This Sucks

I started pre-production for ‘This Sucks’ at the beginning of August. At this preliminary meeting, Exotic Behavior wanted to record an original called ‘Isaiah’s Song.’ This, however, changed by the second pre-production meeting, and they requested to record a different song, ‘This Sucks’. While I was nervous about the last-minute change of plans, most of the preproduction that we had done in our first meeting carried over to this new song, and they seemed much more excited to spend hours in the studio working on ‘This Sucks.’

During the first pre-production meeting, we agreed on the project's timeline and discussed the band’s vision for the song. This entailed a discussion about the song’s instrumentation, equipment and instruments I would be providing, and reference material. The main change that needed to happen in the second pre-production meeting was an updated plan for what tonal qualities the band wanted for the instruments and how I planned to achieve them.

During the second pre-production meeting, we solidified availability for the project’s timeline, scheduled initial studio dates, and created an outline in greater detail of what we wanted to accomplish each projected studio session. ‘This Sucks’ had a lot more tracks planned than ‘Isaiah’s Song,’ so we had to fit more into each recording session than originally planned.

To wrap up the re-production, I filled out all the guest artist forms I would need for the course of the project, I filled out the equipment checkout forms for the first studio sessions, and I updated my ProTool’s template that I had created for the band. I also created a Gantt chart in order to ensure the project stayed on schedule.

The band has an interesting request for scratch tracks: They wanted to record the drums first and then record the scratch tracks. I typically record the ribbon track and scratch vocals before the drums, but the song started with the drums, and the band did not want to play programmed drums. The main issue I had with this was that the drummer would sometimes miss a section of the song because there was nothing to guide him, but the ribbon track could not play without the drums.

To fix this, I had the keys, which is what I consider to be the ribbon track, set up in the control room with me. We recorded scratch tracks and drums for ‘This Sucks’ in the SSL. The drums were the leading factor in deciding this, but I also wanted the larger control room so that my keyboarist/vocalist could comfortably set up in there with me. The keyboardist is also the lead vocalist for this song, so I set up a vocal mic for him as well. Then, I sent the keys and vocal into the drummer’s cue mix.

After the drums had been recorded, we recorded a couple of takes of keys; I set the stereo outputs from the keyboard’s Nord through DI boxes, out to api 512c preamps, and then directly into Pro Tools. As for the scratch vocals, I used the LA-2A by Teletronix to compress them during the recording. I also took the opportunity to compare a Neumann U87 to the AT4050. We liked the clarity from the U87 more than how the presence peak from the AT4050 affected the vocal, but having the opportunity to do this mic comparison helped me to decide what to pull for the final vocal.

We recorded drums in the SSL on the same day as the scratch tracks for this song. We wanted a big and full drum sound for this song, so I chose the SSL to get the big room sound. I was worried about the reverb getting out of control, so I set up a wall of gobos approximately 2/3 of the room length away from the drums. As for the drum kit, I talked with the drummer during pre-production, and we decided he would bring his shells and cymbals. The band liked the sound of his drums on the song when played live, and I thought it would translate well in the studio. We wanted a big, bright drum sound, and his kit was set for a bright rock performance.

Regarding miking, I decided to risk phase issues for the impact of having everything individually miked. I knew I could set it up so that if the extra mics did not work out, I would still have a perfectly acceptable drum sound from my overheads, kick, and snare. For my kick, I used an AE2500. I did not have any previous experience with this microphone, but it was suggested to me, and after researching the frequency response, I was confident I would like what it sounded like. Then, I put an e604 on the top and an M80 on the bottom of the snare. I used this setup in one of my first semesters in the Recording Arts and Technology program and wanted to try it again. Finally, I positioned an MD421 towards the center mass of each of the toms. This is another microphone and positioning that I have grown fond of for both studio and live situations.

For my cymbals, I put an Oktava MK-012 on my hi-hat and ride cymbal and set up an AB-spaced pair of Neumann U87s and 4050s for my overheads. I also set up a pair of Royer R121s in blumlein for room mics. I knew I likely would not use room mics in the final mix, but I thought I would take the chance to experiment. From experience with the Oktavas in live and studio situations, I knew I loved the sparkle the gave to hats and rides. As for my overheads, I knew the U87 would give me a brighter tone, but I wanted to see how the AT4050s compared. The AT4050s brought forward the toms and overall provided more body. Both sets of overheads were set in an AB Spaced Pair, phase aligned to each other and the snare. However, the AT4050s were positioned slightly narrower than the U87s. In the final mix, I blended the two.

We originally recorded the Gibson EB-3 bass in the Audient for this song. The band and I loved the tone the bass gave; unfortunately, the action was set up for slap bass, which caused too much mid-range buzz and raddle. In one of our final studio sessions, in the Audient, we recorded bass again with one the band provided. I ran the signal through a DI, into the Focusrite Red, through the Teletronics LA-2A, and then bypassed the board to go straight into Pro Tools. After going through the Focusrite Red and Teletronics LA-2A while recording vocals, I decided that it would be a good fit for the bass; it also limited the amount of compression that I needed to add later.

The band's guitarists presented me with a bit of a challenge during pre-production. The rhythm guitarist had a very flexible schedule, but the lead guitarist had difficulty finding any availability on the days I could get him into the studio. The solution was for the rhythm guitarist to play all the guitar parts for this song.

By recording through different amps but keeping everything else in the set-up the same, we got different tones that worked together for the guitar parts. For the rhythm guitar I asked my guitarist to bring in his own amp, then for the lead, we used a Fender Hot Rod. I had the same setup on both amps: a DI box, a Royer 121, and an SM57 set up together, and I later blended them into the tone I wanted. The Royer provided warmth, the SM57 brought out the amp tone, and the DI provided clarity. We recorded the original two guitar parts on the same day, back to back, set up in the Audient. By the end of the session, the band felt like it was missing the impact the guitars normally gave live, and I agreed. Our solution was to record another few guitar parts later on.

We tracked more guitar parts in the same session that we re-recorded the bass. The band’s drummer is a jack of all trades when it comes to instruments, and had the most availability that day, so he played the new guitar parts. He brought in an electronic effects pedal board and one of his favorite guitars, and I once again bypassed the board by running the signal through a into the Focusrite Red, through the Teletronics LA-2A, and straight into Pro Tools. I wanted to limit the amount of compression I needed to do in Pro Tools, and I liked the warm rich tone that the LA-2A gave. Then during tracking, I let him experiment with layering different parts and matching different harmonies until we were happy with how the guitars filled the sonic space.

My keyboardist originally planned to do all the keys tracks for this song on his Nord until he saw Rhodes and heard someone else playing the upright in the API. I was warned that the Rhodes could be very temperamental and that the API upright did not always translate well in recordings. For the Rhodes, I decided to see how he would play it in a 5-minute trial run at the end of the day of a different session. It did not seem to give him too much grief; he loved it, and I loved the sound. As for the API upright, my keyboardist was dead set on using it, even after being shown alternatives. After asking around, I gathered that the biggest issue with that piano was it going out of tune. Fortunately, it worked out, and I was able to schedule the session to record that upright just a few days after it had been tuned.

When micing the API upright, I set up two Neumann KM184s and two DPA 4006-TLs in AB-spaced pairs pointing down towards the strings. I was still unsure about how this piano was going to sound in a recording, but I knew the KM184s would provide brightness, and the 4006-TLs would have a rich low end. In the final mix, I blended the two pairs of mics.

Regarding the Rhodes, the original plan was to record in the SSL, not because I thought it would be the best space, but because, as far as I knew, I was not allowed to move it. That changed when I was asked if I would be amendable to recording in the Yamaha if the Rhodes was moved for me because the SSL was needed for a class. I said yes, and I am glad I did.

The Yamaha setup was much better than what I hoped to get in the SSL. The Rhodes was off the wall, I was able to mic the two speakers in the back with SM57’s, and the smaller room made the sound denser, which is what I was wanting. Additionally, communication with my musician was much easier in the smaller space.

The Rhodes had a learning curve, but I accounted for this when planning what to get done in the studio that day: I scheduled the session so that my musician could have a full hour to practice and get used to the Rhodes before we recorded. While my musician had to play a lot more aggressively than he was used to, he understood that it did not come across that way in the recording; the high end was sparkling but not harsh, and the mids were warm and clear.

In the week and days leading up to this vocal session, I encouraged my vocalists to drink extra water, avoid dairy and smoking, and limit overall stress on their voices. For the vocal session, we were in the Audient. For the recording, we did a practice run and three recorded takes. I recorded the vocals by bypassing the board, and instead, I went through the Focusrite Red Preamps, into the Teletronics LA2A, and then directly into ProTools.

Before recording vocals, we did a mic shootout with a Neumann U87, an AKG 414 XLII, a SM7B, and an AT4033 for both the lead and harmony vocalists. They both wanted the opportunity to do a mic shootout, so I was happy to take the time. It allowed me to find the best fit for the song while allowing them to become more knowledgeable about their voices.

In the end, we used the AKG 414 XLII for the lead vocal and the AT4033 for the rest, however, I was on the fence about using the AT4033 instead of the AKG 414 XLII for the lead vocal. The deciding factor was I knew the AT4033 was going to sound good for the harmony vocals, and I did not want to use the same mic on the lead vocal as the harmonies. I think in the end, the brightness from the AKG 414 XLII helped the lead vocal cut through the mix.

Throughout the recording process, I had been comping and time aligning the tracks. I tried to use Beat Detective to time-align the drums; however, the pattern was too complex, so I edited them by hand. As for the auxiliary percussion, I used Beat Detective to time-align them. Once everything was recorded, I finished comping and touched up the time alignment, specifically with the vocals. Then, I used Melodyne to tune the vocals and the bass.

After editing, I started my mix with pans and faders. Then, I used two EQs on most tracks: The first EQ was focused on fixing anything I deemed a sonic issue. The other consisted of broader movements for tonal shaping. After EQ, I put gates on my drums and individually compressed all the tracks. Then, I used EQ and compression on all of my buses to unify them. Throughout this process, I periodically adjusted my pans and fader levels.

After EQing and compressing everything, I added reverb. Except for the vocals, I only added reverb to the busses. Then, I used automation, mostly on the buses, but also on some individual guitar parts and my master fader to emphasize dynamics. Then, on my master fader, I used EQ to cut some of the low-mid to clear up some mud and boosted between 1k and 6k for clarity. After my master EQ, I used a gentle compressor at a 2:1 ratio to level everything out without killing the dynamics. Finally, I mixed in a tape saturation plug-in and a plate reverb.

I felt my mix needed more processing, so I routed everything to a bus, set that bus as the input on a stereo audio track, and added additional processing. My “MIX” track had the Pultec EQP-1A EQ inserted to beef up the lows and highs more, a single band EQ with a cut around 600Hz to clean up more mud, another compressor with a 2:1 ratio, and a touch of a medium chamber verb. Finally, I mastered it to Soundcloud's recommended LUFS level in iZotope RX 11. The final mix has over 50 tracks.