100+ tracks for one song

[;ivlunsdystf]

I read an interview somewhere with Broken Social Scene and they said they used 100+ tracks on some of their songs.

But that's only 2 tracks per member of the band.

har

[rwc]

There's a gearslutz thread going asking if people use more than 128 tracks -- to record songs (i.e., not a movie situation where you've got music, dialogue, and foley to deal with). There have been multiple responses from people who at least break the three figure barrier.

The thread cites some reasons why, e.g., stacking bg vox using one singer, building up a sampled orchestra with one keyboard player, etc..

Still . . . 100+ tracks? Can anyone hear the difference? Don't all the little tracks quarrel with each another?

Please explain, I feel old and stupid.

This has an easy explanation : Dumb Insecure musicians that throw everything AND the kitchen sink to a crap song, in the hopes it will somehow become "something" other than the steaming poo it really is.

Here's a great litmus test for any song:

Have it played with ONLY one voice and one instrument, like guitar or piano.

If it works there, then it is a good song. No Worky? Throw it out BEFORE spending months trying to get it to work.

Most great artists do this with their producer / band before investing any time on a song that may or may not have potential.

I think the overavailability of plug-ins and "pro-sumer "vintage-like" hardware is only contributing to this mediocrity. As in "ooohh let's try this brand new vintage mic with this new plugin-ificator on it, I'm SURE it will make the song that much better / vibeier / catchier / cooler / a HIT"... not...

Cheers

This sounds so un tape-op, but is so true.

If I'm given two guitar parts to balance, fine. If I get 70+ tracks of bullshit parts that I have to weed through like a swamp until it sounds like a song, I am so quoting 3x my regular rate for the project, with no feeling of guilt.

I recently recorded this stuff for a well known vocal coach. I didn't finish in time for my next session, because he was too stoned. He spent the three hours I spent with my other session getting stoned, and the proceeding five hours to 4 AM, which I charged him for, getting stoned as we recorded new parts for this, approximately 1:37 long segment over a loop I made of his partner's song.

He kept adding these parts that made NO FUCKING SENSE whatsoever. And when one wouldn't work, he'd add another one.. like a voice saying hello at a weird time, then another one saying hello in a high voice, and ask me to "make an effect, I dunno, do what you engineers do! it'll work!"

the best part is how the lead vocal was him before being stoned, so you had a basis of comparison.

I wound up with like 175 tracks of garbage answering each other and doing all sorts of weird shit.

Holy crap! I love Garbage! I'd record Shirley Manson 24/7 for free...has anyone seen her?

btw, check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJwFoXdNklg

shirley manson looks thin, pale, and uninspiring in that video. no thanks.

[nordberg]

i recorded a psych rock band last year that had about 110 tracks on one song. i was a major pain in the ass and ended up sounding like a muddy piece of shit. (they insisted everything needed to be there. six tracks of main vocals (the singer couldn't hit some of the notes in his own song and decided that six takes would give it chorus effect and make it sound more powerful. then throw in the two guitar parts tripled. bass, two organs, drums, maybe 16 tracks of 'gang vocals' shakers, tambourine, bongos, conga, gong, djembe, rain stick, tripled harmonized guitar solo, vocoder, harmonies...you get the idea.
interestingly enough i just did another song with this band with just one guitars drums bass one organ and a double tracked vocal. after i gave them the mix (i think they intended to record more on this song at a later date) the singer said 'wow that hits really hard! if only we knew what we know now last year... when can i finish my guitar overdubs?' i didn't know whether to wring his neck or happily take his money. i'm gonna take the money.

[centurymantra]

i recorded a psych rock band last year that had about 110 tracks on one song. i was a major pain in the ass and ended up sounding like a muddy piece of shit. (they insisted everything needed to be there. six tracks of main vocals (the singer couldn't hit some of the notes in his own song and decided that six takes would give it chorus effect and make it sound more powerful. then throw in the two guitar parts tripled. bass, two organs, drums, maybe 16 tracks of 'gang vocals' shakers, tambourine, bongos, conga, gong, djembe, rain stick, tripled harmonized guitar solo, vocoder, harmonies...you get the idea.
interestingly enough i just did another song with this band with just one guitars drums bass one organ and a double tracked vocal. after i gave them the mix (i think they intended to record more on this song at a later date) the singer said 'wow that hits really hard! if only we knew what we know now last year... when can i finish my guitar overdubs?' i didn't know whether to wring his neck or happily take his money. i'm gonna take the money.

I've always found that more than three tracks of rain stick turns everything into mud.

[MoreSpaceEcho]

dammit, beat me to the rain stick joke!

[trodden]

There's a gearslutz thread going asking if people use more than 128 tracks -- to record songs (i.e., not a movie situation where you've got music, dialogue, and foley to deal with). There have been multiple responses from people who at least break the three figure barrier.

The thread cites some reasons why, e.g., stacking bg vox using one singer, building up a sampled orchestra with one keyboard player, etc..

Still . . . 100+ tracks? Can anyone hear the difference? Don't all the little tracks quarrel with each another?

Please explain, I feel old and stupid.

This has an easy explanation : Dumb Insecure musicians that throw everything AND the kitchen sink to a crap song, in the hopes it will somehow become "something" other than the steaming poo it really is.

Here's a great litmus test for any song:

Have it played with ONLY one voice and one instrument, like guitar or piano.

If it works there, then it is a good song. No Worky? Throw it out BEFORE spending months trying to get it to work.

Most great artists do this with their producer / band before investing any time on a song that may or may not have potential.

I think the overavailability of plug-ins and "pro-sumer "vintage-like" hardware is only contributing to this mediocrity. As in "ooohh let's try this brand new vintage mic with this new plugin-ificator on it, I'm SURE it will make the song that much better / vibeier / catchier / cooler / a HIT"... not...

Cheers

This sounds so un tape-op, but is so true.

If I'm given two guitar parts to balance, fine. If I get 70+ tracks of bullshit parts that I have to weed through like a swamp until it sounds like a song, I am so quoting 3x my regular rate for the project, with no feeling of guilt.

I recently recorded this stuff for a well known vocal coach. I didn't finish in time for my next session, because he was too stoned. He spent the three hours I spent with my other session getting stoned, and the proceeding five hours to 4 AM, which I charged him for, getting stoned as we recorded new parts for this, approximately 1:37 long segment over a loop I made of his partner's song.

He kept adding these parts that made NO FUCKING SENSE whatsoever. And when one wouldn't work, he'd add another one.. like a voice saying hello at a weird time, then another one saying hello in a high voice, and ask me to "make an effect, I dunno, do what you engineers do! it'll work!"

the best part is how the lead vocal was him before being stoned, so you had a basis of comparison.

I wound up with like 175 tracks of garbage answering each other and doing all sorts of weird shit.

Holy crap! I love Garbage! I'd record Shirley Manson 24/7 for free...has anyone seen her?

btw, check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJwFoXdNklg

shirley manson looks thin, pale, and uninspiring in that video. no thanks.

oh! yes please!!!

[trodden]

There's a gearslutz thread going asking if people use more than 128 tracks -- to record songs (i.e., not a movie situation where you've got music, dialogue, and foley to deal with). There have been multiple responses from people who at least break the three figure barrier.

The thread cites some reasons why, e.g., stacking bg vox using one singer, building up a sampled orchestra with one keyboard player, etc..

Still . . . 100+ tracks? Can anyone hear the difference? Don't all the little tracks quarrel with each another?

Please explain, I feel old and stupid.

This has an easy explanation : Dumb Insecure musicians that throw everything AND the kitchen sink to a crap song, in the hopes it will somehow become "something" other than the steaming poo it really is.

Here's a great litmus test for any song:

Have it played with ONLY one voice and one instrument, like guitar or piano.

If it works there, then it is a good song. No Worky? Throw it out BEFORE spending months trying to get it to work.

Most great artists do this with their producer / band before investing any time on a song that may or may not have potential.

I think the overavailability of plug-ins and "pro-sumer "vintage-like" hardware is only contributing to this mediocrity. As in "ooohh let's try this brand new vintage mic with this new plugin-ificator on it, I'm SURE it will make the song that much better / vibeier / catchier / cooler / a HIT"... not...

Cheers

This sounds so un tape-op, but is so true.

If I'm given two guitar parts to balance, fine. If I get 70+ tracks of bullshit parts that I have to weed through like a swamp until it sounds like a song, I am so quoting 3x my regular rate for the project, with no feeling of guilt.

I recently recorded this stuff for a well known vocal coach. I didn't finish in time for my next session, because he was too stoned. He spent the three hours I spent with my other session getting stoned, and the proceeding five hours to 4 AM, which I charged him for, getting stoned as we recorded new parts for this, approximately 1:37 long segment over a loop I made of his partner's song.

He kept adding these parts that made NO FUCKING SENSE whatsoever. And when one wouldn't work, he'd add another one.. like a voice saying hello at a weird time, then another one saying hello in a high voice, and ask me to "make an effect, I dunno, do what you engineers do! it'll work!"

the best part is how the lead vocal was him before being stoned, so you had a basis of comparison.

I wound up with like 175 tracks of garbage answering each other and doing all sorts of weird shit.

Holy crap! I love Garbage! I'd record Shirley Manson 24/7 for free...has anyone seen her?

btw, check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJwFoXdNklg

shirley manson looks thin, pale, and uninspiring in that video. no thanks.

oh! yes please!!!

woah, wait, that's weird, its all edited and stuff... the real video is great. just reminds of "old times.." i guess.., and being a garbage/shirley fan..

[trodden]

I usually end up using all 32 tracks available with PTLE 5.2.1. I mix out of the board back into the track's session.. so 2-6 tracks are multiple final mixes/passes.

I would use more if I could.. but it has taught me some cool things about thinking ahead and consolidation, as well as getting it right from the start.. but seems everytime I could have used a half dozen more to make things a little smoother in the building process.

[nordberg]

trodden-i wish i had those sorts of limitations. most people seem to think digital 'engineering' equates to magicianship (it does but THEY don't have to know that) embrace your limitations! i sure wish i had them. maybe a DAW can offer some sort of downgrade which will limit it's use to 24 tracks.

[rwc]

maybe a DAW can offer some sort of downgrade which will limit it's use to 24 tracks.

competent engineers don't need limitations. they use common sense, discipline and deductive reasoning.

it's really not hard. the 8088 console mic pres(31102 I think) could be blasted and clip beautifully, with stupid amounts of gain, but people didn't record with them turned up all the way all the time..

what is wrong with setting your own restrictions, when you see fit, and removing them when you see fit?

[joel hamilton]

maybe a DAW can offer some sort of downgrade which will limit it's use to 24 tracks.

competent engineers don't need limitations. they use common sense, discipline and deductive reasoning.

it's really not hard. the 8088 console mic pres(31102 I think) could be blasted and clip beautifully, with stupid amounts of gain, but people didn't record with them turned up all the way all the time..

what is wrong with setting your own restrictions, when you see fit, and removing them when you see fit?

Exactly.
There are lots of colors to choose from when painting... almost an infinite amount, and yet you dont see many paintings where ALL of them are used, because the painter just couldnt limit themselves...

How about analog faders? They are infinitely variable, so how on earth would we ever figure out where to put them? Same with analog EQ... you have an infinite number of knob positions, so how the heck could you possibly decide on just ONE o them!?!?

You use your experience, and YOU make the decision. The idea that less roads would somehow help us get to our destination is ridiculous. I am tired of this notion that the more options you have, the more your record will suck, or something to that effect.
Get over it.
Make a decision.
move on.

[RefD]

what is wrong with setting your own restrictions, when you see fit, and removing them when you see fit?

exactly the point i tried (and apparently failed) to make earlier.

[nordberg]

what is wrong with setting your own restrictions, when you see fit, and removing them when you see fit?

oh i agree with you. i was mostly kidding...i just sometimes wish a band would commit to something instead of waiting till mixing to have me sort through or comp or whatever. nine times out of ten it would be better and take less time to just retrack right off the bat.

[audiogeek1]

Most of the time I have dealt with 100+ track sessions is when people are using synths or sampled sounds. Everything comes to you in stereo. If I made everything stereo it would not mix well. So I usually end up stripping things down. Most of the time to 60 or so tracks so that I can pan things in the stereo field.

Mike