Phil O'Keefe Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 "You always need one more track than what you have available." - Old analog-era recording proverb. "Just because you have 24 tracks on the machine, that doesn't mean you always have to fill up all of them". - Another old analog-era recording proverb. I'm going to "date" myself a bit here... please bear with me. Back when I first got into recording, I started out with bouncing things between two tape decks. Sound on sound and bouncing were the only things I could cobble together on a high school kid's budget, with the available technology of the day. We're talking mid / late 1970's here. You could do a few layers before you started to really lose fidelity (such as it was) on the tracks you recorded first, and therefore there were limitations on the amount of tracks you could lay down. You also had to give some thought to the order you tracked things... laying down stuff that was less crucial first, and the "important stuff" later, so that it went through fewer bounces. The along came affordable four track cassette and reel to reel multitrack machines. Suddenly, with a bit of careful planning, you could track up to ten parts without a single one being subjected to more than one bounce / submix and having to deal with the generation loss from multiple bounces. But you still had some serious limitations. You had multiple instruments "sharing" tracks, so you had to get the balances and EQ right with every submix, or you had to start all over again, and for all intents and purposes, you could forget about stereo. Of course, limitations can be a royal pain, but the upside was that you learned a lot that way... Then it was 8 and 16 track machines, and finally 24 tracks. And of course, virtual instruments via MIDI sequencers and synths. Aaah, stereo drums! And a lot less "sharing" of tracks. But that old saw still applied - you oftentimes needed "just one more track" than what you had available. Fast forward to 2005. Now we have these DAW machines, with basically unlimited track counts. Suddenly we DO have "one more track" available, and track counts are a relatively "non-issue". I noticed over on the DUC ( http://duc.digidesign.com ) that a lot of PT LE users are, once again, asking Digidesign for "more simultaneously playable tracks in PT LE". And honestly, it has me scratching my head a bit. Currently we have 32 playable tracks, and can have up to 128 tracks in a "session". That means that you can easily fill up, say, 16 tracks for BGV's and then bounce them to a stereo pair or two, disable the source tracks and continue on... and if you need to readjust the submix when it comes time to do the mixdown, you just do a stereo bounce of everything else (for reference), disable some tracks, and then re-enable the original BGV tracks, re-balance them while referencing the stereo submix and rebounce. Re-enable the original tracks and disable that stereo submix you used as a reference... IOW, it takes a bit of work, but NOW you can re-balance submixed / bounced tracks - something we could only dream about back in the machine to machine bounce and low track count multitrack days. But there is still a big demand for more tracks. And of course, most DAW programs don't put the track count limitation on the user that PT LE does. But for me personally, 32 tracks has always been kind of the "magic number" for pop / rock productions. Maybe that's because I'm an old-timer, but I've always found I could do pretty much whatever I needed to do on the vast majority of records within that 32 track limitation. And when you take into consideration the ability to use virtual tracks and rebalancing submixes, that limitation becomes even less of an issue for me. Sometimes I don't even need to use all 32 tracks. So, how is having all these tracks a problem? Well, in and of itself, it isn't of course. A lot of people have legitimate needs for a ton of tracks. Film folks come immmediately to mind. And remembering "old analog proverb #2", just because you HAVE all those tracks doesn't mean you always have to USE all of them. But do we remember that advice often enough? And what about people who are just getting started? Hey kid, I know you're just learning to drive, but here's the keys to a high-performance Ferrari... have fun! We'll ignore for the moment that one of the cars I learned to drive in was my parent's Porsche... that doesn't quite fit into what I'm trying to say here... IMO, there are considerable advantages to some of the limitations that I grew up with insofar as learning. As I mentioned, you figured out pretty quickly how to balance things and "think ahead" towards the final results when you had to do a bunch of "no going back" premixes. You HAD to have that vision of where you were going, and keep it firmly in mind, or things wouldn't work in the end. And of course, when you only have a relatively small / finite amount of tracks to work with, you generally had to stick to the song essentials... you learned how to get a good drum sound with only 1-3 mics. You would forgo that extra overdub. You'd have people actually playing together... you stuck with what you absolutely NEEDED and didn't worry so much about the extra "fluff". And some of those recordings actually sounded pretty darned good. Sure, you had tape hiss, and fewer instruments and vocals going, but you got the song - the music and the performance across. Again, I want you to ask yourself, on your next recording project, "do I REALLY need this 16th guitar overdub part? Is it adding to the song? Is it essential to the music? In other words, have a vision for what you're going for, and keep it firmly in mind. That doesn't mean you can't modify it and go with things when something unexpected and magical happens... but you should have an idea of what you're going for before you ever get started with the very first track. I know that printing each little thing to a seperate track is just a different working paradigm for a lot of people, and I can understand that. But it can complicate things, and makes it a bit more difficult to keep track (pardon the pun) of everything that is going on. "Hmmm... now which of these 87 tracks DID I put that single note overdub on?" Bottom line - if the music calls for it, then fine - feel free to use as many tracks as you feel you need. But before you do, at least honestly ask yourself if you really need that overdub, and if it's going to significantly add to the song and the production, or just clutter things up and / or get buried in the mix. If the answer is "no, I don't really need it", then maybe you should rethink what you're doing. I'm quite happy to have the modern tools, and that the old adage of "you always need one more track than what you have available" is a thing of the past... but remember that second adage - "just because you have all those tracks, doesn't mean you always have to use all of them". IMO, that one is just as valid today as it ever was. As always, your thoughts and opinions on the subject and content of this editorial are welcomed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted November 5, 2005 Members Share Posted November 5, 2005 I suppose if people are genuinely using 100 tracks and they're getting great results... I personally rarely use more than 24 tracks, and if I do, it's absolutely nothing to submix and then keep moving. And for those of you who have heard my songs and mixes, you'll know that there's often a lot of ear candy. For me, more tracks = more of a pain in the rear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Paolo Di Nicolantonio Posted November 5, 2005 Members Share Posted November 5, 2005 Very interesting points, Phil. I agree with you 100%. I'm 36 and my first encounter with recording was with a marvelous (and super-cheap for a college student at the time) VestaFire 4-track cassette recorder in the late '80s. I recorded many songs with it and yes, I always needed that "one track more", but guess what, using bounce to track it did everything I needed to do, and I was able to create cool songs on it. I then went through a heavy "techno phase" in the early nineties, and abandoned audio recording for a while: I used the 16-track internal MIDI sequencer on my Roland W-30 sampler, and recorded the final stereo 2-track to standard cassette tape. In 1996 I bought my first MIDI/audio sequencer, Cakewalk Pro Audio version 6.0. It was great and the possibilities were endless (even if I think about it, then the technology was still crude), but I still never used more than - about - 24 tracks. I cannot imagine needing more than 32 tracks at the time unless you're a film composer doing sound design, soundtrack and dialogue for a movie, but then again, I'm not a professional musician, so that's just my opinion. But the main point that comes across from your post is that nowadays many musicians seem to have lost the sense, and the FEEL of writing a song, to instead pursue perfection in the production of it. This has been especially true in the last few years thanks to all the various DAWs on the market, such as ProTools, Cubase, Logic, Sonar, Digital Performer etc., that allow almost infinite tweaking of midi and audio, and now the process is also very fast (I remember, on my old Pro Audio 6.0, putting some reverb or compression on a track, then go make a cup of coffee, and when I got back 10 minutes later, it was almost done). This can be cool for certain electronic genres, which I like, such as techno, trance, d 'n' b and glitchy/idm (although I HATE the term IDM... Intelligent Dance Music... give me a break!), but in other cases, the production is the only thing that makes a track worth: sure, the bass is super-punchy, the vocals shine, the surround effect is unbelievable, and the drums could punch a hole into cement, but WHERE's the catchy melody, the beautiful harmony and arrangement, and the... groove??? I see that happen a lot in modern r 'n' b, hip hop and rock genres. Another thing that I note is that nowadays the young guys don't seem very interested in learning how to play an instrument (keyboards in my case): when I go to music stores, ninety per cent of the times I see kids banging "beats" away at shiny Tritons, sequencing one-finger lines. If I'm playing some - say - Jimmy Smith -type organ licks on a keyboard, they always ask "wow, how can you play like that?" - Guess what: you can too, if you listen to records and spend some time every day improving your skills. I just don't see that happening much these days... It just seems that power, punch, drum beats and hyper-compressed songs are replacing melody and harmony. Now, I don't have anything against genres like r 'n' b, hip hop, and I don't want to sound like my grandfather either, but where did the "good old songs" go? End of rambling! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted November 5, 2005 Author Share Posted November 5, 2005 But the main point that comes across from your post is that nowadays many musicians seem to have lost the sense, and the FEEL of writing a song, to instead pursue perfection in the production of it. Even though I never came right out and said that, you caught it. That's very perceptive of you. This has been especially true in the last few years thanks to all the various DAWs on the market, such as ProTools, Cubase, Logic, Sonar, Digital Performer etc., that allow almost infinite tweaking of midi and audio, and now the process is also very fast (I remember, on my old Pro Audio 6.0, putting some reverb or compression on a track, then go make a cup of coffee, and when I got back 10 minutes later, it was almost done). This can be cool for certain electronic genres, which I like, such as techno, trance, d 'n' b and glitchy/idm (although I HATE the term IDM... Intelligent Dance Music... give me a break!), but in other cases, the production is the only thing that makes a track worth: sure, the bass is super-punchy, the vocals shine, the surround effect is unbelievable, and the drums could punch a hole into cement, but WHERE's the catchy melody, the beautiful harmony and arrangement, and the... groove??? I see that happen a lot in modern r 'n' b, hip hop and rock genres. But is it REALLY faster? Sure, the computer processing speed has increased exponentially, and you can process a file or track very quickly now... but if we rely too extensively on processing, and on editing in an effort to get a killer production (and don't get me wrong - I like a great production as much as anyone - but I still consider "overproduction" to be one of the worst things I could be accused of), is that really faster than getting a great band cooking in the studio and good sounds happening at the sources, and capturing what is going on and relying on the processing for the final polish? I mean, in spite of the fact that we have speedy computers, you can still spend forever tweaking things these days... I think your points about songwriting, tone, phrasing, playing ability, "feel" and groove and so forth have a lot of merit. The tools are great to have available, and I'm certainly not complaining that we have them, but the reliance on them, or rather, the abuse / over-use of them, is what gives me cause for concern. If you need 'em, use 'em... but make those decisions based on what the music dictates. And IMO, getting it at the source is nearly always preferable to cobbling it together in post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John Sayers Posted November 5, 2005 Members Share Posted November 5, 2005 I remember a cartoon in the old REP magazine depicting an engineer leaning wearily over the console - behind him was the ACME 72 track with foot wide tape rolling horizontally - the engineer is muttering OK! track 69 water dripping left, track 70 water dripping right - what the f**ks on 71 and 72?? Actually I feel that over production and too many overdubs etc is very dated today. Take Jack Jones for example, low key, simple production, minimalist instrumentation. In my country The Waifs, Missy Higgens, Eskimo Joe, Ben Lee are all low key minimalist productions yet are topping the charts and winning the awards. cheersjohn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted November 5, 2005 Members Share Posted November 5, 2005 The more tracks you have, the more decisions you can delay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted November 5, 2005 Author Share Posted November 5, 2005 Originally posted by UstadKhanAli The more tracks you have, the more decisions you can delay. ...to which I would add: ...and that's not always a GOOD thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted November 5, 2005 Members Share Posted November 5, 2005 Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe ...to which I would add: ...and that's not always a GOOD thing. Exactamente! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted November 5, 2005 Author Share Posted November 5, 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members daklander Posted November 5, 2005 Members Share Posted November 5, 2005 Originally posted by UstadKhanAli The more tracks you have, the more decisions you can delay. Is that in putting off to a later time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted November 5, 2005 Members Share Posted November 5, 2005 I cut in on a Fostex X-15. Still have the damn thing, not sure why. I wonder...I was working on a mix that had 8 drum mics on separate tracks. My computer protested so I had to do a submix to stereo, and use that in the mix mix. Was there any benefit to having 8 drum mics in the mix bus? Doubtful. was it so that late in the process, I could tweak out the snare some more, based on the lead guitar? er...... Using a submix was fine. I committed to it and built around it, but I knew in the end that if I needed to tweak, it was as simple as creating a new submix and substituting the sound file. Because of having a background of bouncing tracks on the old four track, I had a ballpark idea of what I needed from the subgroup. The luxury is knowing that I can replace the subgroup simply, without having to re-do anything in between the submix and where I'm at now. In the four track days, I would have had to fix the submix, then re-record any intermediate tracks. Ouch. builds up your instrument chops doing those extra takes though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Reitzas Posted November 5, 2005 Members Share Posted November 5, 2005 Hi Phil,Excellent points and well written.Decision making was one of the thrills of the earlier days of recording. Or should I say commitment. Don't get me wrong, we still are making decisions, but many more of them usually when it's too late to make them properly considering the "got a have it yesterday diease" that has been spreading lately. One of the things I miss is "the track sheet". A wonderful piece of stiff cardboard that was the road map to the ingredients of your music. If executed well, one could find all sorts of valuable goodies to help decipher the mush-mash of shared tracks. Has anyone else ever gotten good at flipping them just so right that they would wedge perfectly up to the meters on the console. With the right flick of the wrist it would float above the console, angle up, and lean perfectly as if to say "Ok, check me out now! One of my wish list for DAW recording, ProTools for me, is to have a track sheet page with fixed positions of your sounds (as you determine) available at a glance. On this track sheet page you could see on you track boxes, the information for that track ie; name (perhaps even your little scribble identifier-like a picture of a triange for your triangle track) plugs, sends, ins, outs, level.Each time you want to adjust a Bass for example, and you can't find it immediately in your edit or mix window amongst the 142 tracks; you could open the track sheet page and immediately find your bass track (because it hasn't moved from the place you first assigned that box. Then all you have to do is click it or touch it and it magically could expand into a full screen of just your bass parameters. Tweak that, go right back to the track sheet page and tap the piano tracks and 'Bam!, there they are full screen ready to adjust.. Hit the back button and you'll be back to tweaking bass. Or better yet, group tracks from the track sheet together to open a full screen with all selected tracks with access to all parameters, plugs, send, etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Geoff Grace Posted November 5, 2005 Members Share Posted November 5, 2005 My experience is that limitations can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the context. I think that the need for high track counts can vary depending in part on the genre of music in which one is working and on whether or not the tracking engineer is also going to mix the recording. Let me give two examples of projects I've worked on that broke Pro Tools LE's 32 voice ceiling on a number of occasions: Example OneA few years ago, I arranged, played keyboards for, co-wrote, and produced (but didn't mix) a Latin pop album. Because I knew I wasn't going mix the record, I wanted to keep track separation to a maximum in order to leave as much flexibility as possible for the mix engineer. If I recall correctly, the drum kit was usually 7-9 tracks, depending on whether or not we miked the room. Then, we'd track percussion instruments that were typical for the genre: timbales (stereo), congas (stereo), cowbell, shakers, bongos (stereo), etc. By the time we were done with drums and percussion, the count for both would typically be between 12-18 tracks. Of course every song on the record used bass, usually electric, but sometimes synth. We often tracked both acoustic and electric guitars in the same song and kept those on separate tracks. Brass is also common in Latin music, and we used trumpet and trombone, often doubled with keyboard brass (on separate tracks), on many songs. Like other pop genres, Latin pop often includes synths, pianos, and even sound effects (clich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Geoff Grace Posted November 5, 2005 Members Share Posted November 5, 2005 Originally posted by Reitzas:One of my wish list for DAW recording, ProTools for me, is to have a track sheet page with fixed positions of your sounds (as you determine) available at a glance. On this track sheet page you could see on you track boxes, the information for that track ie; name (perhaps even your little scribble identifier-like a picture of a triange for your triangle track) plugs, sends, ins, outs, level.Each time you want to adjust a Bass for example, and you can't find it immediately in your edit or mix window amongst the 142 tracks; you could open the track sheet page and immediately find your bass track (because it hasn't moved from the place you first assigned that box. Then all you have to do is click it or touch it and it magically could expand into a full screen of just your bass parameters. Tweak that, go right back to the track sheet page and tap the piano tracks and 'Bam!, there they are full screen ready to adjust.. Hit the back button and you'll be back to tweaking bass. Or better yet, group tracks from the track sheet together to open a full screen with all selected tracks with access to all parameters, plugs, send, etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members monstermaker Posted November 5, 2005 Members Share Posted November 5, 2005 Valid points.People coming into recording the last ten years or so take all these amazing advances for granted. However you still see them asking about basic issues like mic placement and mixing space everyday on forums. Which is great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted November 5, 2005 Moderators Share Posted November 5, 2005 If I had unlimited tracks to work with (I'm 32, PT LE) it wouldn't change the way I work at all. I'd still be bouncing submixes. Submixing is a way of conceptualizing, then organizing the music. A conductor thinks of a symphony like that too. "Swell violas, bigger, bigger , crest... then a slow drop to pp." That's a section performing an element of a piece of music. But in rehearsal, you can bet he's working with the individuals of the section to get the internal balance happening. Submixing! That conductor doesn't want to be thinking about the timid cellist who's turning his cello section into a pansie fest when it's supposed to be intense. He's already done whatever is needed to get the marshmello cellist to rock... during rehearsal. Submixing! The symphony's actual performance... in the hall with an audience, is the mix. He combines the different sections- violins, basses, violas, cellos, winds, into a dynamic, vibrant, living piece of music. Those "submixes" allow him to turn his focus to the macro level. It allows him to ROCK! (Toscanini anyone?) I started on a Teac 3340 and a little mixer with pan switches, L C R. Then the Tascam Portastudio. If you wanted a bigger arrangement, you worked it in stages, much like the conductor working the internal balance of a section. Sometimes I actually miss working through the 4 track limitations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Toxicpotatoe Posted November 5, 2005 Members Share Posted November 5, 2005 Originally posted by Billster I cut in on a Fostex X-15. Still have the damn thing, not sure why. Me too. I justify it by telling myself that someday I'm going to go back and mine those tapes for all those great ideas I had all those years ago. In my not quite serious and not at all well informed opinion, There won't be enough tracks until we're able to record every instrument in surround, and even then we'll have acoustic holography to look forward to. (Oops, I have a preposition that I ended a sentence with.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members gtrwiz Posted November 6, 2005 Members Share Posted November 6, 2005 I was listening to Damn The Torpedoes the other day, and was kinda taken aback by the sense of space... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted November 6, 2005 Members Share Posted November 6, 2005 Originally posted by Lee Knight Submixing is a way of conceptualizing, then organizing the music. A conductor thinks of a symphony like that too. ... He's already done whatever is needed... during rehearsal. Submixing! The symphony's actual performance... in the hall with an audience, is the mix. excellent thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brittanylips Posted November 6, 2005 Members Share Posted November 6, 2005 Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe As always, your thoughts and opinions on the subject and content of this editorial are welcomed. While there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted November 6, 2005 Members Share Posted November 6, 2005 I love having extra tracks. I just don't get around to using them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Tedster Posted November 7, 2005 Members Share Posted November 7, 2005 Cool editorial, Phil. I think we talked a bit about this very topic when I was out there...the "overproduction"...when you played that old Edison Lighthouse track (one of my faves) and how the producers took a cool little pop/rock tune and sugared it up with a bunch of strings and whatnot to make it "sellable". Still happens today...the bigger the production, the more copies it'll sell, right? Or the more radio-friendly it'll be, right? And, of course, more sweetening requires more tracks, right? Perhaps this is just a little from the intended topic of the post, not really talking about the "production" end as much as just "if you have it, use it" end. I use a ton of tracks when I record. They don't all make it to the final mix. For example, I'll maybe use 5 tracks just for lead vocals, and then cobble together one good track from the 5 and delete the rest. Same with guitar solos. It kinda takes the pressure off...having a bunch of takes to choose from. I'm not nearly as advanced as most of you guys are, and I don't use all these virtual tracks and whatnot. But, I think it boils down to the song. The song dictates the production, to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted November 7, 2005 Members Share Posted November 7, 2005 Originally posted by Tedster But, I think it boils down to the song. The song dictates the production, to me. Yes, it always should!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members midinut Posted November 7, 2005 Members Share Posted November 7, 2005 Someone, somewhere, much wiser than I, once said: "It's all about the song. If a song is good, it will sound great just guitar and vocal (or piano and vocal if you are from my neck of the woods)." Just another old school of thought ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Will Chen Posted November 7, 2005 Members Share Posted November 7, 2005 Great editorial. I think much of this mentality is simply a by-product of the digital age. If you really think about it, in all industries there is not an effort to be selective about data storage. Digitally, we have all become pack rats saving meaningless files for no other reason other than we can. We have only scratched the surface of digital music production and we are all learning as we go. However, a great musician knows when not to play. I would think this mentality will eventually creep into production theory as well as I believe an efficient studio would see more return business from cost conscious clients and a key driver to efficiency is selectively limiting choices. As music seems to cycle though trends so will the techniques used to capture that music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.