Vocal recording: How many tracks is standard?

[elly-d]

people put the best electric guitars in the world through amps, distort them and compress them.

well this is a different arguement I think. I think we probably agree on most of it. I think of it as a creative effect it can be used with varying degrees of success. I think everything has been said now, unless you wanna tell me off for my ageist remarks again (I deserved that anyway)

I hope we helped this young man, he should be straight on it now anyway.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

people put the best electric guitars in the world through amps, distort them and compress them.

Yet I think you'd have to agree that (on the whole, there are always exceptions) the more intrinsic talent - and yes, I do purposely use the word talent here - on the part of the guitar player, the less playing around he is likely to do with electronic "tone".

I have nothing against creativity, I just don't think it's worth a rat's patootie behind the glass unless it first exists in front of it. Around here we often here the term "polishing a turd". But here, for this week only,we Americans have a blue light special on the term "putting lipstick on a pig".

The other side of that is the natural beauty "girl next door" who actually looks better with less or no lipstick than she does made up like a whore. If you put a great guitarist in front of me, I don't give a shit what kind of guitar he's using, what amp he's using or whether he's using any distortion or not, it's going to sound great and the electronic lipstick will often just get in the way.

And if you stick Joe Wanker in front of me who spends all afternoon working on his tone just to spend 8 minutes proving that he's no better a guitarist or a songwriter than a zillion others, his tone won't make an iota of difference to me either, because he's not doing anything with that tone worth sticking around for.

It's the same thing with vocals. You can layer as many tracks and as much electronics, controlled by the best engineers in the world, on Britney Spears, and I won't stick around to listen for very long, because there's nothing there worth listening to. But stick someone who actually knows how to use their instrument of voice in front of an SM57 into a Pignose, and record that with your digital pocket memo taker, and I'll probably want a copy of that on CD to listen to repeatedly for myself.

G.

 

[soldierone]

There's a lot of great thoughts on the subject here, but I would like to add something that a friend of mine once told me:

If you take a great vocalist and bury him in the mix, it will sound like you're trying to cover something up... however, if you take a good vocalist with a less than ideal sound, and make it up front and center, it will make him sound more confident than the vocalist who's hiding behind the band.

Some people have really weird voices that they're not exactly proud of, but if they sound confident, people will percieve it as being that way as opposed to the guy who doesn't.

This doesn't mean that a bad vocal take will be great when turned up by any means, but confident sounding vocalists can go a long way.

As for all the effects, double-tracking, and everything else... when used with a great source to begin with, they can create some soundscapes that are a lot of fun... when used on crap though... you'll just get crap in return.

and as far as my recordings go, I usually like to get a nice solid main vocal track for a song and will add extra tracks for back-ups or the occasional double to add a little bit more dimension to certain parts of a song, (like a doubled vox on the chorus for example.)

 

[tateros]

The standard is to do as many takes as necessary until you have a good performance. If there's still not a good take after a dozen takes, the singer needs to go away and practice some more.

I couldn't disagree more. If you are recording into a computer, you can do 12 takes & mix and match down to the syllable, if you'd like. The only reason people from yesteryear used the "good performance" method was because they were limited to 4 tracks. This has clearly gone the way of the dodo.

Just put out a good sounding product no matter what it takes.

What I would suggest as far as effects goes is to record all of your vocals dry & then mix in effects later.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I couldn't disagree more. If you are recording into a computer, you can do 12 takes & mix and match down to the syllable, if you'd like. The only reason people from yesteryear used the "good performance" method was because they were limited to 4 tracks. This has clearly gone the way of the dodo.

This is nonsense. One does not need multiple tracks or digital editors in order to Frankenstein vocal tracks together. This is what punchin/punchout is for.

The reason "people from yesteryear" prefer the longest takes possible is because they almost always sound far better than a Frankenmix that's been built one syllable at a time from a dozen takes. This is especially true on vocal tracks.

By the way, what exactly does "people from yesteryear" mean? Most of the folks that actually have experience in these things are still working and using Pro Tools or Nuendo just like those from sometime after yesteryear (?) who are probably less experienced than the computer on which the software they use was originally developed. Many of the yesteryear-ers actually helped design and develop many of the multitrack editors used today. But they know that the computer is no substitute for a quality performance, nor was it ever intended to be.

The only thing that has gone the way of the dodo is the musical work ethic.

G.

 

[soldierone]

This is nonsense. One does not need multiple tracks or digital editors in order to Frankenstein vocal tracks together. This is what punchin/punchout is for.

The reason "people from yesteryear" prefer the longest takes possible is because they almost always sound far better than a Frankenmix that's been built one syllable at a time from a dozen takes. This is especially true on vocal tracks.

By the way, what exactly does "people from yesteryear" mean? Most of the folks that actually have experience in these things are still working and using Pro Tools or Nuendo just like those from sometime after yesteryear (?) who are probably less experienced than the computer on which the software they use was originally developed. Many of the yesteryear-ers actually helped design and develop many of the multitrack editors used today. But they know that the computer is no substitute for a quality performance, nor was it ever intended to be.

The only thing that has gone the way of the dodo is the musical work ethic.

G.

Definitely... I worked with a band once with a portable recorder and the vocalist was terrible. I used a lot of punches to get it right, and in some cases, sylable by slyable. The overall result was pretty sad, but that's not the point.

The parts in the song where he did decent takes sounded better than the pieced together nonsense... The punch in and out process worked great overall though. Anyway... I'm sure you get the point. The better the performance, the better the outcome... period!

 

[KineticSound]

The only thing that has gone the way of the dodo is the musical work ethic.

Absolutely.

In part because the modern recording process has made it almost too easy to piece together decent portions of a lot of crummy work and make it passable in the end.

I, like some others, do not punch if I can help it. If I can't play it, I'm the wrong guy for the job. My earlier posts on how to use multiple tracks for unique effects was simply to illustrate options that people have to enhance an already good performance or add interesting textures. Effects should not be used as a smokescreen for a mediocre talent.

 

[tateros]

This is nonsense. One does not need multiple tracks or digital editors in order to Frankenstein vocal tracks together. This is what punchin/punchout is for.

Instead of responding to everything you've disagreed with me on, I'll just pick the one where we are in agreement, although you may not see it as such:

Whether the vocal track is puzzled together via cut & paste or put together in a more linear method by way of punching, we would both make Dr. Frankenstein proud.

 

[tateros]

Effects should not be used as a smokescreen for a mediocre talent.

This sounds like arguements I used to have about bands that can maintain a higher BPM & stop on a dime. In this forum it may be about how it was recorded. But to the masses, it's all about the end product. And maybe the look.

Polish away, people.

 

[tateros]

If I can't play it, I'm the wrong guy for the job.

If I couldn't play something to the point where I thought I was the wrong guy for the job, I would consider myself a quitter. That's not good work ethic.

 

[tateros]

The better the performance, the better the outcome... period!

A great man once said, ""With time and patience, the mulberry leaf becomes satin".

Thanks for the wisdom, Google.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Whether the vocal track is puzzled together via cut & paste or put together in a more linear method by way of punching, we would both make Dr. Frankenstein proud.

That doesn't change the fact that the less editing done, whether linear or non-linear, the better the track will sound (unless it's MEANT to sound like a monster with a defective brain, of course ).

OK, maybe verse two might sound better on take number two but verse one sounds better on take one, and yeah, you can edit those together at the chorus break and it'll sound fine. Nothing wrong with that. But frankly, if the vocalist cant get a decent take in 12 tries, they have no business being in front of a microphone. My god, they must really suck live.

Hell, if I can't get at least a serviceable take out of the vocalist in three passes, I'll recommend moving on to the next song and coming back to this one when they are ready.

G.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

If I couldn't play something to the point where I thought I was the wrong guy for the job, I would consider myself a quitter. That's not good work ethic.

Nobody said anything about quitting. It's about being ready to record and having something actually worth recording. It's also about recognizing ones limitations.

Good work ethic is to treat that record button with the respect it deserves, and not to be in a headlong rush to push it if you're not ready yet. It's about taking pride in the quality of your work and your effort, instead of just phoning it in and letting the audio equivalent of Photoshop create a fake sonic image that fools your listener into thinking that you really can sing and that you put the effort into it for your and their benefit.

G.

 

[tateros]

By the way, what exactly does "people from yesteryear" mean? Most of the folks that actually have experience in these things are still working and using Pro Tools or Nuendo just like those from sometime after yesteryear (?) who are probably less experienced than the computer on which the software they use was originally developed. Many of the yesteryear-ers actually helped design and develop many of the multitrack editors used today. But they know that the computer is no substitute for a quality performance, nor was it ever intended to be.

The only thing that has gone the way of the dodo is the musical work ethic.

G.

I may not know more than the yesteryearer, but I have enough common sense to know that if verse2 take 1 sounds great & verse 1 take 2 sounds great, I can call it a wrap.

Oh, and Britney Spears & company may have something to say about needing more than a computer & a whole lot of editing to achieve success.

 

[tateros]

It's about taking pride in the quality of your work and your effort, instead of just phoning it in and letting the audio equivalent of Photoshop to create a fake sonic image that fools your listener into thinking that you actually put some effort into it for their benefit.

G.

According to record sales, it turns out you can fool tweeners everywhere into believing anything.

Pride led the Spartans into extinction.

 

[KineticSound]

If I couldn't play something to the point where I thought I was the wrong guy for the job, I would consider myself a quitter. That's not good work ethic.

No, that's knowing your ability. I take a little pride in the music I play - If I'm called for a session and the client needs something that's beyond what I'm capable of producing at a very professional level, I'd rather not waste everyone's time.

Think of it this way. If you're a jazz & fusion player, and someone calls you to do a heavy metal thing - you don't jack around with them. You give them the number of a heavy metal player.

In this forum it may be about how it was recorded. But to the masses, it's all about the end product. And maybe the look.

I don't disagree with that at all (anyone remember Ashlee Simpson on SNL? ), however, keep it in context. Like most others on this site, I'm not running a record label. The image is secondary. I produce music and audio for commercials... my clients don't care what it looks like; they care how it sounds. IMO/E, the best sound comes from good talent and solid performance.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

It's not about you, it's not about me, it's not about the tweenies, it's not about the Spartans.

It's not even about sales or success.

To paraphrase from yet another presidential campaign:

"It's the music, stupid!"

G.

 

[tateros]

It's not about you, it's not about me, it's not about the tweenies, it's not about the Spartans.

It's not even about sales or success.

To paraphrase from yet another presidential campaign:

"It's the music, stupid!"

G.

Let me pull you back to reality for a second simply to say that it really is about everything you've mentioned. Even the Spartans have a lesson to teach.

There, now you can float back into your musical abyss.

 

[tateros]

IMO/E, the best sound comes from good talent and solid performance.

I appreciate your opinion. But IMO, the best sound comes from good songwriting.

The only point I initially tried to make was that it doesn't matter how you make music as long as it sounds good to you. Saying that if you are not good enough to record a whole song in 1 shot, come back until you can is completely unfair.

I guess I shouldn't have brought up the 4 track becoming obsolete.

Apparently someone still misses it.

 

[KineticSound]

I didn't intend to say that you have to be able to play the entire song in one take (well, in my case as a drummer, you would, but a vocalist should be able to get through a verse or chorus in one shot). Where I'm going with it is that the current method of often recording one line at a time generally takes away from what could otherwise be a much more fluid performance.

I've worked with 4-track reel-to-reels, Adats, digital standalone DAW's, and now I work in Apple Logic. No, I don't miss the RTR.