Do you really need that many tracks ??

RFR said:
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) :D
Click to expand...

I would agree for your basic "classic" Rock music styles, and especially if you have a complete band to work with, since you will most likey capture the band, and then only add a few overdub tracks.

That said...for many other genres, there's a real need and value to having and using more tracks.
Now, for most music, it doesn't need to be 100 tracks...but again, these days it's not like what you (and I, and some other old-school guys) use to do, where you're recpording the entire rhythm guitar to one track...done. Rather, with the DAW, you have the option to record many takes and also to break things up, and you might do the verses and choruses on separate tracks...maybe one per track.
Now multiply that by 5-6 instruments...and you can end up with 40-50 tracks of short takes instead of 16 tracks of complete takes.
Also...when you're doing "sound design" kind of stuff...or EDM/Electronic stuff...the DAW gives you unlimited options so you don't have to do all these crazy edits just to squeeze all in on a 16-track tape machine.

AFA what Jimmy is getting at...he does a lot of Metal, and for quite a few years now, with Metal, just the drum kit is going to suck up 8 to 16 tracks, because modern Metal productions call for individual mics on each drum, plus OH, plus maybe two mic each on the Snare and Kick...so it's just the production style that calls for that.
You're not going to bring in a Metal band, and stick three mics on the drums...it's just not done.

So while I am always looking for a way to minimize the number of tracks...I don't approach it with an absolute minimalist mindset.
I may start out with 8 tracks planned, but then you start to hear things and get new ideas...and more/new tracks are added.
Still...I do tend to record "old-school"...so my tracks are complete takes from start to finish of a song...I don't do bits-n-pieces.
Also...when I have everything I want, and I see another 3 empty tracks on my 24-track tape deck...the extra tracks are always filled up with...more takes.
I mean, things like vocals always get 3-5 takes/tracks...lead guitar stuff at least a couple of takes/tracks...and sometimes I may do 4 electric rhythm guitar tracks, plus a couple acoustic guitar tracks...and only end up using 2 of the electric rhythm tracks.

Anyway...I'm not opposed to limits, and more minimalist approaches...because I think it keeps the bus moving, and you're not sifting through 100 tracks of "stuff" trying to piece it all or figure out what to keep...or how the hell to mix it all together...but that said, I happy that I am not forced to stick to just 8 or 16 or even 24 tracks, when I can hear in my head at least 3-4 other things I would like to include on a production, but can't because of some forced limits...though I do agree that it's good to have a set plan, with specific goals, and to sometimes simply NOT indulge with endless "maybes" where you're just tossing as much shit as you can against the wall to see what will stick. Though sometimes...when you're stuck on production ideas...it pays to even do that if it will help generate something that ends up being "genius"...even though it was just a hit-n-miss affair. :D
 
RFR said:
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. :D

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) :D

[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.
:D
Click to expand...

Dismissive? Not in any way. I have never even used my third interface to get to 24 tracks for live recording. But most complete productions have around 100 or so tracks when you add the group and effect tracks.

There are not 100 instruments....
 
jimmys69 said:
Great that you like the minimal, but that is just not the way things work. Best to ya!
Click to expand...

I dunno jimmy. That sounds dismissive to me. :D sounds like you're saying the minimalist isn't in touch with the real world. (As you see the 'real world')
But there's a a lot if ways to skin a cat.

I've got no problem with high track counts, be they duplicate tracks, effects tracks, performance tracks ect.
I'm fully aware that people will use what's available to them.
There is also the universal concept of 'wanting more.' For myself, I started out recording with 2:tracks. 4 tracks became available and I needed that, then that wasn't enough. Had to have 8 tracks, then that wasn't enough to do live drums, had to go 16.
Most of my stuff (rock and roll) runs 6 to 8 tracks for the drums. And I've done metal with that amount of drum mics too.

My personal happy place is with 16 audio tracks. Dumping that into a daw and going extra tracks for whatever reason brings me up to 24;tracks usually.

Now with my own stuff and bands I've recorded there isn't any combining 3 or 4 tracks together to get a single guitar part.
The philosophy is to play it through. If you can't do the guitar part from start to finish, you've got no business being in the studio. Youre just not ready yet. And you're surely not ready to tour yet.

Many years ago I was doing some work with this band that had hits (but shall remain nameless). The guitar player asked me if could teach him his solo. We were working on the video at the time. I asked him how the fuck could you NOT know your own solo??

He said they comped a bunch of takes and he had no idea what the final solo was.

One week before a MTV video release and two weeks before a world wide tour and he hadn't even heard the record yet. Hadnt even heard the rough mixes. They went from recording straight to doing the video for the single, and then onto the tour. I'll bet those were some grueling before tour rehearsals. : (sidenote: damn record company slavedrivers ) :)

The point of that story is, that I like to avoid that. And I have the opinion that you should know your parts before you record.

It cuts down on track counts and makes one a better player.
Cheers
:D
 
I got the tracks from Bohemian Rhapsody, it was done on 24 tracks. However, once I expanded it, so that every part was on its own track, I think it was somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 tracks.

I don't know if they actually had lead guitar, vocal harmonies, etc... all sharing the same track at different times, or if that was done to consolidate the version that I have. I assume that is the way it was actually recorded.

The DAW just lets you not have to play games like that.
 
Back when words like "Otari" and "Studer" were used, one might say words like "track count" were also used.

24 tracks - a somewhat arbitrary number - was a 2 inch tape that ran for, what? 23 minutes? Then another $100 reel of tape had to be purchased.

More than 24? Then another machine had to be used and synched. At $1000/track, it was a nice facility that had such a machine just waiting around.

So "track count" mattered. Bounce this here; stack that there. "Track count" was a phrase that disguised its true meaning: money.

But in my world, those days are gone. Completely gone.

24 can be 26... or 31... or 12.... all the same. If I'm planning 9 tracks, i don't have someone squeezing me to get it down to the 8-track 1 inch machine. And if someone wants a guiro or a bagpipe for a measure or two, what's another track? Nothing.

These days, unlike Ye Dayes of Olde, "track count" is simply a trivial piece of data, and carries absolutely none of the weight it once did.
P5
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure. Kind of depends on the mood and what's needed. 4-track recording can be a lot more fun than infinite track recording because of the limitations and decisions that need to be made. Sometimes it's fun to double guitars and other things and see how big you can make something sound. The latter usually just winds up sounding busy or claustrophobic, though. So, who knows. I guess if you can make huge track numbers blend and add something to the song then it's good to do it. Seems many people just do all that for the sake of it though, and it just winds up muddying and complicating the mix.
 
Nola said:
I'm not sure. Kind of depends on the mood and what's needed. 4-track recording can be a lot more fun than infinite track recording because of the limitations and decisions that need to be made. Sometimes it's fun to double guitars and other things and see how big you can make something sound. The latter usually just winds up sounding busy or claustrophobic, though. So, who knows. I guess if you can make huge track numbers blend and add something to the song then it's good to do it. Seems many people just do all that for the sake of it though, and it just winds up muddying and complicating the mix.
Click to expand...

You also have the element of commitment with less tracks. Say you have a 421 and a 57 on a cabinet, the two mics get run and blended through a mixer, with the destination being one track. You damn sure will learn how to get a good guitar sound. There's none of the indecision that comes with having unlimited tracks.
That being said, today we have the freedom to do it how we want. From the cassette 4 track (which seems to have had a resurgence in popularity) to the 10k plus PT setups, one can do whatever they want within the budget and skill level they have.

I don't care how it's done. Just do some good music. In the end the listener doesn't give a shit. They'll either like your song or they wont.
:D
 
Yeah...but there's a big difference between 4 tracks and unlimited tracks...or I should say, those are not the only two choices. :)

Also....when they only had a 4 or 8-track deck...they often had a bunch of musicians playing together, creating a live mix, and then committing it to a couple of tracks. That's a big difference compared to a solo musician trying to pull off a production with a 4 or 8 track setup.
Granted, when you're doing just an acoustic guitar and vocal, 4 tracks is enough...but even a sparse Rock mix is going to have a hard time with 4 or 8 tracks or even 16 when you're recording solo...and you have little option for any alternative tracks or multiple takes.

It's not really about the number of tracks...small or large...it's what the production calls for.
 
Farview said:
I got the tracks from Bohemian Rhapsody, it was done on 24 tracks. However, once I expanded it, so that every part was on its own track, I think it was somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 tracks.

I don't know if they actually had lead guitar, vocal harmonies, etc... all sharing the same track at different times, or if that was done to consolidate the version that I have. I assume that is the way it was actually recorded.

The DAW just lets you not have to play games like that.
Click to expand...

Read my post #32 about using sections of tracks already used for new parts. They used to do things like recording drums on 10 tracks then bouncing the tracks down by mixing them to say 2 tracks the free up an extra 8 tracks.

Oh the limitations of 4, 8, 16 or 24 track tape machines, engineers and producers earned their pay in those days.

Alan.
 
RFR said:
I dunno jimmy. That sounds dismissive to me. :D sounds like you're saying the minimalist isn't in touch with the real world. (As you see the 'real world')
But there's a a lot if ways to skin a cat.

I've got no problem with high track counts, be they duplicate tracks, effects tracks, performance tracks ect.
I'm fully aware that people will use what's available to them.
There is also the universal concept of 'wanting more.' For myself, I started out recording with 2:tracks. 4 tracks became available and I needed that, then that wasn't enough. Had to have 8 tracks, then that wasn't enough to do live drums, had to go 16.
Most of my stuff (rock and roll) runs 6 to 8 tracks for the drums. And I've done metal with that amount of drum mics too.

My personal happy place is with 16 audio tracks. Dumping that into a daw and going extra tracks for whatever reason brings me up to 24;tracks usually.

Now with my own stuff and bands I've recorded there isn't any combining 3 or 4 tracks together to get a single guitar part.
The philosophy is to play it through. If you can't do the guitar part from start to finish, you've got no business being in the studio. Youre just not ready yet. And you're surely not ready to tour yet.

Many years ago I was doing some work with this band that had hits (but shall remain nameless). The guitar player asked me if could teach him his solo. We were working on the video at the time. I asked him how the fuck could you NOT know your own solo??

He said they comped a bunch of takes and he had no idea what the final solo was.

One week before a MTV video release and two weeks before a world wide tour and he hadn't even heard the record yet. Hadnt even heard the rough mixes. They went from recording straight to doing the video for the single, and then onto the tour. I'll bet those were some grueling before tour rehearsals. : (sidenote: damn record company slavedrivers ) :)

The point of that story is, that I like to avoid that. And I have the opinion that you should know your parts before you record.

It cuts down on track counts and makes one a better player.
Cheers
:D
Click to expand...

I should have completed my thought and stated 'but that is not the way it works 'for me'. I was in no way trying to dis anyone. :D
 
The cliche modern metal song, and no this is not me pulling something out of thin air:

Drums:
1. Kick inside mic
2. Kick outside mic
3. Kick sub mic
4. Kick sample
5. Snare Top mic
6. Snare bottom mic
7. Snare sample
8. Rack tom 1 mic
9. Rack tom 2 mic
10. Floor tom 1 mic
11. Floor tom 2 mic
12. OH L mic
13. OH R mic
14. HH mic
15. Ride mic
16. Splash mic
17. China mic
18. Room L mic
19. Room R mic
20. Room 2 L mic
21. Room 2 R mic
22. Room 3 L mic
23. Room 3 R mic

Bass:
24. Bass DI
25. Bass amp mic
26. Bass section part that was played different than the main part so it went on it's own track DI.
27. Bass section part that was played different than the main part so it went on it's own track amp mic.

Guitar:
28. Main rhythm 1 R amp mic
29. Main rhythm 1 L amp mic
30. Main rhythm complimenting part 1 amp mic R
31. Main rhythm complimenting part 1 amp mic L
32. Acoustic 1 R
33. Acoustic 1 L
34. Ebow effect guitar part that happens for a few bars in the bridge R
35. Ebow effect guitar L
36. Solo guitar 1
37. Solo guitar 2
38. Solo guitar 3
Tracks 39-49 are all the supplement DI tracks that were recorded at the same time as the above tracks. They don't get used in the mix most of the time though (at least I never use them past editing)

Keyboards/Strings/synths
Tracks 50-70. They seem to be delivered in thier mono L and R parts though so it really ends up being 10 tracks once I consolidate them into stereo tracks.

FX tracks (booms, noises, builds, drum machines etc...)
Anywhere from 30-40 additional tracks.
 
This thread is strange. It was started by a guy who had an 8 track and asked if we really needed more tracks..........and he then proceeded with a crazy bashing of anyone who thought differently than him......to the point where he was insulting.

Was there ever any doubt that more than 8 tracks is not a crime against the art of music production? As to everyone’s preference for track numbers......and why......there’s no wrong way that I’ve seen so far. Everyone is right........about how and why they do it with whatever number of tracks they want.....or need.
 
Last edited:
witzendoz said:
Read my post #32 about using sections of tracks already used for new parts. They used to do things like recording drums on 10 tracks then bouncing the tracks down by mixing them to say 2 tracks the free up an extra 8 tracks.

Oh the limitations of 4, 8, 16 or 24 track tape machines, engineers and producers earned their pay in those days.

Alan.
Click to expand...

Yup. I used to have to do the same thing. I'm just a little fuzzy on when and where it became possible to link two 24 track machines in the 70s. If it were possible at the time, one would figure that this production would warrant it, and that band would have the budget to do it.

But again, off the top of my head, I couldn't tell you for sure what year that was recorded, how big Queen was going into making that album, or if it was even possible to sync two machines when and where they recorded it.

I assumed tat is the way the tracks were laid out, until I started overthinking it.
 
There is not bashing on anyone's approach to recording. Different strokes for different folks. Just make fucking music and enjoy. :)
 
jimmys69 said:
There is not bashing on anyone's approach to recording. Different strokes for different folks. Just make fucking music and enjoy. :)
Click to expand...

In case I wasn't clear.....was talking about the OP and how he responded to others who posted about his question. Everyone else has been civil and reasonable for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top