Recorded at Electric Lady in NYC and Abbey Road in London
September 16, 2017 8:20 PM Subscribe
Why do bands record their albums in multiple studios all over the world?
This NPR article about a new album from the band Cut Copy notes that it was recorded in "Copenhagen, Washington, D.C., New York, Atlanta and Melbourne." That’s five cities across three continents. And New Yorker article about a new album from the band the National says it was recorded in a studio in upstate New York as well as in L.A., Paris and Berlin.
If you read liner notes of albums, you’ll often see multiple locations for the recording sessions. What’s the purpose of this? Isn’t it expensive to jet a band around the world, freight their equipment, book hotel rooms, etc.? What results can the band get out of choosing many different studios instead of just sticking to one? Do they make recording sessions coincide with tour schedules?
This NPR article about a new album from the band Cut Copy notes that it was recorded in "Copenhagen, Washington, D.C., New York, Atlanta and Melbourne." That’s five cities across three continents. And New Yorker article about a new album from the band the National says it was recorded in a studio in upstate New York as well as in L.A., Paris and Berlin.
If you read liner notes of albums, you’ll often see multiple locations for the recording sessions. What’s the purpose of this? Isn’t it expensive to jet a band around the world, freight their equipment, book hotel rooms, etc.? What results can the band get out of choosing many different studios instead of just sticking to one? Do they make recording sessions coincide with tour schedules?
Some studios also have limited availability, so artists will snap up open time even if it's just a few days.
posted by padraigin at 8:34 PM on September 16, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by padraigin at 8:34 PM on September 16, 2017 [1 favorite]
Also, an album isn't necessarily recorded in one cohesive shot. A band might cut a song or two with one producer now, and in a few weeks or months, cut another few songs with another producer, lather rinse repeat. Or they might attempt to do a whole album worth of material at one time with one producer, but then later decide that some of the tracks aren't good enough, and go back into the studio to replace them months down the line.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:49 PM on September 16, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 8:49 PM on September 16, 2017 [5 favorites]
As an avid listener who is not in the recording industry, I think for a lot of bands it’s tied to touring, but on the other hand, sometimes the entire band is never in the same studio at once. Instead, various people recorded their contributions in studios near their homes. This seems to be more common as the bands get more famous and the genre gets closer to pop, especially when there are “guest artists” or session musicians.
posted by musicinmybrain at 4:23 AM on September 17, 2017
posted by musicinmybrain at 4:23 AM on September 17, 2017
If you have not yet seen Dave Grohl's Sound City, I highly recommend it.
In addition to the answers above, different studios offer different experiences. Musicians consider the history of studios and the feel of the place. There's a special story behind the spaces and working from the same board that may have worked Elvis's vocals or Ringo's drums creates a deep, personal connection to the studio that enhances the musicians' performances.
posted by yes I said yes I will Yes at 5:06 AM on September 17, 2017 [2 favorites]
In addition to the answers above, different studios offer different experiences. Musicians consider the history of studios and the feel of the place. There's a special story behind the spaces and working from the same board that may have worked Elvis's vocals or Ringo's drums creates a deep, personal connection to the studio that enhances the musicians' performances.
posted by yes I said yes I will Yes at 5:06 AM on September 17, 2017 [2 favorites]
Also, the tracks might have been recorded over a long period of time. They could have had an unused recording from a previous album that only made its way on now.
posted by easternblot at 6:29 AM on September 18, 2017
posted by easternblot at 6:29 AM on September 18, 2017
What’s the purpose of this?
All of the above and then some - if you peruse the archives of Mix Magazine, you can read a variety of interviews with producers, engineers, and musicians that may help explain the process of deciding where to record.
Isn’t it expensive to jet a band around the world, freight their equipment, book hotel rooms, etc.?
Well, yes, but considering that hit records make millions of dollars, and big concerts can make millions of dollars, these costs can be relatively small potatoes in the larger view. Some studios can offer room & board as part of a package of amenities, and most studios have a collection of instruments and amplifiers, so not all of a musician's gear has to go to the studio. Although over-indulgence in this sort of thing can lead to the band being quite literally in debt to the record label; see "recoupable costs." And as pointed out above, these days "Melbourne" might well mean "I recorded the acoustic guitar part on my iPad in my hotel room on vacation."
What results can the band get out of choosing many different studios instead of just sticking to one?
Besides the fact that some of this is often just down to scheduling, different rooms in different studios sound different ("I love recording drums at Studio X in Berlin, it's a converted cathedral and the main room sounds huge"); own different microphones ("I prefer to record vocals at Studio Y in Miami, they have a great collection of vintage Neumann U47's"); own different mixing consoles ("I much prefer to record on a Neve console, but always mix on an SSL.") and are staffed by different people (if you want to work with Steve Albini it likely makes more sense to go to his studio (Electrical Audio) in Chicago rather than pay him extra to travel to a different studio.)
Do they make recording sessions coincide with tour schedules?
Not quite, if I'm reading you correctly - the sort of basic assumption is that a band makes a record and then tours in "support" of that new record; people who've bought the new record get to hear the songs live, people who haven't might be convinced to do so after seeing the band perform them. So in general the recording comes first - look at the Wikipedia pages for almost any act and you'll see there's often a year if not two or three between releases. Some of that time is spent touring, some is spent writing & recording the next record, some is probably spent on vacation. Or if you look at a variety of band websites, you can see that most of their touring happens within a few months to a year after the release of a new recording.
But it's not at all unusual for touring and recording to overlap, especially if the most recent record turns out to be a huge hit - then you've got more and more people who want to see you live, so the tour gets extended and extended, while at the same time there are probably people from the record label who want you to start making a new record now while you're hot. So while bands & producers tend to prefer to have a relatively large chunk of uninterrupted time to get most of the work on the new record done (and will then pick studios by the varying criteria of gear, acoustics, availability, vibe, etc.), that chunk of time might well be the month-and-a-half between the end of your European tour and the start of your US tour. And once that's done, if you wind up with a week between your US East Coast tour and your West Coast tour, you might try to grab a couple of days in a studio in Chicago to work on guitar parts or something.
posted by soundguy99 at 9:54 AM on September 19, 2017
All of the above and then some - if you peruse the archives of Mix Magazine, you can read a variety of interviews with producers, engineers, and musicians that may help explain the process of deciding where to record.
Isn’t it expensive to jet a band around the world, freight their equipment, book hotel rooms, etc.?
Well, yes, but considering that hit records make millions of dollars, and big concerts can make millions of dollars, these costs can be relatively small potatoes in the larger view. Some studios can offer room & board as part of a package of amenities, and most studios have a collection of instruments and amplifiers, so not all of a musician's gear has to go to the studio. Although over-indulgence in this sort of thing can lead to the band being quite literally in debt to the record label; see "recoupable costs." And as pointed out above, these days "Melbourne" might well mean "I recorded the acoustic guitar part on my iPad in my hotel room on vacation."
What results can the band get out of choosing many different studios instead of just sticking to one?
Besides the fact that some of this is often just down to scheduling, different rooms in different studios sound different ("I love recording drums at Studio X in Berlin, it's a converted cathedral and the main room sounds huge"); own different microphones ("I prefer to record vocals at Studio Y in Miami, they have a great collection of vintage Neumann U47's"); own different mixing consoles ("I much prefer to record on a Neve console, but always mix on an SSL.") and are staffed by different people (if you want to work with Steve Albini it likely makes more sense to go to his studio (Electrical Audio) in Chicago rather than pay him extra to travel to a different studio.)
Do they make recording sessions coincide with tour schedules?
Not quite, if I'm reading you correctly - the sort of basic assumption is that a band makes a record and then tours in "support" of that new record; people who've bought the new record get to hear the songs live, people who haven't might be convinced to do so after seeing the band perform them. So in general the recording comes first - look at the Wikipedia pages for almost any act and you'll see there's often a year if not two or three between releases. Some of that time is spent touring, some is spent writing & recording the next record, some is probably spent on vacation. Or if you look at a variety of band websites, you can see that most of their touring happens within a few months to a year after the release of a new recording.
But it's not at all unusual for touring and recording to overlap, especially if the most recent record turns out to be a huge hit - then you've got more and more people who want to see you live, so the tour gets extended and extended, while at the same time there are probably people from the record label who want you to start making a new record now while you're hot. So while bands & producers tend to prefer to have a relatively large chunk of uninterrupted time to get most of the work on the new record done (and will then pick studios by the varying criteria of gear, acoustics, availability, vibe, etc.), that chunk of time might well be the month-and-a-half between the end of your European tour and the start of your US tour. And once that's done, if you wind up with a week between your US East Coast tour and your West Coast tour, you might try to grab a couple of days in a studio in Chicago to work on guitar parts or something.
posted by soundguy99 at 9:54 AM on September 19, 2017
I would add that for bands that have been around for awhile like the two you mentioned, it's possible/likely that they don't all live in the same place anymore. So although they probably do the bulk of the recording while they are all gathered together in the same studio, there may be bits and pieces that are laid down in the local studio close to where they live.
posted by parallellines at 12:46 PM on September 19, 2017
posted by parallellines at 12:46 PM on September 19, 2017
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Zedcaster at 8:29 PM on September 16, 2017 [4 favorites]