The Anti-Layering Camp

[bitman]

I run a demo studio in the Colorado High Country where people are mostly purists and or clueless. This makes my job easier.

If there is an electric rock guitar it gets panned hard one way and a delayed copy panned 30% or so the other way. That fattens it up enough where it sounds better than they have heard it before without it sounding "effected" which is the term I have heard from clients quite often. (wussies)

If there are two guitars I pan them and and a delayed copy the opposite way from the first. This gets it done and the money handed over.

They are always on limited demo budgets so I don't send them back to double track and spend their money for them unless it's their idea. (generally).

Most want to sound like they do but better for some reason.

When I do my own stuff in here, I'll do whatever is necessary, but laziness does come into play once in a while there.

[fhames]

Saudade states the result of mixing should be the sound of the band playing together in a room. It is my opinion that the result of recording and mixing in a studio can be a unique work of art. The combination of a clever composition, creative arranging, inventive sound design, seasoned musicianship, the best instruments and amps, skilled recordists, the best signal paths available and the experience and wisdom to combine these elements to create a sound unobtainable from any other source.

[JP11]

Originally Posted by Neon Heart

necessarily having many violinists playing the same note not only makes it louder but also makes it sound broader due to the slightly different pitch and vibrato each one playes which brings the kind of "chorus" effect (expanding the tone a bit up and down), which, as the name states was born with the invention of the choir.

And, of course, there's quite a difference between a choir and say, Michael Jackson tracking his voice a million times to create a choir...the Michael Jackson one has a hyped artificial sound to it, which is what I was getting at in my post...

and I could see how someone might not like that sort of artificial layered sound...a real orchestra or choir sounds real, even though it's "layered".

in some ways I sort of agree with the OP...a lot of production has become so hyped and perfect and artificial in flavor, I could see where some don't like it or are tired of it.

[AntillesSound]

Originally Posted by biggator6

It helps that they're freakishly tight rhythm players. I refer anyone asking about 'how to track rhythm guitar' to old AC/DC records - those guys are amazing.

them and Anthrax's Among the Living. Scott Ian is famous for being a rhythm guitarist. How awesome is that?

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by Mr. Liszt

Uh, how about the orchestra?! That goes just a little further back than The Beatles! How did it come about that composers wanted the sound of more than one instrument (indeed dozens perhaps) playing identical parts? Was Bach like, "Damn, this riff is just not hott enough! I'll just add 11 more violins doing the same thing."

You know, it's not some type of technique to make a lame riff better. Not some kind of way to compensate for weak material! It is a textural thing. It's the difference between the string quartet and the string orchestra. Sometime one wants the intimate sound of the quartet. Sometimes the rich, "huge," as you say, sound of the orchestra.

Is it so unthinkable that some pop writers/artists/producers want to achieve that same difference/scope in the pop/rock medium? Why limit yourself with such stubborn principles?

And this is in no way a personal attack, Saudade, but this argument is always on here (and always will be) and it still baffles me that some are soooooo against doubling. I think that some (not saying you) engineers/recordists, whatever, find out that huge bands did a lot of doubling so they try to emulate that in their own work. When it doesn't work out or achieve the same effect as in the commercial releases they usually develop a dislike and a condescending attitude towards doubling. But all along it was probably weak material they were trying to double in the first place or the inability to perform close enough to the original without sacrificing clarity of arrangement . They were thinking that famous bands do this to make a riff stronger. Some kind of studio trick or cop out. But no. The ones that do it right understand the concept of the orchestra - even if they don't know it exactly.

i do two main things. I record and produce orchestra. I make garage rock records. Rock records are NOT orchestra. For me - and true THROUGHOUT garage and stoner rock - reality is very important. If you don't have three guitarists, then you shouldn't be tracking three guitars. A band is about the personalities - else it becomes a collection of session players and then is not rock n roll anymore. The opposite is mostly true in orchestra. Garage and stoner work like the Kronos quartet. What you hear recorded is what you get. Certainly not like some of the hyper layered nonsense out there! So yes - for me.... no layering unless it is subtle and crucial to the plot !

[Mr. Liszt]

Originally Posted by narcoman

i do two main things. I record and produce orchestra. I make garage rock records. Rock records are NOT orchestra. For me - and true THROUGHOUT garage and stoner rock - reality is very important. If you don't have three guitarists, then you shouldn't be tracking three guitars. A band is about the personalities - else it becomes a collection of session players and then is not rock n roll anymore. The opposite is mostly true in orchestra. Garage and stoner work like the Kronos quartet. What you hear recorded is what you get. Certainly not like some of the hyper layered nonsense out there! So yes - for me.... no layering unless it is subtle and crucial to the plot !

Yes. Well enjoy your rules and limitations.

[Mr. Liszt]

Inspired by the thread, I have composed a short bit for illustration in support of my point of view. Here is an example of various instances of layering for a simple guitar solo over a simple, though probably somewhat uncommon two-chord progression. There are four examples. Now I am not saying any one is better or worse. Each has its own sound, personality, whatever.

Example 1: Mono - single solo guitar track

Example 2: Stereo - single solo guitar track - dry in the left channel plate reverb in the right.

Example 3: Mono - twice layered solo guitar track.

Example 4: Mono - 20 layered solo guitar tracks - 16 at the same pitch, 2 an octave up and low in the mix, 2 an octave down and low in the mix.

Thoughts?

[kludge]

Originally Posted by narcoman

i do two main things. I record and produce orchestra. I make garage rock records. Rock records are NOT orchestra. For me - and true THROUGHOUT garage and stoner rock - reality is very important. If you don't have three guitarists, then you shouldn't be tracking three guitars. A band is about the personalities - else it becomes a collection of session players and then is not rock n roll anymore. The opposite is mostly true in orchestra. Garage and stoner work like the Kronos quartet. What you hear recorded is what you get. Certainly not like some of the hyper layered nonsense out there! So yes - for me.... no layering unless it is subtle and crucial to the plot !

Oh, you'd hate what I'm doing, then... one track I'm working on now has SEVEN distinct guitar parts over the chorus, yet only two guitarists in the band! And this isn't doubling, this is unique parts. There's just no way in hell we can play that live. When we play the song on stage, it's just acoustic strumming and electric crunch rhythm. But the studio track gets things like Brian May-style harmony guitar fills, because we dig that sound.

Then again, we ain't stoner rock. We're far closer to the traditions of Queen, early David Bowie, and NWOBHM, where orchestration mattered. And yeah, no session players either. I personally played five different tracks on that chorus because I HEAR five different tracks.

[JP11]

Originally Posted by Mr. Liszt

Inspired by the thread, I have composed a short bit for illustration in support of my point of view. Here is an example of various instances of layering for a simple guitar solo over a simple, though probably somewhat uncommon two-chord progression. There are four examples. Now I am not saying any one is better or worse. Each has its own sound, personality, whatever.

Example 1: Mono - single solo guitar track

Example 2: Stereo - single solo guitar track - dry in the left channel plate reverb in the right.

Example 3: Mono - twice layered solo guitar track.

Example 4: Mono - 20 layered solo guitar tracks - 16 at the same pitch, 2 an octave up and low in the mix, 2 an octave down and low in the mix.

Thoughts?

I'd say, for what that is in particular, number 2 sounds best (and the biggest, btw).

But it's all just styles and choices, isn't it? Everyone has to, or gets to, decide for themselves what they want to do or what they'd like to do. That's the fun of the whole deal.

[JP11]

Originally Posted by narcoman

i do two main things. I record and produce orchestra. I make garage rock records. Rock records are NOT orchestra. For me - and true THROUGHOUT garage and stoner rock - reality is very important. If you don't have three guitarists, then you shouldn't be tracking three guitars. A band is about the personalities - else it becomes a collection of session players and then is not rock n roll anymore. The opposite is mostly true in orchestra. Garage and stoner work like the Kronos quartet. What you hear recorded is what you get. Certainly not like some of the hyper layered nonsense out there! So yes - for me.... no layering unless it is subtle and crucial to the plot !

I'd agree with the post above that a band can still absolutely maintain their personality even though they are not maintaining reality.

The Beatles, of course, sometimes pretty real, sometimes not, but always The Beatles.

But if people want to create rules for themselves, that's cool, too. The Beatles, in fact, created their own self-imposed rule of absolute live reality for the Get Back thing (didn't work out though, did it? )

It's all (potentially) good. That's the fun of the whole deal.

[rwhitney]

I haven't read all the posts here, and I don't make commercial recordings, but my aesthetics run something like this: doubling or layering reduces intimacy and nuance, so it's not my first choice for a lead vocal on a song intended to convey an individual's point of view or emotion. (Unless the singer's voice is weak and sounds better doubled, perhaps, lol.) But that's a trade-off. I think a solo voice is the most interesting instrument of all, so I generally like to keep it that way.

Background parts doubled to support a solo voice or instrument actually recede in a sense because they lose individuality, and I'd usually double background vocals to help the lead stand out. This isn't usually the case with "harmony voices" where I like the sound of independent individual voices--which I probably wouldn't double.

Large collective doubling expresses unity and mass, and is great for climatic build-ups, but used for extended periods they lose color and become tiring. A wall of uninterrupted grinding guitar distortion throughout a song usually bores me, but if timed to create a dramatic moment, as it is in, say, Alice In Chains' "Rooster", the effect can be stunning. Such moments are more interesting and affective when they occur in contrast to undoubled sections.

As with effects in general, my approach would be to double only when necessary, and rather focus on assuring that the individual part is interesting.

That's just me, though. Maybe all that is pretty obvious?

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by kludge

Oh, you'd hate what I'm doing, then... one track I'm working on now has SEVEN distinct guitar parts over the chorus, yet only two guitarists in the band! And this isn't doubling, this is unique parts. There's just no way in hell we can play that live. When we play the song on stage, it's just acoustic strumming and electric crunch rhythm. But the studio track gets things like Brian May-style harmony guitar fills, because we dig that sound.

Then again, we ain't stoner rock. We're far closer to the traditions of Queen, early David Bowie, and NWOBHM, where orchestration mattered. And yeah, no session players either. I personally played five different tracks on that chorus because I HEAR five different tracks.

I wouldn't necessarily hate it! It's just that in this business it's best to specialise - and those are my areas! I make money in 'em!! Partly because I'm one of the few working IN those areas......

[MarkRB]

Most guitarists can't play one part and keep it interesting enough not to layer.

I'd sooner listen to 1 brilliantly played part than 4 or 5 "well" played parts.

[allencollins]

It's possible too make huge without layering. Zep did it right? VH did too, AC/DC did for since day1. You just need to use lots of ambience.

I think some bands or songs sound better with layering though. Not that they are less talented or anything but it just fits the bill.

Look at the Beatles , Queen or Boston. They did lots of layers. are they cheaters? sortof but their songs just work better that way. Bands like skynyrd, Chicago and the eagles had layers but they had enough players and talent to just layer in realtime so to speak. They could actually play live and sound the same as their records.

I have no less repect for Def Leppard or the Beatles as I do for a real live band like Sabbath or Van Halen. Studio trickery is cool. I do it. Or atleast attempt to. Bands like Sabbath, AC/DC and VanHalen are a rare breed. They could pull it off live in the studio. The Stones could too. Plus they had the songs and sounds that worked better without fake layers and mucho overdubs.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by Mr. Liszt

Yes. Well enjoy your rules and limitations.

If you followed such things - I think you'd find them liberating. Improves arrangement for one thing !

[Mr. Liszt]

Originally Posted by narcoman

If you followed such things - I think you'd find them liberating. Improves arrangement for one thing !

I do follow rules. I spent two years of my degree in music composition writing counterpoint with rigidly defined parameters including one year of writing fugues in the style of Bach for sciences sake. In pop, I write in several genres. Mainly commercial. But I do love garage rock as well! Immensely, in fact an I would totally love to hear your work, Narcoman. And I do agree that it can be liberating. And I preached right on here on Gearslutz about the virtues of keeping things simple - how it can reveal weakness in a composition and arrangement - things many musicians are afraid to look straight in the face.

I have done many, many exercises that involve the avoidance of unison overdubs/layering for the specific purpose of a certain sound or sonic identity. And I have many times studied the opposite extreme. I study these things from two points. One as a composer/songwriter. Two as a producer. I need to know everything in what I do.

It's never good to absolutely rule out anything though.

Take my above example. It's for a four-piece rock band. Would it have hurt to do some layering for just the solo if this was a weird song of some garageband? You can hear clearly all the variations. None of them is better. Just different.

[kludge]

Originally Posted by MarkRB

Most guitarists can't play one part and keep it interesting enough not to layer.

I'd sooner listen to 1 brilliantly played part than 4 or 5 "well" played parts.

Sometimes, it takes more than one guitar to make "one" part. The track I mentioned with seven guitar parts in the chorus - here's how it breaks down.

First, there's an acoustic guitar track. My bandmate, who wrote the song, has a very weird technique that involves playing right handed guitars flipped over without restringing. So her chording tends to be on the top strings. I "double" her rhythm on acoustic, but playing just low roots to fill the voicing out. So two guitars, two players, but basically one sound.

Second, there's the crunchy rhythm. What I hear in my head is a combination of power chords with chugs AND arpeggios on the turnaround, but playing chugs and arpeggios simultaneously is basically impossible - even if my hands would do it, the amp would turn it to mud. So I play two variations of the same track, one with chugs, and one with arpeggios. So one part, two guitars.

And third, there are harmony guitar fills. Again, impossible to play this stuff in one pass, because the amp would blur the voices together. Two guitars, one part.

Finally, there's a little classical guitar fill used as a transition between two parts of the chorus, that's a restatement of the classical guitar melody that opens/closes the song. So it's continuity.

So at some level, there are really four parts here, not seven, but it requires seven different guitar tracks to actually capture the sound.

As for one brilliant versus several good parts... why not have both? One of my heroes is David Gilmour, who could play a masterful single-note line, but could also orchestrate several unique guitar parts into a whole.

But at this point, we're crossing from discussing doubling and other fattening techniques and into orchestration, which is a different beast.

[vernier]

It's simple. Get any instrument player to record the same part twice. The sound instantly becomes way more than 2x BIGGER. DO a few more layers, detune a bit up or down if necessary. Repeat for the rest of the instruments. Instantly a huge sounding mix without the engineer having to do much more than rough balance. ABBA's songs are huge sounding mainly because of this.

NOPE:
Doubling and tripling doesn't make it bigger. It can in the case of two or three singers wanting to sound like a choir. But mostly, all layering does is smear, and sound like several smaller tracks.

EXAMPLE ...If you think ABBA sounds huge, take a sample of (anything ABBA), and splice it butt up against (anything off the first Led Zeppelin album). There are tons of examples like this, and it shows how layering shrinks things.
'

[Beardhead]

Originally Posted by Saudade

But I'm somehow anti-layering, much as I lust after this huge sound like every other engr. Maybe I'm lazy and minimalist (because I'm lazy ), but also I have this pseudo-purist view that mixing should strive to re-create how the band actually sounds in a room when you're in the room with them.

Don't know. I've always seen it as live being a live thing and recordings being recordings. Imho a recording of a band will always be different from the live performance. In general I find them more tamed, especially for Rock bands. So I will do what's necessary to reproduce the power of the live band and layering is a very good method for that.
But anyway, that's what you want as well, just without layering. So, sorry if I haven't contributed anything useful.
Claus

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by Mr. Liszt

I do follow rules. I spent two years of my degree in music composition writing counterpoint with rigidly defined parameters including one year of writing fugues in the style of Bach for sciences sake. In pop, I write in several genres. Mainly commercial. But I do love garage rock as well! Immensely, in fact an I would totally love to hear your work, Narcoman. And I do agree that it can be liberating. And I preached right on here on Gearslutz about the virtues of keeping things simple - how it can reveal weakness in a composition and arrangement - things many musicians are afraid to look straight in the face.

I have done many, many exercises that involve the avoidance of unison overdubs/layering for the specific purpose of a certain sound or sonic identity. And I have many times studied the opposite extreme. I study these things from two points. One as a composer/songwriter. Two as a producer. I need to know everything in what I do.

It's never good to absolutely rule out anything though.

Take my above example. It's for a four-piece rock band. Would it have hurt to do some layering for just the solo if this was a weird song of some garageband? You can hear clearly all the variations. None of them is better. Just different.

And that's the truth init? It's all taste! I'll PM you sometime and point you towards bits of my work...