How many guitar parts would you add?

[RawDepth]

I recently recorded a rock band with two guitar players. After hearing a rather plain and empty sounding song from them, I was trying to suggest that they add more background guitar parts to fill it in more so.

For example...
When I listen to a song like...say, Foo Fighter's - Lear to Fly, I hear several guitar parts playing simultaneously. One distorted electric playing the main riff, one distorted electric playing a one-octave harmony, one distorted electric following the bass line using chords, one clean electric playing single notes, and so on. These are all carefully blended to give the song a much bigger and fuller sound without sounding too crowded.

I was not talking about rewriting the whole song. I was just trying to play "Mr. Producer" a little bit by adding to it. (Simple enough to do as long as you are already setup for recording guitars.) Though, they didn't seem too keen on that idea.

What do yo guys usually do to fill out a song?
(I know it all depends on the song, but these were straight forward, driving rock songs.)

Any Ideas?

 

[miroslav]

...it all depends on the song...

DITTO.

You really can't discuss arrangement ideas without hearing the music....there is no default production process.

There are many things that can be done to "fill out" a production...but it's not necessary to do it all the time. It has to work for the song otherwise it ends up being nothing more than "filler". Sometimes the beauty is in the sparseness of the production, as it allows a couple of elements to stand out, rather than have a lot of elements competing for the same attention.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I'd also add that guitar is not always what I'd add. There are a million other instruments out there too. For me, overly-layered guitars have gotten to be boring old hat, right up there with Cher-autotuned vocals and stealing samples from 60's protest rock songs. Everything from orchestral instruments (George Martin) to metal ash trays (Tony Visconti) is in play.

But otherwise, I'm with miro; there's no way I could pull a number out of my butt without getting an idea from the specific song first.

G.

 

[miroslav]

...there's no way I could pull a number out of my butt...

Are you running a deli?




Yeah...I agree. Even though I lean toward guitar playing...I like to use other instruments for alternate parts instead of that multi-layered guitar sound.

 

[legionserial]

I would add precisely 7.

 

[Armistice]

I think you should be able to get sufficient depth with two guitars (albeit you may want to "big it up" by getting them to repeat at different settings etc.) if the guitarists know what they're doing and are playing complementary parts - especially if you're talking driving rock songs..

Depends upon the overall sound you're looking for.

I'm always adding electric guitars to acoustic songs and acoustic guitars to electric songs (playing the same parts) as a way of getting more aggression into both.... that could be worth a try...

 

[guitaristic]

Cello (ten characters!)

 

[grimtraveller]

Cello

Electric mandolin.

 

[drumslinger]

if you can hear the sound or parts in your head that would potentially add to the song then by all means have the guys add the extra parts. You can decide what will work during the mix with the parts. All the extra parts might work then again maybe only 1 or 2 were needed. Like some of the guys have mentioned. Try other instruments and see if they work.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

Post a rough cut of the song. It will give us something to go on.

 

[moresound]

Yeah know, for me, some of the great songs that have been recorded are the ones that utilize space and silence. Comes a time when some artist here while recording just add way to many instruments/vocals to their compositions.
True there is a baby grand ,a B3, in house fiddle, accordion, uke, mando, bone, sax, trumpet player and every know percussion toy you could imagine ..... but do you really need it on your songs?
Gets kind of cluttered after a while. And there is noway to let everything have it's own place in the mix, everybody is stepping on each others toes.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Yeah know, for me, some of the great songs that have been recorded are the ones that utilize space and silence. Comes a time when some artist here while recording just add way to many instruments/vocals to their compositions.
True there is a baby grand ,a B3, in house fiddle, accordion, uke, mando, bone, sax, trumpet player and every know percussion toy you could imagine ..... but do you really need it on your songs?
Gets kind of cluttered after a while. And there is noway to let everything have it's own place in the mix, everybody is stepping on each others toes.

There's another consideration wrapped in there, too. True story:

One of the producers I often work with sticks a whole busload of parts onto his productions. This is not a bad thing, for he is very good at what I call "arranging on the fly". He is keen to add lots of percussive instruments, keyboards, etc., and is very good at doing so. No problem there. Not until you realize that you can spot one of his productions coming down the street. By that I mean you can hear that it is one of his productions because, while all the songs are different, they all have a similar production "sound" to them. It's kind of like how you can ID a Phil Spector production with one ear behind your back. This guy isn't making a wall of sound or going insane like Spector, but there is still a distinctive style to his sound.

If that's what you want, fine. There's nothing wrong with having your own "sound", unless that's not what you want. This guy wants that, I think. Me, personally, I would prefer not to become known for my own "sound", but rather to be known a someone that anyone could go to to get a pro job done that fits the song, instead of making the song fit me.

Part of that includes not having every song have the same density of arrangement. I have no problem with releasing an a capella mix here if that's what really sounds interesting to me that day, and a wall of sound there for the same reason.

G.

 

[stainlessbrown]

I tend to like the more sparse/simple/airy (you choose the adjective) over heavily layered (often to the point of cluttered) mixes. I have played in large bands (10 piece) down to me and my guitar, and I admire those folks who can pull off solo performances that don't leave you thinking (that would sound good with a...)

A trend that I see with many folks in the digital realm is almost like a moth attracted to a flame... there's all these tracks available to record something on, so I need to record something else. Back in the days of tape, track count was limited, though i worked with folks would constantly bounced things down to get get more tracks into the song. They seemed happy, but to my ear it always seemed they could have gotten the same response to the music with far fewer tracks.

I always ask upfront- do you want your recordings to sound like you sound when you gig? or is this strictly a 'studio' version that you probably wouldn't be able to do in a performance. There's enough dishonesty in todays music with the manipulation/nudging/pitch correcting/comping of tracks and computer transposing that there's more name acts that are disappointing live than not- they're not horrible, but they sound nothing like their CD's.... maybe I just don't party enough anymore at concerts ?!?

If the band in question isn't striving for a "this is how we really sound" CD, (which should be for a demo whose purpose is to get gigs) then keep it as honest as possible. If it's intended to be listening music in a location of the listeners discretion, then whatever adds to the final product is what is required... but nothing more

* the above opinion is only that of the poster and may be contrary to the beliefs of others. Any resemblance between the living or the dead, fictional or otherwise was purely a fluke of my imagination.

 

[benherron.rrr]

The biggest turth is that it all depends on the song, Acting as Mr Producer you have to have a vision on how you want the final product to sound. If you feel the song needs more guitars. . . add more guitars, try double tracking different parts to help thicken up the tone a little. If you felt like it could work, you could mess around with some pads, they can be very subttle yet add a great sence of space, thicken the song up and heighten the emotion of the song. all while being quite unoticable. Have a listen to what youve got, you should begin to hear the finished product before its anywhere near, and add what your hearing in your mind

 

[fdr1972]

I'll add my two cents here. I just finished recording a cd in my home studio, yep, I worn ALL the hats. So some songs I had 5 or 6 guitars on others just 2. So to echo what Glen and Miro as well as others said here, depends on the song and what you are saying musically.

 

[moresound]

with one ear behind your back

I like this Glen. Can I use it?

And silence is an instrument too!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I like this Glen. Can I use it?

Go ahead; this is the Internet, an hour doesn't go by where someone doesn't steal something. At least you were decent enough to ask first .

And silence is an instrument too!

And I manage to somehow play even that one out of tune

G.

 

[buzzard bass]

After hearing a rather plain and empty sounding song from them, I was trying to suggest that they add more background guitar parts to fill it in more so.


Any Ideas?

Your statement says it all, you really can't polish a turd. A shit song is a shit song.

 

[stevieb]

My guitars have all the parts they need, so I am not adding to them...

 

[grimtraveller]

Your statement says it all, you really can't polish a turd. A shit song is a shit song.

And yet how many "shit songs" have sold [the point being that people bought them] millions of copies and made someone lots of dough and brought pleasure to so many........?