ryst Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 A few hypothetical questions: Would it be wise for a project/home studio musician/engineer to layer more tracks than a pro studio to achieve a "bigger, fuller" sound? Or does/can the "less is more" approach work just as well in both types of studios? Lately, I have noticed that when I record more tracks with different layers of guitars and sound design/fx/keys, my mixes seem bigger, more dense, and more interesting to me. When i record with less tracks, like maybe 2 guitar tracks instead of 4 or more and less synth layers, I am noticing that my mixes seem to be missing something. I know better AD converters, mics, pres, will all help improve my recordings/mixes, but for now I have to work with what I got. So any advice, comments, input, or experiences to share in relation to this? www.myspace.com/apocrypha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Roberts Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 Keep it simple and pure. I do multiple vox layers and compare and use what sounds best but at the expense of phasey buildup VS "fat sound" I would rather keep it very simple. Look at Bruces examples of 2 tracking each instrument in stereo, experiment with that. I don't listen to a guitar with one ear plugged and neither should you! Panning will be something you need to work with to get a proper perspective in the mix. Remember, you can always "throw out" unneeded tracks. Bill Roberts Precision Mastering -----------Since 1975----------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Sayers Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 Yeah ryst - go for it - but you have to be accurate in your double triple whatever, tightness still rules no matter how many different textures you add. cheers john Studio Design Forum Studios Under Construction Home Page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryst Posted May 15, 2005 Author Share Posted May 15, 2005 Bill-- I missed Bruces examples of tracking in stereo. Do you have a link? John-- yes, tighness is the key! www.myspace.com/apocrypha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Flier Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 I don't think "pro vs. project" studio has any bearing on this equation. Layering tracks either sounds good or doesn't, depending on the song and how well the player is able to double himself. You do need to be careful not to fall in love with this technique too much though, otherwise it will no longer be interesting. It's kind of like compressing everything so it's as loud as possible - after awhile if everything is the same loudness all the time, "loud" ceases to have any impact. If you use layers, make judicious use of the Mute button and try different ways of using the layers - rather than always just panning them hard left and right at the same volume, trying panning them the same way and putting one way behind the other with some reverb to give more depth without it being an obvious double... or mute the layers in certain sections of the song so it creates drama when they come back in and more intimacy when they are out... etc. Mainly you just want to avoid falling into formulaic techniques - always let the song and arrangement dictate how you record and mix, rather than "I love layers and my mixing technique isn't very good without layers so I'm going to figure out how I can use layers in every song." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offramp Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 My two reference points for layering are Rush's "Moving Pictures" album and the Police's "Zenyatta Mondatta" album. Lifeson's guitar is so dense, rich, and massive yet so clear at the same time; Summers' guitar is so clean, yet every layer is in a different voicing, and you'd think he had 12 fingers on each hand. The trick with layering, IMHO, is to understand that the sound you hear, seperately, is often not going to work as part of a collection of layers; if broken down--this massive wall of guitars--each guitar may sound kinda crappy. I've upped my standards; now, up yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Swedien Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 ryst asks the musical question--------->Would it be wise for a project/home studio musician/engineer to layer more tracks than a pro studio to achieve a "bigger, fuller" sound? Or does/can the "less is more" approach work just as well in both types of studios? Brucie answers-------->A studio is a studio! The only rule in music recording that is absolutely Gospel is that: "There are no rules!!!" Make recorded music that you love to play for yourself first! Make recorded music that you love to play for everyone else second! Bruce Swedien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keysking Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 Originally posted by Bruce Swedien: Brucie says---Make recorded music that you love to play for yourself first! Make recorded music that you love to play for everyone else second! Pete says ---- Too Right Brucie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miroslav Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 Actually...quite often...over-layering will give you a "smaller" sound. I find that less...really is, more...and using fewer tracks allows each one to occupy more space...and also leaves room for them to breath. But, layering quantity/quality can depend on the song, and the style of music you are doing. miroslav - miroslavmusic.com "Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip OKeefe Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 I'll side with Lee and Bruce on this one. I don't think the type of studio should really have any bearing on the production and arranging approach insofar as doubling. If layers is appropriate for the song, then go ahead and do it... but like anything else, use it only when it is appropriate in support of the music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Swedien Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 Philip O'Keefe sez--------> I don't think the type of studio should really have any bearing on the production and arranging approach insofar as doubling. If layers is appropriate for the song, then go ahead and do it... but like anything else, use it only when it is appropriate in support of the music. Brucie sez-------->YES!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offramp Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 Phil, you are such a suck-up. I've upped my standards; now, up yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryst Posted May 15, 2005 Author Share Posted May 15, 2005 Hey guys! Thanks for all the responses. When I am referring to the differences between a home studio sound and a pro studio sound, I am mainly talking about the difference in gear/room quality. I guess I am wondering if the ad converters, mics, pres, instument, room, and plug ins should have any bearing on the sound and depth of a recording? I was thinking maybe layering more sounds (not the same sounds but different layers of timbres and tones) would help compensate for the lack of quality gear that some would say enhances the sound quality of a recording. If my ad converters, mics, pres, and room do not have good depth, is it possible to compensate by layering more sounds/tracks? Or would it actually make thiings worse? It's not something I believe is a solution. It's just a question I thought I'd ask because I knew I would get some feedback from people more experienced than me. www.myspace.com/apocrypha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Flier Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 Nathan, I don't think adding layers will "compensate" for a crappy room or crappy gear. If anything that can make things worse because adding up the same crappy sound across a bunch of tracks becomes cumulative crap. Seriously, the more tracks of poorly miked/poorly converted sounds with clipped pres and cheap EQ's etc. you add together, the worse it sounds. Whereas with fewer tracks the sonic character of cheap gear doesn't come out so much. So again... just do what works for the song/arrangement and sounds good to you. You can't worry too much about the gear if there's nothing you can do about it, except maybe borrow or rent some better stuff. It's best to just focus on the gear you have and become familiar enough with it that you can learn to compensate for whatever crappiness is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip OKeefe Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 Let me ask you a question... if you have a bucket of poop, and add a second bucket of poop, does the smell get any better? IOW, IMO, if the gear is REALLY that bad, then adding more layers to the song isn't going to improve anything... more than likely, it will just make it muddier and more indistinct. But the gear may not really be the issue. I've heard some pretty amazing recordings that were done on pretty modest gear. Getting the most out of whatever gear is available is where you come in, and IMO, the greatest improvement most people can make, the one upgrade that will always pay off, and always last, is the improvements you make to your own abilities, knowledge and skill level. Listen, practice, experiment and read - IOW, work your butt off. That's what pays off, and sticks with you, long after the latest gear purchase is long out of date. I'll stick to my original (apparently suck-up ) answer - do the layers if the song calls for it, if it adds to and supports the music. Gear usually wouldn't dictate my decision either way on this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryst Posted May 15, 2005 Author Share Posted May 15, 2005 Thanks, Lee! That's the answer I was looking for. I don't have a lot of experience so I needed my "theory" shot down by someone with much more knowledge at this than me. www.myspace.com/apocrypha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryst Posted May 15, 2005 Author Share Posted May 15, 2005 Originally posted by Philip O'Keefe: Let me ask you a question... if you have a bucket of poop, and add a second bucket of poop, does the smell get any better? IOW, IMO, if the gear is REALLY that bad, then adding more layers to the song isn't going to improve anything... more than likely, it will just make it muddier and more indistinct. But the gear may not really be the issue. I've heard some pretty amazing recordings that were done on pretty modest gear. Getting the most out of whatever gear is available is where you come in, and IMO, the greatest improvement most people can make, the one upgrade that will always pay off, and always last, is the improvements you make to your own abilities, knowledge and skill level. Listen, practice, experiment and read - IOW, work your butt off. That's what pays off, and sticks with you, long after the latest gear purchase is long out of date. I'll stick to my original (apparently suck-up ) answer - do the layers if the song calls for it, if it adds to and supports the music. Gear usually wouldn't dictate my decision either way on this matter. I appreciate that, Phil. You are 100% right! www.myspace.com/apocrypha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Roberts Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 ryst, you see the link yet? Notice times! http://www.musicplayer.com//ultimatebb.php?/ubb/get_topic/f/1/t/024621.html Bill Roberts Precision Mastering -----------Since 1975----------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryst Posted May 16, 2005 Author Share Posted May 16, 2005 Originally posted by Bill Roberts: ryst, you see the link yet? Notice times! http://www.musicplayer.com//ultimatebb.php?/ubb/get_topic/f/1/t/024621.html Damn! it was right in front of my face! Thanks, Bill! www.myspace.com/apocrypha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Roberts Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 If you notice, Bruces post was after I told you about it! (Twilight zone) Actually, good archival info is around but Bruce really explained it par excellence. Bill Roberts Precision Mastering -----------Since 1975----------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prague Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 Is there an actual band involved in this? I would make the recordings sound like the band, or develop their sound to sound like your recording. Either way. If people like the recording and it is nothing like the live band, you've done yourself a service, but not the band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Roberts Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 I agree. I have had many conversations with pre recording of bands asking them to not do anything they cannot pull off live. Of course, being a session director is a luxury. Some producers what to do things completely different and with that, whoever is the shot caller, that is what ends up happening. I have has some "asshole" producers as well. You would be amazed at the time that gets wasted and we end up going back to the scratch tracks, before that producer came on the scene! In most productions I have been involved with, the producer and the artists are usually very compatable with my thoughts. We are making music and I play multi-role. Bill Roberts Precision Mastering -----------Since 1975----------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip OKeefe Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 I have had many conversations with pre recording of bands asking them to not do anything they cannot pull off live. From a musicianship standpoint, I tend to agree, although I like when people play just a bit beyond themselves - they're stretching the line a bit, and you're getting the absolute best - a bit better than best - that you can out of them. However, while I certainly hear and dig the beauty of a well done album where they took a "capture the sound of the band playing live in the room" approach, I also love some recordings where the artist, producer and engineer did tons of layers and production. Stuff which would be really difficult, or impossible for the basic band to pull off live without significant technical and supplementary musician support. And it sounds amazing in its own way, just as a live musician approach can sound amazing on some things. Two completely different approaches, and IMO, both can work, depending on the dictates of the music and artistic vision. "Take 5" being one example at one end (okay, I can hear where they spliced the tape... ), and "A Night At The Opera" being an example towards the other end... although modern recording frequently takes the overdubbed to the moon approach even further and adds massive editing, pitch correction and other even more "unrealistic" techniques to the equation. And I don't have a problem with just about any approach, although IMO, some tend to yield a greater percentage of musical albums than others... but that's just a matter of opinion. As long as it sounds cool and the music works for me and moves me, that's all that really matters. For me, Albums are Albums, and Live is Live, and I don't expect the two to always be great with the same band, although I tend to think that the great bands often excel at both. But I can appreciate a great record for its own merits. Of course, being a session director is a luxury. Some producers what to do things completely different and with that, whoever is the shot caller, that is what ends up happening. As it really should be IMO. I have has some "asshole" producers as well. You would be amazed at the time that gets wasted and we end up going back to the scratch tracks, before that producer came on the scene! I can certainly understand that. And it sure can be frustrating. At least for me, because I really do want for every session that I'm even remotely involved in to go extremely well. I love to watch and help to make that magic happen. But if I couldn't get along with a particular producer, I wouldn't take the gig... life's too short, and it would be doing everyone a disservice. Even though I've worked with some egotistical producers, absent producers and even a few inept "producers", most of the people I've worked with have at least been folks I could get along with enough to get the job done and give 'em what they had me there to do. And actually, I wind up producing, or acting in the capacity of being the guy running the session a lot. But DID just do my very first ever (no kidding!) second engineer gig this weekend... and I had a great time doing it - but you guys will have to ask Gearmike about that. In most productions I have been involved with, the producer and the artists are usually very compatable with my thoughts. We are making music and I play multi-role. That's when it's really fun - when everyone is firing on all cylinders and working like a well oiled machine towards a common musical goal. I live for that almost as much as I live for when that magic happens. Sorry for being so verbose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Roberts Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 Verboseness is most welcomed! I have a producer now that writes his arse off, has a decent studio, (owns) and plays a most mean guitar...and I go over to do the mixdowns, bring it all here for mastering (pretty good 5 hour drive) but he is stuck in a rut. he just hit the 40 year mark and his whole flavor has changed and needs some "new meat" to get into the vibe. His cats are stuck in the early 90's and he wants to move on. I like what he is doing so I took my bass over there and we knocked out a few pretty quick. It changed the tunes structures big time..what I did and he likes it..although if he is going to be a producer, he must find that weakness and get beyond it and seek out the cats that will make these tunes shine. He is pityful at leadership (too much pot I reckon) and needs at least a drummer to grab ahold of these things and get it going on. Me, I love to play the bass but I am booked up doing my thing, he has no internet..nor chooses not to and sitting on 500 (no typo) songs..that need others to get with him and structure around different vibes. Now..that has to be something of a frustrational event for him. Can you relate?? I would love to put "others" with him to collaborate..but the key is, it has to be somewhat of a mutual thing and frankly, I run through about 40 tunes a month in mastering and to go into a production "babysitting scheme" * he cooks great and has a serious house and all) is something I like to spend at least a solid month with to feel it all. His bed tracks are totally undeveloped. He requires others involvement. No time for that..and certainly, it is all back end pay. Hard to pay the bills being away one month simply vibing. I simply hate to see great music not blossum so if anyone wants to get with him...the PM is always open. Bill Roberts Precision Mastering -----------Since 1975----------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip OKeefe Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 Too bad he lives in FL. What sort of style does he have? IOW, what genre? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Roberts Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 Philip, he was pretty mainstream rock for about 20 years and now it is leaning more to the Floydian/Supertramp type feel. Much more melodic and simpler to pull off. For a cat that can play close to Steve Vai level, it is rather surprising that he is mellowing. He can send you a cee dee so you can see if you want to fill some holes. His latest stuff is beds..no guitar/bass yet, and drum machine. I think he wants to get some real drums and bass on there with some slots for him to solo and especially someone who wants to write lyrics and cut some vox. Bill Roberts Precision Mastering -----------Since 1975----------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.