How Do You Build a Multitracked Song?

[Anderton]

I'm doing another cover of a Marky song, and doing these covers has caused me to do a different type of recording that's a little more "cumulative" than my normal procedure...which got me wondering about how the SSS denizens construct their multitrack songs. Anyway, he's what I've been doing with the covers.

The song is already done, so there's no "writing in the studio." But, there is the question of coming up with a new arrangement. So what I do is load his original track into the DAW, and line up the tempo for starters.

First up is a new guitar part, because he has a much higher range so I have to work in a different key. Then I laid down drums for a rhythmic reference, and cut a vocal because AFAIC laying down tracks without a scratch vocal makes no sense.

But, I decided to arrange it into more of a dance tune as it makes no sense to do a cover that's simply an inferior version of the original So, off came the drum part, and I replaced with with a more dancey vibe. Then I added a more loping kind of bass line compared to the original.

At that point, the guitar part made no sense any more so I wiped that. But then I made some chord substitutions in the new part, so that meant re-doing some of the bass. Then I wanted a more fluid vocal part so it matched the other parts better and I re-cut that.

This is an interesting way to record, because in a sense, I already had the finished product and worked backward to create the tracks. I've now started to apply this approach to my own songs in the sense of getting down a "finished" guitar + vocal or piano + vocal song, basically arranged like a folk song, then going back and creating the underpinnings.

I dunno, this may be boring but I thought it was kind of interesting as I normally don't work this way. How do you build songs?

[MrKnobs]

Originally Posted by Anderton

I dunno, this may be boring but I thought it was kind of interesting as I normally don't work this way. How do you build songs?

I mostly do it much like you just described, because that's the only way I CAN do it in my situation.

In our case, the song is "finished" in the sense that we've played it to death live and it has evolved greatly. But the players we play with live (drums, bass, keyboards, harmony vocalists, sometimes horns) vary drastically from show to show as in Austin there is the "songwriter team" and the "mercenary hordes." We have a list of more than 20 drummers and 6 bassists we have to call as soon as a show is booked in the hope we can find one who's free.

An interesting side effect of this terrible process is that we get to hear a lot of other players' takes on our songs. As excruciating as that is, and as unpleasant as that often is, it does cause the song to develop as we're not above telling a hired bassist (for example) that we want a walking bass line on the prechorus of a song (for example) because some other bassist who sat in with us did that and we liked it.

Now when it comes time to record, we have our pick of ANY of the the sidemen mercenaries we've played with and pretty much even guys and girls who would NEVER play with us live. This is because (a) we can pay more for a recording, (b) it can be any time and day to fit their schedule, and © they might have political reasons to not play with us live.

It might seem uncool to not use the guys who were in the trenches with us, but keep in mind that's part of their decision when they chose to be a mercenary instead of a band member. And it's not as if they've ever minded being replaced on the albums either. They're each in a dozen bands and they're really just trying to make a living.

So we cut the initial tracks with just the best drummer and bassist we can hire, one rhythm guitar, and a scratch vocal. We generally have the arrangement worked out and we let our "three piece" go as long as needed to get a solid groove between the three of us. This can take quite a while, and if it's not working on a particular song I just table that one and move on to the next.

Unlike Craig's situation, we already know what key works best for Julie so that's set from our live shows.

After we have about four or five songs basic with basic tracks, we bring in the keyboard guy (who knows more music theory and has more ideas than the rest of us all put together) cuts a few of his takes on each song. I'll mute my guitar track if it clashes with his idea, or sometimes play along with him. He's already done his homework as I've emailed him mixes with and without guitar, and even without bass.

This process continues as we add more parts, with the previous players coming back to change parts as needed with better ideas are found. We'll even start a song completely over if we feel it's warranted, or get the drummer to redo his part over the click if he or we feel it would add substantially to the groove.

I think Craig's "like a folk song" process describes exactly how we do it too. Sometimes our process even starts with click (or simple drum loop), acoustic guitar, and voice.

Terry D.

[Anderton]

Thanks, Terry. That's very interesting

[nat whilk II]

Originally Posted by Anderton

The song is already done, so there's no "writing in the studio." But, there is the question of coming up with a new arrangement. So what I do is load his original track into the DAW, and line up the tempo for starters.


This is an interesting way to record, because in a sense, I already had the finished product and worked backward to create the tracks. I've now started to apply this approach to my own songs in the sense of getting down a "finished" guitar + vocal or piano + vocal song, basically arranged like a folk song, then going back and creating the underpinnings.

Sometimes, when my muse is mad and not talking to me, I'll load someone's track in Sonar, and line up the tempo same way. But then instead of creating a cover, I'll go the other direction and make a new song of my own by replacing the original parts, remixing, chopping up and rearranging - whatever seems to work, since all aspects of the tune are up for editing/replacing grabs from tempo to chords to melody, parts, instrumentation, etc etc.

This method usually mixes as it progresses, which is nice for me because I enjoy song creation far more than the tedious jigsaw puzzle work that multitracking and mixing entails.

This doesn't always work - if I don't catch a vision of a truly different song, then I'll drop it. But even then, I usually learn something in the process - some chord progression or beat or instrumental mix that I'll keep in mind to use later sometime.

It can be really fun to load up something like a Debussy orchestral thing with a mind to creating an R&B tune or electronic IDM production when the dust clears.

nat whilk ii

[UstadKhanAli]

I feel like I've built them just about every way, from recording the vocal a capella to building things from the rhythm track and then piling everything else on to recording a keyboard or a guitar part and then building the rhythm part afterwards to improvising things and then completely deconstructing it and then rebuilding it. It's interesting because each one has its merits, and songs come out differently from the process.

[rasputin1963]

I like to first create a "dummy" track (one that will be deleted later) of piano, playing the song with lots of feeling and vigor and appropriate tempo shifts. The "feeling" has to come first, no? Then other tracks get synched to that dummy.

[Ernest Buckley]

 

Originally Posted by Anderton

How do you build songs?

 

Just about every song starts in REASON. I get the arrangement done in REASON and then record the bass and piano, etc... then I use REWIRE and get DP and REASON to work together. In DP, I usually put down a rough vocal, then record guitars and then go back and work on the lead vocal. BKG vocals are usually last. I`ve been working this way for a good 6-7 years now whereas before I used to record an acoustic and vocal, then work around that.

[techristian]

I do a bass line first. Then drums on top. Usually at this point a vocal may come to me. So next a scratch vocal. Then some chording and filling in the gaps between the vocals. Then I may redo the drums with the feel of the vocals in there. Then last but not least, redo the vocals. All of this time I may or may not play with the patches (sounds) this can also spin the song off in a new direction. I usually get the main part (3 or 4 tracks) of the song in 2-3 hours, but later tweaking and changing patches, orchestration and layering etc. can take another 30 hours or so. The most enjoyable part is the first 3 hours for me. This 30 hour process will not be continuous. I may start 5 or 6 songs at the same time. That way ,when I come back to it in a week or so, it sounds fresh again.


Dan

[Philter]

Originally Posted by rasputin1963

I like to first create a "dummy" track (one that will be deleted later) of piano, playing the song with lots of feeling and vigor and appropriate tempo shifts. The "feeling" has to come first, no? Then other tracks get synched to that dummy.

Yeah if you're working with audio files, for all practical purposes you need a tempo guide first. If it's all MIDI and dance music and a set tempo it's not that big a deal, but if it's acoustic and expressive, a mistake at this point pretty much screws you bad down the line. I have one song I'm working on right now where I've been messing with the form and the tempo for months and months, so that I get it right before I lay down the live drums. I think I finally nailed it though and I have the drummer in next week. At this point it's rough piano, guitar and voice all set to a programmed metronome with all the tempo changes. Once the drums are recorded I will treat it like a normal band recording.

How much twisting and reworking there is depends on how the song got written or where it came from. Sometimes I write in the DAW and those songs are a different process (more like what Craig describes) than ones where I sit down at the guitar or piano and write a song through. When I write a song through first I try to treat my own recording like I would any band- start with the tempo guide and build up from the drums. Of course it hardly ever stays that neat or organized, but I try. The other side of the coin is something like that Christmas tune I posted... composed in the box, worked and reworked, morphed all over the place, entire sections dropped, added, whatever. It's like trying to tap dance in molasses.

[Folder]

Well I'm pretty much a one man band these days. I write, arrange and play all the instruments on my compositions. Usually the first thing I do after I write a song is to try to figure out what kind of rhythm tracks it is going to have. This is usually the most difficult and time consuming part for me.

Since I'm not a drummer and don't have any place to record drums anyway I usually use either MIDI loops or Acid loops. I audition loops until I find something that works. I used to program them myself with quantization but I don't do that anymore because I have loop libraries now that were played by real drummers. For the kind of music that I do, the real drummer loops make all the difference in the world.

Sometimes a song will change drastically from how I envisioned it originally.
Here is a song I'm working on (rough mix) that started out as two separate slow piano ballads. I tried the up-tempo beat on the main section and liked it. Then I used a completely different unrelated song to build a bridge section.

http://soundcloud.com/leannswamp/fat-man

Sometimes I can't find any loops that work so I will have to build my own drum tracks from scratch. Sometimes I'll erase certain elements of a loop pattern and paste other elements from different patterns on top of it. Sometimes I will use Acid loops on top of MIDI loops. Sometimes I'll use multiple MIDI loops on top of each other.

Here is a song I'm working on (rough mix) that has the kick drum played by a Nashville drummer, the snare and high-hat played by a rock drummer and the cymbals played by a polka drummer I think.
But I think it sounds like just one real guy playing the drums.

http://soundcloud.com/leannswamp/whale

I used to usually put the bass track down next, but these days I'm more likely to record either the keyboard or guitar (which ever I wrote the song on) because I like to be able to compose the bass line while hearing the chord sequence.(especially on slower songs) . Up tempo rockers I will still sometimes record the bass first because it helps me get the feel when I put down the guitars.

After I get the rhythm section and basic chordal part down I experiment with song arranging. This can take anywhere from a few minutes to a few months for me. This is usually the most enjoyable part. I will try lots of different guitar and keyboard parts. The hard part is deciding what parts to use in the mix. I could literally come up with parts to overdub indefinitely and I almost always have multiple tracks that are muted or deleted.

The last thing I usually do is the guitar solos. In the old days (on tape) I would build the solo from the beginning to the end piece by piece. I still do it that way for the most part, but I also move things in time now. I may put the last phrase at the beginning or move the middle section to end or what ever.

None of my songs are ever really finished. There is always something more that I could have done with them. I just eventually decide to let people hear some of them.

[Mark L]

Interesting thread

When I come to record one of my compositions, I have the completed song already in my head. So it's just a case of recording the drums (I always do the drums first, if there are drums in the song), then the main guitar, bass, keys, other guitar parts. The vocals are last. I don't need to record a guide-vocal, as the vocal melody is in my head as I'm recording the music

If I make a mistake (as long as it's not an obvious howler!), I usually leave it in. My songs are littered with mistakes. I don't care. I'm not perfect, and my imperfections are reflected in my songs. I usually try to record a 'performance', rather than cut and paste the best bits. Actually, I couldn't really cut and paste anyway since I don't use a computer! To be frank, I don't think I could be bothered cutting and pasting. I'd rather get on with it and move on to something else

And when I've finished, I've finished. I don't monkey about tweaking this and {censored}ing about with that. When it's done it's done. Next!

[Folder]

Originally Posted by Anderton

So, off came the drum part, and I replaced with with a more dancey vibe. Then I added a more loping kind of bass line compared to the original.

At that point, the guitar part made no sense any more so I wiped that. But then I made some chord substitutions in the new part, so that meant re-doing some of the bass. Then I wanted a more fluid vocal part so it matched the other parts better and I re-cut that.

This is where it can get really frustrating and I know the feeling.

I've spent countless hours working on songs and then ended up scrapping parts mid project. When you spend a lot of time and hard work on something it's very difficult to come to the realization something needs to be let go or changed.

Sometimes I might have a part that I think is the coolest part of the whole song but it is clashing with something else that I feel is more important. Should I try to rearrange everything else so I can keep the cool part or should I just get rid of it so the more important part shines through?

It takes courage to be able to change course mid project but if you keep an open mind and follow your instincts you can end up with an arrangement that's better than what you initially thought of. I've done it many times.

But then again I've also got countless aborted projects on my hard drive that I've temporarily stopped working on because I can't make them work.

[Ryst]

I'll usually start with (rough) guitar to a click, then (rough) drums, then (rough) bass. One take of each just to hear something "full". At that point I can usually tell where the arrangement is working or not and make the necessary changes. If I started writing the vocal towards the beginning I'll record a rough of that as well.

Then I write/record final drums, final bass, final guitar tracks. final vocal tracks and layers of keys/noise/synths.

These days I try to spend less and less on everything and just follow my gut. My decisions are usually better when i don't over-think things (as with life in general) and besides...{censored} it, it's art. It's not gonna be perfect but I sure as {censored} am gonna be happy.

[mister natural]

 

Originally Posted by Folder

I've spent countless hours working on songs and then ended up scrapping parts mid project. When you spend a lot of time and hard work on something it's very difficult to come to the realization something needs to be let go or changed

 

^TRUE THAT

[UstadKhanAli]

Definitely true what Folder says. We did this ambient, sort of experimental song last year where we realized that all the parts we were using for the song were overdubs, and we were no longer using the original improvisation! We got a good chuckle out of that.

[UstadKhanAli]

The song was sounding good, but we wanted to clean up the mix a little bit, and realized that we had one or two of the tracks from the original improvisation so low that it quite frankly didn't matter, and was only mucking up the mix a little, so we eliminated them, and a little while later realized that we had slowly but surely nixed all the original tracks!!!

[Philter]

I didn't mention this but I often completely abandon a session and start over from scratch. The most common reason for this is mistakes at the metronome level. The second most common reason is gone too far in the wrong direction. For myself I find this move requires a ton of self-discipline, because starting over on the same song is psychologically really hard.

[Anderton]

 

Originally Posted by Philter

I didn't mention this but I often completely abandon a session and start over from scratch. The most common reason for this is mistakes at the metronome level. The second most common reason is gone too far in the wrong direction. For myself I find this move requires a ton of self-discipline, because starting over on the same song is psychologically really hard.

 

This is something I often do when I end up "writing in the studio." I've found that if I re-cut the song, it almost always sounds better because I've become acclimated to the final version of the song, instead of whatever I had in mind when I started.

[Folder]

Originally Posted by Philter

I didn't mention this but I often completely abandon a session and start over from scratch. The most common reason for this is mistakes at the metronome level. The second most common reason is gone too far in the wrong direction. For myself I find this move requires a ton of self-discipline, because starting over on the same song is psychologically really hard.

I've got lots of recordings that I should have abandoned and started over from scratch but I either didn't see the problems at the time I was making them or I had spent so much time and energy on them "going in the wrong direction" that I thought I could somehow fix them if I spent even more time and energy on them.

Some of the worst recordings I've ever done I've spent the most time on. A lot of them are really good songs but for whatever reason they suck. Usually when this happens it has something to do with the overall feel. The parts don't fit together the way I might have envisioned them or I can't get the groove right.

[dramey]

First I get the tempo down, then find a drum loop that fits the feel I am looking for. This is the most important step for me. Often I find a drum that I like and it dictates the rest. Next comes a scratch guitar and vocal. Now I will go back and revisit the drums and try to get them locked down. From there it's just a matter of tightening up the guitars and vocal tracks and trying to figure out what else might be needed to round out the song.

Bass is usually an afterthought for me and I need to start treating it with more respect than that .

Actually this entire post is a lie. Typically the first thing I do is trouble shoot why I'm not getting any audio over my SPDIF connection, then it's off to the Sonar forums to figure out why it's crashing every time when I launch it. Then I spend a good deal of time trying to remember where the mics sound best on my guitar cab. At this point I throw in the towel and find something more fun to do, like taxes.

[Folder]

There are a lot of ways to build a multitrack song.
But I still think the old fashioned way is the best.

[UstadKhanAli]

Agreed, but is that considered building a multitrack song, or using a multitrack to record a song?

[Folder]

Originally Posted by UstadKhanAli

Agreed, but is that considered building a multitrack song, or using a multitrack to record a song?

Well for me building a song and recording a song go hand in hand.
Other than the basic chord or riff framework I really have no idea how the final product will turn out until I'm finished.

In that video you get to see them experiment with different arrangements. They obviously started with nothing more than the basic chords and melody. I think they made all the right decisions because the final product is brillant IMO.

[Folder]

I've noticed a couple of people have said they don't start with the drums first.

When I was a kid some guys in the Dixie Dregs used to live across the street from me. I was just beginning to do some multi-track recording at that time, (mostly bouncing from one casstte deck to another type stuff). I used to ask them questions about recording in the studio. They told me that they worked with Ken Scott who had recorded the Beatles and that they always recorded the drums first. I figured that's the way I should probably do it too.

In a passage in the new Pete Townshend book he states :

I imagined The Who playing along with rhythmic synthesiser sounds, or pre-prepared backing tracks on tape. By now musicians knew how to overdub in a recording studio, that is, play along with pre-recorded music, but in the live arena drummers were used to defining the tempo and pace of any particular song. In my studio I played Keith a few synthesiser-chopped rhythmic demo backing tracks. It was a revelation how well and comfortably Keith was able to play along, and I realised this was how he had always played with The Who, following, rather than leading the tempo set by John and myself.

I've never had any success with not trying to record the drums first. But then again I never recorded Keith Moon.

[Folder]

Originally Posted by Anderton

So what I do is load his original track into the DAW, and line up the tempo for starters.

First up is a new guitar part, because he has a much higher range so I have to work in a different key..

I'm not sure I understand the purpose of loading his original track in the DAW unless you were wanting to play along with it to copy the over all feel. If you are transposing your version to a different key then how do you play along with the original?

Originally Posted by Anderton

Then I laid down drums for a rhythmic reference, and cut a vocal because AFAIC laying down tracks without a scratch vocal makes no sense.

Why does it make no sense? I almost always record the vocals last?