100+ tracks for one song

Recording Techniques, People Skills, Gear, Recording Spaces, Computers, and DIY

Moderators: drumsound, tomb

RefD
on a wing and a prayer
Posts: 5993
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 9:10 pm

Post by RefD » Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:36 pm

Professor wrote:Trying to say that someone who uses more tracks than you do is a bad musician is really close to saying that the mechanic who owns a full set of standard AND!?!? metric socket wrenches is somehow inferior in his creative capacity and ability to overcome adverse situations with ingenious solutions...So limit yourself at 16 if you want... or 160.
i never said that, tho.

i limit myself to 16 or 24 tracks in an effort to keep myself from going overboard and making a mess of things, not to mention minimising option anxiety at the mix stage.
Professor wrote:Nobody else is really going to care about how many tracks you did or didn't use.
no kidding.
Professor wrote:The finished product is has to sell on its own entertainment value alone.
again, no kidding.
?What need is there to weep over parts of life? The whole of it calls for tears.? -- Seneca

RefD
on a wing and a prayer
Posts: 5993
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 9:10 pm

Post by RefD » Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:42 pm

Anthony Caruso wrote:And to preemptively respond to the inevitable "You don't need that many vocals if it's good,", two words: Freddie Mercury.
i think he was using the studio as an arranging and compositional tool as much as a medium, tho, as large amounts of the vocal tracks he put down never made it to the final mix.

but i have to agree, he was pretty amazing as a singer and a writer.
?What need is there to weep over parts of life? The whole of it calls for tears.? -- Seneca

drumsound
zen recordist
Posts: 7474
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Bloomington IL
Contact:

Post by drumsound » Sun Jun 15, 2008 8:40 pm

Randy wrote:
mjau wrote:
drumsound wrote:Maybe I should just break down and buy a DAW...
If so, we'll gather in Bloomington and have an intervention.
I'll bring my two desktop Macs. Neither of them work fully. I'll turn them on and we can watch the session disintegrate while the software crashes. That'll cure ya!
That's a big part of the reason I don't really wan to have a computer in the control room. They see to be quite the rabbit hole for my tiny little rock-n-roll mind.

stereopathetic_banjo
steve albini likes it
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 10:51 am
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Post by stereopathetic_banjo » Sun Jun 15, 2008 8:49 pm

All I can say is... when the time comes to bring you a reel of 2" to mix, there had better not be a computer screen staring me in the face... :wink:

drumsound
zen recordist
Posts: 7474
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Bloomington IL
Contact:

Post by drumsound » Sun Jun 15, 2008 8:55 pm

stereopathetic_banjo wrote:All I can say is... when the time comes to bring you a reel of 2" to mix, there had better not be a computer screen staring me in the face... :wink:
Just the console automation monitor man!

And it's off to the side.

:D

percussion boy
carpal tunnel
Posts: 1512
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 5:51 pm
Location: Bay Area

Post by percussion boy » Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:31 pm

Anthony Caruso wrote:It's just easier to put all of your verse vocals on tracks seperate from chorus (or "hook" as they) vocals and bridge vocals, ad libs, etc. .
Ah . . . different set of vocal tracks for each section of the song. That would explain some of the high track counts, okay.

----
The Professor seems to be taking this discussion a little personally. We promise no one will take his triple-tracked sousaphones away. :wink:


[edited to add sacharine emoticon]
Last edited by percussion boy on Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The world don't need no more songs." - Bob Dylan

"Why does the Creator send me such knuckleheads?" - Sun Ra
.
.
.
.

themagicmanmdt
george martin
Posts: 1347
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: home on the range

Post by themagicmanmdt » Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:54 pm

My chiming in on what my head rattled around says:

I love you, prof, but the analogy to a recording engineer (which is, in reality, an artist) to a mechanic (which has a set way on which he must operate) isn't a fair one. I know what you're saying, though! It's all a tool; make it sound good, who cares what you use or don't use or limit to or don't limit to - whatever method (8 tracks or 200) is the best, use it.

It's all subjective, of course.

There is no absolute.

Agreeing or disagreeing is a waste of time.

There's just personal work ethics.

Myself: Record with as few mics as possible on a given source. That's just the sound that I like. Too many microphones on things makes things sound way too unnatural, in an unnatural way. I like unnatural in a natural way. (Opaque, I know.)

This, in turn, really lowers my overall track count on sessions; so, therefore, 24 tracks is tops that I've ever done. Usually I dig doing 12-16 tracks plus some effects sends to sum to 24. That's a lot of instrumentation to me when drums only take up 4 tracks, guitars 1 or 2 a piece, vocals 1 to 2 for the main and one for each background, etc etc etc.



Last comment: There's still something magical to the 'third sound' - the sound Brian Wilson described as when you've got two or more different instruments in the exact same spot (or bus or tape track) in the mix. That's the stuff that rocks my world. So, I tend to really love tracks that do that. That's why I stick with my DAW as 8 in / 8 out. I'll use more tracks actually *in* the computer, but I always have to condense them to 8 tracks to mix.

It's the benefit of the 'sound' of bouncing down, without having to commit to the 'process' of bouncing down.

That's my thing.

And that's subjective, too.

I heart huckabees.
we are the village green
preservation society
god bless +6 tape
valves and serviceability

*chief tech and R&D shaman at shadow hills industries*

rwc
resurrected
Posts: 2333
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 8:21 pm
Location: Bed Stuy, Brooklyn

Post by rwc » Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:57 pm

Are we adding tracks to efficiently and sensibly move closer to a positive portrayal of the artist's vision? Or are we adding tracks to contribute to a clusterfuck we hope to "clean up" later, that will most likely be redone at a time when the producer/bassist/vocal coach/rapper isn't stoned/drunk/overdosing?

This is a question I often ask myself before putting my foot down to end a retarded session.
Real friends stab you in the front.

Oscar Wilde

Failed audio engineer & pro studio tech turned Component level motherboard repair store in New York

User avatar
JGriffin
zen recordist
Posts: 6739
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:44 pm
Location: criticizing globally, offending locally
Contact:

Post by JGriffin » Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:33 pm

RedCrownStudios wrote: If there is one downside to digital recording it is the availability of tons of hard drive space for cheap and more tracks than you really need.

Sometimes I wish for the old days of 24 track limitations, if anything, just to say, "do we really need that in the mix?"

Er, yeah, the "good old days" when an album was 60 reels of 2" tape because the artist recorded umpteen million takes of every song, and you had two and three 24-tracks synced together (sometimes by hand)...yeah, in the old days they really embraced those limitations. :wink:
"Jeweller, you've failed. Jeweller."

"Lots of people are nostalgic for analog. I suspect they're people who never had to work with it." ? Brian Eno

All the DWLB music is at http://dwlb.bandcamp.com/

User avatar
jmiller
steve albini likes it
Posts: 396
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 12:53 am
Location: North Hollywood, on Radford near the In-N-Out

Post by jmiller » Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:11 am

Whoah, hey. I thought there were no rules? We're not allowed to use too many tracks now? Who gets to be the judge? All the wise recording engineers looking out for the best interest of the listener? Thanks for the protection.

User avatar
centurymantra
buyin' a studio
Posts: 916
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by centurymantra » Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:07 am

Over on Gearslutz, I remember reading a thread in which someone was talking about working on an Enya record. Apparently, they would sometimes use, like, 200+ tracks just for the vocals. :crazy:

They would apparently work by mixing 40-50 vocal tracks - all eq'ed/processed in a variety of manners - to a stereo track, do another 40-50, then slap 'em down to another stereo mix and repeat ad nauseum. A point was made that they weren't just copying tracks but, rather, having Ms. Enya actually sing and re-sing....and re-sing the parts.
__________________

Bryan
Shoeshine Recording Studio
"Pop music is sterile, country music is sterile. That's one of the reasons I keep going back to baseball" - Doug Sahm

mjau
speech impediment
Posts: 4023
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 7:33 pm
Location: Orlando
Contact:

Post by mjau » Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:54 am

centurymantra wrote:Over on Gearslutz, I remember reading a thread in which someone was talking about working on an Enya record. Apparently, they would sometimes use, like, 200+ tracks just for the vocals. :crazy:
I do that, too. Me, my 200 vocal tracks, and an acoustic guitar. It's the geometric evolution of Elliot Smith.
:D

User avatar
Jay Reynolds
carpal tunnel
Posts: 1607
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:48 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC
Contact:

Post by Jay Reynolds » Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:05 am

themagicmanmdt wrote:I love you, prof, but the analogy to a recording engineer (which is, in reality, an artist) to a mechanic (which has a set way on which he must operate) isn't a fair one.
Robert Pirsig makes a pretty good argument in favor of the "mechanic-as-artist" in Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
Prog out with your cog out.

User avatar
Nick Sevilla
on a wing and a prayer
Posts: 5555
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:34 pm
Location: Lake Arrowhead California USA
Contact:

Post by Nick Sevilla » Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:45 am

centurymantra wrote:Over on Gearslutz, I remember reading a thread in which someone was talking about working on an Enya record. Apparently, they would sometimes use, like, 200+ tracks just for the vocals. :crazy:

They would apparently work by mixing 40-50 vocal tracks - all eq'ed/processed in a variety of manners - to a stereo track, do another 40-50, then slap 'em down to another stereo mix and repeat ad nauseum. A point was made that they weren't just copying tracks but, rather, having Ms. Enya actually sing and re-sing....and re-sing the parts.
But when you hear the track... can anyone "really" tell how many vocals were used? It's a shmear of reverb-drenched BeeGees that cannot be discerned, or defined.

it ends up being like when you mix too many colors on a canvas...
Howling at the neighbors. Hoping they have more mic cables.

MoreSpaceEcho
zen recordist
Posts: 6671
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:15 am

Post by MoreSpaceEcho » Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:31 am

noeqplease wrote:But when you hear the track... can anyone "really" tell how many vocals were used? It's a shmear of reverb-drenched BeeGees that cannot be discerned, or defined.
well, yeah. but maybe that's how they wanted it to sound.

i mean, do you like the way def leppard's "hysteria" sounds? me neither, but the band was PSYCHED. who are we to say what's acceptable and what isn't?

here's the most tracks i've ever piled together. track 2, second chorus. like 36-40 tracks of vocals. i think it sounds good and while it was a ton of work for both me and my singer, it was fun to do. i had an idea and the time and means to achieve it. why the hell not?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests