Recording guitars with two guitar players, what's the best solution?

[Methilde]

We're planning to record a full length or EP this february for Sincerus.
Currently we have two guitar players, Siegfried and yours truly.

We both have very different styles of playing and we usually have Siegfried as the lead guitar and me as the rythm guitar player. Also I play a sevenstring and he plays a 6 string (in standard E tuning).

He wants to record the guitars left and right for example, left: me, right, him. But when you record this in extreme panning you can hear clear differences in playing and guitar sound. I'm afraid that it will damage the balance in the mix. Also I've heard that the rythm parts (all of them) can be played by one guitarist because that is always more tight. He disagrees and thinks a 'live' sound is better. I hate a 'live' sound on a CD because it's usually a sign of sloppyness....

What is the most professional solution?

 

[Origins]

I´d say recording with two different players gives some variations but it will definitely make it messy, especially when you play tight rhythmics. It sounds good live, but it sucks on a recording. Don´t listen to what he says

 

[zeal0us]

I'll go with you on this one... for an EP you want something as enjoyable to listen to as possible. As you're aiming for a pro sounding recording solution, you may better like the results of keeping the lead guitar in the center of the mix. Rhythm parts can be double tracked and either panned hard or 80-80; to achieve that huge sound which is always nice.

Though not advised, the rhythms also could be played by two different people, if both guitarists play real tight... but the tone of choice should be the same in L and R. Another complimentary tone can be utilized for both of the next two tracks if you're quad tracking (in which case you might like the effect of lowering the overall volume levels of these last two tracks- they're just there to add more space as needed).

Hope that was a little helpful!

 

[Origins]

Though not advised, the rhythms also could be played by two different people, if both guitarists play real tight...

From my experience, this is not really possible. The difference between two tracks recorded by different players or by the same person is still huge, no matter how tight you play. It´s all in the playing style. This is why it´s better to let only one guitarist record both.

I agree about the quad tracking, that could be a great thing for chords and such.

 

[zeal0us]

From my experience, this is not really possible. The difference between two tracks recorded by different players or by the same person is still huge, no matter how tight you play.

And as you know, those differences, as long as they're subtle, are the entire basis of double tracking sounding big... I was merely approaching it from a theoretical standpoint; IF they played tight enough as to sound like it could've been one player

I definitely agree, the norm is to let one guitarist do the double tracking to minimize any undesirably significant difference in play.

 

[Radius_Vector]

Why don't you try Quad as suggested above? Try different chord voicings and the such.

2 by you, 2 by him.

Pan it out like no tomorrow, and the playing inconsistencies are quite evened out. Within limits, of course

 

[Radicz0r]

Ah ja dat had ik ook met onze eerste cd.. was ook best een gedoe allemaal.

Listen to these guys, as they know what they're talking about. Its best to record the songs like someone does in a studio on a solo project, just to get the mix right. That is double (or quad) the guitars, pan them out, get the leads in the middle of the mix, or either doubletrack the riff guitars, and 60-60pan doubletrack the leads. (considering they're not exactly the same riff with varying tones, i mean solos or octaves or something) If he doesn't believe you, you could always try recording at home just to get a glimpse of what it would sound like and what the differences would be. If he's still not convinced, show him this website.

 

[loktide]

if you're both tight enough, the slight differences may make the sound more interesting or fatter. i would definitely use the exact same recording setup for both, though. a band i know with two guitarists recorded one track each, one with a les paul the other a strat with single-coils AND different rigs. the result is pretty unbalanced and sounds like a live recording (which was actually the sound they were going for)

if one guitarist is tighter than the other, i would let the tighter guitarist track guitars. that's how a lot of band do it.

 

[Mattayus]

What is the most professional solution?

Whatever's tightest!

Don't get bogged down in your differences. Most, if not all, recordings are captured with differences in the signal chain, be it different cabs each side, different heads, different mic positions, different guitars, different distortion settings, different guitarISTS. It escapes the risk of "big mono", and gives the illusion of a wider stereo spectrum.

The differences can be very big, but still work. So long as they have the same sense of energy it will sound huge. Once things are panned the sense of difference becomes less apparent. Just listen to any pro-recorded metal album, and I guarantee they're using different amps each side, and most of the time different players, but can you tell the difference?

Due to the different subtle nuances in their playing, mixing two guitarists will sound badass. I wouldn't shy away from experimentation on this. Track the guitars for just one track, and then decide whether your styles are just way too different for it to be tight. If they are then hey, at least you've got one side done already!

 

[Methilde]

He's definitely tigher but I know how to play my own grooves. plus I have the low end on the sound when it comes to guitar. I really want to record the basic rythm tracks, and he can go all the way with leads, accents stunts and solo's.

We are going to try it out like this
Possibility 1: We both record the rythm tracks
Possibility 2: He does the leads, I do the rythms

And I hope things will work out. Thanks for the advice guys, keep em comin

 

[B36arin]

It's a lot better with leads down the middle and rhythm guitars double- or quad tracked and panned out, like people have already said. It sounds as if the two of you have very different tones, be very careful if you choose to use both as rhythm guitar tones, because if they don't complement each other well when recorded, it will probably sound bad, even though both tones are really good. Like Mattayus said, you can achieve very good results with very different tones in both sides, and it's industry standard to vary the guitar tone in boths sides, but the tones have to work together. If you play different parts it can sound like ass if the tones don't complement each other. Experiment, try lots of crazy stuff, but be careful You also get different types of guitar tone if you double track or quad track, if you double track I'd definitely recommend that only one of you plays the rhythm parts. If you quad track you can get away with more different tones if one pair of the guitars isn't as loud.

Personally I can't stand the "live" sound, where a big chunk of the riffing disappears because one of the guitarists stops playing the backing riff when he starts to solo When I last saw Meshuggah they were using three Axe FXs, two for rhythms and one for leads. They routed them so that when Fredrik Thordendal changed to his lead tone, Mårten Hagströms rhythm guitar went through both the rhythm Axe FXs. And it was awesome, the leads stood out fantastically well and the rhythm tracks didn't disappear in solos. I personally think that conservativism is the reason that people prefer the "live sound" where rhythm guitars disappear when somebody starts soloing. That is if you don't have a player that only plays leads and one that only plays rhythms I'm currently designing an analog footswitch that will allow you to use three amps on stage, one for leads and two for rhythms. More to carry between gigs, but for me it's easily worth it

 

[Sliggy]

People (in metal, other genres are another story) only dig the "live sound" when they're too "fucking lazy" to rehearse their parts and put the effort into recording a tight, well rounded song.

Oh and for your situation, I personally like the idea of the tighter player doing all the rhythms. It'll sound better. If he hasn't got the "grooves right" then you're a poorly rehearsed band and in for a world of pain (for yourself and for your engineers) come studio time.

 

[Methilde]

Well the engineer in pain would be me as I will do most of the recording and production of the CD

I hate conservatism too. In a studio, nearly every crazy thing is possible so why not use those possibilities. Everyone with a brain can reason that live ALWAYS sounds different than in a studio. Studio produced CD's should be candy to the ears of the listener, not a nuisance

 

[Sliggy]

Exactly

 

[darren]

I find that a lot of albums where everything is "perfect" also sound cold and clinical and don't make the hair on the back of my neck stand up. If you over-rehearse and over-produce, it can suck the life out of the music. The ideal (in my opinion) is somewhere in between.

In my band, both guitarists are rarely playing the same thing, so we pan everything out hard left and right, and the result is pretty huge-sounding. If we are playing the same riff, we both play it, and if that's not working, then one of us will double it up, or we'll just single-track the part (with two different mics on the cab).

We do what's right for the song, and because our material is so diverse, sometimes that results in a mix of techniques for recording and mixing.

 

[B36arin]

Good post darren, the part about overproduction is definitely true. Rhythm tracks do not have to be identical to be panned hard, as you say it can be very cool if they're not playing the same thing. But when one guitar is a dedicated rhythm guitar and the other one is a lead guitar I personally strongly prefer to have the rhythm double tracked and the lead down the middle, or at least almost down the middle.

As you say, the best results often come from mixing different techniques, there is never one correct way of doing things in a studio, it depends a lot on the type of music. But generally when there's only one guitar "riffing" I prefer to double track it, a single riffing guitar sounds too thin imo. If you have two guitars playing different things, but still "riffing"(i.e. not playing leads or solos) you can usually have one take of each guitar and pan them wide.

 

[Sliggy]

Overproducing / editing can suck the life out of a recording, but you can never rehearse too much. The chills should come from the composition, not the imperfections.

I'm not saying that "Divine Heresy" style production is the way to go, but I find that a lot of people who say "ah let's go for a live sound" can't be fucked experimenting in the studio and redoing takes over and over until it's played right. Mixing / recording / producing is all an art form just as much as the song itself is and if you go for "the live sound" you just take that away.

 

[B36arin]

The Haunted's newest album, Versus, was tracked live apart from solos and vocals, and it absolutely slays. But then again they are extremely experienced legendary musicians within their genre, and their music isn't very technical. The album is magnificent, and so is the production, it has so much energy. It proves that the live feeling can be done, but then again, we're talking about The Haunted and Tue Madsen, not exactly your average joes.

 

[CynicEidolon]

... it's simple... Don't look at it as "his part, my part." Hear what needs to be done with the sound of the parts.

 

[Harry]

One thing I just can't agree with is this idea of over producing/over editing.
It's a fact people out there enjoy records that are edited to fuck, have sub drops in them and have all sorts of drum sample replacement to get huge drums.
Maybe it's not to everyone's taste, but people out there do like it, including myself.

It's not about whether you over think it, whether you go for the spontaneous approach, whether you edit a lot or not.
What is is about, is the execution.
Think about it.
Classical music was made for centuries having being composed in a calculated manner, not jamming out riffs until you get to something like we might do today as rock/metal guitarists.
But why is it, that despite the fact the compositions were so carefully considered to the point where individual arpeggio choices were made andindividual notes were chosen so carefully that it doesn't sound cold and flat and emotionless?
As I said, it's about the execution. The fact the playing was just done so well, and was able to transcend notes written on a sheet of paper is what elevates it to something truly emotional.
You can have all the ideas in the world, but if you don't know how to execute those ideas into something special, then it just falls flat.

If it's about rawer music, guitars done in one take, bass guitars done in one take and that's what you need to do to achieve the sound, take that path of execution.
If it's about technical music that is polished to absolute perfection and super virgin fucking tight, by all means, edit like crazy, because as long as your heart is still in it and you know how to execute it great, it will show and listeners should be grabbed first and foremost by the throat by the emotions, and the technical details become secondary to that.