For producers and composers: do you feel like 64 tracks is realistically enough for most serious productions, or do you often find yourself needing more? Could you live well if you only had 16 stereo tracks to work with? Wax philosophical for me, as I want to encounter many perspectives.
I know The Beatles made world-changing records under technical limitations that would seem almost absurd now, so I’m not pretending more tracks automatically equal better music. At the same time, many would argue that there’s no problem with wanting options, especially when modern arrangements, layering, sound design, routing, and mixing can get complex if you drop in a lot of incidental sounds and fancy timbral coloration.
Track limits as freedom or . . . ?
-
- KVRAF
- 4176 posts since 10 Oct, 2002 from Nashville, TN USA
-
- KVRAF
- 4890 posts since 3 Jan, 2003 from Vancouver
... not. At least, freedom isn't the word that I would choose. I would choose words like constraint, focus, or pressure. Some musicians need a straight jacket; some just need a sock.
Surely there must be consensus by now...
-
- KVRAF
- 4227 posts since 1 Sep, 2016
64 tracks is enough for me. I make electronic music with fairly simple arrangements. 16 tracks would be limiting though. I tend to use around 8-10 tracks for percussion but it varies a lot. With just 16 tracks I'd have to make a lot of compromises with sound design and bussing/routing.
I was just listening to Kraftwerk's Man Machine and I think I counted 12 unique sound sources in total, so you really don't need much. Some of the greatest techno and dance tracks ever made have quite sparse arrangements. But it depends a lot on genre.
I was just listening to Kraftwerk's Man Machine and I think I counted 12 unique sound sources in total, so you really don't need much. Some of the greatest techno and dance tracks ever made have quite sparse arrangements. But it depends a lot on genre.