[Dixielandjazz] Recording Jazz

[Patrick Cooke]

OK Jim.....
       I know that recordings were made that way for years, and someone is
bound to tell us about the Benny Goodman Carnegie Hall concert that was
recorded with a single mike.
       But the technology has improved since then, and I believe the new way
is best.  Of course, it depends on a good engineer, but even if the engineer
is not perfect, it can still be fixed in the final mix ...but only if there
were multiple mikes with a little separation.  If your "pure" recording
isn't balanced just right when you are recording, you are stuck with what
you have.  The only remedy is to record it over again.
        >Acoustic is acoustic<
   You can't record without microphone(s), and that's where it all ceases to
be acoustic.  You could always go back to playing into a big funnel that is
attached to a stylus cutting into a disc...then you'd have to put the drums
out in the alley.  I don't believe in clinging to ancient technology when
better proven ways to do it are available.  Do you have a car? with a
automatic transmission? an automatic water heater?  A computer?...you get
the idea.  I don't believe in clinging to the past just because a few good
players did it that way.  If the technology had been available, they would
have used it.
   Pat Cooke




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Kashishian" <kash at ran.es>
To: <dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 3:59 AM
Subject: RE: [Dixielandjazz] Recording Jazz


>
>      Pat Cooke wrote:
>     That's the way it's done now.  You don't need complete isolation,
> usually a Plexiglas shield in front of the drums that's a little higher
> than
> the tallest cymbal will usually suffice.  They are even using the
> shields .  in
> clubs now so the sound man can balance things easier. (Please don't tell
> me
> about sound men...I know!)
>      Your band may be acoustic, but you still have to play into
> microphones
> in order to record.  The shield is to keep as much drums as possible out
> of
> the other players' mikes.  The drums are miked separately.  The guys in
> the
> studio can still hear him but it allows a better balance in the final
> mix.
>
> ****************************************************************
>
> Pat, I've left your whole message intact (which is not my usual form),
> only to be able to express that it is completely, entirely wrong!  Don't
> get your back up, Pat.  I'm not calling you a fool, merely saying you've
> got it all wrong.
>
> Firstly, it's not that "that's the way it's done now", that's the way
> they've been doing it since multitrack recording came into style (early
> 70's).  Clinical is the key word to this type of recording.
>
> Your second point is about the "sound man balancing things easier".  For
> an experienced drummer, he should get the balance of his drum set
> himself, in his style of playing, just as a band should do amongst all
> of its members.  Listening is the key word, something that a lot of
> so-called balancing engineers aren't all that good at, and it's
> something most of us musicians do quite well.  Nope, to overhead mikes
> and a bass drum mike is plenty for most occasions.  And, I darn well
> want to feel my pant legs blowing from the wind that pumps outa that
> little whole in the front skin of the bass drum when he kicks that baby.
> Hit me with your rhythm stick!   :>
>
> On the subject of live mixing, I often prefer one mike between the
> trumpet and trombone, that way Pepe & myself can do our own mix, at
> will.  We move away or close in on the mike depending on the moment
> desired in the song.  If you leave that up to a mixing engineer, he's
> likely to raise or lower you to HIS desire.  And, of course, since
> they're feeding you an on-stage monitor mix, you have no idea what the
> audience is hearing.  Nope, if I don't know the guy, and suspect there
> may be problems, give me one mike for the two of us.  I can even use
> that mike for vocals....just set the volume for the voice, and the brass
> just won't go in so close to the mike, because it's set higher than
> normal.
>
> I certainly don't wish to keep the drums out of my mike, as you state
> thirdly.  Maybe the mixing engineer would like that, as it makes his job
> much easier.  Nevertheless, the whole reason of recording music is to
> hear what is played, and you can never, ever just hear the drum set on
> his own on stage (accept in a solo, and even then there are resonant
> sounds in the strings of the piano...the sound of the room, etc.) and I
> want to hear the recording as the music was played.
>
> Ok, for these modern groups, it's groovy to have a section of the song
> where all you hear is the lead voice.  We know he was singing  to the
> backing tracks in his earphones, but due to fantastic noise gates, etc.,
> all you hear on the recording is this guy's voice.  (Don't believe they
> can keep the key, the beat so well all on their own!!)  Great effect,
> fine!  Not usually a part of our Dixieland gig, though.  So, I don't
> need that kind of stuff on my recordings.
>
> Nope, acoustic is acoustic.  Alright, try to keep more bass in the bass
> mike than in the drum mikes, or piano mikes, but if there's some
> bleeding, no sweat.
>
> I want my guys close to me.  We're a cozy group!   :>
>
> Jim
> p.s., please accept that none of this is a personal attack on you, Pat.
> It's merely an attack on this particular type of recording mentality.
> I've got the accreditation, both as a session musician & engineer, to
> have these opinions.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dixielandjazz mailing list
> Dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com
> http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/dixielandjazz