"The recording Process did it ever make or break a drummer?

what are you saying @cbphoto
that was recorded bad?

By Recording - I meant method (verb not the noun) the action

Or the Clarity of that recording introduced BC to a wider audience (compared to his previous
phew. I'd better roll another one... be back in a while.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: jda
can you think of one? a poor recording that is, that got exposure
or what-would be one- besides home tapes
I meant really poor recording (like tapes), where you can hear every note but there is cardboard sound, with zero bass/tone for example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jda
You aren't born sounding good in the studio. It is learned, with experience and having made mistakes.
No I never questioned studio personnel about the mics or the eq, but I definitely interrogated them all the time about what I could do to make the drums sound the best they could in the studio.
Spectrum by Billy Cobham is one of my all time favourite drum recordings - the result of a collaboration between a brilliant drummer and an outstanding recording engineer/producer (Ken Scott).
 
You aren't born sounding good in the studio. It is learned, with experience and having made mistakes.
No I never questioned studio personnel about the mics or the eq, but I definitely interrogated them all the time about what I could do to make the drums sound the best they could in the studio.
Spectrum by Billy Cobham is one of my all time favourite drum recordings - the result of a collaboration between a brilliant drummer and an outstanding recording engineer/producer (Ken Scott).
I totally agree. I'm still not clear on what the original question was, but it was related to "playing to the mics" then that is absolutely a skill that can and should be mastered if you're going to spend time in a studio. Actually, it's a good skill regardless...

I remember a Bernard Purdie interview where he mentioned adjusting dynamics to play to the room mics. I think if an accomplished drummer plays well on a recording, the listener would have no idea how many microphones were on the kit.
 
A poor recording can keep the greatness of a drummer or perfect groove/pocket from coming through...
I understand the sound being bad will make you not want to listen to a performance, but how does that affect a perfect groove? I've seen street drummers playing buckets have perfect groove and be in the pocket just fine...
 
  • Like
Reactions: jda
but it was related to "playing to the mics"
No. it was when the drummer is competent before he gets to the mics

So the 'mics' didn't 'make' (besides exposure!) the drummer..
 
As far as Billy Cobham here's the story.

Bill Cobham was one of oh 35 "house drummers" for CTI records (producer Creed Taylor.

One who knew him then- Bobby Columby of BS &T- remarked

" if Bill is ever recorded correctly he will scare 100% of drummers' or words to that effect


so in that case- proper recording helped (but Bill- he himself already "had" it...
 
Without some more definition of 'great', I'm not sure I can intelligently comment.

Great = Popular?...then yes, i would say that there are drummers that were made popular by one, maybe 2 recordings.

Great = Unusually Skilled?...then no. your recordings do not equal your skills....recordings tend to describe your skills but not always.

The ability to get your playing to an audience is distinct from ability to play...but does not suffer in value, imho, compared to ability to play the instrument. There are many things that define success with less and less consensus.
To expand on the your recordings do not equal your skills... Take for example Alex Van Halen with hot for teacher (or the entire 1984 album for that matter) the sound of the drums was pretty mediocre for what was possible to achieve at the time. (I still love that snare sound though) but you can't deny that Hot For Teacher takes some skill to play and much more skill to write. We cold be listening to it from a bullhorn speaker (the worst kind of speaker followed by phone speakers ) and we would still be able to tell that he is a great drummer. Ringo Star is another example, a lot of the Beatles recordings were terrible (it is quite hard to make up what the drums are doing), but he is still considered a great drummer regardless of that.
 
No. it was when the drummer is competent before he gets to the mics

So the 'mics' didn't 'make' (besides exposure!) the drummer..
It is the same as with those who believe that using triggers is cheating. They only highlight your flaws a lot more.
 
That comment is about live v studio - the fact that some young bands were assembled for commercial purposes, and sometimes those pretty young things aren't very good players or singers. These days it's not really an issue because new artists today don't need drummers.

With help from an experienced production team, raw takes can be whipped into shape so they sound pro. Then the band goes for its first tour and they produce a rookie performance.

Back in my day ... (cue old person music) bands had to play the bar scene for years before getting a break, and most didn't make it. Those bands killed it on tour because they had spent years satisfying demanding audiences and dealing with the million and one things that can go awry when playing live.
An example of the opposite of this would be a band like Mr. Big. Billy Sheehan has said that he put that group together specifically for live. He knew that's what rockers want to hear and he didn't disappoint.
No studio tricks were allowed (at least in the beginning) and that showed through.

If only more bands followed this formula, I feel they'd do better.
 
I understand the sound being bad will make you not want to listen to a performance, but how does that affect a perfect groove? I've seen street drummers playing buckets have perfect groove and be in the pocket just fine...
I once heard a live recording of SRV's 'Pride and Joy' played through a massive PA and the groove was just jaw-dropping. Later I heard that same live CD through a standard stereo system and it was nowhere near as impressive.

Without proper tone the groove suffers, and vice versa it can amplify the performance massively. PS I guess compression may also play a part...
 
Last edited:
Without proper tone the groove suffers, and vice versa it can amplify the performance massively. PS I guess compression may also play a part...
I spent much of my retirement remixing old takes and entire jams recorded on a single Zoom.

You'll find the issue is where the bottom end is not clear. Loss of bottom end punchiness is the issue.
 
You should always strive for quality sounds, but nobody minded Duke’s orchestra recorded with one mic. I’ve heard many albums that sounded like demos get released and become huge. So I don’t think recording quality has to be of the highest. It just has to be well played and mixed.
 
I once heard a live recording of SRV's 'Pride and Joy' played through a massive PA and the groove was just jaw-dropping. Later I heard that same live CD through a standard stereo system and it was nowhere near as impressive.

Without proper tone the groove suffers, and vice versa it can amplify the performance massively. PS I guess compression may also play a part...
Imo if the groove is good, it's always there regardless of the sound quality. You could have the most impressive PA system but a shitty player will still be a shitty player, you will only be able to hear his mistakes more clearly. On the other hand a great player will still have a great groove even with low end gear.
 
The recording process certainly a broke a few.

Patty Schemel quit Hole after being replaced on Hole's album "Celebrity Skin", and one could say she had other problems as well, but it led to her career as a professional musician being over, when other problems aside, she could have just smiled for the camera and carried on.

William Goldsmith famously quit the Foo Fighters after Dave replaced his parts. Dave said he still wanted Will to do the tour, but Willd declined. It didn't end his career, but his career never reached the heights it would have had he sucked it up and remained in the Foo Fighters (I mean, Chester Thomspon never recorded with Genius but did most of the tours, and it certainly didn't hinder his career).

Keith Moon: When he showed up for the sessions for the album that became "Who Are You" he was out of shape and he struggled. The band had to jam with him on the side for him to get back to playing. And even so, his tracks were left of the song "Music Must Change" because he couldn't hack it. All this led to Pete Townshend thinking they wouldn't tour for the album. Mood died a month after the album came out. Sure, it's a stretch that the recording process led to his demise, but IMHO it contributed.

On the flip side:
Kenny Aronoff's famous story of being fired from John Cougar album during the recording process, and how he turned it into a learning experience, and then almost getting left off the next John Cougar album but he made himself a useful lead to Kenny becoming the session great he is now. Kenny was clearly made by the recording studio.
 
"The recording Process did it ever make or break a drummer?

The topic came up this year of how extreme metal drummers are potentially faking live what is played on the recordings.

If so, the answer is, "Yes."
 
I have been thinking about my original response and am not satisfied with it.

I would propose that EVERYTHING together, including the butterfly flapping its wings on the other side of the planet, make or break a drummer.

We cannot know alternate realities where something in the past is changed. I find it important to hold this idea consistently otherwise we open ourselves to our own destructive analysis that has little to no validity...just the comfort of thinking that we 'know'.
 
That comment is about live v studio - the fact that some young bands were assembled for commercial purposes, and sometimes those pretty young things aren't very good players or singers. These days it's not really an issue because new artists today don't need drummers.

With help from an experienced production team, raw takes can be whipped into shape so they sound pro. Then the band goes for its first tour and they produce a rookie performance.

Back in my day ... (cue old person music) bands had to play the bar scene for years before getting a break, and most didn't make it. Those bands killed it on tour because they had spent years satisfying demanding audiences and dealing with the million and one things that can go awry when playing live.

Still, when I hear a great drum track, my ears don't care if there's been corrections, as long as it's not so much that it compromises the energy. I care more about great songs and great drum tracks than great drummers, if that makes sense.
I havnt played a session in yrs where we all laid down tracks all at the same time, sometimes w/o isolation booths.
 
Ok, now that the title has been edited, I believe I understand it now.

I think example one would have to be Pete Best. I think the studio work he did torpedoed his chances with the band.
Another is Adrian Young of No Doubt. He brought himself up to speed in the studio in order to cut the mustard, and he stayed.
Another yet is Anton Fig replacing Peter Criss on KISS's Dynasty album. It made Anton(though nobody knew it at the time), and likely broke Peter, though that is oversimplifying it.

Ever since my first studio experience back in 1981(shudder), I quickly realized that it's a place that quickly separates the men from the boys, and as I was 13 in 1981, it gave me food for thought!


Dan
 
Back
Top