one man production vs band productions

[Magnum29465]

Is it possible for one man playing all the parts to have the same feel as a band recording together. I want to create complete compositions by myself but I'm having trouble getting the the feel i want and Im wondering if its because Im doing it myself as opposed to having a band..

[Sk106]

If you're playing it by hand, then get the ensemble feeling is quite difficult. One man playing all parts tends to sound "together", coherent and tight. Ensembles or bands don't naturally sound like that. There's more richness, more variation, more musical 'rubber bands' that strains out a bit before being pulled back in again, on and off all the time. More "interplay" and gradual adaptation. If one guy tries to mimic different musicians, it usually comes out sounding mostly wierd, strained.

[velvet_elvis]

There's a certain magic when a band is playing together in a room and listening to one-another...That energy may be impossible to recreate independly. Keeping that in mind, I think it is possible to create great music as a one-man production. I strive to do just that. What I personally find helpful is to approach each part with a fresh perspective...I wear my bass up higher than my guitar, and I try to approach the feel of the song as a bass-player would, focusing on the kickdrum, and weaving in and out of the guitar parts. Sometimes a little coffee before laying down a fast drum part might be just the thing to keep you pulling the beat forward, or a glass of wine before tracking a keyboard line helps to make it sound like a different person.

Embrace the idiosyncrasies, have fun, and make great music!

[robertshaw]

Sometimes there can be a lack of dynamics w/ one man production, but many records are heavily overdubbed so I'm not so sure
its a given. It all depends. As far as getting the feel right on your own..... It can be just as tough with 3 or 4 other knuckle heads (joke) you have no chemistry with. Lets face it, if we could all find the perfect universal combination of players for our music we would all be as magical like Zeppelin or whoever. But life doesn't work that way for 99.9999% of us, have to settle for the people we play in bands with.

Band Chemistry is cool but it's nearly impossible to find 3 or 4 or even 2 other guys you have true magical chemistry with, so you make do. In lots of cases too many chefs spoil the soup any way. sometimes you can make better music on your own than you can with others, sometimes not? but nothing should stop you from making music either way. Id rather make music w/ 3 or 4 other players but if it's only me it's not going to stop me from making music. And looking back at all the bands I've been in and all the solo stuff I've done, it all sounds just as bad. So being in a band does not necessarily help everyone make better recordings. Then you look at someone like Phil Collins, and his solo stuff he recorded all by himself it is (arguably) as good as the Genesis stuff they did as a trio. Phil Collins sold more anyway. Look At Dave Grohl? I think his first record is way better than anything Nirvana did as a band or anything the foofighters have done since as a real band. And he played everything on the first record.

[Mr.HOLMES]

Many ways to do it --

But my impression the faster way is to play with a band together.

[toledo3]

Originally Posted by Magnum29465

Is it possible for one man playing all the parts to have the same feel as a band recording together. I want to create complete compositions by myself but I'm having trouble getting the the feel i want and Im wondering if its because Im doing it myself as opposed to having a band..

Practice makes perfect...

Do you want to spend the time learning this skill, or would you rather take the time to get a band to play your tracks. It's evident that there are people that have played all of their tracks and it's sounded ok. Usually all of them have benefitted from other players during their careers.

[Rotaholic]

Dont quote me on this but artists like Ben Harper and Dave Grohl do this all the time.
The only thing is that the music can become stale and one dimensional without the inputs of specialist players, you will get more ideas from four people playing four instruments than one person playing four instruments.

Theres no reason why one person couldnt make an amazing recording which sounded amazing. Just hit record

[Retinal]

Originally Posted by Magnum29465

Is it possible for one man playing all the parts to have the same feel as a band recording together. I want to create complete compositions by myself but I'm having trouble getting the the feel i want and Im wondering if its because Im doing it myself as opposed to having a band..

It can work to do all by yourself, many artists do that, but IMO it only works if you have (seems obvious) great talent, and of course if you see that you can't find any musician that is able to play what you have in mind better than you do.
The ideal situation would be that every musician makes your idea somehow better with his/her style-way to play.

If not, you have two choices: first, you trust yourself 100% and if you think it sounds better when you play it you stick with it; second you take the chance and trust the musicians.

Altho' if you feel that you didn't get where you wanted playing all by yourself you should probably at least try with some musicians, then see if it's better or not.

[g22]

I play keys, guitar, and bass, and play my drums on pads live, and I like it because i have total control over the outcome of the song. But to be honest, it is a lot of work. Along with mixing/writing, it becomes a long process for one man to do on his own. If I had the money, I'd hire session musicians, and an engineer to mix, or if could find a group of musicians that all agreed with my musical vision than I would form a band with them, but its a little unrealistic. So for now I just stick to doing by myself.

As for sound difference. I do think a band of multiple musicians sounds better than a one man band for a few reasons. In a band you can have expert/masters at each instrument, whereas a one man bans is generally a jack of all trades, master of none, or a master of one, and average on the others. Plus theres a creative spark that occurs between musicians that doesn't exist by yourself.

But I also appreciate when I hear a song, knowing that one man had this great musical vision and was able to express it all by himself, and all is cohesive. So there's an appreciation of both, but I think there's an energy in bands that you miss with the one man band, so no I don;t think you can re=create it exactly. But theres been great production done both ways so its all in your taste.

[Suda Badri]

I think of session muso's as an extension of self... If they have half a brain, which most of them do, its easy to communicate the type of feel you are trying to achieve...

Good luck OP, its way more fun working with people, just remember the more people you get to work on your stuff, the more mouths there are talking about your shit...

Suda

[unitymusic]

I play in a few bands and have for years, but my solo recording stuff is way more fun and rewarding, even if it is more of a "home demo" approach and outcome. Playing with other people is fun, and I wouldn't want to give that up completely, but I've always been a big believer that a million people are not smarter than one.

-Danny

[mattg082]

I think it just depends..I write all my own music and every band i've ever been in wanted me to write 70% of it if not all because they thought I was good at it and it worked. It's hard to find people to play with at a point if you have been doing it for so many years every day and they have only picked up a instrument in the last 5 years and don't feel they are up to par. There are magical exceptions to that but I find a lot of the time a great writer/composer that is a one man band could do better than him with 3 alright musicians. I tend to write everything, get a band together, write all the notes but give them freedom of expression with rhythm and fills if not the the whole thing if they want to and are good at it.

I got into recording because of this in the first place. I wish I could find 3 more people that are just solid and multi talented if not good at one thing but showing up and doing it really matters and that can be a problem.

[kats]

If you use excellent session players or you are a tight knit band, nothing comes close. Ultimately it is also cheaper and a more rewarding studio experience. Of course this is genre specific, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but the energy, dynamics, and sense of excitement comes through a recording clear as day if you have a great group together, kill the click, kill the headphones and let em rip!

OTOH, if your looking for a publshing deal and working towards song syncs and placements, it doesn't matter as much. Fire up the BFD and just keep writing those catchy hooks.

[Quadrophonic73]

I've done the one man band thing for about ten years and you're bringing up a good point. You can be acquainted with each of the individual instruments you're playing but that doesn't mean you're automatically a "pocket" player for each of them. It's only when you try and drum to your guitar tracks do you find out just how sloppy you are, you know?

Some other people here mentioned being stale. Yeah, I find that the recordings I make where I bring in other guys to do a part really jump out. It's fun to listen a song and tell people I played everything, but sometimes being true to the music means handing over the reigns. Guys like Dave Grohl are few and far between. That guy was born oozing rock from his pores.

-Alex

[taturana]

I think there's a certain type of sound i can get only if i do all the parts... but my favorite thing is playing with bands... or at least another musical partner... that's where i do my best work, unquestionably.

[mattg082]

Originally Posted by taturana

I think there's a certain type of sound i can get only if i do all the parts... but my favorite thing is playing with bands... or at least another musical partner... that's where i do my best work, unquestionably.

No doubt if two good one man band types could work together some great great stuff can be turned out. I've run into issues with work flow though where I've worked with some and they will just sit there for hours on the same 10 seconds obsessing with it getting nowhere and it's a real creative killer but that's how they work. I get anal about things in post production, mixing and stay creative in tracking along with basic drums with layers and overdubs. So there's a lot of variables there that add up I think. Attitude and work flow are big ones when working in that situation!

[uncle duncan]

Depending on the style of music you're doing, consider bringing in another player. A good session drummer would be the obvious choice, unless that's what you're good at, or you're doing quantized techno music. I've set up songs with loops (Siggi Baldurson - really whacked out acoustic drum loops) and then brought in my session drummer to replace them, or augment them as the case may be. He really enjoys it, because Siggi's loops are so creative, it's a learning experience for him.

If you're having trouble nailing the right feel, it's obvious you need a collaborator, so just line up another player and go for it. Some of the best music ever made was a collaborative effort - actually, virtually all of the best music ever made was a collaborative effort.

[Jazzooo]

There is an excellent thread here called "One Man Music Productions--Let's Hear The Work!" or something like that, with dozens and dozens of examples of it being done very well. It can suck, but so can bands.

As a jazz player, I enjoy playing with others. But as a producer, I like arrangements to be played as I hear them in my head, and that requires an awful lot of skilled people to pull off, if I don't do it myself. Happily, I'm fortunate to be one of those guys who does play drums, bass, guitars, and keys well enough to pull it off.

having said that, there are some tips that can help one-man productions sound more like groups:

Even if you use programmed drums, always add acoustically-recorded hand percussion (shakers, tambourines, bongos, etc);

Record to a drum loop, not a click--most of us will play better to a looped performance. When you've gotten your bass part right, re-do the drums to be something more organic sounding. And don't be surprised if you then have to tweak your bass part a little to make it groove better with the live part. It sounds complex, but it's more just time-consuming;

Adding acoustic or electric rhythm guitar parts always helps;

When you are playing bass, think like a bass player. This is a tricky one--I can't tell you how many tracks I've heard that could have been improved had the multi-instrumentalist been able to think idiomatically for each instrument he was playing, instead of sounding like a guitarist playing bass, and then a guitarist programming drums and so on.

here's an example of one of mine--I recorded the drums first with no click at all, then a scratch piano part to solidify the chord changes, then a bass part, then I re-played the piano, then organ, then guitars and then vocals and then the synth mellotron for the middle section. I was trying for a loose but smart performance, The Band meets Steely Dan.

http://www.speedyshare.com/files/152...tand_Still.mp3

[vernier]

Problem is, most multi-instrumentalists are mediocre on some of their instruments, and last to know it.

[uncle duncan]

Originally Posted by Jazzooo

...here's an example of one of mine--...

That was freakin' awesome dude! The opera singer sample was an interesting touch. I have that sound on my Roland jv1010. I'd suggest you could benefit from a chick singer section ala early Joe Cocker. Other than that, you nailed it. Hopefully, you're getting work as a producer/arranger/musician as well as a studio dude.

[elginchris]

It can be done. The most important thing is

Timing

Love your metronome.

[Jazzooo]

Thanks, Duncan! Yep, that sample was from a JV expansion card. I do lots of stuff with live singers, though.


"Problem is, most multi-instrumentalists are mediocre on some of their instruments, and last to know it."

While this is true--I'm definitely better on some instruments than others--if you arrange the music properly you can avoid revealing any obvious shortcomings. I play about 6 notes on trumpet and trombone combined, and I play them poorly. But on one of my friend's tunes, he had laid out a dixieland 'shout' chorus on three saxes and sent it to me. I carefully arranged the trpt and trombone parts so that I could play them well enough, and suddenly we had a big horn section. No one would ever know how crappy I really am from listening.

[henge]

For financial reasons I've had to do my last 3 albums myself. I couldn't pay the players that I wanted to get and didn't want to call in favours. It would've been a big time commitment on everybodies part.
The interaction between great players is very hard to duplicate especially in varying the parts a little.
Things are better financially now so the next album will have players other than myself.

[Dean Roddey]

It can obviously be done, since I've heard plenty of good stuff done that way. I'm working at it, but not quite there yet. To me, there are a few challenging things:

1. As mentioned already, the time required. Paritcularly since most of us are probably working other full time jobs, or in my case a double time job running my own company. A song can take anywhere from a month to a few months in some cases, because there's just so litttle time to work on it. That clearly doesn't lend itself to spontaneity. You can do it spontaneously, but I also want to work equally in each round on composition, tracking, writing, playing, and mixing. So I can't just sit down and throw something down. Well, I could for fun, but I want to make good progress each time on my tracking and composition skills, and that takes time.

2. Overplaying. Since you can't hear all the parts at once, and you therefore have to play the basic tracks in somewhat of a vaccum, it's easy to overplay those early parts. I'm getting better at this. Partly it's just knowing not to overplay, and partly it's getting better at composition in my head, though still a long way to go on that front.

3. Frequency restriction. Similar to #2, unless you've gotten pretty experienced, since you can't hear everything up front, you have to guess at what those early tracks need to sound like. Yeh, you can just record it all and then do the massive mix at the end. But I don't want to do that. I want to learn how to get it right as recorded. I'm getting better, but still a long way to go. Using another song you like as a production guide is a nice way to learn.

4. Interplay. When you have a bunch of people playing and working out a song, as long as it's not just something done on the spot but something you really have played and worked on, the parts will eventually sort out and play around each other. That's difficult when doing them all yourself because it's not until you get to the vocals that you realize, wow, that backing guitar part could have done this and it would have really blended well with that vocal part or wrapped around it really nicely. So you are faced with just living with it, or re-tracking that guitar part. That latter is kind of brutal when you are that far down the road with the song, and you might lose the other magic it had.

5. Cycle time. Also related to how long it takes. So it might be a month or two months since the last time I sat down to work out a bass part, or did a drum part. Obviously that's not optimal for staying at your peak on each of the potential areas of endeavor. It's not horrible, but it's not optimal. Given the minimal time I have, there's very little time to just sit down and play. I almost only ever play for the purposes of recording.


Anyway, even having said all that, it's doable and I enjoy doing it that way. I'm getting better all the time, and I like (and dread) just having that blank canvas to fill up. I don't think that being some super man on each instrument really makes much of a difference. If you are doing great songs, it doesn't matter. If the song is well written and composed and played with feeling, that's worth a thousand super-tight studio musicians any day of the week, as long as you reasonably competent. And just keep gettting better as you go.

Though I'm often too lazy to do it, I'm starting to believe that the best way to do it is to work out the song with just voice and one instrument, and get it tight and able to stand up on its own like that. Then lay down a tight guide track and of that sort, and build everything around it. Instead of the other way around, which is more often how I do it.

[Jazzooo]

Those are all great points, Dean. This one really stands out to me:

"2. Overplaying. Since you can't hear all the parts at once, and you therefore have to play the basic tracks in somewhat of a vaccum, it's easy to overplay those early parts. I'm getting better at this. Partly it's just knowing not to overplay, and partly it's getting better at composition in my head, though still a long way to go on that front."


That's the toughest one for me. I'm a loose player by nature, never playing anything the same way twice (I blame my jazz background!) So I often end up re-doing original, overly-enthusiastic tracks, after I've layered new stuff on top of them and realized that I wouldn't want to play with that jerk in a live setting.

[henge]

What I find is that my arrangement chops got way better. You actually have to hear all the parts. So now when I produce someone else, it's way easier to make decisions based on the mistakes I've made.

[AV_Dub]

I've been recording my own music for a few years now, and there's something to be said for going solo on all the instruments. But I find myself going back and forth between elation and depression! At first the newness of the song is a huge thrill! but sometimes you get stuck and having someone else with you to be objective is a real plus. I think Alan Parsons said He felt it is unhealthy to "do it all" and I can see His point.

I've spent a lot of time re-doing, re-arranging, re-tracking, re-mixing, and "living with it" after its finished only to realize that something needs to be changed a few days later. etc. For instance after listening in the car for a week or two.

Can be a bummer. A big problem is having no one to give you another perspective. Unless your the ultimate writer/multi talented musician/producer/mixer/mastering pro it can get frustrating. It's possible to put too much pressure on yourself if you are lacking ANY of the above expertise.

On the other hand, what a rush when your song comes together! But again, no one to get excited about it but me.. sucks really. The live magic moments go unwitnessed and unshared. I think that's the worst part of doing the one man band thing.

One thing I tried alone was a re-mix on a Tommy Lee song. The stems provided were vocals, acoustic guitar, and some misc sound effects.

So I needed to do the drums/bass/rhythm elec guitar/lead guitar/keyboard part/the mixdown/and mastering myself.

I had a 6 week deadline so I got to it. After spending about 2 weeks tracking and mixing.. My hard drive died. dead. Backup project file tuned out to be corrupted... would have been nice to have someone else around to share the agony, and a beer.

So, 4 weeks to the deadline I started all over. But now I only had time for a couple takes on each instrument. Got it all tracked, mixed, mastered just a few hours before the midnight deadline.

Wish I had more time to track it, and mix it before I turned it in. Mastering revealed some things that I hadn't noticed, but there was no time to go back.

Anyway, Looking back I don't think I'd do it alone again. And as far as doing my own music alone? I'll keep doing it but might start looking for other musicians to work with

[bmwerx]

Originally Posted by Magnum29465

Is it possible for one man playing all the parts to have the same feel as a band recording together. I want to create complete compositions by myself but I'm having trouble getting the the feel i want and Im wondering if its because Im doing it myself as opposed to having a band..

#1 Experience
#2 imagination
#3 The art of deception.
In that order, will probably give you the results you're looking for. That said, a profound talent for cooperation with other musicians in your virtual band, weather actual band members or instrumentalists, is an absolute Prerequisite. Respect for the instrument you're triggering means that, you won't be blowing two minutes of wind in a flute or any other wind inst. without taking a breath. You might consider only using two hands and two legs on a drum kit and listening to what other live drummers can do with those parameters.

Above all, you're a musical director for musicians in your virtual band. For me the biggest challenge in convincing others of a real band recording vs. OMB virtual band is, in the knowlege of the instrument's capabilities. Big band arrangements are the most difficult and challenging projects. Every member of the band/orchestra has uniquely differing techniques and to reproduce every individual's charactor, you must know the limits of not only the instrument he or she is performing on but, you also need to know the degrees of capability those musicians bring to the table. (your arrangement)

Do you know the ranges of the alto saxes? the tenors? the baris? the trumpets? the bones? What about all the strings and how they're performed? do all those musicians (in your mind's imagination) play well and cooperate with eachother? And when you're arranging all these instruments in the context of the song, there's something else to be aware of to make it believable.

Remember, the world is a stage just like your bandstand (or recording studio). You become the members in your band and you must get along with every one of them. That means, respecting them on a personal as well as a professional basis. They're actors on a stage. And the sales force behind your company. They're also the dog team that pulls your sled across the Alaskan tundra.You have several hats to wear. You're the writer of the song, the compser, the arranger, the player(s), the engineer(s) and the objective public to whom you're producing all this for in the first place.
And that translates to a very high degree of self respect and integrity.

The short answer to your question is, of course it's possible. Today we have the technology to make it possible. I agree with and, respect everyone who posted to this thread. It's one of my favorite topics. I can relate to everyone's post in some way. What a great pool of recourses there are here to learn from.

[Dean Roddey]

I'm a one man band and I don't even get along with the other members of my band, the primping little prima donnas.

[bmwerx]

Originally Posted by vernier

Problem is, most multi-instrumentalists are mediocre on some of their instruments, and last to know it.

Great observation vernier. Yeah, and I'd go even further in saying that they're/We're mediocre on MOST of the instruments. But not inadequite. Doing solo work in an eight piece band for example, might require a little or a lot more study and practice of the inst. being soloed and "performed". The vsts out there today make it possible for someone with decent keyboard chops to do incredible, believable solos.

But I don't want a bunch of premadona, egocentric, pompous assed musicians all struggling for the limelight on my recording either. Great players are usually respected support members in a band too. A clean, no-nonsense bass line is many times just as important as the guitar that's soloing upon it. That goes for the drums, synth pads and all other "supporting" and "coloring" instruments.

Yeah, Good call.