How many tracks?

Danny1969

I like the Pink Floyd approach .... record a multitracked masterpiece and then just add as  many extra players and backing singers as you need to recreate it live

I do find a lot of classic Zeppelin songs a bit sad when Jimmy pulls off the riffs and solo's and it sounds empty as fuck ...like the stairway solo, if JPJ got on the keys for the solo he could have filled it up a bit or just played the 3 notes with his feet ... instead it sounds empty. Nowdays bands like The Manics, Stereophonics, Muse etc just bring in extra players to avoid that  

Freebird

octatonic said:

paulmapp8306 said:

I come from the opinion if you cant replicate it live with the band alone (no sequence tracks etc) then the recording is cheating.

How can a band with 1 keys player play a song with 20 synth parts.... how can one singer sing 4 harmony parts etc.

But I record and mix for fun an no other reason.

What about multitracked guitars?
You could argue that anything other than a single microphone and a single take is somehow cheating (although I don't agree with this).

I just think of them as tools you use to make art.

That's what I meant with my painting with sound comment above. You produce different textures and add light & shade, and then you polish the entire thing when you apply a multitude of FX processes to produce something that cannot be easily replicated live. Post-production is an art form in itself, and that includes editing, mixing and mastering, etc..

Jalapeno

Still amazes me the Sgt Pepper album was recorded and mixed on an 8 track !

guitarfishbay

paulmapp8306 said:

I come from the opinion if you cant replicate it live with the band alone (no sequence tracks etc) then the recording is cheating.

How can a band with 1 keys player play a song with 20 synth parts.... how can one singer sing 4 harmony parts etc.

But I record and mix for fun an no other reason.

A recording can be anything the artist wants it to be.

Why impose a restriction that doesn’t need to exist?

Thinking only of myself, the vast majority of songs I’ve listened to and enjoyed in my life I have not and in many cases will not ever hear played live. I’d rather the songs be as whatever best fits the recording so I can enjoy that in full.

paulmapp8306

guitarfishbay said:

paulmapp8306 said:

I come from the opinion if you cant replicate it live with the band alone (no sequence tracks etc) then the recording is cheating.

How can a band with 1 keys player play a song with 20 synth parts.... how can one singer sing 4 harmony parts etc.

But I record and mix for fun an no other reason.

A recording can be anything the artist wants it to be.

Why impose a restriction that doesn’t need to exist?

Thinking only of myself, the vast majority of songs I’ve listened to and enjoyed in my life I have not and in many cases will not ever hear played live. I’d rather the songs be as whatever best fits the recording so I can enjoy that in full.

Basically I believe that s recording is a means of capturing z live performance, as it was originally.  Creating something that isnt that, and cant be recreated exactly  live isnt right.

It's an odd restriction granted, and only my feeling.  I feel the same way about Cgi in film to some extent.  Granted film was never a recording of a stage show so it is different, but I do feel the same way about it to some extent.

Freebird

Jalapeno said:

Still amazes me the Sgt Pepper album was recorded and mixed on an 8 track !

There was plenty of bouncing going on though, which was the 60's equivalent of mixing.

Freebird

paulmapp8306 said:

Basically I believe that s recording is a means of capturing z live performance, as it was originally.  Creating something that isnt that, and cant be recreated exactly  live isnt right.

It's an odd restriction granted, and only my feeling.  I feel the same way about Cgi in film to some extent.  Granted film was never a recording of a stage show so it is different, but I do feel the same way about it to some extent.

Painting used to be like that until the impressionists came along and made art more interesting 

Danny1969

Jalapeno said:

Still amazes me the Sgt Pepper album was recorded and mixed on an 8 track !

4 track mate ... although the US has 8 track machines Abbey Road didn't have one in service for a long time

Freebird

guitarfishbay said:

A recording can be anything the artist wants it to be.

Why impose a restriction that doesn’t need to exist?

Thinking only of myself, the vast majority of songs I’ve listened to and enjoyed in my life I have not and in many cases will not ever hear played live. I’d rather the songs be as whatever best fits the recording so I can enjoy that in full.

Basically there are two versions of most songs, the studio version and the live version. When it comes to bands such as Arcade Fire, I don't even know which versions I like best 

In saying that, some of my favourite albums are studio creations, and Pet Sounds springs to mind.

paulmapp8306

Freebird said:

paulmapp8306 said:

Basically I believe that s recording is a means of capturing z live performance, as it was originally.  Creating something that isnt that, and cant be recreated exactly  live isnt right.

It's an odd restriction granted, and only my feeling.  I feel the same way about Cgi in film to some extent.  Granted film was never a recording of a stage show so it is different, but I do feel the same way about it to some extent.

Painting used to be like that until the impressionists came along and made art more interesting 

not really - the impressionists still gave something that artist could reproduce.

paulmapp8306

I should maybe clarify my position.

I am not against using many many tracks.  20 tracks for the drums?  sure, as once recorded and mixed you end up with a rhythm pattern that drummer can replicate live.  

double or triple tracking guitars - sure for the same reason.

I have no problem recording 6 vocal takes and piecing them together - its getting the best performance to the recording, but its still one vocal line that can be reproduced live.

FX - no problem.  Reverb is recreating something thats exists live, compression/limiting doesnt chance the performance or prevent it from being replicated live, its enhancing the recording itself.

Keys playing a held pad, with an arpegiated pattern, then a synth line on top - no problem.  Again you can reproduce that live with synths (and a sustain pedal).

I do have a problem with say a dirty rhythm guitar, and a clean arpegiated guitar and then a lead guitar over the top when the band only has 2 guitarists, or say one keyboard player but the song has a double handed piano part, with an organ part and a synth lead line over the top at the same time - or 10 different synth parts going on all at once/layered over the top if its not replicatable live.

PolarityMan

So what about music that is entirely sequenced that has never been played live in the sense that you are talking about?

PolarityMan

Something like Aphex Twin or Skrillex for example?

Freebird

paulmapp8306 said:

Freebird said:

paulmapp8306 said:

Basically I believe that s recording is a means of capturing z live performance, as it was originally.  Creating something that isnt that, and cant be recreated exactly  live isnt right.

It's an odd restriction granted, and only my feeling.  I feel the same way about Cgi in film to some extent.  Granted film was never a recording of a stage show so it is different, but I do feel the same way about it to some extent.

Painting used to be like that until the impressionists came along and made art more interesting 

not really - the impressionists still gave something that artist could reproduce.

Prior to the impressionists, the artists of the day concentrated on capturing reality, such as life-like portraits and landscapes. The invention of photography provided a medium that captured life-like images more accurately, which gave a few absinthe and drug fuelled bohemian misfitst the opportunity to explore their chemically enhanced visions of life. It was around this time that a distinction was made between what is real and what is not real, and it gave later artists the freedom to do whatever they chose, as there we no longer any boundaries to confine them. This was the begining of the rock n roll lifestyle 

digitalscream

paulmapp8306 said:

I come from the opinion if you cant replicate it live with the band alone (no sequence tracks etc) then the recording is cheating.

How can a band with 1 keys player play a song with 20 synth parts.... how can one singer sing 4 harmony parts etc.

But I record and mix for fun an no other reason.

Most bands can't replicate any of their recordings live, particularly rock and metal bands.

Why? Well, the rhythm guitar tracks are all double-tracked on the album for a start. Also, when playing live, whoever's playing the solo stops playing rhythm because of the lack of limbs...

Is that cheating too? If not, why is it any different to a keys player doing it?

For me, the recorded version is the artist's complete vision of the song - the idealised version, if you will. Live is always going to be a compromise for many reasons (not all related to the number of instruments available), which is fine; it's supposed to be a different experience.

paulmapp8306

digitalscream said:

paulmapp8306 said:

I come from the opinion if you cant replicate it live with the band alone (no sequence tracks etc) then the recording is cheating.

How can a band with 1 keys player play a song with 20 synth parts.... how can one singer sing 4 harmony parts etc.

But I record and mix for fun an no other reason.

Most bands can't replicate any of their recordings live, particularly rock and metal bands.

Why? Well, the rhythm guitar tracks are all double-tracked on the album for a start. Also, when playing live, whoever's playing the solo stops playing rhythm because of the lack of limbs...

Is that cheating too? If not, why is it any different to a keys player doing it?

For me, the recorded version is the artist's complete vision of the song - the idealised version, if you will. Live is always going to be a compromise for many reasons (not all related to the number of instruments available), which is fine; it's supposed to be a different experience


*EDIT

To me double tracking isnt cheating - its one guitar part that uses the double tracking to thicken its, but it doesnt stop the guitarist playing it live.  

Playing a solo while that guitarist is still playing rhythm on a recorded track however is cheating.  If you have two guitarists, one plays rhythm the other the solo on solo parts.  Keeping both playing rhythm parts then layering a solo over the tap that cant then be played live is the cheating bit.

Nothing pisses me off more than loving a recorded track, going to see a band that then cant replicate it .

paulmapp8306

It does seem that things have turned round in this matter...

Originally you had artists that performed pieces live.  There were no recording mediums, it was composed and played - the audience went to see the performance.

Then recording became achievable, and it was used to record the artist playing so is could be enjoyed by a wider range of people that couldn't see it live.

Somewhere along the way we got lost, and now create music in a studio that simply cant be replicated.  To me that is not, and never was the point of recording a piece.

Im old and grumpy, and stuck in my ways is all.

TheBigDipper

Can I dance for you all about this great building I know? ;-) 

The recording studio allows people to create their musical art in different ways, and good job too. 

- Capturing the live performance, as if you were in the room, is one thing.
- Building a multitrack epic that cannot easily be reproduced live is something else - but equally valid.
- And all points in between...

I don't think anything can be called cheating. It's art and the result justifies the technique/means. Is "Pet Sounds" diminished because Brian Wilson got the Wrecking Crew to play on it? Not to me. 

Danny1969

I think tastes change over the years. I still love that early VH sound of just one guitar bass and drums ... very often no rhythm guitar under the solo ....stuff like Panama, Dead or Alive etc 

i think the biggest let down is when you see a band and the singer can’t hit the notes like He did in the studio and all the BVs are missing or horrendous . Seen a few examples of that over the years 

p90fool

paulmapp8306 said:

It does seem that things have turned round in this matter...

Originally you had artists that performed pieces live.  There were no recording mediums, it was composed and played - the audience went to see the performance.

Then recording became achievable, and it was used to record the artist playing so is could be enjoyed by a wider range of people that couldn't see it live.

Somewhere along the way we got lost, and now create music in a studio that simply cant be replicated.  To me that is not, and never was the point of recording a piece.

Im old and grumpy, and stuck in my ways is all.

Unless you're older than Les Paul, who made all this possible, then you're just grumpy.


For me, a studio is just a different instrument to the one you'd play live, and it's not better or worse. 

You can listen to Stravinsky's Rite of Spring and revel in the sheer power of its orchestral arrangement, then you listen to a recording of him playing it alone on a piano and it's equally powerful, and in some ways more so as it's easier to pick out the complexities of it. 

The number of instruments, tracks or layers are not directly related to the quality of a piece - you only have to hear Jools Holland and his Huge but Lame Rhythm and Blues Orchestra ruin every small ensemble song they attempt to know that.