Recording without lead singer

[JohnSlade07]

In your experience is it possible to put down bass, guitar and drum tracks without the lead singer being present to act as a guide? Personally I think it sounds like a receipe for a wasted few hours, however, the rest of my band seem to think it will work and that the singer can come along and overdub his vocals afterwards. The lead guitarist and backing singer has said he will provide some vocal guidance as it were.

Just interested to hear your opinions/experiences.

[lateralus462]

There's no reason really why it shouldn't work - as long as the material you're playing is well rehearsed and you all know your parts - it's usual for the Vocals to be the last thing recorded anyway, so I cant see that having the vocalist present or not would really make that much of a difference to the finished track.

[Stylon Pilson]

Doable. It might help if one of you puts down a guide vocal track which can then be replaced by the lead singer when he comes in.

S.P.

[cheddatom]

It depends how well you are rehearsed. In my band, the drummer would play on his own, then I would play to that, then the guitarist to that, and put vocals on last.

[jakenewmanbass]

I've done tons of recording and I would say that it's unlikely to be very useful.

[The Funk]

You can do it but you'll need to plan all the dynamic changes in the song before you record it, ie. in this bit we go quiet, in this bit we build up, in this bit we go nuts.

[JohnSlade07]

The plan is to get the lead guitarist (who also sings backing vocals) to give us a guide vocal which the bass and drums can play to. I've done a reasonable amount of recording in the past, just never done it like this before and can't help thinking it might sound a little stilted. Then again it's only a function band recording and we are pretty tight/experienced so worth a go I suppose.

[wotnwhy]

as others have said, if you know the songs well, it shouldn't matter.

is it that they can't make the date your due to record?

[cheddatom]

I think with some bands it's always best to get them all playing at the same time. If it's just for a demo then it won't matter - it's just the "feel" of it that will change, if it's for commercial release, I would get the lazy f*cker in there! (sorry if he's recovering in hospital or something).

RE Jake - It's surely not as clear cut as that? Some whole albums are recorded by highly rehearsed bands to a click, it's not going to make THAT much difference, althought I agree in principle I would want the singer there.

[JohnSlade07]

It's not for commercial release or anything, just for promo purposes for the odd wedding/function venue that requests it.

[Sibob]

I'm not sure what the issue is?
I know it's not what we're talking about, but most commercial releases will be multi-tracked, and everyone will do their parts separately!
Even with most 'live' studio recordings I've done, they'll be a guide vocal, but re-recorded afterwards/another time.

I've never heard of a band needing the singer to 'play to', a band should be able to create it's own dynamics that the singer can play off.
If it's the only way forward, just record the music and do the vocal another time, if you're well rehearsed, it'll sound fine!

Good luck
Si

Edited July 29, 2008 by Sibob

[bennifer]

Indeed, it depends really how you practise and how tight you are. In my projects half of the practising is often done with no vocals, concentrating on getting the instrumental side really solid. As far as recording, i've always been fine tracking drums first to a click either totally blind, or with a bass or guitar guiding me through. But it kinda depends on you, the fact you've flagged it up suggests that you may think its going to be an issue based on the way you normally practise?

[ahpook]

unless you're in some kind of improv band, you should be able to play the tunes without the vocals anyway.