I have been recording semi-professionally & professionally for 20 years. Never heard of a 24-track rule... Well once, but that was when we recorded with a 24-track tape machine...
As a teen, I had to work with 4 tracks, so I was forced to plan ahead, commit to submixes, and be creative with my process. As a result of that, when I got to use more tracks, I didn't have the urge to just keep adding and adding. I cut my teeth on 4 tracks and that taught me how to think and plan. Awesome vid!
@@darylquevada Most definitely but I have had a problem with overproducing so this makes me cut things..also makes me want to get the full version and the fire as a controller..😂 Awesome workaround the mpc touch functions as a vst BOOM as many tracks as I like...😎
@@melodica5407 I like for everything to just work..I don't want to go through the headache...these companies A. Shouldn't charge so much B. Stop it with all the ilok.... I have paid stuff I had to beg and plead and in one case well unmentionable... to get it to work.. I'm not ashamed of using newbie stuff as I been at this for 2 decades I would've been ecstatic wit Ableton Lite in 2001... I literally waited 20 years for the industry to get a clue with gear and affordability so I don't mind paying..
For anyone who only began recording in the digital age... this is some of the best advice you'll ever get! My 1st career in music was composing/producing jingles for tv/radio ads and 24 tracks was a luxury. Focus on the composition and arrangement not on all the cool toys and unlimited tracks we now have at our fingertips. My latest RU-vid video for a piece of music titled 'Distant Atmospheres' is nothing more than 3 tracks... 1 piano, 1 reverse piano and 1 reverse vocal track. So far that track has received well over 600 positive comments. If you need more than 24 tracks to get you idea across... rethink your arrangement !
Absolutely CORRECT. I've said for decades that "If you can't do it in 24 tracks, you shouldn't be doing this". And I said that when I was pioneering 64 track MIDI. I had real trouble using more than 16 tracks, even in that environment. I came up with 1 mic, 1 mono tape machine and 1 basement. Today's children can't record a snare drum with only one track.
I usually watch most videos (if they are not music) and listen to podcasts at 2x speed. Same with some trainings (i.e. Lynda, Coursera, MasterClass). I don't like it when they don't have the option to change the speed. LOL....There is a cheat code app though that changes video speed (there's one in Chrome and another one in Safari)...
I’ve been recording with computers for almost 20 years, and obviously tape before that. I have never used more than 24 tracks in any project. That’s a good video young man.
24 tracks or 24 parts, that's a different story. When you look for example at Warren Huarts vocal production, with doubles, and 6 slighty pitchifted doubles, a whisper track etc. let alone all the backing vocals, you need more than 24 tracks. All those vocal tracks plus their layered doubles do count as one "part" though and (for the most part) you can EQ them in together in a bus. Also: some like to have vocal verses and choruses on different tracks. So this 24 tracks theory certainly has it's flaws. Think about drum tracks and then tracks with added kick and snare samples, or a DI bass plus the bass amp plus maybe a sub bass (synth). This way you're not overcrowding the song with all kinds of different, competing parts, but the track count rises quickly. Personally, I'd look more for the number of different parts (especially playing at the same time, than the number of tracks. Having verse guitars on different tracks than the chorus guitar can be more convenient when mixing than having it all on the same track when you need a sonically different sounding chorus etc. I think being organised and having a clear, balanced vision is more important that a specific (limiting) track count.
First,a good solid song should sound good with just the vocal and a piano or acoustic guitar so,2 to 4 tracks.Second,like he said the key to making the most of fewer tracks is planning and arrangement,do some research and find out how they did things before there were daw's. Third,some of the stuff we see Warren Huart doing is added at the mix stage(he shows in a video how he makes the whisper track).
@@oinkooink When the Beatles recorded they only had 4 tracks for the majority of their careers. They mixed the first four and put it on one track, then used the other three to create "8" tracks. In 1968 one, or two studios implemented a 12 track recording module. The first of their kinds. So, the Beatles used 60 tracks?
As a student going for an audio engineering degree with aspirations to create my own music, this is now a part of how I record and mix. I appreciate the advice greatly.
Bro, everything I learned from producing, I’ve learned from you! I’m really grateful for the knowledge you drop. You’re a good teacher and a talented artist/ producer/ engineer. I have hella respect for you man.
This makes perfect sense. Being so new to mixing I can see how this can help move me along. Often I feel so overwhelmed by the unlimited options. Ill give this a try!
I usually use 8-10 tracks. Now, as for the drums I use ToonTrack’s SD3. So depending on if you want to include the separate drum tracks in SD3’s mixer which alone is like 8-10 tracks I have used maybe 22-24 tracks. But on Logic it would show up as one track. I don’t think you need an INSANE amount of tracks but that also depends on the genre of music. If you have like a ska band, you’ll of course need more tracks than say a 3-piece punk band. So it really depends.
An analogy my brain is trying to use right now is to compare the 24 track rule to video game developers. Has anyone tried downloading a modern AAA game lately? The file sizes are MASSIVE. 40 to 100 GB typically. This is due in large part to sloppiness and laziness from the developers. Nintendo is a prime example of the opposite - a huge game like Breath of the Wild is only 13 GB. Granted, it has a more simplistic art style, but give that same game to the folks at Bethesda or EA and you'd get a 40 GB end game file size with no perceivable benefit. If my analogy makes sense to even one soul, I've served my purpose :)
First home studio = Cakewalk/Dell/Behringer. After many years of pointless upgrades and blaming gear, now following these vids to start over fresh. Thanks again!
Why is everyone so obsessed with track counts..? It's just how you organize your stuff that matters. I like to have 2-3 piano tracks for instance, so I don't have to automate EQ going from a busy section to a calm one. I'll have a thin piano track and a bloomy one and can then slice the regions the way they fit into the mix. Or when having guitar tracks, say a r121, sm57 and a room pair. I will want all those mics in the mix-session to shape the sound right at the source. Then those mics are bussed, and processed the way that fits the mix. Essentially it will be one track in my mind.
That's a point. It is possible to increase track count in well thought out ways such that each track contributes to the overall tune. I believe that the main problem he is referring to here is when each track is meant to separately contribute to a mix and not as much for, for example, splitting one sound into low and high end tracks to be mixed separately.
Agreed. I do the same thing. I'd rather break out a track into several tracks rather than to have automation curves for sudden volume and effects changes. I do lots of slicing and dicing so for me it is an easier way move things around. The only time I use automation curves is if a gradual change is required (ie fade in fade out) or for a gradual change in modulation speed or intensity. Graham has some excellent tips and videos however, in my case, using more tracks actually REDUCES complexity and makes things easier to manage and you don't spend time chasing automaton curves around. When you split out a drum track that can easily take up 7-10 tracks. And if you have 3 back up vocals and 4 percussion..etc. IMO no direct relation between tracks and complexity or quality of output.
I do agree with this....in theory anyways...but I have to say that the vast majority of successful mainstream music made today has FAR MORE than 24 tracks....often over 100.....in fact I’d guess that 24 tracks is pretty rare in most commercial genres ....having said this the message here of less is more is definitely an important one
@@sbanville4761 yep....some has....and a lot hasn't. In the last 20 years most hasn't....either way, track count is irrelevant....all that matters is wether the production works
@@sbanville4761 yes but my point is that good arranging is good arranging....regardless of track count....it is ENTIRELY possible to have a huge track count that works seamlessly. There is nothing inherently better about low track counts and limiting yourself to 24 tracks is very arbitrary and unnecessary (whey wouldn't 27 tracks work). Most big hits today have huge track counts.....most big hits in the 60s didn't. At the end of the day all that matters is that every track in a session helps the song.....if there are 150 tracks (like a lot of pop hits have) then so be it :-)
@@sbanville4761 but as I said in my original post...I do agree that less is more.....it just so happens that "less" could easily mean 80 tracks - and that's perfectly fine if it works
FUNNY but 100% TRUE story: I just received stems from a client to mix. I open the session and start mixing, and the amount of layers and extra crap that was there was extraordinary! After mixing for about an hour and realizing I wasn't getting too far, all I was thinking was "if only this guy would've strategically produced his song this would be wayyy easier!" I closed the session out of lack of accomplishment and opened google chrome (just to air out a little before I open a different session to work on) and went to youtube.com and there it was, the very first suggestion on my home youtube page: "The 24 Track Rule - RecordingRevolution.com". I watched it and agreed with EVERY LAST WORD! I related most to "reason #1" but the others were just as accurate. There is no way that this timing is a coincidence, obviously God wanted me to feel better about the fact that I couldn't mix a song for a client properly. He was showing me that you're not supposed to have to deal with these songs at all!!! Graham, well done (again) in fact I'm happy I actually found someone I trust who said this because, all the time when I produce I like to keep the track count way low (usually under 24 tracks). And sometimes I thought "you know, all your friends bang out like 100-150 track songs, maybe your doing something wrong?" but noooo I found a resource like me! Thanks Graham! (can't wait to share this with some of my friends.) Keep these coming, I love 'em!!
Aux tracks and busses don't apply to the 24 track rule. You still need to mix the drum kit and process the different kit elements, especially the kick and snare.
my very first recording was a cheap double decks hifi and do overdubs with two cassettes back in 90s. Then my band record a demo tape on a Tascam 4-track recorder. Then 2nd album was recorded on a 16 track reels. No goddam DAW in 10 years of our band journey. In mid 2000 we got signed under universal music, this is when we first time use protools with 64 tracks (digidesign) But i use Cakewalk and Sonar during my collage year in 2000 :)
Which is why I’m not a huge fan. Talented guy but way too much almost always. Just because you CAN do something...it might not be the best sound. I find almost all of Colliers stuff to be ridiculously dense.
This is truly an underrated tip/prospective. Many of the best people in the industry think this way but don’t make it this explicit. This is really about the simplicity of workflow. And simplicity when it comes to workflow makes life just better
I honestly prefer hearing a performance on a record. Tracks are a big deal, but I think a lot of that comes from the fact that you can add tracks without having to rehearse them at all and play them live with other musicians. When you’re adding tracks you’re not really performing in the same way and it feels different to me than playing live with a band and maybe I’m just crazy idk lol Some bands don’t even feel like bands anymore. I always listen to older records and think “wow! That’s really John Lennon singing into a microphone that I’m hearing right now. A human had to sing into a mic to make the sound I’m hearing right now.” And I imagine him singing into a microphone while I’m listening to the song. I visualize the whole band playing their instruments. With newer bands I don’t always even feel like there’s a human singing to me. It almost feels like it’s an advertisement or a highly polished 100% perfect representation of what the song is supposed to sound like. I don’t imagine a drummer behind the kit or visualized the headphones on the bass player. I don’t get the vibe that there’s really a band there at all. I wonder if having an unrealistic amount of tracks contributes to losing that feeling as well? I never realized or cared about this element until I started listening to 60s-80s rock through headphones very closely and heard these details slowly go away. I’m not saying to intentionally ruin an album or settle for less than your best. By all means, punch in every once in awhile and fix a part but maybe practice the songs a lot before recording and try to record it live and have a less than 100% perfect performance if it means the audience can be reminded that they’re listening to humans every so often and not some flawless representation of what the song would sound like if they were listening to robots play it. Great video!!
I liked the Canvas analogy. Great explanation. I am a begginer hobbyist, and I at this point I usually have 5 drumtracks (Kick, Snare, Toms, Hi-Hat & Cymbals), + reverb/room + drum buss; 2 bass tracks (DI + amps/effects) + bass bus; 6 Rythm guitar tracks (only 2 at a time, but different sounding takes for verses, choruses, bridges) + rythm guitars bus; 2 tracks for lead guitars + LG bus; 4 lead vocal tracks (again different takes on verses/choruses and some doubled) + 2 background vocals + Vocal bus; 1 global reverb track; 1 delay track... so that makes for 24 tracks +5/6 buses Then, usually I add 1 or 2 tracks for specific sounds a particular song may need for a specific purpose (lets say a synth on an intro, or a string instrument on a bridge, or a speaking speech, or an ambient sound like sea waves or a stadium screaming, or a siren going off, or a bell, or a helicopter, etc... whatever fits the theme of a song). A few times I had also added some kind of orchestration (Strings or brass or keys etc.) with virtual instruments, being my top for that about a dozen extra tracks.
A full drum kit is going to take up at least 10+ tracks already. Add to that, bass, guitars, synths and vocals, there is no way that's happening. Vocals have doubles and background vocals, that's gonna be way over 24 tracks. Sure, if you just use a stereo track for drums and you're just making demos, then it's doable, but for real-world professional recordings, you're going to need 32+ tracks. If you're just starting out, then yes this 24 track rule applies and will help beginners to get their feet wet.
Not Necessarily true. They can use minimal tracks and make it sound big as if it were 32 + tracks. And it's more of 24 parts than tracks . Most use a doubler on vocals or the reel adt like the beetles used to emulate doubled vocals. If you're over 24 tracks but the parts all make sense to the song then thats great. More is not always better tho. Ive actually had songs where I removed tracks during mixing and the song started sounding better and came together
I am an oldie and my first recorder was a JVC reel to reel with sound on sound. For those who don't know what that was it was the ability to record on one track then flip a switch and whatever was recorded on track one was feed into the input of track two along with the mic 2 input. You laid track two on track one then you are done. That' s about as crude as they come but I still have recordings of my band around 1974 that sound pretty good. I graduated in 1975 to a Tascam 3340 four track. That was a great machine and I spent the next few years learning how to bounce tracks and end up with up to seven tracks of recording by consolidating and bouncing tracks. Again, my tapes from that era sound surprisingly good. In the late 80's it was a Fostex 16E recorder and the Fostex 16 channel board. Like you said, you had 16 tracks and only a 16 channel board. Another major improvement. In the early 2000's I bought a Tascam 2488. 24 tracks was a dream.and up till about two years ago I was still doing everything on a Tascam 2488 and a newer Tascam DP24. Two years ago I started using Reaper and I will say it is a wonderful DAW but I recently realized that I was getting carried away with the amount of tracks I was using. Instead of punching in on a guitar or vocal track to fix something, I was adding another track and leaving those decisions till later. My mixing time doubled if not tripled as I tried to make sense of all these additional tracks. It made me yearn for those old four track days when you had to think about what you were doing long before you hit the record button. In those days I had to think about what what parts had to be recorded first and make sure it was right before you bounced those three tracks to the only open track because from that moment on there was no going back and correcting anything. It is what is. I agree with everything you say in this video and I have been trying to be aware of this now when I record. Less is better. The reality is 24 tracks is all I really need. Some of my favorite albums of all time were done using 24 tracks or less.
Yep - 100 percent - that is what they taught me in 1985 at sound school. Excellent. You remind me a lot of this person when you speak - Julia Kristina on you tube, a therapist. She speaks with passion like you ... She is super cool. Thanks for this vid!
The early Elivis stuff.... ONE MIC in a room! Talk about committing! No overdubbing, no auto tune, no bank of 600 effects. The musicians had to really have it down solid. They did have EQ and compression but other than that no fixing it in the mix later. It was all about mic placement... Getting the sound right BEFORE it even hits the tape. We're so freaking spoiled these days! I keep reminding myself... Seargent Pepper was done on a FOUR TRACK!! Granted they did do a fair amount of bouncing tracks down, essentially giving them more than four tracks but like Graham says they had to have a damned solid game plan going into it. I think this technical engineering feat of the century was only made possible by the fact that the Beatles were a super tight performing band. Recording several parts at once.
When I approach producing a song, I think about how it would be played live. So with a standard band there would be a rhythm guitarist, lead guitarist, keyboardist, bass player, and drummer. Then I think there's the lead vocalist and a background vocalist or two. From there I add other instruments or elements as I see fit.
It's about time that somebody FINALLY made a video about the amount of tracks that it should take to create music. Because my AKAI MPD 32 controller only will record up to 24 tracks, so now I'm at ease about making music from this point on, nice one Graham.
For conventional music, as a general rule I agree with you. But... I like to create montages from lots of sound samples along with sampler, synth, bass, and drum tracks. Most of the sound snippets are only a few seconds long. Many of them get their own track since I am very likely apply different effects and automation on any given snippet. They can't share a track or bus without making an automation mess. So more source tracks and mix down busses is a cleaner way to handle it. With this type of music going over 24 tracks is very easy. It's about using the tracks to make creative music, not delay creative decisions.
I dug out my Korg D1600 multitracker last year and went DAW-free for recording. Just 16 tracks and I've gone back to drop-ins for correcting flubs - no more comping. Saving a stack of time, improving my playing, and obviating gigabytes of reject recordings.
Tell you what ... I was working with four-track stuff for about 30 years. 24-track would be like sleeping naked in a field! That 24-track rule is basically Glyn Johns with headroom. This is not a bad thing. Yes to the rule. Yes to the reasoning. Yes to the discipline in making a recording. When we are engineering, we are practising a discipline. Remove the discipline aspect, and we're doing nothing.
This sounds like a great rule to follow. I like to mix rock music with symphonic elements, which results in a lot of tracks with a lot of different "colors". I'm still learning, but I normally put similar instruments together in a group and treat it as a single track, as if they were recorded at in the same performance. Individual instruments definitely get lost in the mix, which is expected, and I've learned to make it an intentional part of the arrangement and not give too many unique melodies to supporting instruments. Working with so many tracks though, it does get difficult to know when and how to EQ and compress each track to make it fit in the mix.
I used to mix more than 48 tracks. After I started to work at a bar with a nice stage, 24 channel analogue mixer, lexicon mx200, 4 compressors and 2 eq's for master, I learned to minimize. Still couldn't reduced to 24 inl. busses but still improved my sound
A good role model for layering hundreds of tracks together is Devin Townsend and his “wall of sound”. But even he will render down an entire entity of sound in order to maintain fewer tracks. So to this I say, amen.
As a general rule in most cases, Less is More. A person can "Over Produce" a recording very quickly. I have done it myself. When I have Over Produced a song, I can tell it, because it just sounds wrong, flat or sort of dead. It just sounds too drained of spontaneity. Or over producing can make extra tracks drown out other tracks that are important. Remember the Bass, the Drums, the Rhythm (the Middle) and the Top end, which can be lead vocals, lead guitar or keys, all need to harmonize. If one of the basic ingredients of Bottom, Middle, or Top end is being drowned out by whatever, then that is over production, most likely.
this is an awesome rule. there is only so much the ear can hear at once, and unless you're recording Bohemian Rhapsody or I'm Not In Love, there are few reasons to break it. as a drummer, i find there's so much you can do with a fat saw bass and a kick. it's all in the melody. so, that's 3(m) or 6(s) tracks when you add vocals, and more than a few artists have been able to express themselves perfectly well with those alone. then again, i use a VERY large drum kit at times, with up to 22 mics, and without the ability to submix, i'd be screwed trying to adhere to this, lol. thanks for all your videos
A couple of years ago me and the band I was playing with struck a deal with one of vocalist's mates. He will get us in a college studio, record and mix and in return we will let him use the songs (2) as he see fit. We were ok but I asked if I can have the recording session so I can learn and practice as well. He said ok. After all was done he's sent me a dropbox link with the entire session. I counted 38 tracks of only instruments and additional 12 with vocals and backing vocals. I'm still trying to get through the whole thing as I only have Cubase Elements ...
Graham....totally agree w/ you on this. As some comments below indicate...there will always be mix-snobs...and that's not to say there won't be scenarios where more tracks are simply a must; but for most....its a phase. Your point though was particularly attractive to me in passing as I am currently putting together an EP of my own...hopefully destine for the tunecore thing (just to say I did it...lol) and I was noodling around w/ some ideas and stopped and thought...who am I on this project? .....and it came to mind that I wanted it to be what I would have liked to sound like in 85' So now I have 5-6 songs that are comprised of 2-3 guitars including solo, stereo drums (EZ drummer) Bass and 3-4 vocals. While technology is making these songs sound awesome...I can't help but think that it's capturing a "Core" band sound that has contributed to the overall clarity of thought. Where did it start? With EXACTLY what you described here w/ the 24 Track Rule. Sat down and mentally itemized my 1) pallet 2) stylistic tendencies and 3) Goals. It's kind of like people who don't sit down and figure a budget, and then wonder why they have no money. Spend a few minutes "thinking" about what you want to do...and only do what it takes to accomplish this (with maybe a few duplicate tracks in the kitty) and move on...the adherence to a framework, I think, puts completion in less jeopardy. Listen man....I am kind of a nobody, but want to say that I have been a long time subscriber and have learned a great deal from you and while I couldn't repay this...I'm sure God will bless ya for it dude :)
Thank you for the excellent advice on how to execute the arranging phase of the creative project. I just built my sound studio (using your gear guide), got Pro Tools installed, and am now ready to begin recording a bunch of songs I have written over the years. I read your Radio Ready guide and was pretty much stumped at the Arrangement step. This rule and the steps you outlined about arranging will help me a lot. Thanks, too, for the clarification that this is really a rule-of-thumb, not a hard-and-fast law; a tool for making me think more clearly about the process.
Maybe that's why rap doesn't get much credit as music 😂 I'm over here with a track for the beat, a track for my verse vocals, and a track for my dubs. 😳
Oh Graham, you should have studied psychology, seriously. If there wasn't you I wouldn't be such a music producer as I am now, but I noticed that the way you explain teaches me not only in the music world but also in some other aspects of life. It's kinda weird, I know but I'm thankful to you for that
When it really gets down to it, I usually never have to surpass 8 bus tracks. I like it that way, like my old reel to reel. Haha. Plus I feel like less to mix, is quicker to mix, is easier to mix, is better. Lol. Just my workflow. I like to make decisions and stick to them as the piece develops.
Agreed. It seems some commenters are a bit stuck on the arbitrariness of 24. I believe the point here is: only add tracks to your mix with great care and caution. Often times there are ways to accomplish something without having to add more tracks to do so. Plus, without careful attention given to how each new track is blended into the overall mix, chances are you'll end up with a mucky mess. Then if you send that mess to a sound engineer for mastering, he or she will have a heck of a time trying to clean it up. Words of wisdom: keep it simple stupid. Others are speaking of how popular music often uses over 100 tracks. If or whenever this is true, you'd better believe they are doing all of that with precision and not just wantonly piling up sounds for "phatter" mixes. I'd say it is especially unwise for a beginning musician to approach mixing with the above in mind. Instead, one ought to learn how to effectively use fewer tracks, then go from there. At the point you are carefully using more tracks in your mixes, you should also be able to master your own tunes. Either way, we shouldn't be bothering mixing engineers with our muddy mixes!
I totally understand where you're coming from. I was taught how to record by my mentor,Bud Hobgood (James Brown's producer) when I was an intern at the now defunct King records in Cincinnati. The most he ever used was SIXTEEN TRACKS on two inch tape.. I still record ANALOG. I don't use any DAW software. I recently read an article in AMI on Susan Rogers,Prince's engineer. She said that Prince felt if you couldn't record a song with 24 tracks you didn't know what you were doing.Having said that,the perfect number of tracks for me is 32,because I record EVERYTHING (including bass and guitar) in STEREO. I don't EQ anything (just like Bud taught me) and i "print" all my effects when I'm tracking (just like Bud taught me),because when I go to mix,the ONLY thing I'm concerned with is VOLUME and PLACEMENT in the stereo field. I make sure an instrument (or a voice) sounds the way I want it to BEFORE I hit the record button. My engineering hero Al Schmitt doesn't use EQ when tracking either. My favorite recorder is an IZ Radar. Everything remains analog in my studio except for using the hard drive on the IZ. I wish IZ would make a 32 track version. I would be in heaven.
I started in the 80's with 4-track cassette recorder with only volume and panning. Had to keep bouncing things to a left and right track to make room for anything else.
Been there, done that (Teac 144 cassette Portastudio - the original one) and for the most part still record the same way on the computer. I rarely go past 16 tracks.
I wonder how many others have seen videos of live (recorded) performances where there are lots of musicians playing away, but a number of those musicians are effectively missing from the audio. Goes to show.... :D
All my most impressive productions are those with fewer tracks. Yesterday I was listening to my whole catalog of well produced demos and to my surprise and relates to this video, all those tracks with vocals, piano and acoustic guitars were pleasantly loud,clear balanced.
I support this rule. I work with electronic dance music and sometimes I end up with many tracks, despite having no more than 2-3 sounds playing at same time (like: while one goes off, other goes on). What I do is layering of sounds and render similar stuff together (kicks into one channel, leads into another, etc) to keep track of everything during the mixing process. It's much easier work on EQing, like you stated and panning as well.
Right Arm Graham. I just saw the Motown doc,and "i heard it thru the grapevine" was first a big hit by Gladys Knight and the Pips, Then there was the Marvin version. Wow!. couldn't be more different. same song.
It sounds to me that a better case to be made is not for a track count of no more than up to 24, but a multitrack project of no more than 24 aggregate recorded elements. A single guitar element can have two channels and so require two tracks per channel. A snare drum can have a top and bottom channel also requiring two tracks. A kick can have a high pass and low pass channel that are then summed together, which sum can be two duplicate tracks or one recording track and a pre-fader bus send. Multi-timbral hardware or soft synths are likely going to need one track/channel per part-output. These elements are going to eat up track counts quickly.
Remember going from a 4 track cassette tascam to 16 track tape in late 80s. Trust me, Learning to bounce on a 4 track makes you appreciate all the tracks you have today.
We're on the same page. I use my 24-Tracks or 16-Tracks Recording Template. About 90% of the song is done in the pre-production phase incl. arrangement and sound shaping on the way in-to me it's kind of like the "pre-mix" before I even start recording. This way I'm much more relaxed on recording day, and I'm open for fresh and final ideas. In the 80s/90s I used a portable 4-Track recording device from Tascam (Tascam Porta Studio One) to record demo tapes. Those were the days. 😄 Thanks Graham!!
Excellent advice. I take it a step further and use the 1/2 track rule. I record my songs on one track and pan it either to the right or left. I alternate between left and right song by song to increase the life of my speakers.
I love this concept, Graham. I was talking about placing intentional limitations on your art in order to force your mind to find creative decisions and possibly even revolutionise a technique on my fm radio show in Australia a few weeks ago. I cited the Beatles St Peppers album as an example (full symphonies and band done on 4 tracks), as well as Tony Visconti’s 3 gated mics for reverb on David Bowie’s vocals in Heroes simply because they only had 1 channel left on a 24 track. Anyway, awesome way to approach recording. 24 rule. I’ll be doing that with my next artist. Thanks mate.
Back in my PARIS DAW recording days (15-22 yrs ago), I had a 2 EDS card system, 16 tracks per, so 32 total live tracks to work with. This was in the Pentium III and IV days so doing 32 tracks in native PC just wasn't going to happen. I was usually able to get drums and percussion odds and ends on one EDS card, which left the second EDS card for everything else, instrumentation and vocals of all sorts. If I remember correctly, I had 3 different projects that required "virtualizing" (essentially a stereo stem in today's terminology) a third bank of 16 tracks....lots of layers of choir like voices in at least one of those. All other projects fit easily in the 32 available....many within 16. These days, I don't count tracks. Lots of stereo key and virtual instrument tracks, and by the time I've doubled and de-tuned, autotuned, comp'ed/chopped, and bused out, they are numerous...and I don't care. They are all there for a reason. I have plenty of CPU power to take care of whatever is asked of it. This wasn't always the case. In any case, this 24 track "rule" is a little simplistic but is a reasonably good general rule of thumb that new mixers can use as a guide. It is also something that takes care of itself once you know what you're doing....the majority of modern music just can't use much more than that. However, there will be some times when you'll use more, maybe many more than 24 to get what you're looking for....that's OK... Go for it!
I think a lot of people just like how complex it looks to have so many tracks going on, it's more about feeling badass than actually making great music. Heck in real life You can have 2 people, one playing an acoustic guitar and the other singing and great music is delivered, that's 2 tracks right there (Who else with that analogy was thinking #LoveYourself, Ed/Justin #Lol). It doesn't have to be that simple yes, but the point is, #LessIsMore, if you're throwing in too much, there's probably too much you don't need.
Recording in analog stereo throws a wrench into this 'guideline,' although *almost* no artists do this anymore. The Beach Boys (famously) mentioned in their liner notes that they were recording in 'true stereo,' and this was when recording was limited to four or, at the most, eight tracks. If they can produce recordings like that, then even twenty-four seems excessive, except for the fact that they were recording very few passes and they were overdubbing a bare minimum of tracks/parts. Personally, I have been limited by software to eight or sixteen tracks, so have learned to ECONOMIZE when it comes to planning and executing my recordings. If I reach my limit, I copy the file with a new name, delete a few tracks, and continue adding tracks/parts, and then add them together in a DAW, when mixing. You just have to be careful with tempo adjustments on the second version!
I started out in the early 80s with 4 track cassette recorders. I now have a jazz guitar trio (with upright bass and drums)...I can record 12 tracks at once of Audient preamps (pretty clean). I mostly record live- 1 guitar track (U-87 type mic on the amp), 2 bass tracks (one acoustic bass with a u-47 type mic and a direct safety), 2 room, and 3 drum mics. So, I use 8 tracks of the 12 available recorded live. Unless I mic my grand piano (mono), 8 tracks is all I need. Simplicity is key for me. I honestly think 24 tracks for what I do (instrumental modern jazz with acoustic instruments....) is way too much.
I always pass the 24 limit, but never mean to reach the hundreds mark. But I do agree that with at least 24 you can have a consistent arrangement. Keep up the amazing content, Graham.
Год назад
Beethoven and other great composers, even when writing the grandest and most expressive symphonies, used only about 24 instruments. In this respect it would not be wrong to follow the great composers to the letter.
My first Multitrack recordings in the 80s (age 20ish lol) were done on my home hifi unit. It had an Amp, Record player, equalizer, radio unit, and 2 different model Akai tape decks with microphone jacks which were only supposed to support 1 time recording of a sound source through those jacks on Audio Tape. I had 2 tape decks so I could duplicate audio tapes and remix songs on an audio tape for my friends basically. Somehow I learned that if I didn't plug the audio source into one of the tape decks recording jacks all the way, it would leave the previous recording and allow me to overdub a new sound source. This produced a bad quality second recording with hiss but I was mutitracking and excited. I could get away with this about 4 times before the hiss destroyed the recording. At first I only had guitar and vocals so harmony tracks took most of the space. Then I borrowed a drum machine so things stepped up lol. There's a lot to this story so I'll end here, but having worked with limitations, I agree that if you arrange things properly, the end result is always much better. Thanks Graham for reminding me of this. You're awesome.
I started my recording career tracking to thin strips of rusty metal. Nature abhors a vacuum, if there are empty tracks, people tend to fill them with something, no matter if it's needed or not.
There is nothing wrong with "less is more" as it does make it easier but anyone who thinks that music should be easy is maybe not doing it right. The producer FLOOD said that recording a song SHOULD be hard and he was right. Some of the greatest music ever recorded has been nearly impossible to record either because of technicalities, band dynamics, musicianship, engineering/recording problems etc etc and that is what made them fucking amazing. IMO you are breaking the most important rule in creating music. The one rule that negates all other rules is THE WORD - NO - DOES NOT EXIST.
It was so obvious in the beginning to add multiple layers to make a sound better. Layering is still a good technique in some cases, for example with synths, but after some time you realize that you can get a really powerful sound without too many layers cluttering your mix (for example some saturation and transient master would be much better on drums than adding multiple layers [and creating some phase issues in the meantime]) but it comes with time, and I still catch myself on doing some stupid layering but less really is more.
