How many tracks?

octatonic

paulmapp8306 said:

Part of it is that it restricts improvisation live.  How can you extend a groove that's going down well if you have stuff on a ore recorded track?  What opens creativity in a studio also restricts creativity as a performer.

Back when people were playing along to actual tapes it was impossible but we've moved on somewhat from then.
You can easily play along to loops set to repeat that get faded in and out simply by using a multitrack playback device- a laptop  connected to a mixer over ethernet would do it.

Or you fade out the loops, if you want to do an improv tempo change thing- bands practice this all the time, often cued from the drummer or from whoever is acting as musical director for the band.
It takes a bit of technology and then just the practice to work with it.

It isn't something that happens down the Dog n Duck but session musicians work like this all the time.

Stuckfast

There never was a golden age when hit records were simply documents of live performances.

Artists have always had to adapt to the technology. When a band went into the studio in the 60s, most of the time they'd be told they had to use a session drummer, because those guys knew how to play in a way that worked with the recording technology of the time. Before microphones and electrical recording came along, violins didn't come through properly on the recording machines of the time, so people invented things like the phonofiddle.

Listen to those great Sinatra recordings from the 50s. Yes they were done live and yes they sound incredible, but the balance is artificial and depends on technology -- listen to how loud the double bass is and how much louder Sinatra's voice is than the brass.

Hit records have always been made on the principle that you do whatever it takes to make the record sound as good as possible.

andy_k

A matter of perspective,
I am currently 'Mixing' a full album project of 15 songs, in Reaper, a single project file.
All songs are constructed from midi tracks, all covers, with 8-10 instrument tracks each.
I use various drum VST to get a blended sound, 6 different sets.
Then I use different instrument VST for the parts, I concentrate on creating string arrangements from the original tracks.
I spent 7 hours the other day setting up the project and bouncing out audio stems to get some rough ideas for the overall sound across the 15 track project. 
Once these audio stems are used my 2009 macbook pro is running at 20% system resources, so ticking along nicely.
At the moment, the project has 450 tracks, including duplicate original midi tracks for reference, and bounced down stems.
Hard to imagine this being done in 'the good old days', and I am constantly amazed by the capability of Reaper and modern VST software.

PolarityMan

paulmapp8306 said:

That I understand.

As I say, it's just how I see things.  I'm not really arguing back, my view wont change what people do at all.  I do see its limiting, and the benefit from a creative pov.  But I cant help always thinking (how are you going to play that live without backing tracks).    

Part of it is that it restricts improvisation live.  How can you extend a groove that's going down well if you have stuff on a ore recorded track?  What opens creativity in a studio also restricts creativity as a performer.

I guess part of it also comes from playing in covers bands all my life rather than writing/creating (I cant write lyrics to save my ass).  Punters expect a decent rendition of the songs they know. The more tracks/overdubscetc the recording has the harder that is.

The general public here their favourite track performed by a 4 piece and dont see why you cant do similar.

That should come into it as the covers band is not the creative element, but it does limit material you can choose.  

If we're honest with ourselves though improvisation is like sketches and recorded tracks are like oil paintings. 
By that I mean you have to do a lot of sketches and refine them before you can finish a masterpiece. The vast majority of sketches even by a master are essentially disposable. The masterpiece is is objectively technically superior when executed correctly but sometimes a sketch can move you as much as an oil painting.

PolarityMan

Also most people dont have the patience to actually turn the sketch into the oil painting so pretend to themselves that there is no value in oil paintings.

p90fool

paulmapp8306 said:

That I understand.

As I say, it's just how I see things.  I'm not really arguing back, my view wont change what people do at all.  I do see its limiting, and the benefit from a creative pov.  But I cant help always thinking (how are you going to play that live without backing tracks).    

Part of it is that it restricts improvisation live.  How can you extend a groove that's going down well if you have stuff on a ore recorded track?  What opens creativity in a studio also restricts creativity as a performer.

I guess part of it also comes from playing in covers bands all my life rather than writing/creating (I cant write lyrics to save my ass).  Punters expect a decent rendition of the songs they know. The more tracks/overdubscetc the recording has the harder that is.

The general public here their favourite track performed by a 4 piece and dont see why you cant do similar.

That should come into it as the covers band is not the creative element, but it does limit material you can choose.  

There are solo acoustic versions of practically every song you care to name, it wouldn't occur to me to restrict the choice of material for my covers band based on us having the instruments which were on the recording, in fact I'm more likely to go the other way and deliberately avoid songs with a similar lineup to ours. 

Saying that neither you nor the original artist can do justice to a recording live is bizarre to me, it's mostly about performance and dynamics, not whether you need to hire a bloody sousaphone player! 

thegummy

PolarityMan said:

paulmapp8306 said:

That I understand.

As I say, it's just how I see things.  I'm not really arguing back, my view wont change what people do at all.  I do see its limiting, and the benefit from a creative pov.  But I cant help always thinking (how are you going to play that live without backing tracks).    

Part of it is that it restricts improvisation live.  How can you extend a groove that's going down well if you have stuff on a ore recorded track?  What opens creativity in a studio also restricts creativity as a performer.

I guess part of it also comes from playing in covers bands all my life rather than writing/creating (I cant write lyrics to save my ass).  Punters expect a decent rendition of the songs they know. The more tracks/overdubscetc the recording has the harder that is.

The general public here their favourite track performed by a 4 piece and dont see why you cant do similar.

That should come into it as the covers band is not the creative element, but it does limit material you can choose.  

If we're honest with ourselves though improvisation is like sketches and recorded tracks are like oil paintings. 
By that I mean you have to do a lot of sketches and refine them before you can finish a masterpiece. The vast majority of sketches even by a master are essentially disposable. The masterpiece is is objectively technically superior when executed correctly but sometimes a sketch can move you as much as an oil painting.

Totally agree, I never get why people are so keen to improvise guitar solos when obviously it will be better if they take time to work it out first.

I think you might be right that it's more that they can't be bothered with working out a solo so convince themselves there's benefit to an improvisation.

Freebird

PolarityMan said:

By that I mean you have to do a lot of sketches and refine them before you can finish a masterpiece. The vast majority of sketches even by a master are essentially disposable. The masterpiece is is objectively technically superior when executed correctly but sometimes a sketch can move you as much as an oil painting.

Ah, we are back to the painting again    Having studied art, I would say there is a lot of overlap with music, and I have incorporated a number of related techniques into my music making process. I have also taken ideas from computer science, such as iteration, and stepwise refinement, etc..

paulmapp8306

thegummy said:

PolarityMan said:

paulmapp8306 said:

That I understand.

As I say, it's just how I see things.  I'm not really arguing back, my view wont change what people do at all.  I do see its limiting, and the benefit from a creative pov.  But I cant help always thinking (how are you going to play that live without backing tracks).    

Part of it is that it restricts improvisation live.  How can you extend a groove that's going down well if you have stuff on a ore recorded track?  What opens creativity in a studio also restricts creativity as a performer.

I guess part of it also comes from playing in covers bands all my life rather than writing/creating (I cant write lyrics to save my ass).  Punters expect a decent rendition of the songs they know. The more tracks/overdubscetc the recording has the harder that is.

The general public here their favourite track performed by a 4 piece and dont see why you cant do similar.

That should come into it as the covers band is not the creative element, but it does limit material you can choose.  

If we're honest with ourselves though improvisation is like sketches and recorded tracks are like oil paintings. 
By that I mean you have to do a lot of sketches and refine them before you can finish a masterpiece. The vast majority of sketches even by a master are essentially disposable. The masterpiece is is objectively technically superior when executed correctly but sometimes a sketch can move you as much as an oil painting.

Totally agree, I never get why people are so keen to improvise guitar solos when obviously it will be better if they take time to work it out first.

I think you might be right that it's more that they can't be bothered with working out a solo so convince themselves there's benefit to an improvisation.

Or they work out a solo to record it - then cant play it - or remember it live so improvise around it.

paulmapp8306

p90fool said:

paulmapp8306 said:

That I understand.

As I say, it's just how I see things.  I'm not really arguing back, my view wont change what people do at all.  I do see its limiting, and the benefit from a creative pov.  But I cant help always thinking (how are you going to play that live without backing tracks).    

Part of it is that it restricts improvisation live.  How can you extend a groove that's going down well if you have stuff on a ore recorded track?  What opens creativity in a studio also restricts creativity as a performer.

I guess part of it also comes from playing in covers bands all my life rather than writing/creating (I cant write lyrics to save my ass).  Punters expect a decent rendition of the songs they know. The more tracks/overdubscetc the recording has the harder that is.

The general public here their favourite track performed by a 4 piece and dont see why you cant do similar.

That should come into it as the covers band is not the creative element, but it does limit material you can choose.  

There are solo acoustic versions of practically every song you care to name, it wouldn't occur to me to restrict the choice of material for my covers band based on us having the instruments which were on the recording, in fact I'm more likely to go the other way and deliberately avoid songs with a similar lineup to ours. 

Saying that neither you nor the original artist can do justice to a recording live is bizarre to me, it's mostly about performance and dynamics, not whether you need to hire a bloody sousaphone player! 

True.  There are plenty of songs were going to tackle that we cant actually play as per the record.  Things from early 80s that are all synth, and play it in a guitar/bass/drum/keys band.   Im sure it will work, but it will still gnaw away in the back of my mind that its not like the record....  As I said its a me thing, maybe its OCD, maybe its wanting to do something perfectly (ie replicate it perfectly), dont know really.   Its probably an outlook I need to break, but at 52 its unlikely   


It is strange that Id consider a completely different version - say an acoustic version of an electric song - or a country version of a rock song - to be valid in its own way, rather than doing the original with backing tracks or the original with loads of bits missing which I just cant seem to see as valid.

Im very strange at time - well a lot of times.

thegummy

paulmapp8306 said:

Or they work out a solo to record it - then cant play it - or remember it live so improvise around it.

Who does that ever apply to?

If someone isn't good enough to be able to play a solo they've worked out before hand then they're not good enough to be recording guitar solos anyway and their improves one won't be good.

What's your obsession with playing songs live anyway? Do you not enjoy listening to records?

For me it's the other way around, the record is the main thing for me and if I love an artist's records I'll go see them live for an additional experience but I don't think I've ever seen a concert that was as good as the record. It's an uncomfortable scenario (standing up with loads of people all around spilling beer and being hot etc.) and the sound quality is totally shit with everything going through the PA.

paulmapp8306

Yes I enjoy listening top records, but music - for me at least - is primarily a live experience.  The atmosphere, community spirit (of enjoying the music with loads of others) of live music in whatever format you like is in general far far better than a recording.   Be it folk stuff in pubs, or at carnivals, or in music venues.   Live music has been around for 1000s of years in all cultures.  The recorded medium only a century old.   

Personally I think those who feel the recording is the be all and end all rather than the live performance are the ones with the skewed outlook.  Nothing wrong with enjoying them, but the experience in general just isnt the same.   Its typical of todays lifestyle - perfection in solitude is preferred rather than atmosphere in a group.

thegummy

paulmapp8306 said:

Yes I enjoy listening top records, but music - for me at least - is primarily a live experience.  The atmosphere, community spirit (of enjoying the music with loads of others) of live music in whatever format you like is in general far far better than a recording.   Be it folk stuff in pubs, or at carnivals, or in music venues.   Live music has been around for 1000s of years in all cultures.  The recorded medium only a century old.   

Personally I think those who feel the recording is the be all and end all rather than the live performance are the ones with the skewed outlook.  Nothing wrong with enjoying them, but the experience in general just isnt the same.   Its typical of todays lifestyle - perfection in solitude is preferred rather than atmosphere in a group.

Surely it's obvious that it's just a case of some people preferring different things to others - some people prefer gigs, some prefer records. Just like some people's favourite ice cream flavour might be one you don't like and vice versa; nothing to do with skewed outlooks or anything like that.

Something funny is that on this forum there's someone who chooses to limit the number of tracks in his music to the number of musicians there are in the room for the recording while I was just Googling some info about CPUs for a potential upgrade and found a forum full of people who do "electronic production" (people whom I feel sorry for, but that's another matter completely) who are talking about 32gb of RAM not being enough for their projects that have hundreds of tracks.

p90fool

paulmapp8306 said:

p90fool said:

paulmapp8306 said:

That I understand.

As I say, it's just how I see things.  I'm not really arguing back, my view wont change what people do at all.  I do see its limiting, and the benefit from a creative pov.  But I cant help always thinking (how are you going to play that live without backing tracks).    

Part of it is that it restricts improvisation live.  How can you extend a groove that's going down well if you have stuff on a ore recorded track?  What opens creativity in a studio also restricts creativity as a performer.

I guess part of it also comes from playing in covers bands all my life rather than writing/creating (I cant write lyrics to save my ass).  Punters expect a decent rendition of the songs they know. The more tracks/overdubscetc the recording has the harder that is.

The general public here their favourite track performed by a 4 piece and dont see why you cant do similar.

That should come into it as the covers band is not the creative element, but it does limit material you can choose.  

There are solo acoustic versions of practically every song you care to name, it wouldn't occur to me to restrict the choice of material for my covers band based on us having the instruments which were on the recording, in fact I'm more likely to go the other way and deliberately avoid songs with a similar lineup to ours. 

Saying that neither you nor the original artist can do justice to a recording live is bizarre to me, it's mostly about performance and dynamics, not whether you need to hire a bloody sousaphone player! 

True.  There are plenty of songs were going to tackle that we cant actually play as per the record.  Things from early 80s that are all synth, and play it in a guitar/bass/drum/keys band.   Im sure it will work, but it will still gnaw away in the back of my mind that its not like the record....  As I said its a me thing, maybe its OCD, maybe its wanting to do something perfectly (ie replicate it perfectly), dont know really.   Its probably an outlook I need to break, but at 52 its unlikely   


It is strange that Id consider a completely different version - say an acoustic version of an electric song - or a country version of a rock song - to be valid in its own way, rather than doing the original with backing tracks or the original with loads of bits missing which I just cant seem to see as valid.

Im very strange at time - well a lot of times.

I totally agree with that, which is why I'm happier covering songs which force us to rethink them, rather than slightly similar but lame versions. 

WiresDreamDisasters

If recording loads of tracks is cheating, then recording audio at all is cheating. Using any sort of amplification, microphone, preamp, or anything that allows music to be carried through space and time .... it's all cheating.

It's not proper music unless you were there witnessing it in the flesh.... and if it's a human singing.

Anything else is technology, and is thus cheating.

But if it's more than one person in a room watching another person singing, then that's cheating too.

Gregorian chanting monks in a choir is analog multitrack nonsense, and I'll be having none of that pleasenthanku!

EDIT: Had to go back and fix a typo that I spotted several hours after posting. That too is cheating.

lukedlb

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.

Wasn’t that the whole point of sgt pepper?

thegummy

lukedlb said:

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.

Wasn’t that the whole point of sgt pepper?

When he says "never was" he must mean before the 50s.

paulmapp8306

I mean when it was invented... ie well before the 50s.

thegummy

paulmapp8306 said:

I mean when it was invented... ie well before the 50s.

A device was invented that could record sound then someone thought music would be a good thing to record.

It then took someone else to come up with further innovations that allowed people to record over their existing recording and perform multiple parts by themselves.

It's not like there was ever the thought before that to only record things in one take, it just hadn't been thought of then.

paulmapp8306

True.  As I said Im old, grumpy.   And nobody else has to think/feel how I do here.  And yes, Im probably being daft (PROBABLY you say). 

Ive never said you have to do it in one take mind.  Ive just said it should be something you can re-create live without relying on backing tracks.   60 tracks, no problem.   Could be 40 of them are a few seconds long, and CAN be recreated.  Couldnt be many drum track one drummer can play and such.

Im not against the creativity of an artist to use studio techniques to develop and record interesting stuff -  I just cant seem to separate "a recorded" piece thats not meant or designed for live reproduction - from a live piece that gets recorded so more people can enjoy it.  It always sits there going "but how could you do that live...." - and if you cant it must be cheating - though as Ive said thats probably too harsh, or the wrong term.  Maybe using technology to create something in one environment that cant be replicated in another is a better way of putting it.

Maybe I need to learn to ignore that particular thing sat on my shoulder.....