Jazz Quartet Recording (with lots of mics and preamps)

[ajfarber]

Originally Posted by bkbirge

I'm guessing there are a lot of folks here who's idea of jazz is extremely limited. Your approach wouldn't work for Medeski Martin and Wood, or Tower of Power, or Marcus Miller, or insert-lots-of-jazz-bands-here.

That would be me. Most of those artists, while they may be very gifted and creative musicians, are not what I would think of a jazz artists. I wouldn't call Steely Dan a jazz band either.

So I am guessing that most of us were thinking you had a "straight ahead" (whatever that means) jazz band of acoustic instruments. Recording and mixing this type of group usually means that the mix would closely resemble a live performance as much as possible for a recording, whereas a funk/fusion band is often recorded and mixed with a "larger-than-life" vibe.

[jdunn]

The two basic schools of thought have been elucidated here. You have your "purist" approach, and your "produced" approach. Even if you're multitracking, there are ways to capture more air in the recording.

Put the drums in a large room and mic the whole kit with a stereo mic or stereo pair. The further you move back from the drum kit, the more it will sound like one instrument, instead of a bunch of drums with microphones stuck up against them.

Put the horns in their own room too if possible. You can spot mic everything if you want, but as someone already mentioned, you don't have to use them in the mix.

You can close mic every instrument and mix it like a rock record. Personally I think less mics and more distance is the way to go. You'll end up with a more 3-dimensional mix, and it's less work too.

[RMJAZZ]

I would argue that Jazz recordings of recent years...Branford Marsalis, the late Michael Brecker, Diana Krall, etc......all have a bigger than life sound on their recordings. If they were in the room with you, and nothing was mic'd...it certainly would not sound like their records in terms of fullness of sound, and the stereo soundfield would be very different from the recordings.

Also-This certainly is not the thread to discuss what the term "Jazz" means. This is to discuss how the OP can "record Jazz quartet with lots of mics and pre amps". It is a shame that when some post their opinions they also try to demean others.....like what has happened to me here. I like opposing ways of doing things...and this IS the place to bring different opiions up, but I wish folks on here had a little more class than is being showed here.

I record Jazz, perform Jazz (as well as many other styles of music), and have played with Billy Taylor and Randy Brecker-who are certainly Jazz musicians in the best sense of the genre!!!!!! So my opinions come from a place of experience and education. Just because folks have different opinions about how to record "Jazz" doesn't make them any less valuable than any other.

It is a shame that we can't discuss the recording of the quartet that the OP asked about.

Rob

[RMJAZZ]

I would close mic everything, and use room mics too...then mix it like a Jazz record knowing that there are many options open to me in the mix to cover any possible desire of the produer and musicians. You can still mix like a purist even if you mic'd everything up...it just requires the pushing of a few mute buttons on the console.

Originally Posted by jdunn

The two basic schools of thought have been elucidated here. You have your "purist" approach, and your "produced" approach. Even if you're multitracking, there are ways to capture more air in the recording.

Put the drums in a large room and mic the whole kit with a stereo mic or stereo pair. The further you move back from the drum kit, the more it will sound like one instrument, instead of a bunch of drums with microphones stuck up against them.

Put the horns in their own room too if possible. You can spot mic everything if you want, but as someone already mentioned, you don't have to use them in the mix.

You can close mic every instrument and mix it like a rock record. Personally I think less mics and more distance is the way to go. You'll end up with a more 3-dimensional mix, and it's less work too.

[jdunn]

Thanks RMJAZZ. I've used both approaches. Upon hearing the pure stereo recordings, I've had musicians say "Why are we bothering with all this multitrack junk". It has it's place though. Those same cats end up going in the studio and doing multiple Pro Tools edits, etc... It just depends on the project.

[ajfarber]

Originally Posted by RMJAZZ

I would close mic everything, and use room mics too...then mix it like a Jazz record knowing that there are many options open to me in the mix to cover any possible desire of the produer and musicians. You can still mix like a purist even if you mic'd everything up...it just requires the pushing of a few mute buttons on the console.

I would agree with this approach, although I wouldn't bother with room mics. You'll get enough leakage for some room ambiance. If the room is a great sounding acoustic space, them maybe a pair of room mics are worth the schlep.

[Jabbaz]

Originally Posted by bkbirge

I'm guessing there are a lot of folks here who's idea of jazz is extremely limited. Your approach wouldn't work for Medeski Martin and Wood, or Tower of Power, or Marcus Miller, or insert-lots-of-jazz-bands-here.

Speaking as an avid jazz listener rather than a recording engineer, to me the use of a produced sound in jazz is a very delicate thing. If it's done right AND the band is very very tight it can be pretty cool (Tower of Power is a good example). More often than not however it sounds cheesy and contrived; with any mistakes sticking out like a sore thumb.

Joshua Redman has done some more traditionally recorded albums which I've loved. I was disappointed when he came out with Momentum (Elastic Band) because to me it sounded overproduced and the artistry somehow got lost.

I would argue that MMW, Marcus Miller, and others that have used high track counts could have done their album more traditionally and still sounded killer. I'd argue that the reverse is not true for most bands.

[jdunn]

My basic thought these days, especially with digital recording, is that close micing sucks. I mean, when someone is playing guitar, you don't walk into the room and stick your head right next to the speaker, do you? I can't think of a single instrument that's meant to be heard that way.

In fact, next time I track electric guitars I'm putting the mic way back from the amp and that's my guitar sound. I'm doing that with everything. F@ck it.

[bkbirge]

Originally Posted by Jabbaz

I would argue that MMW, Marcus Miller, and others that have used high track counts could have done their album more traditionally and still sounded killer. I'd argue that the reverse is not true for most bands.

Sure, great musicians playing in great ensembles sound good no matter what you do. However, some of these cats have pretty distinctive overall sounds that they achieved with modern production styles, anyone think Alan Holdsworth's groundbreaking records would sound the same with an ORTF setup? I mean, clearly there are some people on this thread that think jazz itself is defined in a rigid manner and clearly I'm of the opposite viewpoint but even so there is room for many different recording techniques, they are just tools. There is no one correct way to record anything, it all comes down to how does it sound in the end and to take a purist viewpoint based on a false premise that 'well this is JAZZ so it must be this way' will not be the best way to serve your clients. To see a large mic list and immediately condemn it without listening is absolutely ridiculous, just as ridiculous as to condemn the one-mic in a great room approach.

To me jazz is ... Thelonious Monk, Herb Drury, Ray Brown, Spyro Gyra, Return to Forever, Stanley Clarke, Jaco Pastorious, Pat Metheny, Charlie Christian, Tower of Power, Oregon, Marcus Miller, Zoot Sims, Art Pepper, Booker T, Johnny Hammond, Mose Allison, Brand X, George Duke, Steve Swallow, Rabbath, and the list goes on ad nauseum.

Those artists all recorded very differently and even different from album to album yet many of the recordings are considered jazz classics. A dogmatic cookie cutter approach to each artist is not the mark of an experienced engineer (in my opinion).

[jdunn]

Since we're in the Remote/Location Recording forum, we can assume that in most cases, these sessions will not take place in a multi-room studio facility. Therefore you pretty much have to close mic everything to achieve separation/reduce bleed.

The hybrid approach I suggested only works if you have several rooms, or a substantial army of gobos.

[ajfarber]

Originally Posted by bkbirge

To me jazz is ... Thelonious Monk, Herb Drury, Ray Brown, Spyro Gyra, Return to Forever, Stanley Clarke, Jaco Pastorious, Pat Metheny, Charlie Christian, Tower of Power, Oregon, Marcus Miller, Zoot Sims, Art Pepper, Booker T, Johnny Hammond, Mose Allison, Brand X, George Duke, Steve Swallow, Rabbath, and the list goes on ad nauseum.

It's fine to call something jazz even if it's rock, funk or country. The term "Jazz" does indeed encompass many styles and traditions. Pretty soon, if you use the word "jazz" nobody will know what you mean.

[ajfarber]

Originally Posted by jdunn

Since we're in the Remote/Location Recording forum, we can assume that in most cases, these sessions will not take place in a multi-room studio facility. Therefore you pretty much have to close mic everything to achieve separation/reduce bleed.

The hybrid approach I suggested only works if you have several rooms, or a substantial army of gobos.

That approach only works if the musicians are comfortable with isolation. Almost all of the musicians I work with, dislike headphones and isolation. Therefore, I always record without separate rooms. A few well placed gobos here and there are a big help.

Ribbon mics have good off-axis rejection. I can safely place a bass player next to a drumset and get a good bass sound. I can also get good isolation on the piano with a sdc mic placed in one of the holes. This is the old RVG method. It works well.

[ajfarber]

Originally Posted by bkbirge

There is no one correct way to record anything, it all comes down to how does it sound in the end and to take a purist viewpoint based on a false premise that 'well this is JAZZ so it must be this way' will not be the best way to serve your clients. cookie cutter approach to each artist is not the mark of an experienced engineer (in my opinion).

There's the answer to the record and mix question. Do what the client wants.

[bkbirge]

Originally Posted by ajfarber

It's fine to call something jazz even if it's rock, funk or country. The term "Jazz" does indeed encompass many styles and traditions. Pretty soon, if you use the word "jazz" nobody will know what you mean.

LOL, it's already happened. Back in the 50's I think. I notice you've played with Hendricks, you ever play with Ratzo? That's a straight ahead player that records all kinds of ways.

[ajfarber]

Originally Posted by bkbirge

LOL, it's already happened. Back in the 50's I think. I notice you've played with Hendricks, you ever play with Ratzo? That's a straight ahead player that records all kinds of ways.

Ratzo? There's a bass player called Ratzo Harris. I haven't seen him in 20 years.

[Dave Ferris]

Originally Posted by bkbirge

To me jazz is ... Herb Drury,

Now there's a name you don't normally see mentioned.

You have to be from or spent some time in my hometown, St. Louis.

I took a few lessons from Herb back in '71, I was too young and not disciplined enough at 18 to get much out of it. Herb is an institution in St. L.

Is he still active ?

[bkbirge]

Originally Posted by ajfarber

Ratzo? There's a bass player called Ratzo Harris. I haven't seen him in 20 years.

Yep that's him, played with Mose Allison too, did a lot of session stuff with him back when he was living mostly in Indy.

[bkbirge]

Originally Posted by Dave Ferris

Now there's a name you don't normally see mentioned.

You have to be from or spent some time in my hometown, St. Louis.

I took a few lessons from Herb back in '71, I was too young and not disciplined enough at 18 to get much out of it. Herb is an institution in St. L.

Is he still active ?

I think he's still active but I haven't been in St. Louis since I was a kid. Still, to me Herb Drury's playing is the definition of jazz. And Jerry Cherry of course too. Can't have one without the other. My mom worked for him at his teaching studio back around the time you were taking lessons. They've released most of his back catalog on gaslight records, On The Right Track has the definitive version of Satin Doll for me, I listened to that over and over long before I even knew who Duke Ellington was. St Louis traditional jazz is the crossroads style I love.

[Dave Ferris]

Originally Posted by bkbirge

Thanks, that made my day.

I haven't thought about Herb in years ! I don't get back as often as I like either.

[Reiner]

Originally Posted by waxx

and maybe a roommic for the full band. Jazzbands tend to balance themselves very well, so you can use that as the reverb if the room is good in stead of a artificial reverb...

Yes, maybe you´ll use artificial reverb, but it´s it´s the best way to give them all a nicer depth.

[waxx]

Originally Posted by bkbirge

I'm guessing there are a lot of folks here who's idea of jazz is extremely limited. Your approach wouldn't work for Medeski Martin and Wood, or Tower of Power, or Marcus Miller, or insert-lots-of-jazz-bands-here.

that's not real jazz, but more a jazz funk or jazzrock crossover. Wich isn't bad at all off course. I often like it as much as jazz and value it like jazz. But jazz is something different for me...