Back to basics: 8 track maximum for real rock music?

[niazmet]

I mean real music by something that is captured on studio that can somehow be reproduced live
When I see things like this

then I realize we are using AI in the sense of fake/artificial music for decades and no wonder we reached a fatigue point.

Yes 8 track recordings can have all sorts of compression and eq techniques but at least you limit the craziness of the engineer and the indulgence of band members lol

I think having the option to chose 30 different microphones + hundreds of cabinets + hundreds of effects is already too much. Modern metal, new metal and etc was the natural consequence of overusing reverb and fake drums (Ac/DC 80s albums come to mind. Plus Van Halen, Motley Crue and Queen)

If I had to build a recording studio today I would certainly not have a 24 track mixing console + dozens of outboard gear. I'd limit myself to 8 track and maybe 1 eq and 2 compressors. I'd happily go bankrupt if that would be the case lol

 

[JohnH]

2 guitars
1 bass
3 vocal
1 keys
? drums (?= how many?)

16 tracks please! (then the lead guitar and lead singer can have a few takes and eventually get all of it almost right at on at least one track)

 

[Calebz]

That's a hard no from me.

I'll stick with utility over nostalgia.

2-4 guitars
2-4 vox
1 bass (2 if running parallel processing)
4-6 for drums

Lets not forget that some modern DAWs do not differentiate between a track and a buss or send. Functionally, they're all tracks.

So let's add some more for:

1 guitar buss
1-2 drum busses/sub-busses
Vox buss

1-2 reverb sends

That doesn't cover having any other instruments, samples or anything else in there.

I don't miss the analog days. Not at all.

 

[playloud]

It was all over once we abandoned Pythagorean tuning, in my opinion

 

[PelliX]

Yes 8 track recordings can have all sorts of compression and eq techniques but at least you limit the craziness of the engineer and the indulgence of band members lol

I see where you're coming from, but... it's a no for me. While *some* tracks can be done like that quite well, I tend to have 8 tracks at least for mic'ing the drumkit. Kick, snare (bottom and top?), splash, ride, floor tom, couple of overheads and a room mic and you're already over 8 tracks. Would two overheads or just a room mic suffice? Sometimes, yes. I like the flexibility of mixing those down how I would like them, though. Add a few more tracks for mid/side separation/mixing. Let's assume there are two guitars (maybe that's just a solo layered on top of the rhythm or the whole song has two guitarists, etc). Bass? Yeah, one channel should be fine. Vocals? Well, provided only the singer sings the chorus (or the other(s) shout into the same mic for that purpose) - yes, 1 channel would do. Recently, I've been using a dynamic and an LDC in combination to capture vocal performances. Mix and match, or pan them hard and re-create an actual stereo image of the singer.

 

[niazmet]

That's a hard no from me.

I'll stick with utility over nostalgia.

2-4 guitars
2-4 vox
1 bass (2 if running parallel processing)
4-6 for drums

Lets not forget that some modern DAWs do not differentiate between a track and a buss or send. Functionally, they're all tracks.

So let's add some more for:

1 guitar buss
1-2 drum busses/sub-busses
Vox buss

1-2 reverb sends

That doesn't cover having any other instruments, samples or anything else in there.

I don't miss the analog days. Not at all.

I don't mean 8 track as analog 8track but 8 tracks... 8 individual mono tracks. (Ok you can have 8 stereo tracks).
Similar to how live mixing and reel tapes were used in the 60s and 70s to record bands live. It was mixed and recorded live. I think 6 tracks were used and two were left out for some reason I don't remember perhaps to add parallel effects?

There are beautiful modern 8 track mixing consoles.

 

[niazmet]

I see where you're coming from, but... it's a no for me. While *some* tracks can be done like that quite well, I tend to have 8 tracks at least for mic'ing the drumkit. Kick, snare (bottom and top?), splash, ride, floor tom, couple of overheads and a room mic and you're already over 8 tracks. Would two overheads or just a room mic suffice? Sometimes, yes. I like the flexibility of mixing those down how I would like them, though. Add a few more tracks for mid/side separation/mixing. Let's assume there are two guitars (maybe that's just a solo layered on top of the rhythm or the whole song has two guitarists, etc). Bass? Yeah, one channel should be fine. Vocals? Well, provided only the singer sings the chorus (or the other(s) shout into the same mic for that purpose) - yes, 1 channel would do. Recently, I've been using a dynamic and an LDC in combination to capture vocal performances. Mix and match, or pan them hard and re-create an actual stereo image of the singer.

You could transform a 8 track mic drum kit into 4 track. Mix kick and snare in the same track, perhaps ride cymbal too. That would leave us with 4 free tracks to add guitar, bass and vocals

 

[10kDA]

My best friend owned and operated a professional recording studio from the 70s to 2005. He always wanted more tracks, but he was also recording more than just rock bands. Nobody in the recording industry back then was saying "I'm limiting myself to (X) tracks." That mindset sounds like the punk attitude of "We're purposely limiting what we create, and you have to comply as well or we'll deem you uncool." Better to have and not need than need and not have.

 

[Calebz]

I don't mean 8 track as analog 8track but 8 tracks... 8 individual mono tracks. (Ok you can have 8 stereo tracks).
Similar to how live mixing and reel tapes were used in the 60s and 70s to record bands live. It was mixed and recorded live. I think 6 tracks were used and two were left out for some reason I don't remember perhaps to add parallel effects?

There are beautiful modern 8 track mixing consoles.

That doesn't really change anything I said. 8 tracks isn't enough unless:

1 - You're content re-recording the 1087945843796th version of Mustang Sally for the 8574390256458739786th time. (AKA: The TGP method)
2 - You're piling and bouncing tracks (drums from 8 tracks to 4, for example) - In which case, you're simply finding a workaround for an arbitrary, self-imposed limitation.

Some great shit happened in the 60s and 70s. It should stay there and be great. I choose to participate in the century I actually exist in.

 

[niazmet]

That doesn't really change anything I said. 8 tracks isn't enough unless:

1 - You're content re-recording the 1087945843796th version of Mustang Sally for the 8574390256458739786th time. (AKA: The TGP method)
2 - You're piling and bouncing tracks (drums from 8 tracks to 4, for example) - In which case, you're simply finding a workaround for an arbitrary, self-imposed limitation.

Some great shit happened in the 60s and 70s. It should stay there and be great. I choose to participate in the century I actually exist in.

lol I understand what you are saying
But think about it do you hear better drum sounds today than in the 70s? I mean I can hand pick 2 or 3 albums with good drum sound for the last 35 years.

 

[Calebz]

lol I understand what you are saying
But think about it do you hear better drum sounds today than in the 70s? I mean I can hand pick 2 or 3 albums with good drum sound for the last 35 years.

My favorite albums from the 70s are early Sabbath... And I wouldn't use their recorded drum sound if you paid me.

 

[10kDA]

Drums were a huge issue for my friend when engineering. It's not the drums, it's the drummers. They all play differently. The only way to get a consistent sound was to have the ability to mix numerous tracks. Some drummers he mic'ed with just a few mics, others needed mics all over the set.

How many albums over the past 35 years had real drums on the finished product as opposed to triggered events, samples, electronic drums, or rhythm machines? Probably fewer than we think. Recently I posted "Get Ready" by Rare Earth in the "What Music Are You Listening To..." thread. Listen to the snare in that recording. It's as real as it gets. I haven't heard a snare on a recording in many, many years that sounds like you're standing on stage with it, but I haven't listened to everything out there of course.

 

[playloud]

Here's a blurry black and white photo from Olympic Studios c. 1965:

Already more than 8 tracks!

 

[tallcoolone]

 

[PelliX]

You could transform a 8 track mic drum kit into 4 track. Mix kick and snare in the same track, perhaps ride cymbal too. That would leave us with 4 free tracks to add guitar, bass and vocals

Kick and snare with one mic? Ya, depending on the drummer's layout that could work. I sure like a dedicated mic for the snare, though and the same for the kick, really.

Better to have and not need than need and not have.

This ^. My DAW can handle 1022 tracks, and then I can chain more together, extending by over 1000 tracks each time. Have I ever needed that? No. A 33rd track? Yes, on occasion.

1 - You're content re-recording the 1087945843796th version of Mustang Sally for the 8574390256458739786th time. (AKA: The TGP method)
2 - You're piling and bouncing tracks (drums from 8 tracks to 4, for example) - In which case, you're simply finding a workaround for an arbitrary, self-imposed limitation.

Calebz is on the money here, I think. Of course there are 1087945843795 ways to do Mustang Sally and ours would work in 12 tracks (maybe less even), but if you want the 3 background singers, what ar you going to do, put them all at one mic? To quote BB King (on a totally different topic) "why are you making yourself work so hard?".

But think about it do you hear better drum sounds today than in the 70s? I mean I can hand pick 2 or 3 albums with good drum sound for the last 35 years.

Some epic drum sounds from the 70's, sure. Nick Mason, Bonzo, Moon and many others would agree. How about Phil Collins in the 80's? A little 'over-produced' for some, but great sounds nonetheless. Guns 'n' Roses - some really excellent drums there! How about Ian Paice on the Perfect Strangers album? I could go on...

 

[10kDA]

You could transform a 8 track mic drum kit into 4 track. Mix kick and snare in the same track, perhaps ride cymbal too. That would leave us with 4 free tracks to add guitar, bass and vocals

But are you embracing a self-imposed constraint as if it's a vow, and then putting yourself through all kinds of changes to avoid breaking the vow? Sure, the examples you cite are how the issue was handled when there was no other option, but nobody wanted to do it that way. Or maybe they did - studio time comes at an hourly rate.

 

[PelliX]

studio time comes at an hourly rate.

Another excelllent point. I have the luxury of a home studio where the hourly rate is basically the electricity bill, but often enough I've kicked myself for not doing something with an extra (room) mic or whatever. "Should I let her sing thing using a condensor or a dynamic mic... hmmmm?". Easy answer, let's record both at once and see what works best in the final mix. Pink Floyd were often accused of hiding behind walls of equipment, but they were simply embracing technology and pushing it to its limits. The Beatles did the same, just there was less available when they started out.

Recently I read an article on how Metallica ditched real amps and moved to modellers for their Antarctica stint, citing that apart from 'consistent results' they could actually do things they could not using traditional means. Obviously, there will be a few die hards who will thumb their noses at that - but it's just evolution. Like Les Paul, Alan Parsons and many other pioneers they found a way to do things they previously couldn't - or do them better. Hardly anyone here would say that using a humbucker is bad because all you need is a single coil.

 

[niazmet]

Another excelllent point. I have the luxury of a home studio where the hourly rate is basically the electricity bill, but often enough I've kicked myself for not doing something with an extra (room) mic or whatever. "Should I let her sing thing using a condensor or a dynamic mic... hmmmm?". Easy answer, let's record both at once and see what works best in the final mix. Pink Floyd were often accused of hiding behind walls of equipment, but they were simply embracing technology and pushing it to its limits. The Beatles did the same, just there was less available when they started out.

Recently I read an article on how Metallica ditched real amps and moved to modellers for their Antarctica stint, citing that apart from 'consistent results' they could actually do things they could not using traditional means. Obviously, there will be a few die hards who will thumb their noses at that - but it's just evolution. Like Les Paul, Alan Parsons and many other pioneers they found a way to do things they previously couldn't - or do them better. Hardly anyone here would say that using a humbucker is bad because all you need is a single coil.

Beatles pushed technology really far, yes, but their good albums or songs are not LCD experimentation trip but traditional structured rock tunes. In the end having less options and doing what you know is better than trying to be Frank Zappa and ending up being simply known as the avant-garde guy not as the good sound guy.
Pink Floyd without marketing and the upper middle class british college kids wouldn't exist, meaning they were never really good. Same goes for Deep Purple. It was about the drugs and the hype
We often confuse eccentric behavior with progress. We think changing means always progressing. Changing sometimes is not a good thing

 

[PelliX]

Beatles pushed technology really far, yes, but their good albums or songs are not LCD experimentation trip but traditional structured rock tunes.

You mean LSD, but it's true, yeah. I've seen interviews with both George and Paul who explained that they often recorded under the influence, but the sober takes were almost always the best.

In the end having less options and doing what you know is better than trying to be Frank Zappa and ending up being simply known as the avant-garde guy not as the good sound guy.

Zappa is a category, a style, a type of person to himself, rest in peace! He was crazy, but he was a bit of a genius, too. Sometimes he succeeded at combining the two effectively - to me at least.

Pink Floyd without marketing and the upper middle class british college kids wouldn't exist, meaning they were never really good.

With all due respect, bullshit. Regardless of my appreciation of their music - which I'm very forthcoming about - they pioneered and took 'rock' music in various directions nobody else had taken it before. I'll give it to you that Roger was never the greatest bass/guitar or anything player - he never aspired to be, and I don't feel the music suffered from it. Much like Charlie Watts wasn't a drummer that you immediately pick out in a mix - he was there, doing the right things but not distracting or trying to make it his own show. Roger did some of the latter, but never with instruments. We'll leave Roger's antics out of this, perhaps. David has never been a shredding fast guitar player and I don't think Nick would stand much chance in a thrash metal band, but to claim they were not good...

Same goes for Deep Purple. It was about the drugs and the hype
We often confuse eccentric behavior with progress.

I don't think Blackmore was (or is, for that matter) a very agreeable, pleasant person or someone who's better off after consuming anything, but he was and is an excellent musician. Ian Paice was also very skilled and Jon Lord.... though I dislike his Marshall Major slicing, dicing Maestro fuzz'ed up organ tones - he knew how to play that stuff and deliver.

Changing sometimes is not a good thing

Equally, stagnation seldom lead to innovation, though.

 

[Filipe Soares]

8 tracks are enough if you are tracking the instruments individually and mixing it on your screen.

8 tracks to rule them all? no thank you, there's a reason why nobody is using 2in tapes nowadays.