From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: recording choral monophonic music [?]
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:33:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.040745.4793@news.cs.brandeis.edu> jacob@max.cc.brandeis.edu ( ) writes:
>First I have a rather specific question: what's the typical set-up
>for recording choral *monophonic* music (such as Gregorian Chant; as
>opposed to polyphonic music a capella, i.e. w/o instruments, where
>the choir is divided into sections that each sings its own line in
>the polyphony; such are for example works by Josquin des Pres or Palestrina)
>
>Basically what type of machine is used in recording choral monophonic music?
>2-track, 4-track, 8-track or what? Also how are the choir and the mics usually
>placed?

First of all, the question isn't how many tracks but how many microphones.
You never need more than 2 tracks to record choral a capella music.  Having
more just gives you the convenience of mixing it later, and is totally
unnecessary unless you have more than two mics.

As for the number of microphones?  If I were to do it, I would only need
two microphones to make a good choral sound.  How are they placed?  That
depends on

	- What sort of chorus it is....size, configuration, timbre, etc.
	- What sort of hall it is, and the acoustical properties thereof
	- What sort of sound you want the recording to have

But probably I would some sort of near-coincident or spaced-omni config.


>If it makes a difference whether the recording is made live (for example in
>a church w/o any special accoustic insulation) or in studio consider that I've
>asked the question for both...

Yes, it makes a difference.  If you're recording monophonic church music
like Palestrina or Josquin, then for goodness sake record it where it was
meant to be heard...in a stone church with good acoustics.  DO NOT record
this sort of thing in a studio.  You will be gravely disappointed.

>Second I have a more general question which is more in the style of a clari-
>fication. Is it correct that multitrack recording (4-track and above) is only
>used for popular music (like I've always thought until now that I've really
>asked myself that question), or is it completely false? Again if it makes
>a difference whether it's live or studio I'd be interested to hear the answer
>for both.

I consider myself a proficient classical music recordist, and I can do a good
job on location with two tracks of tape.  Would I *like* to have more than
two on location?  You bet!  I could put my orchestral mics on one pair of
tracks, choral mics on another, and each accent mic on an individual track,
and not worry about mixing on site.  Get it home and mix it later.  

If you have only two microphones (fairly common) on a rig, then two-track
audio is fine.  But if, say, you have a rig over the orchestra and another
over the chorus, you generally have to mix them together on site.

Recordings done by major labels are generally multi-tracked.  The cost
difference between renting a 2-track and a 48-track machine is nothing
compared to the cost of 10 seconds of orchestra overtime, so having 
multitrack equipment and using more mics is considered insurance against
having to do retakes.  The worst that happens is that you don't use those
tracks in the mix.

However, many fine classical recordings are done with only two mics.


--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877