estimate. The guitarist has added lots of extra twiddles, the vocalist lots of harmonies - basically the kinds of things that we can't do in rehearsal owing to limited numbers of hands / vocal cords.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1386002604' post='2294502']
And finally what is the recording going to be used for?
[/quote]

It's going to go online for public consumption, and is also going to be used as a demo for getting gigs. We might sell a few CDs at gigs, but it will be for a nominal fee. It's not going to be sent to record companies.

S.P.

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='Stylon Pilson' timestamp='1385999474' post='2294452']
I also think that some of the other band members went into the studio without an exact idea of what they were going to do, so spent a bit of time experimenting.
[/quote]

And there you have it...

One to chalk up to experience maybe, but next time make sure everyone has a clear idea of what's required.

Experimenting in the studio is for people with deep pockets (or their own studio).

[BigRedX]

Sounds like it's all back on track.

I'd agree that for recordings to sell to the general public you want the songs to be as good as they can be and if that means adding various extra guitar and vocal parts then that's what it takes. However from the PoV of getting gigs maybe you should look at producing something that is more representative of your actual live sound. I have some personal experience of this as over the last year Mr Venom from my band has been putting on various gigs featuring some of his favourite new bands. Unfortunately in the last few months we've been somewhat disappointed by the actual live performances of the bands that have been booked. Their recordings have sounded fantastic, but on the night the bands have most decidedly failed to deliver the goods, and it didn't really look like they were just having an off night.

[ironside1966]

I think in the end you will just have to pay up, A good recording takes time and often costs. in the long run you will always be happy with a good recording but once the shine as worn off a bad it won't take long before you start to cringe and have regrets.
Was the time in the studio spent in a creative and productive way or was a hard slog to get the other musicians to get their parts right or come up with any ideas? If someone's lack of preparation or un professionalism has wasted your studio time and your money I would let them know you are not happy but never have a go at someone who has tried their best.
You could cut cost by getting someone you know to mix it for free but make sure they are up to the job but if you are happy with the studio I would suggest that you stick with them but don't rush the mix to save a few quid. get it right have something you can be proud of.

[51m0n]

That was a ridiculous amount of time to estimate.

A [i]serious[/i] mix takes at least 15 hours for a single track. If you have a truly complex track (the single off a Pink album had over 120 tracks on it!) then you could well double that especially if you include the pre-mix tidying up.

So one of two things was wrong, eiither you guys intended to essentially do a live recording with a pretty straight mix down of the songs, nothing more than a rough balancing, no automation, basic effects and eq, no overdubs, no extra bv's or widdles.

A demo in other words.

Or you woefully understimated the time this all takes to get something a bit more shiny than a rough demo..

Most likely once you'd got the basic rhythm tracks down the guitarist and vocalist realised that a rough demo wasnt going to cut it and started adding the necessary 'shiny sh*t' to make it sound a bit more pro.

This doubled the time without taking into account the extra mixing required I would think.

Any which way I hope you're after a 'live' and 'representative' sound, because the mix down is going to have to be pretty straightforward given the time frames.

Consider this a lesson well learnt, if you need to save studio time work every single thing out in advance, and no you cant do that in a rehearsal room, but you [i]can[/i] record every rehearsal and get people to work out every single bit of 'shiny sh*t' they intend to put down in the studio. This is called [i]pre-production[/i] and is absolutely [i]vital[/i] if you want to get a great result in the studio without going more than 50% over budget!

Edited December 3, 2013 by 51m0n

[AntLockyer]

I'm in the other camp. Stuff shouldn't take ages to do unless you want it to sound different to what actually works. This is why everyone uses session guys in Nashville so you can do an 4 track EP in a day

[Stylon Pilson]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1386108858' post='2296023']
Most likely once you'd got the basic rhythm tracks down the guitarist and vocalist realised that a rough demo wasnt going to cut it and started adding the necessary 'shiny sh*t' to make it sound a bit more pro.
[/quote]

I think that this is partly the case. The original estimate was probably based on a barebones recording, but I think their minds started wandering to shiny sh*t fairly soon after.

I've paid my share now, and brought up the matter as delicately as I could. We've agreed that the problem was an optimistic estimate, so next time we're going into the studio I'll be able to use this experience to help us get a more accurate estimate.

I'm concerned that I may have earned myself a reputation as the "stingy" one in the band as a result of all this. I'll bring beers to the next rehearsal, that should fix it.

S.P.

[51m0n]

[quote name='AntLockyer' timestamp='1386109862' post='2296046'] I'm in the other camp. Stuff shouldn't take ages to do unless you want it to sound different to what actually works. This is why everyone uses session guys in Nashville so you can do an 4 track EP in a day [/quote]

Thats just not the case IME.

If you have a player per track in the song and no overdubs then you can get a whole band down in one take if they are [i]really[/i] good.

Usually you will then overdub the vocal - even in Nashville.

Then you get to mix, and that will still take upwards of 10 hours for the first track in the EP and if the instrumentation or feel changes much between each song, then subsequent mixes will take as long as likely as not. It can be less you're right, but when it is its because everything worked in the room, and there was no need to make any arrangement choices, not even to help the dynamic though the track, no issues with any of the tracks siting in the mix correctly, and the way you tracked every instrument was such that you needed no real filtering at all. In truth, thats mighty unrealistic IME.

And I believe whole heartedly in capturing the sound you want as best you can at the mic!

[TimR]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1386254615' post='2297774']
Thats just not the case IME.

If you have a player per track in the song and no overdubs then you can get a whole band down in one take if they are [i]really[/i] good.

Usually you will then overdub the vocal - even in Nashville.

Then you get to mix, and that will still take upwards of 10 hours for the first track in the EP and if the instrumentation or feel changes much between each song, then subsequent mixes will take as long as likely as not. It can be less you're right, but when it is its because everything worked in the room, and there was no need to make any arrangement choices, not even to help the dynamic though the track, no issues with any of the tracks siting in the mix correctly, and the way you tracked every instrument was such that you needed no real filtering at all. In truth, thats mighty unrealistic IME.

And I believe whole heartedly in capturing the sound you want as best you can at the mic!
[/quote]

That is down to the engineer to explain though. If you have a band turn up and expect to spend a day in the studio and walk away with a finished track, he should be advising them to the contrary.

We went into the studio. 2-3 hours of setting up and getting levels. We knocked up about 10 live tracks during the rest of the day.

He gave us a live cd of the bare-bones recording to take away and listen to.

As you say, that's where the fun starts...

Having the band at the mixing stage is asking for trouble, but it's difficult to explain to non technical musicians that they've done the recording and it cost £x for the day but it's now going to cost £y for another 3 days of engineer time. Most of them just don't get it.

[51m0n]

Here is an example of a band all in one room doing tracks in one full take, that sounds frankly incredible:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exQRfHbSwn0

Thats George Massenburg in there at the desk, he is a bona fide recording legend (he [i]invented[/i] parametric eq ffs!). He is an exceptional engineer.

Notice anything odd a bout the room? Yup, its the only room of its kind in the world, completely diffused space, those diffuses are 4 feet deep at their longest! Sounded incredible apparently. George helped design it. Funnily enough its in Nashville. UNfortunately they didnt dig the way his stuff turned out so much, and he let it go, the diffusion has been removed now,

Now your average little project studio doesnt have a space like this to get everyone in the same room, and frankly trying to minimise spill with gobos is more often than not doomed to failure if the spill pick up is a bit poor, or the off axis pickup of the ic isnt going to work with the on axis pickup.

I've recorded in a similar way a lot, generally you need a really really big space to do it in, say a barn sized space, that way you get seperation through distance first of all. If you dont have a very big live room then you need seperate booths, and the sound wont normally be as natural.

I tell you what though, GM is a mean mixing machine, he really know how to dial it in, and given that he owns GML he has access to as many GML eqs and compressors as he wants, often using both sides a stereo GML EQ, one either sidef of a GML compressor. These pieces retail at several thousand dollars a piece. You better believe this had many hours spent on that mix!

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1386256822' post='2297805']
Here is an example of a band all in one room doing tracks in one full take, that sounds frankly incredible:-

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exQRfHbSwn0[/media]
[/quote]

That is quite awesome.

[wateroftyne]

Oooh - it's Blackbird.

Presumably it's not the room Rush did Clockwork Angels in, 'cos that sounds cack.

[51m0n]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1386255067' post='2297782'] That is down to the engineer to explain though. If you have a band turn up and expect to spend a day in the studio and walk away with a finished track, he should be advising them to the contrary. We went into the studio. 2-3 hours of setting up and getting levels. We knocked up about 10 live tracks during the rest of the day. He gave us a live cd of the bare-bones recording to take away and listen to. As you say, that's where the fun starts... Having the band at the mixing stage is asking for trouble, but it's difficult to explain to non technical musicians that they've done the recording and it cost £x for the day but it's now going to cost £y for another 3 days of engineer time. Most of them just don't get it. [/quote]

Agreed, mixdown is generally under estimated by a large margin for a professional result. The less well equiped the studio is in terms of live space, the harder the mix down, and the more that will need to be overdubbed.

The only thing more underrated in terms of time than mixdown is backing vocals, they are utterly misunderstood and misrepresented by moist bands, and really do make the difference between a demo and a professional recording in a lot of cases.

After that its guitar doubling. After that its drums and bass....

You want a demo? I can record your demo with 8 to 10 tracks live, in a day for an EP, and mixed.

You want a saleable contemporary product? I need 8-10 tracks for the drums, 2 tracks per guitar part, more often than not (style dependant) 2 or even 3 guitar parts, more for heavy stuff. 2 tracks for the bass. Then theres n tracks for keys/samples/pads. I may comp a lead vocal together from 15 takes (one track each effectively), but getting the right vocal setup may take an hour to begin with (and I have a pretty limited choice of mic and preamp to start with!) if the vocalist isnt great, although 2 or 3 would be more usual for a decent performer, who will every now and then get a great first take (Soft Cell's Tainted Love was first take all the way through - brilliant performance). BVs, another 6 tracks on an average pop track, I've handled 50 tracks of BVs on one song before now though.

You think that can be mixed in a couple of hours?

Realistically if I'm mixing someone elses project, there is 3 hours work tidying it up and getting it ready to be mixed, often more. If more people spent more time getting their stems prepped up properly that time would be saved. On top of which all the rest of the mix is an iterative process, it takes hours to properly mix a song, days sometimes, and bands dont realise that in the real world that is the time spent by their competition to produce their music, you better be ready to do the same or you arent going to have a competitive product!

[51m0n]

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1386257221' post='2297818'] Oooh - it's Blackbird. Presumably it's not the room Rush did Clockwork Angels in, 'cos that sounds cack. [/quote]

No I dont think it is...

[51m0n]

Another track from the same session:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HMHZrsiWXc