Do you really need that many tracks ??
- Thread starter maxman65
- Start date
bluesfordan
Member
I'm having a hard enough of a time just getting one track to sound good 
Farview
Well-known member
It depends on the genre.
When I was doing old school R&B (Isaac Hayes type stuff) there would be 50-60 background vocal tracks. Every harmony would have between 8 and 12 parts, in order to properly weight the harmony and have it spread across the stereo spectrum. These were all sung by two people, so even if they both sang into the same Mic at the same time, we would still use between 6 and 8 tracks to get it done.
Now, I would obviously use the same set of tracks for all similar parts. But the 12 part stuff was different mix-wise from the 8-9-10 or 11 part stuff. So each type of harmony part would get it's own set of tracks. This adds up quickly.
This was also sung to a pre-mix of the music, which could easy be 32 tracks, simply because of the amount of instruments in the arrangement. Since there wasn't the budget to hire an orchestra and a percussion session, most of the instruments were recorded one at a time. If we had the musicians to record it live, it would still be at least 16 tracks, just because the drums need to be at least 8.
Now, on to progressive metal...
It is impossible to Mic a dream theater type drum set with the Glyn Johns 3 Mic technique. It doesn't work. You need to cover too much area and too many instruments. So it is pretty easy to have 24 tracks of just drums.
Since all the instrument sounds need to be larger than life, it is often necessary to layer different guitar tones on top of each other in order to get the thickness needed cor the production. Also, you will most likely have a keyboardist that will have 27 different keyboard sounds in each song. Since you can't treat a piano, Hammond b3, orchestra and choir sounds the same, these all have to be on separate tracks in stereo. (Even if you decide during the mix to make them mono)
Now the vocalist will want to show off his gymnastics and his harmony abilities, so you would consider yourself lucky if he only needs 8 tracks.
Don't forget about overdubbed guitar solos, or bass with a kicked cabinet and di...
Musical theater sound tracks...
I was lucky enough to have a composer think it was a good idea to record an entire orchestra one instrument at a time. So, even though it was all performed on a keyboard, there was a separate track for every single instrument. (75 piece orchestra) plus live acoustic and electric guitar and real drums. So that's 90 some tracks of music, depending on which song we are talking about.
Then for the vocals.... it's musical theater, so there are 20 some singers in the production. Sometimes up to 10 having lead parts in a song (each with their own track) and the group vocals with someti.es up to 6 different parts all on top of each other...
So the track count can get pretty out of hand when you are doing something other than standard rock or acoustic guitar and singer stuff.
When I was doing old school R&B (Isaac Hayes type stuff) there would be 50-60 background vocal tracks. Every harmony would have between 8 and 12 parts, in order to properly weight the harmony and have it spread across the stereo spectrum. These were all sung by two people, so even if they both sang into the same Mic at the same time, we would still use between 6 and 8 tracks to get it done.
Now, I would obviously use the same set of tracks for all similar parts. But the 12 part stuff was different mix-wise from the 8-9-10 or 11 part stuff. So each type of harmony part would get it's own set of tracks. This adds up quickly.
This was also sung to a pre-mix of the music, which could easy be 32 tracks, simply because of the amount of instruments in the arrangement. Since there wasn't the budget to hire an orchestra and a percussion session, most of the instruments were recorded one at a time. If we had the musicians to record it live, it would still be at least 16 tracks, just because the drums need to be at least 8.
Now, on to progressive metal...
It is impossible to Mic a dream theater type drum set with the Glyn Johns 3 Mic technique. It doesn't work. You need to cover too much area and too many instruments. So it is pretty easy to have 24 tracks of just drums.
Since all the instrument sounds need to be larger than life, it is often necessary to layer different guitar tones on top of each other in order to get the thickness needed cor the production. Also, you will most likely have a keyboardist that will have 27 different keyboard sounds in each song. Since you can't treat a piano, Hammond b3, orchestra and choir sounds the same, these all have to be on separate tracks in stereo. (Even if you decide during the mix to make them mono)
Now the vocalist will want to show off his gymnastics and his harmony abilities, so you would consider yourself lucky if he only needs 8 tracks.
Don't forget about overdubbed guitar solos, or bass with a kicked cabinet and di...
Musical theater sound tracks...
I was lucky enough to have a composer think it was a good idea to record an entire orchestra one instrument at a time. So, even though it was all performed on a keyboard, there was a separate track for every single instrument. (75 piece orchestra) plus live acoustic and electric guitar and real drums. So that's 90 some tracks of music, depending on which song we are talking about.
Then for the vocals.... it's musical theater, so there are 20 some singers in the production. Sometimes up to 10 having lead parts in a song (each with their own track) and the group vocals with someti.es up to 6 different parts all on top of each other...
So the track count can get pretty out of hand when you are doing something other than standard rock or acoustic guitar and singer stuff.
Boom.
Right there it is.
I once looked at anything over 24 tracks as pretentious and silly. Today, I can scarcely remember the last project i did with less than 24 tracks.
The hardware is there. It's easy. Use whatcha need to use.
P5
cavedog101
Well-known member
Track count is totally dependent on type of arrangement and needs of the project. A typical 5 piece ensemble recorded live off the floor will use up a minimum of 12-13 tracks with a minimalist approach to drum micing. Less if it's more Jazz oriented and you are looking for the "kit" sound rather than a close-mic'd effort to bring up the beat. More if it's Rock oriented and the kit is larger and you want some room ambience in your mix at a later date.
The track count always grows with the addition of more vocals, guitar over-dubs, percussion instruments, horns, etc...
Trust me when I say that I completely understand the minimalist mind-set. I recorded for years with tape machines....4/8/12/16/24....Yeah 12 is not misprint...but I digress....And for brevity sake I will use a minimum number of tracks for demo recordings, song-writing ideas, productions that don't require a heavy track count....voice overs.....
Now that I use a DAW, none of that mind-set has changed.....it's just easier when you need what you need. I'm limited to 256 voices but I'll never get there with the kind of music I record. My mentor records and produces modern Pop music and is generally in the 100 count of tracks. But he looks at it as a Foley experience. Some tracks may only be 2 or 3 seconds but they require their own space to have the impact required.
So track count is, just like in the other thread, simply a tool used by a producer to build the project to it's conclusion. Can you get past the creative moments by having too many tracks? Most certainly.
I remember a quote that said.." You never fully COMPLETE a recording project, you abandon it at some point"
One other point I'd like to make to all the 'minimalists' out there who think the track count makes for better recordings simply because thats what was done 'back-in-the-day'.....please realize that yeah, maybe there were only two or four tracks used, but there were a lot of mics in a recording space of quality design built to record music in and the "engineers" were really audio engineers and knew what mic placement was all about as well as the arrangement of the chairs in the room for the instruments AND there was usually a musical director and a professional musical arranger on the session.
The track count always grows with the addition of more vocals, guitar over-dubs, percussion instruments, horns, etc...
Trust me when I say that I completely understand the minimalist mind-set. I recorded for years with tape machines....4/8/12/16/24....Yeah 12 is not misprint...but I digress....And for brevity sake I will use a minimum number of tracks for demo recordings, song-writing ideas, productions that don't require a heavy track count....voice overs.....
Now that I use a DAW, none of that mind-set has changed.....it's just easier when you need what you need. I'm limited to 256 voices but I'll never get there with the kind of music I record. My mentor records and produces modern Pop music and is generally in the 100 count of tracks. But he looks at it as a Foley experience. Some tracks may only be 2 or 3 seconds but they require their own space to have the impact required.
So track count is, just like in the other thread, simply a tool used by a producer to build the project to it's conclusion. Can you get past the creative moments by having too many tracks? Most certainly.
I remember a quote that said.." You never fully COMPLETE a recording project, you abandon it at some point"
One other point I'd like to make to all the 'minimalists' out there who think the track count makes for better recordings simply because thats what was done 'back-in-the-day'.....please realize that yeah, maybe there were only two or four tracks used, but there were a lot of mics in a recording space of quality design built to record music in and the "engineers" were really audio engineers and knew what mic placement was all about as well as the arrangement of the chairs in the room for the instruments AND there was usually a musical director and a professional musical arranger on the session.
VomitHatSteve
Hat STYLE. Not contents.
I feel like woodworking is a good analogy for this.
My woodworking tool set consists of a cordless drill with a basic set of drill bits, a standard claw hammer, a tape measure, and a skil saw. And because my projects are never more complex than attaching a piece of plywood to a palette to get my gear slightly above floor level, that's sufficient.
I can't imagine what I would do with a table saw or even a second hammer. I'd just be mad that it's taking up space.
However, someone who was really dedicated to woodworking: a professional or even an advanced hobbyist is going to have waaay more tools than that. I may not understand what they need most of them for, but I get that they have a use for them.
Same with various music tools. If you're recording simple, 3-piece rock, it may not make any sense to have more than 8 tracks. Too many moving parts to keep track of can clutter things up and get in the way.
If you're recording orchestral rock or dance pop or any number of other genres, you may need those tracks. If the arrangement has two dozen instruments in it, trying to capture 3 instruments per track is going to tie your hands early on and really limit your ability to get a coherent mix.
My woodworking tool set consists of a cordless drill with a basic set of drill bits, a standard claw hammer, a tape measure, and a skil saw. And because my projects are never more complex than attaching a piece of plywood to a palette to get my gear slightly above floor level, that's sufficient.
I can't imagine what I would do with a table saw or even a second hammer. I'd just be mad that it's taking up space.
However, someone who was really dedicated to woodworking: a professional or even an advanced hobbyist is going to have waaay more tools than that. I may not understand what they need most of them for, but I get that they have a use for them.
Same with various music tools. If you're recording simple, 3-piece rock, it may not make any sense to have more than 8 tracks. Too many moving parts to keep track of can clutter things up and get in the way.
If you're recording orchestral rock or dance pop or any number of other genres, you may need those tracks. If the arrangement has two dozen instruments in it, trying to capture 3 instruments per track is going to tie your hands early on and really limit your ability to get a coherent mix.
Guitargodgt
New member
Man I'm mixing the Opeth track for this month's nail the mix and iirc there are easily 60+ audio tracks alone before all the bus and aux tracks I'm tagging on.
The first month I joined nail the mix was a Jason Richardson song and there were over 100 audio tracks.
The first month I joined nail the mix was a Jason Richardson song and there were over 100 audio tracks.
witzendoz
Senior Member
I try to restrict projects to 24 tracks, maybe it's a throwback to my analog days? I record on a Tascam MX2424 and the track count is 24. I do have 3 machines so the track count could be 72, but I like mixing in the analog domain and the console is really being pushed when 24 + tracks are being played back.
I sometimes get projects bought in for me to mix and if the track count is high or the project is one that will keep coming back for tinkering (if I get that feeling) than i'll mix in the box.
I find that the more tracks you have the bigger temptation there is to fill them, I used to run a 16 track tape set up and on track was timecode for syncing the automation on the console and running midi so it was 15 tracks max, a lot of albums were recorded on that tape machine, you find ways of accommodating extra stuff, like recording as guitar solo where theres no vocal on that track, sub mixing the toms on the kit, mixing a string section while actually recording it. I know it's not ideal but it teaches you to trust in what you do, the Beatles recorded on 4 track, added things by sub-mixing along the way to a second 4 track and adding another 3 tracks, many classic albums were recorded on 8 track machines.
Maybe recording engineer students should be given a project like this in the course to teach them how to create a project with restrictions, it certainly teaches you about getting the most out of gear. It's actually a beneficial challenge.
Alan.
I sometimes get projects bought in for me to mix and if the track count is high or the project is one that will keep coming back for tinkering (if I get that feeling) than i'll mix in the box.
I find that the more tracks you have the bigger temptation there is to fill them, I used to run a 16 track tape set up and on track was timecode for syncing the automation on the console and running midi so it was 15 tracks max, a lot of albums were recorded on that tape machine, you find ways of accommodating extra stuff, like recording as guitar solo where theres no vocal on that track, sub mixing the toms on the kit, mixing a string section while actually recording it. I know it's not ideal but it teaches you to trust in what you do, the Beatles recorded on 4 track, added things by sub-mixing along the way to a second 4 track and adding another 3 tracks, many classic albums were recorded on 8 track machines.
Maybe recording engineer students should be given a project like this in the course to teach them how to create a project with restrictions, it certainly teaches you about getting the most out of gear. It's actually a beneficial challenge.
Alan.
VomitHatSteve
Hat STYLE. Not contents.
Having started in digital but being informed by analog recording, I wonder if this temptation might die off?
When I first started, I was tempted to try to "match" some of the 90s recordings which had inspired me - Smashing Pumpkins songs with 40+ guitar tracks, etc.
But nowadays, I don't really pay attention to track count until my busses start to bog down. I use as many tracks as I feel like the recording needs and don't feel any compulsion to fill any arbitrary multiple of 8.
I wonder if kids who've grown up fully in the digital world might be more inclined to this kind of thinking. e.g. "This song has 3 instruments, so I used 3 tracks; why would I need more?" kind of production.
witzendoz
Senior Member
I should point out that now when a top engineer or producer talks about a song with 100 tracks, they are often talking about tracks that have an effect on them or the track only appears in a chorus or verse, a lot of the 100 tracks do not run for the whole song like what we talk about when saying we us 24 tracks.
The use of the 100 tracks in this way is to construct the song in segments with a collection of tracks for Verse, Chorus, solo, bridge etc, so that the sound in each of these sections and the instruments used can be tailor made for each of the sections. Say there are 5 vocal tracks, lead double tracked =2 and 3 harmony tracks, and you want a different vocal sound for the verse, chorus, and bridge, in the DAW you can set this up as 15 tracks short section with the sound you want for each section set up. This could apply to drum sections as well, so you may have sections of say 12 tracks, so you see how the track count would grow.
In the analog world you would have routed the vocal tracks to multiple channels on the console with the channels set up with the sounds required (this is where automation won the day), therefore using only the original 5 tracks. Comments like there were 100 tracks on this recording is actually misleading.
Hope that explains what you are reading when your favourite song had 100 tracks, maybe it was 25 tracks cut into sections not full tracks for the length of the song.
Alan
The use of the 100 tracks in this way is to construct the song in segments with a collection of tracks for Verse, Chorus, solo, bridge etc, so that the sound in each of these sections and the instruments used can be tailor made for each of the sections. Say there are 5 vocal tracks, lead double tracked =2 and 3 harmony tracks, and you want a different vocal sound for the verse, chorus, and bridge, in the DAW you can set this up as 15 tracks short section with the sound you want for each section set up. This could apply to drum sections as well, so you may have sections of say 12 tracks, so you see how the track count would grow.
In the analog world you would have routed the vocal tracks to multiple channels on the console with the channels set up with the sounds required (this is where automation won the day), therefore using only the original 5 tracks. Comments like there were 100 tracks on this recording is actually misleading.
Hope that explains what you are reading when your favourite song had 100 tracks, maybe it was 25 tracks cut into sections not full tracks for the length of the song.
Alan
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Yeah...I'll run with 24-36 tracks for most projects, but they are usually full audio tracks.
Even when I comp from multiple takes...I always assemble stuff into as few complete/full tracks as possible...rather than have dozens of "snippets" all over the place. I just always try to reduce down by cleaning house...but I know a lot of the modern/younger production mentality is to have a new track for the smallest bit of audio...plus, many are piecemeal-ing their productions...starting out with just bits-n-pieces, and constantly adding more bits-n-pieces until finally there's something that resembles a complete song.
IOW...many of them are not doing live tracking of complete songs where most of it has be sorted out with pre-production...rather it's an assembly process until something starts to form, especially for the stuff that leans more toward "sound design" rather than live band/artists tracking old-school style.
So that's why they end up with 100 tracks of bits-n-pieces.
Even when I comp from multiple takes...I always assemble stuff into as few complete/full tracks as possible...rather than have dozens of "snippets" all over the place. I just always try to reduce down by cleaning house...but I know a lot of the modern/younger production mentality is to have a new track for the smallest bit of audio...plus, many are piecemeal-ing their productions...starting out with just bits-n-pieces, and constantly adding more bits-n-pieces until finally there's something that resembles a complete song.
IOW...many of them are not doing live tracking of complete songs where most of it has be sorted out with pre-production...rather it's an assembly process until something starts to form, especially for the stuff that leans more toward "sound design" rather than live band/artists tracking old-school style.
So that's why they end up with 100 tracks of bits-n-pieces.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Who are you responding to...?
jimmys69
MOODerator
TAE
All you have is now
Well the OP asked do "YOU" really need that many tracks?
So the answers should vary as each one of us is a "you". "Need" is a subjective word but certainly there are many roads to Rome and in the end they all get there....some "better" than others.
Me I'm lazy on the recording end and would rather be playing music than diddling with a damn mixer and recording interface ...all's I want is a decent representation of what I was trying to do at the moment I was doing what I do.
That said...It sure is nice to listen to some awesome multi track recordings that have been produced over the years... from an old guys perspective things like magical mystery tour, DSOTM, Electric Lady Land on the old side sure are groovy...
I think the largest recording I've done is about 8 tracks and that made my head hurt ...I'm ADD OCD and the only thing that keeps me focused is when I'm in the zone playing and then I'll OCD on that for hours...
But then recording is really about hopefully capturing the genie in the bottle...If the genie you envision requires 2000 tracks so be it...go capture that bad boy...If it only needs one track that's cool too!....
I don't know how many tracks this live recording of Neil Young's is ( probably two mixed in stereo ) but it captures the genie just fine in my ears YouTube
Here's a fun new hip, slick and cool "Tubular" multi track.... probably has 100 tracks YouTube
So my answer to the OP question is yes
So the answers should vary as each one of us is a "you". "Need" is a subjective word but certainly there are many roads to Rome and in the end they all get there....some "better" than others.
Me I'm lazy on the recording end and would rather be playing music than diddling with a damn mixer and recording interface ...all's I want is a decent representation of what I was trying to do at the moment I was doing what I do.
That said...It sure is nice to listen to some awesome multi track recordings that have been produced over the years... from an old guys perspective things like magical mystery tour, DSOTM, Electric Lady Land on the old side sure are groovy...
I think the largest recording I've done is about 8 tracks and that made my head hurt ...I'm ADD OCD and the only thing that keeps me focused is when I'm in the zone playing and then I'll OCD on that for hours...
But then recording is really about hopefully capturing the genie in the bottle...If the genie you envision requires 2000 tracks so be it...go capture that bad boy...If it only needs one track that's cool too!....
I don't know how many tracks this live recording of Neil Young's is ( probably two mixed in stereo ) but it captures the genie just fine in my ears YouTube
Here's a fun new hip, slick and cool "Tubular" multi track.... probably has 100 tracks YouTube
So my answer to the OP question is yes
Last edited:
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
The minimalist.
Oh.
I thought so , but it was kinda funny since he hasn't been back in awhile to post...so I thought it was maybe one of the later posts.
I thought he was asking more of a rhetorical question...as in, "I don't understand why you would need that many tracks?"
It seems the op has left the building and I'm fine with that. Now it's just the regulars yakking. And im fine with that too.
Me, I'm more of the minimalist that jimmi is so dismissive of.
I've always been of the opinion that if you can't do rock music with 16 tracks, it shouldn't be done. (Or you're a moron)
[MENTION=1094]TAE[/MENTION], you mentioned Electric Ladyland. That was done on 16 tracks. I challenge anyone to produce a record half as good as that with your 'unlimited' track counts. Betcha can't do it.
Teack counts have nothing to do with musical brilliance.