How many mics does a drum set need to sound cool?

Of course the question applies only in case you still record real drums instead of using triggers as the latter make life on post recording editing so much easier (not implying I'm a fan of them though).

The whole thing was triggered to me after watching a really interesting interview from an Audio legend named Ron Nevison. This man has decades of studio and live experience under his belt including working with numerous legends, among them The Who, Heart, UFO, (Jefferson) Starship, Bad Company, Chicago and Led Zeppelin. Being a lifetime fan of the latter I follow the YT channel Bonhamology where the Chicago based Greek American top notch drummer George Fludas (huge Led Zep fan) hosted the following interview:

Of course in an aptly named YT channel like this George focused on Ron's experience from his sound engineering days on the album "Physical Graffiti" from Led Zep and especially how the recordings with John Bonham went. @37:55 Ron starts talking about recording the Kashmir song. He says they got a phaser effect on the very same day they started working on that song so he tried it on the drums as he was told it works nicely on cymbals. Now here's the impressive part: He admits that he had only two (2!) drum channels, left and right, so he took the right, put the phaser on, recorded a 3rd track and that's how the drums (especially the cymbals) sound this way.

So, yes, the great late John Bonham sound like this by using only 2 mics! Not even a bass drum mic. @39:10 George gets wowed as Ron confirms that. Being a non native speaker I thought maybe I got it wrong so I had to ask George and he confirmed to me that yes, they recorded all the drums with just two U87 mics above the kit. Listen to Ron @39:22 saying about John Bonham that "he mixed himself". No more flattering comment for a drummer playing than that.

So from one hand of course I am as wowed as George (though I have less than a fraction of his talent and experience) about it to the point that I had to listen to that stuff once again trying to believe this fact. And on the other hand is the revise of things such facts cause. Music business has led things to overpolished productions after these masterpieces of the 70s and though the ridiculous endless reverbs of the 80s might have become a thing of the past, the trend of overproducing things to make them inhumanely perfect is still around.

Have we gained artistic wise out of this perfection? Especially as long as that "perfect" is a computer's work and not a human trying to, I have my doubts. This reminds me of another Led Zeppelin fact: Years ago Dave Grohl recorded in studio with John Paul Jones . At the end of some takes, starstruck as he was (no surprise with a legend like JPJ) he says "John I am afraid I hit a couple of bad frets". To his surprise JPJ said "no it's fine". So that triggered a chat about how Led Zep approached their recordings in a not so strict and tight manner as many people would think considering the legends they were.

I am not here to say which is the right way to record or do things in general as a band or solo musician. Every piece of art requires a matching approach that serves it instead of masking it. But it's a valuable lesson to learn that a masterpiece like the one Ron Nevison worked on required just a legendary drummer and two mics. So instead of spending time browsing for the best equipment or editing a bad take, makes sense to evolve your playing and most importantly your ideas. The greater your inspiration is the less you'll have to focus fixing details later. A long trip might widen your inspiration to a point that it might become a better investment than a better audio interface. Though obviously it's nice to have competent gear of course.

Most importantly, enjoy playing - it doesn't sound as nice when you don't 🙂