The Anti-Layering Camp

[Saudade]

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.

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.

Anyone in the same camp?

And when did recordings start to exploit the layering technique? Are the motown, beatles, beach boys (petsounds) records layered too to a certain extent? Or did it start in the 70s circa ABBA era? Who are the acts still in the "anti" camp today (besides obviously the jazz people)?

[wesarvin]

Does reamping count?

[George Necola]

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.

I am mixing metal. I recreate how a triggered drumkit sound in a already recorded samplebank.

I like layered detuned vocals. espacially for lead grunt vocals.

not in the club. cheers

[BOWIE]

Perhaps you're thinking too hard about it. Layering is often just a form of arrangement and goes back quite a ways (further than pet sounds )

I don't think you can say there is a "layering camp" or "anti-layering".

[jayfrigo]

Sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't. Less is more in many cases.

Old AC DC comes to mind. There aren't 6 guitars per side. There's one on the left, one on the right, and an occasional melody or solo up the middle. Also, they aren't super-saturated; really just Gibson/Marshall crunch. And it sounds like it could blow you into the next room when you hit play, while at the same time maintaining a clarity, rhythm, and tonality missing from so many over-the-top productions today.

If you don't like AC DC, it's just an example that came to mind. There are plenty of other similar examples in different styles. Point is, you don't always need a bunch of layers, and in fact, are often far better served by less. On the other hand, there are some amazing examples of heavily layered studio arrangements too. Both have their place. The trick is making the right decisions at the right time for the music at hand.

[biggator6]

Old AC DC comes to mind. There aren't 6 guitars per side. There's one on the left, one on the right, and an occasional melody or solo up the middle. Also, they aren't super-saturated; really just Gibson/Marshall crunch. And it sounds like it could blow you into the next room when you hit play, while at the same time maintaining a clarity, rhythm, and tonality missing from so many over-the-top productions today.

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.

[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.

[princeplanet]

it's genre specific, ain't it? Some times you do, sometimes not. You do have an inkling for when it's appropriate, right?

[picksail]

A perfect example of a band that can do both is The Cars.

Regardless of who produced which record with them they still retain their identity.

I suppose it really doesn't matter. Just find great musicians to work with and give them the very best you can offer.
Don't limit yourself to one train of thought. That sort of ideology can stand between yourself and producing something amazing.

Layering is totally secondary to the manifestation of one's vision. It either works or it doesn't.
After all, layering is just another term used to describe orchestration.


Enjoy!

[JP11]

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."

One thing that makes it different since multitrack recording came along is that you can layer the same actual thing (the same person singing for example) which creates a sort of different texture, perhaps a somewhat hyped artificial kind of thing.

[Mr. Liszt]

Originally Posted by JP11

One thing that makes it different since multitrack recording came along is that you can layer the same actual thing (the same person singing for example) which creates a sort of different texture, perhaps a somewhat hyped artificial kind of thing.

Yes, I see where you are coming from. But multiplying instrumental parts serves to create an effect that cannot be achieved with one instrument. A transcendental effect, if you will. And the problem you point out is only a very, very small hurdle, trivial actually, for a producer to negotiate. The same part, electric rock guitar for example, can easily be performed by one individual on multiple guitar designs with different volume and tone settings with different plectrums and additionally with multiple amplifiers with multiple settings, with multiple mics and mic positions and even different body positions! Surely now this dangerously approaches the effect of orchestration for you. And it is easier on the wallet as well.

And consider also this. You have done 15 overdubs of some guitar riff for a song. EVEN IF it's the same instrument with all the same settings performed almost the same each time what is the average listener (the customer) most likely to think or perceive?


A - "Wow. That guitar sounds massive!"

Or...

B - "Man, that's just the same guy playing like a dozen or so times and I am getting a real artificial vibe from it."


The thing is... If you already have an amazing arrangement and you know all the parts are just right and everything is working, then double, tripling etc. can, IN THE RIGHT SITUATIONS, really make a part stand out in an amazing way that cannot be achieved with one instrument. It's just a tool guys. Not a way of life or anything.

[drejmer]

layering of that kind has been around since les Paul invented multitracking
Hardly a modern "trick"

[JP11]

Originally Posted by Mr. Liszt

Yes, I see where you are coming from. But multiplying instrumental parts serves to create an effect that cannot be achieved with one instrument. A transcendental effect, if you will. And the problem you point out is only a very, very small hurdle, trivial actually, for a producer to negotiate. The same part, electric rock guitar for example, can easily be performed by one individual on multiple guitar designs with different volume and tone settings with different plectrums and additionally with multiple amplifiers with multiple settings, with multiple mics and mic positions and even different body positions! Surely now this dangerously approaches the effect of orchestration for you. And it is easier on the wallet as well.

And consider also this. You have done 15 overdubs of some guitar riff for a song. EVEN IF it's the same instrument with all the same settings performed almost the same each time what is the average listener (the customer) most likely to think or perceive?


A - "Wow. That guitar sounds massive!"

Or...

B - "Man, that's just the same guy playing like a dozen or so times and I am getting a real artificial vibe from it."


The thing is... If you already have an amazing arrangement and you know all the parts are just right and everything is working, then double, tripling etc. can, IN THE RIGHT SITUATIONS, really make a part stand out in an amazing way that cannot be achieved with one instrument. It's just a tool guys. Not a way of life or anything.

Yes, I was just pointing out a difference between before multitracking existed and after.

But I have no problem with it at all...I like it...

[Empty Planet]

Interesting stand to take, but I think this is at heart the Realism vs. Hollywood thing.

Band in a room, stripped-down rock & roll, more often jazz, is one aesthetic choice. It's a documentarian's point of view. Take a picture of what actually happens. Another -- and obviously much more common -- aesthetic choice is to use all the tricks at one's disposal to enhance, twist, pump up, airbrush and embiggen the musical event.

I don't know if the proportion of "realistic" to "Hollywood" music productions mimics the proportion of documentaries to Hollywood films, but I bet it's not too far off.


Cheers.

[Saudade]

Thanks for all the insightful replies!

Right...I'm not really "anti" as in I swear never to do it

It's just that I feel it is a too powerful tool that one could easily not know when to stop. Especially in a DAW world when one doesn't think much about opening one more track to add another layer (which I suspect is how some mixes totally over a hundred tracks )

And I am just curious to know if there are bands that sound huge without any or much layering, and as Jayfrigo pointed out AC/DC Gotta go listen to them closely...

Mr Liszt: I get your point about layering being a compositional/orchestration tool to create different texture. But I am more referring towards modern recording context, where I don't really agree that it is a tool that needs a right context. I find that I can take 99% of the tracks out there (tightly played, good riff or otherwise) and when I do doubling and tripling and it instantly sounds much better.

I just want to understand deeper why a recording requires such intervention during the mixing stage to make instruments sound "unlame" or non-anemic if you like, while when we sit in front of a live band playing, the sound is always full when it is one player per instrument? What are the techniques to recreate this "fullness" during recording/mixing without the use of layering?

Hope I am making sense

[Empty Planet]

I guess I didn't fully articulate my point. I think it's a fundamental choice as to what one thinks recording IS.

Obviously, we're not presenting the actual event in a recording, it's a representation of an event. We can use artifice to create the illusion that the listener's getting the actual event, or we can use artifice to create a more idealized presentation of the ideas, but either way, it's artifice.

That said, I think there's probably an argument to be made that recording "documentary"-style is a real acid test in terms of gear quality, not to mention the quality of technique applied. Haven't really thought this out (and this may become obvious ), but it seems to me that one can get away with a lot of sound-twisting in a full-on rock production (distorted vox into a 57, for an example), but in a "real band in a room" recording, one would think that a recordist might want to have his or her best U47s and M49s and finest preamps in order to capture as much authentic detail, as much transient resolution, as possible.

It's hard to fake real detail, and that's one of the elements that helps me connect with a "band in a room" recording, that sense of "realness," whereas in fantasy rock productions, invented textures have equal footing.

[EDIT: Naah, it's not so cut and dried. It's true I DO think detail is really important in realistic recordings, but what if a rocker screaming into a 57 actually IS the sound in the room?]

Lastly, I'd probably put arrangement way high on the list for a full-sounding documentary production. Writing parts that don't step on each other, having a knowledge of the role of contrast (if everything is big, nothing is), and silence (where does the music breathe?, what shape does the piece have?), understanding the vocabulary of sounds you have at your disposal, and all the rest of it.


Cheers.

[Player1]

Sometimes a lot of layering represents someone's inability to commit to a part or concept. Layering becomes a crutch for insecure part development. Layering can be cool or it can be way over used.

I remember a comment from Stevie Salas when a reporter ask him, I'll bet you use pro tools on the road with you Stevie responded, and I quote "No. I hate Pro Tools. I use it, but I miss tape. There are so many shit musicians now because of Pro Tools. Cut and paste this and that. I try to make recordings pretending that there are only twenty-four tracks and I make commitments the way I did with tape."

This is not about knocking Pro Tools, I use PT and love it! The point is there seems to be a lack of commitment on production and the knowledge of what will work for the song. So let's throw the kitchen sink at it and we'll figure it out in the mix. I'm dealing with that right now while I'm trying to educate the band on intelligent production instead of mindless layering. Just my thoughts!

[SmignalFlow]

Layering is only effective when it's called for...which is rarely. Layering 15 so-so-small guitar sounds doesn't make one great big guitar sound. It makes 15 so-so-small sounds.

The importance of arrangement in a song has been completely forgotten, it seems, and it's undoubtedly the fault of unlimited-track-digital-recording and lazy/inexperienced engineers and bands.

[jval]

I do lots of heavy stuff / metal. Usually just have a left and right rhythm and any overdubs. 2 tight guitar tracks sound better than 8 not-so-tight IMO. Plus, who has the time to do that?
I find "bigness" comes from things being tight and everything hitting together... not from multiple layers of everything.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by jval

I find "bigness" comes from things being tight and everything hitting together... not from multiple layers of everything.

absolutely. throw in consistent dynamics and bob's your uncle.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[Don Clendenon]

i like what the client likes. if they want layers we record layers if they don't want layers then we don't record layers. if i'm producing i take it on a song by song basis and let the song dictate what the song needs

[kludge]

Layering in a multitracked audio sense dates specifically to Les Paul, who invented it.

That being said, there's different kinds of layering. Are the layers panned the same? Are they EXACTLY the same notes?

On some current work, I've split a single guitar to multiple amps. Is that layering? And I often set up a heavily compressed room mic to blend in with the close mic(s). Is that layering? I'll create an artificial stereo spread by copying a mono signal and slightly delaying the copy. Is that layering?

[andychamp]

I've had bands ask specifically for non-layered guitars, so we had to find other ways of making the guitars big(arrangement, room mics, re-amping with different amps).
But I wouldn't try to talk a metal band out of doubling.

It doesn't matter if two players can't play together or one player can't double himself properly: when it sucks, it sucks.

But each technique has its use when done properly.

[George Necola]

Originally Posted by u b k

absolutely. throw in consistent dynamics and bob's your uncle.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

I am with slipperman here.. bigness comes from midrange managment... get the midrange right and you get a big record. get the lowend right and it kicks your ass.. get the topend right, and it doesnt cover the midrange

[dbbubba]

It definitely depends on the arrangement you are going and it also can often help a weak and slightly pitchy vocalist.

I like doubled rhythm GTRs, but if a band is tough enough without doubling then all the better.
Again, it just depends on what you are going for.
I will say that having layered GTRs does help at mix time because you can do the L/R thing.
I can recall recording before I doubled a lot of stuff like GTRs and those mixes have more stuff up the middle.
It was harder to pan things very far to the outer L or R because it caused the mix to lean since there was nothing to balance the stereo spread.

I'll also say that I have rarely ever doubled GTRs more than two times.
I have tried four, but it just turns the GTR part into what sounds like an organ grinding away.
It also sucks the emotion out of the part.

Like string section doubling which only needs four passes to sound HUGE and five makes no difference, two fuzzed GTRs sounds good and any more starts to sound "blurry" and emotionless to my ear.

As far as doubling vocals go...
It can help a vocalist with inaccurate pitch and can also give a lifeless vocalist a bit of a "polished" sound.
It can also DETRACT from the emotional quality of a vocalist, too.
It is almost like the nuances and emotional content cancel each other out.

My favorite example is track I did for my wife (an quite accomplished vocalist.)
She sang a track with the song in two different keys because one allowed her to move her break point and sing the song slightly different (we VSO'd the song from F to E.)
Both vocal takes are great and they were recorded about a week apart.
When I went to mix the cut I was amazed that the vocals would double for 99.99% of the song (my wife said "why wouldn't it double? I knew what I was going to sing!")
It had a unique sound to it which I attributed to the VSO thing.
A few years ago I found a rough mix with ONE vocal, so it wasn't doubled.
The vocal track has much more emotional impact.
The track is great and no one would ever complain, but I really wish I didn't double it.
It sounds kind of "common" doubled, but really much more powerful with one vocal.

So, my rule of thumb has been NOT to double track vocalists that CAN sing well.
At the very least I only double track the choruses.

The other trick to mixing doubled vocals is what we have called the "Cheap Trick trick."
(my friend Terry Glaze referred to how Cheap Trick vocals are mixed and the name stuck)
In this case you mix the doubled vocal in under the main vocal where it can barely be detected.
If you pull it out you miss it, but with it in you don't really call the vocal doubled.
I'm giving shit away here, but I rarely add echo or DDL FX to the double on lead vox.

BG vocals are a whole different ball game.
I do what-ever is need to support the arrangement.

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by Saudade

I just want to understand deeper why a recording requires such intervention during the mixing stage to make instruments sound "unlame" or non-anemic if you like, while when we sit in front of a live band playing, the sound is always full when it is one player per instrument? What are the techniques to recreate this "fullness" during recording/mixing without the use of layering?

Like stated before, if the player, tone and arrangement are on you don't actually have a problem with stuff needing 'un-laming'........

[doncaparker]

Doubling (or layering, if we go for more than 2 instances) is nothing more or less than a useful tonal choice. It can make a specific recording better or worse, the same way mustard can make a specific sandwich taste better or worse.

Plus, now that we have a musical history of it being used on particular iconic recordings, it can be used as a musical reference or homage to those recordings where its use was prominent, which affects the listener's reaction to the new recording. This is not that different from using a guitar tone or drum pattern that is similar to something from a famous prior recording; the listener, whether consciously or subconciously, hearkens back to the earlier recording where that sound was used. If they liked the earlier one, they are a bit more disposed to like the newer one. In fact, I believe this is a big part of how each of us defines what sounds better or worse. We are all "samplers" to a certain extent, stealing bits and pieces of what we have heard (and liked) before, and using them in the new music we create today.

One thing I have noticed about vocal doubling is that I think it has a particularly useful purpose when the melody being sung is simple and/or "singalongish." ABBA is a good example. Those were not hard melodies; the band wanted those melodies to stick with you. They wanted you to sing along while the song was playing, and keep singing it to yourself after it was over. Doubling or layering tends to reinforce that. It sounds like several people are singing the same tune at the same time; so why not have the listener join in?

[dbbubba]

yes, yes, yes....

The psychological effects and their use definitely puts a recording or performance in a "frame" that can be familiar.

That is all part of production.

[EstateMatt]

I disagree whole heartedly.

If you listen to current rap tracks, the ones with the biggest sounds are the most serial and the most black.

or if your not a rap fan check out this amazing track by portisthead.


Having less in a mix gives things more room making them sound larger

[Neon Heart]

If you bring up the orchestral comparison don't forget that adding more instruments to one section was the only way to create balance.

there's a reason why there are about 15-20 1st violins and only about 10 second ones (most times the voice of the 1st violins is more important etc.). also, there are so many violins but only 3 trombones (they're louder...) and so on.
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.