What's Better

S

Stefdawg

New member
Now i've been working with a producer who seems to think that putting each instrument on it's own track is not how it's supposed to be done.But i told him it's easier to mix when there tracked out like that.It's easier to mix vocals with the track.Am i wrong or is he a idiot Because he thinks that recording all instruments and synths on one track is the correct way to do everything.:mad:
 
now is this producer just a friend of yours? i doubt any "producer" on here would suggest that you should record everything onto one track.

for a very basic answer, as it doesnt really need explaing in great detail...

you want to be able to apply effects and turn up or down volumes on each track to make it sound good, this can take days of tweaking and sometimes what sounds good one day, will sound crappy the next. if all your tracks are mixed together you dont have the abilty to go back and edit a guitar thats too loud, or a vocal thats out of place

to go into it further, you may have 5 tracks like this

1. main vocalist
2. acoustic guitar
3. electric guitar
4. bass guitar
5. drums

the main vocalist, may only need some reverb and a little bit of EQ
while the guitars might need some heavy compression

in reality, you would actually want each of your drums mic'd individually, like one mic on the snare, maybe 2 on the kick, 4 placed around the cymbals, on each of the toms.

its not uncommon for people to 4-8 tracks going for the drums alone. this lets you have complete control over the mix as a whole, and not just a lump of crappy sound that you cant work with.

of course you CAN record to one track and make it work, this was how i started out recording demos with just one $25 computer mic and cool edit pro. is it ideal though? hell no!

i could really keep going and going, but this is all just the basics to recording.

hope this answers your question
 
Without knowing his reasoning, it's hard tell why he feels thay way. If he is also the customer then he is RIGHT. However, you can suggest your alternative by directing him to articles supporting your method to help him to decide. Lots of luck.
 
Producer - a lot of the young guys love that title...as they think all you need to have is an opinon about music and you can call yourself a "producer". :D

Most of them won't cop the title of "engineer" 'cuz that implies some actual knowledge, ;) but even a producer needs to know some technical stuff or at least studio basics.
A good producer will know, and his decisions will be based on that knowledge. A bad or "green" producer will just blame it on the engineer when shit doesn't work out right! :p

So does your "producer" have a reason for wanting to record in that manner...or isn't he able to explain it so it makes sense?
 
While I'd hazard that it is far more common, particularly with digital recording, to track each 'voice' to an individual location; as with most things with audio production I doubt that there is any absolute definitive, across the board, 'best' approach. But as it sounds as if you are tracking vocals separately from other instruments you lose a tremendous amount of control and flexibility by not having separate tracks. In struggle to get vocals to have impact you want you typically gain more traction by editing the support instruments

even so it depends on content, performance, genre and goals. I have worked on projects where not only was everything recorded to a single track but done with a single mic. It helps in this case if one is working with top flight musicians, familiar with material and everyone is in agreement on how things are supposed to sound

If room, mic locker, do not sufficiently control bleed then, in terms of time, effort (and hence $) it can be beneficial to mix live to single or pair of tracks. How one approaches tracking a trap set kind of illustrations the options. Do you approach the kit as a single organic 'voice' or put two mics on the kick, top and bottom on the snare, separate mics on each tom and cymbal? In any half way decent room I might derive anywhere from 70-90% of the final trap sound from overheads . . . but even when leaning in the 90% direction I would still prefer to have separate additional tracks for kick, snare, hi-hat, etc. On the other hand if I'm working with a client who honestly (and that's the kicker what clients say and what want are frequently not on speaking terms) wants purely that 'live' sound I might well restrict kit to three mics

there is always a trade off in what ever approach you use . . . in addition to having a preference for slightly less then 13 mics per drum kit I'll frequently use a single mic on elements designed as a single voice even if comprised of multiple instruments: small horn sections, string quartets, back up choral sections, etc. But I'd typically want a client to be clear as to why they wanted multiple voices collapsed, in recording stage, to a single track and appreciate the limitations in adding or modifying anything after that 'print' before I'd pursue a course other then some reasonable count of individual tracks for individual voices. Even so most of the decisions do fall under 'producer' purview with regard to managing personnel and budget and from least experienced to most experienced producers will have individual approaches as well and any that came out of the old A&R mold won't necessarily find any benefit in considering 'talents' opinions.
 
I'm going to climb out on a skinny limb here and take a not-completely-uneducated guess here as to what's going on. If I'm way off, I'll take my punishment (preferably from Angelina Jolie.)

I'm assuming that we're talking the corrupted hip-hop definition of "producer" here, which is basically little more than someone who takes already recorded and mixed "beats" and marries a rap vocal or two to them.

For the inexperienced of this group, their only experience with the "beats" is as a single stereo track actually produced by someone else, and may not realize that the ones containing multiple instruments did not start out as a single stereo track but rather as individual instrument tracks that had to be submixed together.

Just a thought.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
For the inexperienced of this group, their only experience with the "beats" is as a single stereo track actually produced by someone else, and may not realize that the ones containing multiple instruments did not start out as a single stereo track but rather as individual instrument tracks that had to be submixed together.
G.
Click to expand...

That is what crossed my mind when I read the first post. :rolleyes:
 
Stefdawg said:
Now i've been working with a producer who seems to think that putting each instrument on it's own track is not how it's supposed to be done.But i told him it's easier to mix when there tracked out like that.It's easier to mix vocals with the track.Am i wrong or is he a idiot Because he thinks that recording all instruments and synths on one track is the correct way to do everything.:mad:
Click to expand...

Recording all the isntruments on one track is a way of doing it. It is not 'correct'. But neither is it 'incorrect'. However, it is a very limiting way of going about doing things, and there would need to be very special reasons why you do it.
 
there are some great pieces recorded in all at once & similarly minimalist ways. The Direct to Disk movement/process in the early 80's has some fine examples as do many old blues recordings BUT I'd ask to hear examples BY this producer that demonstrate his experience & results with this approach before going along with it for all the reasons folk have illuminated above.
For a successful minimalist approach from a professional look here:
http://www.jaided.com/happybeat/website_METHODS.html
You'll need to have a look at the other pages too to get an idea of where his brain is - BUT up front he states his philosophy & processes - as well as his gear.
 
Last edited:
Thank you guys for your input.i'm still wondering what i should do i keep trying to tell him that it would make it easier to mix but he says it's easier for him to make the beat or track that way.He says that the standard for the industry but i think he's wrong.I NEED A NEW PRODUCER.
 
Hmm. This guy doesn't sound like a producer. he sounds like a kid who downloaded some software and wants to make some money off it. I think your best bet is to avoid anyone who calls himself a producer. The very fact that he calls himself a producer means he doesn't know what in the world he's doing.
 
He doesn't use software which i've suggested.he uses two korg tritons and a mpc 2000 and a 10 track roland standalone recorder
 
Stefdawg said:
He doesn't use software which i've suggested.he uses two korg tritons and a mpc 2000 and a 10 track roland standalone recorder
Click to expand...

His method is not unreasonable, given his set up. He can program a whole mess of tracks, then mix them onto a single stereo pair ready for the addition of vocals.

I've used a similar technique as well: program all my midi tracks, mix them in midi until I'm happy with them, then record them as a single stereo track.

However, I mixed them within the context of the vocal track. In other words, I recorded vocals against the midi, then fiddled with the midi so that the mix was right, then recorded the midi.

I did this in the days when I had a less powerful PC, and needed to minimise the demand on the PC system.

These days, when I do midi stuff, I convert each midi track into audio separately, then mix all these tracks with any other recorded audio.
 
tracking instruments

Ok, try this since it sounds like you have a newbie totally inexperienced. In order to let him save face and let you do your job, tell him "I promise you the final mix will be done on a single stereo mix, but with my equipment I really need to record separate tracks. That is what I'm used to and that's the only way I can stand behind my work. This won't effect you music at all, but will give me the flexibility to give you the best possible project. And that's what we all want"

See if he'll cave on that. He's just intimidated by technology and trying to keep control by premixing. If he still won't budge, then maybe he needs a radio shack mixer and mic and sit in his bedroom and do it himself. You can't let the "producer dictate how you will track the session or you will be held responsible when it sucks. Keep control of the tracking process
 
I'm confused now. Lets clear up the nomenclature and job descriptions please, as in my experience, (before electricity) a 'Producer' either makes the final decisions on a project based on his 'client' or 'talents' desires or funds the movie. 'Talent/Artist/Client' is the musician/singer/idiot with a gittar. 'Recordist/recording engineer/studio owner/kid with a lot of gear' is the person which has been hired/coerced/enslaved/fooled into providing the environment for a recording project of some sort to be completed.

At this point I'm unsure what your role is..... What this 'producer's' role is....who's sleeping with who and how it all ends in a blaze of gunfire and screaming.

Seriously. When you say YOU need a 'new producer' it sounds like you're the talent and then you mention the producer creating things on some synths and other gear. Producers dont really' create' as much as get in the way during sessions (ask any engineer), usually the producer represents the company whos providing the cash for the talent to break a leg, and is more of an intermediator between the company, the talent , and the studio. While this does have a lot of lee-way these days, ie: some producers are great musicians and artists in their own right; some are great administrators and can motivate stubborn geniuses to do their jobs and not waste any time and money indulging their appetites for destruction; some are rich SOB's with nothing better to do than (supposedly) help young promising stars and starlets get a foothold in this whacky business; while others are austere and benevolent teachers with a voice like a whip and an eye for real talent.

So, who's the talent? Who's the studio? Who's the engineer? Is there REALLY a producer on this job???
 
I have to ask... Who is paying who? If you are paying him then you have the right to say do it my way or get off the planet. However if he is paying you, he has the same option. If no one is getting paid, what is the point of having a producer?
 
cavedog101 said:
Producers dont really' create' as much as get in the way during sessions (ask any engineer), usually the producer represents the company whos providing the cash for the talent to break a leg, and is more of an intermediator between the company, the talent , and the studio.
Click to expand...
Lol. Harsh, dude.

The producer is the guy driving the bus. He says how many guitars there are and what they sound like. He says that the kick is below the bass guitar and the piano dominates the chorus. Then the engineer has to somehow make that sound.

And of course, the producer has to take care of booking the studio, hiring the orchestra, renting the drums... all of the non-music crap so the music guys can just do music.



If all goes right, of course.

At our level, the producer usually IS the engineer, and frequently is the guitar player too. But somebody has to be in charge.
 
Stefdawg said:
He doesn't use software which i've suggested.he uses two korg tritons and a mpc 2000 and a 10 track roland standalone recorder
Click to expand...

It sounds to me that he's just some guy who has simply self-embellished the title of” “Producer” to attract idiots with a couple of bucks. Hey just because I’ve shot off a shit load of bottle rockets over the years doesn’t make me an Astronaut.

I’d find someone else or do it yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top