Tracking guitars, the logical way for rock? (poll)

[bkkornaker]

ok kids.....

I am wondering how most of you guys track your rhythm guitars when recording. Its pretty obvious the most commonly method is tracking 2 separate tracks, and panning them hard left/right.

BUt how often do you guys track an additional (also identical) set of guitars and also pan them ontop of your original 2 guitars you just recorded? Like having 4 separatly recorded guitar tracks, and pan 2 of them left, and 2 of them right....having a total of 4 guitar tracks.....blasting away?

Only reason i ask, is cause im listening to the new Dream Theater album (black clouds, silver linings)....and the guitarist MUST be only using 2 tracks only for his rhythm guitars. There is no way this guy can layer 4 tracks and be so damn tight, and so damn fast!!?

Do you guys mostly just use 2 tracks and be done with it?

[Bguzaldo]

I said just 2 (1 left and 1 right) but it really depends on how many guitarists are in the band, or what style the song is. If there's a really nice lead riff I'll put it just off center barely to put more focus on it. Also depends on the guitarist's gear, if they have a real nice sound then only one track is the case sometimes. It's a hard question because there's always another factor other than the type of music.

I'm sure many people will tell you here...."If it sounds good it is good" (amongst other variations)

Thanks,
-Barrett

[witzendoz]

I just recorded a single with some guys and the guitar player had 2 amps, Marshall with quad and vox AC30. He was going to record with both at the same time and pick which one later. I actually panned Marshall left, Vox right and because of the different sound and attack of each amp it sounded double tracked, this is what we used. So maybe John Petrucci (Dream Theater) double tracked playing through 2 amps at the same time.

Mind you John Petrucci probably could quad track a guitar part.

Cheers

Alan.

[DrewPeterson7]

Originally Posted by bkkornaker

Only reason i ask, is cause im listening to the new Dream Theater album (black clouds, silver linings)....and the guitarist MUST be only using 2 tracks only for his rhythm guitars. There is no way this guy can layer 4 tracks and be so damn tight, and so damn fast!!?

Do you guys mostly just use 2 tracks and be done with it?

Two separate questions...

One, "that guitarist" is John Petrucci, which for guitarists is sort of like being Chuck Norris, for everyone else. You know, "The chief export of John Petrucci is 64th note triplets." "There is no such thing as global warming. There is just John Petrucci warming up." "John Petrucci has not once played a wrong note. Ever." "John Petrucci's amps don't actually run on electricity. He plays so fast electrons flow through them anyway, out of fear."

For perspective, DT's classic, "Awake," was recorded with four tracks of rhythm guitars, two Rectifiers and two Mark IIC+'s. He's really just that tight.

Second... There's obviously a big difference between me and Petrucci. For one, I'm really not that spectacular a rhythm player. If I really nail the parts I can get away with quad tracking but more often than not I don't bother. The other factor for me though is I record instrumental rock, and that with only a single (admittedly, pretty damned flexible - my Rectoverb continues to amaze me) amp, it's kind of counterproductive for me to try to get a massively thick rhythm guitar tone, because then I'll turn around and, using the same amp and more often than not the same guitar, have to try to get a lead sound that cuts through the wall of rhythm guitars. By not going over the top on the rhythm parts, this is a little easier to do, IMO.

[Seafroggys]

Where the hell is 1?

There's only one electric rhythm guitar on my album. Sure there's lead guitar and occasional acoustic guitar, but there's still only one rhythm guitar.

Of course, the organ is also playing similar chords, in a different octave and w/ different voicings. So there's your "lushness" for you.

[DrewPeterson7]

Originally Posted by Seafroggys

Where the hell is 1?

There's only one electric rhythm guitar on my album. Sure there's lead guitar and occasional acoustic guitar, but there's still only one rhythm guitar.

Of course, the organ is also playing similar chords, in a different octave and w/ different voicings. So there's your "lushness" for you.

Going out on a limb - something tells me you aren't recording heavy distorted guitars, which is what the OP is asking about.

[xkapin_reelity]

id say it depends on the type of song ...

Sometimes I just do 2 tracks (1 left and 1 right)

And sometimes for Sh*ts and giggles I I do 2 tracks 1 left 1 right of direct connect (my effects processor) and then 2 tracks (1 left and 1 right) mic-ing my amp.

[dodgeaspen]

I use two.

[Micter]

I will usually at least double track but I don't pan hard left and hard right. I like some over lap. 75/75 is more like it. I have been known to double mic and double track and pan each take the exact ame way.

[bkkornaker]

these are all great answers........

for the most part, i always dual mic'ed my amp (both up close) and sent both signals into my DAW as a mono source (together). And then tracked 4 times, panning 2 left and 2 right.

yes, it sounded HUGE.....but it always had almost "too much thickensss" and i was wondering maybe cause of 2 close mic's and the stacking of the tracks just had too much low end build up.

plus the fact when i layered the tracks, the 2 tracks panned right....you could hear i wanst playing it perfectly. It was really bothering me.

but when i heard the Dream Theater album......i was like "theres no way hes playing 4 tracks of rhythm guitar (playing identical stuff and layering).....hes just way too tight and fast! PLUS....some of his riffs have so much "finesse" and "certain phrasing"....its almost impossible to duplicate it twice and layer it on top of each other without noticing subtle differences.

but i guess looking at the poll so far....everyone seems to be doing just 2 tracks......

[iownrocknroll]

normal rhythem tracks for me consist of 3 different amps, 2-3 mics per amp, maybe 2 room mics.

sometimes 2-3 keeper takes

[pipelineaudio]

Originally Posted by bkkornaker

and the guitarist MUST be only using 2 tracks only for his rhythm guitars. There is no way this guy can layer 4 tracks and be so damn tight, and so damn fast!!?

We've tracked about 8 billion layers of MegaDave before, and it really is that tight. You'd think it would be flub city by then but its not. The trouble is, at that level of anal, after a certain number of tracks, the guitar sound gets thinner and stops thickening up. Just do as many as you need till it sounds full.

Remember, just because its on tape doesn't mean you have to use it in the final mix. Thinner can be better, and thicken it up for emphasis parts or whatever.

Also, you probably dont want to pan them too ridiculously hard, you never know when its going to be some dumbass with one blown dash speaker in his 67 Impala and he'll miss your brilliant guitar lick if its panned too far.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by Seafroggys

Where the hell is 1?

Amen, brother!

G.

[Todzilla]

What about the option of recording multiple reamped passes of the same performance on different amps, with different preamps, mics and positions?

That gives you a different kind of tonal thickness than multi-pass playing, but without the variations in performance.

[bkkornaker]

Originally Posted by Todzilla

What about the option of recording multiple reamped passes of the same performance on different amps, with different preamps, mics and positions?

That gives you a different kind of tonal thickness than multi-pass playing, but without the variations in performance.

are all these reamped passes on different/multiple tracks? or summed to a single track?

[ecktronic]

It depends on the sound you are going for.
I like to record 2 rhythm tracks for 1 guitar part then pan.
At mixing stage it can be good to EQ each rhythm track slightly different, but there are no right or wrong ways to go about it.

You could use 4 rhythm tracks and make 2 tracks the same part, then the other 2 slightly different parts.
Just try out different ideas and see what works best when mixing, as you can always take tracks out.

Eck

[bkkornaker]

i used to record 4 individual tracks/takes and use a different mic and speaker for each take.....then pan 2 right (100% and 80%) and 2 left (100% and 80%) playing the the exact same riff.....layering them on each other

but now i find its just too much. Kinda muddies up the sound. AND if you aint tight enough, sloppyness really shows up big time.

Now i find it easier to record the 2 mics and different speakers at the same time, and feed them all into a single mono track. Then just record 2 takes.....and pan them hard left/right.

End result is just 2 guitar tracks....but still have the multi mic/speaker sounds.

[Cyrokk]

Two tracks of distorted guitars, one amped and one DI with a modeller. I never pan hard left or right because they tend to get lost in the mix once the bass in piled on, and I prefer a thicker more Sabbath-like sound by panning somewhere around 80% left and right.

[I Got Riffs]

I recently discovered that for as much time as I've spent trying to get a really heavy and fat sounding guitar tone, you never really know how it's going to sound until you hear it in a mix, especially with bass guitar. When you're jamming on a guitar by yourself, you want it to sound heavy and full, so you adjust your tone to compensate. But if you put that same tone in a mix, you'd probably end up having too much low end in it.

That being said, I don't see myself doing more then 2 identical panned tracks. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to try if I were as tight as Petrucci, but I'm very happy with my sound and have no reason to do it differently.

Also, if I weren't playing metal, I might even go with just one guitar track. When I'm doing quick demo's, I often do one track and run it though a stereo enhancer and it sounds great.

[greyharmonix]

depends. right?

i mean distorted power chord stuff you mulittrack. usually that stuff sounds pretty thin, but in nirvana's in utero, for example, it was not double tracked, but it sounded pretty damn good.

more technical playing it doesn't require it usually. well sometimes a double tracked lead guitar sounds pretty cool

a clean rhythm guitar might need it. depending if there's lead guitar doing something else on the other side of the panning spectrum lets say.

or think of the cure who have maybe six different guitars doing something different, but being very subtle and simple, adding up to a beautiful mess of guitars.

it all depends

[legionserial]

I quad track most of my distorted guitars. I do left and right using one amp, then left and right again using a different amp. I only have 1 guitar.

Originally Posted by greyharmonix

in nirvana's in utero, for example, it was not double tracked, but it sounded pretty damn good.

That's kind of a broad statement. A lot it was definitely double tracked, some of it wasn't.

[Terry Wetzel]

I'm by no means a pro but, It seems everyone in rock bands now days (at least on records, play rithym guitar! What ever happened to lead guitar? Is that the Hi frequency, screeching, noise track that runs continuously from start to finish on most R & R recordings? A well recorded rithym guitar track,(by that I mean good mics, good mic positioning, a quality acoustic guitar or electric, depending on the sound your seeking)and a good room is all that is necessary. If the final recording is stereo then copy a duplicate track of the rithym guitar and pan it left or right to taste. Also the rithym guitar is part of a bands rithym section,(I.E.) drums, bass, Piano bed, Rithym guitar, etc. That's why they call it the rithym guitar! By the way, You may have ascertained by my comment that, yes, I'm old school and please, no remarks if I spelled RITHYM wrong. I've always had trouble with that word.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by Terry Wetzel

I'm by no means a pro but, It seems everyone in rock bands now days (at least on records, play rithym guitar! What ever happened to lead guitar?

Because we have entered the "Internet 2.0 culture" age, where personal rights are abused in that the "right" to be able to do something is now used as a blanket excuse for abusing that right without any sense of responsibility and even less shame.

This sick non-sensibility manifests itself in many different forms, but as related to your question, Terry, it means that EVERYONE is in a rock band (or a rapper), regardless of actual musical knowledge, ability, or talent. Musicianship is no longer considered a prerequisite for being a musician, and having an ear for sound is no longer considered a prerequisite for recording and engineering music. And if you call the real problems with that kind of thinking to the floor, you're accused of being a stuck-up old-school elitist.

This shouldn't be surprising in an age where Britney Spears is considered a "singer", Joe the Plumber's opinion about anything other than plumbing actually matters, and the ability to write quality software is a talent that has no value.

G.

[DrewPeterson7]

Originally Posted by Terry Wetzel

If the final recording is stereo then copy a duplicate track of the rithym guitar and pan it left or right to taste.

1.) What final recording, these days, ISN'T stereo?

2.) That doesn't really give you a stereo image. The same exact sound, panned left and copied right, is going to sound like a louder version of the original track panned mono. Sure,it'll sound a bit different through headphones or something, but if you want a wide, expansive stereo rhythm guitar, you REALLY need to track twice.

As for guitar solos, I'd love to blame it on the "with the net and a computer, you don't NEED talent to record music" thing, but really, it dates back to earlier than that. As a child of the 90's (I'm 28), most of the music I grew up hearing on the radio either had no guitar solos, or had fairly simple stuff (there's a "lead guitar" break in most Nirvana songs, for example, but its usually a simple melody line). Guitar solos are just out of fashion, is all.

That doesn't mean they're dead - Kurt Cobain was the reason I picked up the guitar, yet these days my top two influences are Joe Satriani and David Gilmour, and I'm sitting here listening to a SRV album on my iPod as I type this ("The Sky is Crying," great stuff). It just means currently most people writing music don't consider them a priority, just as not that many years ago, most people did. Things move in cycles, I think they'll come back.

EDIT - and I'm not saying you're completely wrong, Glen - I think there's a fair amount of truth to what you're saying. However, there's also no doubt that the music that people are hearing on the radio these days is a bit short of guitar solos too, so the question of artistic influence is totally relevant, I think. Personally, as a guy who's all about guitar solos, I think the attitute that every single song needs one is a bit silly, but no more so than the "guitar solos suck, we don't need 'em" one that seems prevalent today.

[bkkornaker]

guitar solos.....easy. Its just a single take/track and pan it center or slightly off center. (for the most part)

im more wondering how rhythm guitars are done now a days....and how many people are stacking take after take, track after track and layering the bejesus out of them