So, when you record bands,...

[theblue1]

It's tempting to suggest an inverse relation between talent and tracks required... but... maybe a bit facile and superficial. Still... it's tempting.

[mattjew24]

Haha I get that but you have to admit it can give a song a different sound, having a ton of devoted tracks.

[John The Cut]

Yes, bands usually run to higher track counts for me..

It depends completely on the band and what sound you want to achieve. But you normally have at least 16? tracks just on drums alone.. then 2 guitarists and their parts, could be 8 or so.. lead tracks.. chorus parts.. bass, keys and electronic elements...

then all the vocals........

and dont forget the tambourine.

[manysounds]

When I am playing the producer role I try to keep track counts as low as possible unless (insert many reasons here). Anything that needlessly chews up studio time is usually a bad idea. I suppose if we had $120k to blow I'd change my mind but I'd rather save that money for more gear

My favorite sounding projects always have controlled arrangements.

[KevinNYC]

Isn't the right answer to use as many tracks as necessary to achieve the desired result?

[AllAboutTone]

Originally Posted by John The Cut

Yes, bands usually run to higher track counts for me..

It depends completely on the band and what sound you want to achieve. But you normally have at least 16? tracks just on drums alone.. then 2 guitarists and their parts, could be 8 or so.. lead tracks.. chorus parts.. bass, keys and electronic elements...

then all the vocals........

and dont forget the tambourine.

wow, for me a simple 4 or 5 piece kit if I used 16 tracks for drums that would be insane. To be honest I use 4 or 5 tracks total on drums, I use a lot of mics but get it right going in.
I rarely use 5 tracks for drums but always 4.

[Antony Scott]

Hi! For a simple music, I sometimes have enough tracks 16-18 - if a riff and the "harmonic pads" are used only guitar. In other cases, the number of tracks goes up to 36 or more.

[Antony Scott]

Originally Posted by KevinNYC

Isn't the right answer to use as many tracks as necessary to achieve the desired result?

[Tom Higgins]

Originally Posted by KevinNYC

Isn't the right answer to use as many tracks as necessary to achieve the desired result?

+1

You shouldn't be putting a figure on it.

[Tom Higgins]

FWIW though, modern pop songs use a great deal of tracks.

Pink - Raise Your Glass production notes

[Jared Paul]

I think I usually use somewhere between 2 and 90 tracks for a song

[BudgetMC]

Originally Posted by theblue1

It's tempting to suggest an inverse relation between talent and tracks required... but... maybe a bit facile and superficial. Still... it's tempting.

You still got it, Man.

[AllAboutTone]

Please tell me engineers are not using a track per tom.
The only reason to do such if you are gonna sample them later, if that is the case just use digital drums do begin with.

[amishsixstringe]

Originally Posted by AllAboutTone

Please tell me engineers are not using a track per tom.
The only reason to do such if you are gonna sample them later, if that is the case just use digital drums do begin with.

Am I missing something? It's pretty standard to mic each tom. Unless there is an 8" and 10" real close to each other, you better believe I have a track for each tom. Sometimes 2 for each. So what?

Neil

[AllAboutTone]

Originally Posted by amishsixstringe

Am I missing something? It's pretty standard to mic each tom. Unless there is an 8" and 10" real close to each other, you better believe I have a track for each tom. Sometimes 2 for each. So what?

Neil

Missed the question on my first line.........I said a track for each tom.

[amishsixstringe]

So, you're making little sub groups o n the way in? Sorry I took that out of context. People say dumb shit on here all the time, so I sometimes just assume. My apologies....

Neil

[gogar]

I recently listened to some of my 2" recordings from about 15 years ago.

All the sounds were pretty darn good.

I think this is due largely to the fact that I "only" (lol) had 23 tracks, and I was forced to make good decisions SOONER.


I think the SOONER you make good decisions the more likely you will be to have a lower track count.



I think in the modern style of recording it's easy to get lazy and throw down a gob of tracks for each individual sound, thinking that you will 'worry about it later.'

One good example is throwing 4 mics on a guitar cab and recording all four tracks even if 3 of them are questionable choices.

Then when "later" comes, you're too beat up or pressed for time and you go with what you know , which may be the thing you should have done in the first place.

[AllAboutTone]

Originally Posted by amishsixstringe

So, you're making little sub groups o n the way in? Sorry I took that out of context. People say dumb shit on here all the time, so I sometimes just assume. My apologies....

Neil

No problem, yes in fact stereo sub groups going in on some.
Don't get me wrong, anyone is free to put as many mics as they want on the drums or room, sometimes to many is overkill unless you want to be sure your butt is covered.

[AllAboutTone]

Originally Posted by gogar

One good example is throwing 4 mics on a guitar cab and recording all four tracks even if 3 of them are questionable choices.

Then when "later" comes, you're too beat up or pressed for time and you go with what you know, which may be the thing you should have done in the first place.

This is when it's smart to re amp if it gets that serious, I always make sure I have a great guitar tone going in with one or 2 mics.

[Syncamorea]

Originally Posted by John The Cut

But you normally have at least 16? tracks just on drums alone..

At live gigs, I often use just 3 or 4 on drums.

Originally Posted by John The Cut

and dont forget the tambourine.

And the cowbell. We need more cowbell.

[Ernest Buckley]

Originally Posted by mattjew24

Do you use a lot of tracks?

I wasn't sure where to put this thread.

I just realized that when I record bands, I tend to use few tracks.

But recently I've been listening to a lot of Blink 182, especially the well-produced stuff from Dude Ranch and beyond...and I notice that for such simple music, they use a ton of tracks...every part of the song seems to have dedicated guitar tracks that are mixed a bit differently to sit with the vocals and harmonies and drums going on.

I wonder if this is necessary to make such tight sounding records?

Do you guys use a billion tracks?

When recording a band...
6-8 tracks of drums
1 track of bass
3-4 tracks of guitars (treated differently for each section)
1 track of lead vocal
1-2 track of lead vocal with different EQs/EFX
1-2 tracks of keys
2-4 tracks of synths
8-40 tracks of bkg vocals

Then I`ve done tracks with one mic, one performance.

Each song has its own requirements so you do what you have to to get it sounding the way it should.

[Drumsound]

I max out at 23 tracks leaving one for timecode.

Originally Posted by AllAboutTone

Please tell me engineers are not using a track per tom.
The only reason to do such if you are gonna sample them later, if that is the case just use digital drums do begin with.

I do record each tom on its own track, if I mic them (usually I do). It's both a control and TONE thing.

[envyandother]

For me, a band can be anywhere between 8 and 100 tracks. All depends what I'm doing.

There is no right answer, no one should have to justify decisions that sound good. People tend to think that if The Beatles (insert any other revered group) were recording today, they'd still only use 4/8 tracks. To me, that's nonsense. There's a misplaced nostalgia. Engineers and Producers were pushing the very limits of what was available, and would be today.

Of course, decisions are good. Even if the decision is to have a crazy amount of tracks.

[Sino]

Generally I use as many track as I need. I prefer tracking as much things as I can (double track pretty everything, guitar parts with 2/3 different tones) so I can select what I need in mixing..

[psycho_monkey]

Depends on the style, but typically:

12-14 tracks of drums - not all likely to be used, but sometimes trash mics etc come in handy.

2-3 of bass (mic/DI/vulture'd DI).

Then guitars - if I'm on a desk, I'll usually sum guitar mics but if the studio's big enough I'll use a real room. If I'm on a smaller rig, I'll have to record mics separately, but probably won't record the room. Plus I usually record a DI for editing purposes, occasionally to reamp. So you're looking at 3 guitar tracks per part usually, though only 1 or 2 are used in the mix. How many parts depends on the song, but there'll usually be 2-3 rhythm parts, plus as many lead parts as needed. Not all will be playing at the same time, and usually no more than 2 will have similar sounds.

Acoustics - usually 2 mics, usually not summed.

Keys - as many as needed, only stereo when stereo is needed, most of the time it's little bits not playing all the way through.

LV - single plus a DT/TT as and when needed.

BVs - all bets are off, sometimes none, sometimes 32 or more.

The point about a 24track is kinda valid - but one thing to remember is that big productions of the 70s/80s often either combined things, or tracks shared - for example, you'd have all your non-overlapping keyboards on one track, then use mute automation and track multing on the desk to mix. On a DAW there's no point in doing that; hence more tracks.

As ever, the end justifies the means. If it doesn't sound like too many tracks, it isn't.

[teo]

Originally Posted by AllAboutTone

Please tell me engineers are not using a track per tom.
The only reason to do such if you are gonna sample them later, if that is the case just use digital drums do begin with.

I do. If you are recording to a DAW and have enough inputs, I don't see the point of submixing them. I like EQing the toms separately, and I like doing it at mix time. If recording to 24trk, I guess the approach must be different.

To the OP, with bands I usually come up with this:
10-14 tracks of drums
1-2 bass
2-8 rhythm gtrs
1-2 lead vocal + dbl

All the rest, it really depends. The song could have umpteen keyboard/synth tracks, or none. Same with clean/solo/whatever guitars, background vocals, percussion, etc.

[jmdumas]

I like to keep my track count low, it's way easier/faster to mix afterwards. That being said, if the project calls for more tracks I will use more tracks. The song is the important part, not the track count. I also find that the better the band is, the less I need since a good band mixes itself.

This is my template for a power trio, I tend to track everything at once, in the same room, except maybe vocals depending on the project:

1: Vocal
2: Guitar amp front
3: Guitar amp back
4: DI Bass
5: Amp bass
6: Kick
7: Snare
8: Toms
9: OH L
10: OH R
11: Room L
12: Room R

If the band is really good and the room decent, I end up using only the Room mics with a bit of kick and DI Bass dialed in (and vocals of course).

[Enlightened Hand]

For me it just depends. I have to listen to the group and decide what I'm trying to hear and what I need/want to be able to control during the mix.

Usually I'm for mic-ing each actual drum with a single close mic and then having two overheads. Occasionally I'll close mic certain cymbals too. But that's all situation dependent. I'm not a fan of top and bottom mic-ing of snares or toms. I've never liked the sound enough to warrant the hassle when I've done it. If it's a huge drum ensemble then I'll actually use fewer mics and capture the group more as a whole with close mics on important drums for the arrangement.

With other instrumentalists it's the same thing: listening and deciding then and there. Vocalists are typically a single mic per voice, unless it's a group of singers simultaneously, then things change. Electric guitars are usually one input used for me, although I often with electric guitars get a line input as well as a mic input from the speaker cab so that I can have the option of easily re-amping later should the need be. I'm not very big into multi-mic on single speaker cabs. I think it often is more trouble than it's worth, although I know many folks swear by it.

Keyboards and pianos are almost always two inputs or two (or more) mics. Acoustic guitars depend. If it's acoustic guitar in a busy arrangement with several other instruments and the acoustic isn't a featured part of the arrangement then I'll go with one mic on it. If I'm specifically looking for a stereo presentation of the acoustic then I'll go with two mics on it. If it's a group of acoustic guitars playing simultaneously I might even go with a stereo pair to capture the group's part. It all depends.

Atypical instruments are always a matter of listening and thinking about how to capture and what to control later. It completely depends on the situation. In general though, yes I use more tracks for recording multiple instruments in the same arrangement. Exactly how many more is completely variable.

[mattjew24]

Good insight thank you

How often do you find yourselves overdubbing part by part? Do you get multiple takes on every instrument and comp things?