A Bazillion Tracks Part Deux

[Jon Nolan]

i've still been thinking about this a bunch. I usually figure out my own feelings about something while conversing about it, but since I'd likely bore my non-audio friends to death....

agree or disgree, or what?:

1. The limitless track count in the DAW realm hurts more than it helps.

2. It makes it harder for bands and songwriters to see if they've actually got a good song on their hands.

3. If you can't get it done with 24 tracks - whether it's straight 24 trax of single instruments/sounrces per track, or some pre-mixed bounces - then NINE out of TEN times, you're likely polishing a turd.

4. You usually get better results if you commit to some sounds as you go, instead of leaving a million options for later in the process.

5. embracing track count limitations would be artistically "healthier" for songwriters.

6. commiting to sounds, and getting good at it would make for a better, more confident and capable engineer with a sonic personality of their own.

7. These things would make for "healthier" artistic output all around.

[CurtZHP]

1. Bear in mind that "limitless" track counts are only theoretically limitless. There are always limits on track count based on what the computer has under the hood, how many plugins are in use, etc.

2. I can see where a band of amateurs might see the ability to add track after track after track as a way to make a song into something it's not.

3. "24 tracks" is just an arbitrary number. Why not say, "If you can't get it done in 8 tracks....?" Why not say, "If you can't play it live to a two-track and have it sound awesome....?" You get it done with as many tracks as you need. You use what you want, as long as it serves the music.

4. I would say in some cases you should commit to sounds before you even show up in the studio. You commit to what serves the song, not the technology at your disposal to capture that song.

5. Again, track count is irrelevant as long as what is on those tracks serves the music.

6. Like I said in #4.

7. They could.

[Jon Nolan]

thanks for responding Curt!

i'm just trying to get some back and forth going with this. i'm not trying to insist anything to anyone. i'm just trying to carve out some philosophical guidelines for myself. hopefully others will find any discussion helpful.

1. Bear in mind that "limitless" track counts are only theoretically limitless. There are always limits on track count based on what the computer has under the hood, how many plugins are in use, etc.

of course, of course....but we all get what i'm getting at.

3. "24 tracks" is just an arbitrary number.

i chose 24 because that seemed to be the most widely used "professional" 2" tape machine, at the end of tape's "prime," and certainly now too.

one could argue that the majority of popular music was recorded to 24 track (or less) machines, prior to the introduction of digital recording technology.

Why not say, "If you can't get it done in 8 tracks....?" Why not say, "If you can't play it live to a two-track and have it sound awesome....?"

How about, if it isn't a good song on one instrument then it isn't a good song? the extra tracks, I think, DO allow for making a good song great, or an amazing song spine-tingling.

But, I'm wondering about the point of diminishing returns.

You get it done with as many tracks as you need. You use what you want, as long as it serves the music.

Right. That's the ideal. But, how many tracks does the rock band I just recorded need? How many mics do I need? How many preamp/compressor/eq flavors do I need?

Is it *maybe* a better "tool" to say, "We've got 24 tracks" or 32 or whatever - but thats it.



i love talking about this stuff.

[The Scum]

how many tracks does the rock band I just recorded need?

In about 15 years of live sound and recording, I've found that if a rock mix isn't gelling with 12 faders up, something isn't right.

(An I guess I'm speaking in an analog context, where 1 tape track = 1 fader...though I've found the same to apply ITB, as well)

Granted, they aren't always the first 12 faders I try, and not every tune is carried by the same set of 12...but for me, the core of it should come together with 12. That also doesn't mean there won't be another 12 (or more) used to help enhance and smooth things out.

[percussion boy]

How about this -- track count and writing in the studio are two separate issues.

If the songwriter HAS A COMPLETE SONG going in -- whether it's demo'd already or they can just sit down in the studio and sing and play it on guitar or keys -- then endless tracks can be helpful for finding the best way to dress the song up, especially if you don't have a lot of musicians playing at once on a track a la PET SOUNDS, Motown, and all that other big-sound-few-tracks stuff. A lot of tracks help when it's one or two people building up layers (e.g., bg vox) to get a certain sound.


If the songwriter DOESN'T have the song ready when entering the studio, then a bazillion tracks could be hell on earth . . . or a vast financial jackpot for the engineer . . .

[CurtZHP]

Case in point, I just finished mixing a song that had 23 recorded tracks in the DAW. By the time we re-recorded the drums, decided which guitar tracks sounded best, and whether or not to add more cowbell, the final mix ended up being only 10 tracks. Was that crazy? No, it was necessary to find out what served the music. The song sounded just as compelling on a single acoustic guitar, but that's not what we ultimately wanted.

Other real world examples:
Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" was recorded on 16 tracks.
"Sweet Dreams" by the Eurythmics was done on 8 tracks.
Most "classics" we refer to when discussing great recordings were done with far less.

Then again, one of the big reasons I got rid of my 8-track was that I got tired of running out of tracks!

[jessejamietig]

I agree with Jon for the most part. DAW's have kind of made people lazy in a way.
People who have grown up only using computers to record aren't forced to make decisions. You can record a bunch of stuff and then go back later and put it together, which in my opinion doesn't usually help the song.

If you make a decision at the time of tracking, your mixing process will go much more smoothly.

[JGriffin]

Er, threads like this generally smack of DAW-bashing and turn into analog v. digital flame wars. Hopefully that won't be the case here.

[kingtoad]

I think one of the best things about (almost) unlimited track count is the ability to more easily use different guitar sounds for the verse/chorus/middle 8th and things like that, without having to do any automation.

[lyman]

Those are great questions, Jon. I'll preface this by saying that I don't run a studio, so other people who have been seeing bands/artists coming through their doors day in, day out might have more insight into how DAWs have changed the game. Especially those who have experience recording on both tape/digital platforms.

Anyway, I think it all depends on the what you're trying to create in terms of style, genre, etc. If it's a rootsy/traditional band who suddenly has 100's of tracks available, it might be distracting from what they're trying to accomplish artistically. Often the limitations are what shaped the end result. But if it's somebody trying to create something more experimental, it can be liberating to be able to have such a wide canvas to paint on.

So with that in mind, I think it's not a question of "is this equipment good or bad" but rather "is how I'm using this equipment appropriate for what I want to do." Make good choices, and if you can't, bring in somebody who will. I think it comes down to having a vision of what you want to create - otherwise you're just flailing about and that's when having too many options can get overwhelming.

[Jon Nolan]

Er, threads like this generally smack of DAW-bashing and turn into analog v. digital flame wars. Hopefully that won't be the case here.

lord, i know. PLEASE don't let this thread turn into that! I'm REALLY not trying to argue that kind of thing.

[Jon Nolan]

FWIW.....

I have a DAW, and I'm not trying to argue for tape.

I *love* that I can easily drop in a few bars from one take into the middle of another, otherwise perfect take in about two seconds.

I love that I can tune a coupla bum vocal notes, or nudge a coupla dropped kicks, bass notes, everybody-didn't-hit-the-last-note-at-the-same-time with ease.

I love that I can get all crazy automating effects! soundtoys rule.

My UAD card is a super fantastic value.

I love that I can write songs on my DAW, and puke out a whole bunch of stuff and then push it around and see what I have thats good.

I love that when I accidentally erase the magic take, that 99 times out of 100, I can get it back.

I love that I don't have to pay $200+ for 15/30 minutes of recording medium.

the DAW has changed recording for the better in MANY ways.

[Jon Nolan]

i was at a friends studio recently. he was playing back some tracks on a cool project he had done. he had three mics on one guitar cab because it sounded better than any one of the single mics.

i agreed. it was cooler. maybe even better than EQ'ing one or two mics or whatever.

But while tracking, wasn't there a time when he brought up those three faders and thought "yeah! there it is!" and if so, why wouldn't one print THAT?

Don't get me wrong, I usually print the three separate tracks too, but why leave all balancing for later? If it was cool enough that I think "these three mics sound better than one" then why leave the balancing of those mic tones be left for later?

how about:
if you hear the sound and you dig it, print the one track!

if you hear it, and you *think* you can get it to where you want it, then get it there and print it.

if you think you can get it there *later* with some tweaking, but you can't right now, do you REALLY have something cool?

combine that with a bunch of different options on bass, drums, vocals, whatever, and I wonder if there isn't a real amount of emotional and artistic energy being wasted on options galore.

THAT is the somewhat ambiguous thing I'm trying to get at. the emotional energy thing.

**I'm at pains to remind people that *I* am trying to figure out what *I* think - I'm trying to figure out how I want to record, what I believe in, so I can be the best studio "artist" I can. hope that doesn't sound pretentious **

[CurtZHP]

There are advantages to being able to put off some decisions until the mixing stage, being able to simply dump things in the hopper and think about it later. There's no interruption in the creative flow of ideas.

"Dude, whatdya think of this?" (Smacks guitar with a rubber chicken)

"Yeah, great! Let's record it!"

(During the mixing phase...)
"Umm, maybe that's not what we really had in mind."

(Deletes track)



On the other hand.....
What drives me nuts is what happens during the mixing phase with people putting seemingly endless plug-ins on everything. By the time you've got 24 tracks going, do you think you'll really hear the difference between one tube compressor emulator over another on that track labeled "Drummer's throne - bottom?"

[Jon Nolan]

thinking about it further...

put the idea of track limitations aside for a moment. maybe it was just a starting point of an idea.

i've been reading the "three dimensional mixes?" thread, which is excellent. there is some pretty advanced stuff in those M/S links too.

there isn't any doubt in *my* mind, that the digital platform allows for a lot of the worthy techniques explored in that thread, to exist and thrive - even if they did exist in theanalog age. Certainly the bit where joel talks about using a few different performances in his "mutant M/S" mixing thing would probably be harder in analog. i dont know though. im not so advanced!

but for guys whose work and opinions i respect, like the professor, garges, joel, russian rec mike, and mark allen miller whose threads about M/S mixing are linked - i wonder if the habits, artistic discipline, and tools for beating the bushes for inspiration and new techniques were honed prior to the digital age?

it seems even the effing around has purpose, and that they've honed mechanisms for expanding upon techniques, and their experience has given them artistsic discipline - to say nothing of the budgets of the acts they are recording

but, doesn't limitation inspire ingenuity? are we losing one of the best mechanisms for developing skills like those fellers have, in the infinite possibility?

does it harder for new AE's - and because of the home recording boom, MUSICIANS - to get good, because, where and when do you have to stop and take stock?

it's like world of warcraft vs. halo.

ps - i can smoke any of you bee-yatches at atari baseball. even now. sucka mc's need not apply.