Topic: The Duncan Track-Spilt Protocol

[Duncan]

I don't know if it's happened to you guys but I've often got recordings and marvelled at the way they've been track split. It seems to defy all logic

Why, I ask, would I want to listen to ten minutes of the taper talking to his mate before the first track starts or ten minutes of the house pa before the band comes on, or five minutes of crowd noise before the first encore track?
I don't even like listening to a load of pre-song banter before the track I've jumped to actually starts?

When I'm chopping a recording I tend to follow this pattern

Fade in at start starting just before the band come on unless there is more than a minute of pissing about before they start playing
If there is too much I'll fade in either just before the band talk or within a minute of the music starting
I'll leave this on the start of track 1

If there is some music that the band come on to I'll fade in just before that starts if it's short or during that music if it's long and leave that on the start of track one
In exceptional circumstances I'll leave more on the start and might reluctantly have a separate intro track

I don't line creating a track that's not a song and don't do it hardly ever

Between tracks I tend to leave all the stuff before the start of the next track on the end of the preceding track and start the new track as close to the start of the music as I can. Just before the drumsticks count in if there is one
The only exception to this is if the band introduces the track. In this case I'll split just before the introduction. If the introduction is a long time before the music starts I'll leave it on the end of the previous track. I don''t like it when I'm listening to a gig and I want to jump to a track and have to listen to more than 30 seconds of chat before the music begins.

With encores I tend to leave as much of the crowd on the end of the last track before they come back on
The first encore track I tend to start just as the crowd cheers the return or just before the band says anything (providing that's not too long before the music re-starts)
I don't like to cut out any of the encore cheering if I can help it by I don't like to listen to it if it goes on and on
I've been known to fade out and back in or just chop it if the joint is quite seemless

The end of the gig I tend to just fade out at a point where there is nothing worth keeping. That can vary a lot. Always before I talk obviously but I'll sometimes leave in a bit of crowd talk if someone says something amusing about the gig
Never more that about 2 minutes of crowd after the music stops normally less than a minute before the fade out
I have been know to leave the fade to the natural fade you get from walking out of the venue if that sounds good

Is there a standard for track splitting because there should be

I'm happy to have the above used as a guide. We could call it the 'Duncan track-spilt protocol' :-)

Unless there is already a standard approach I don't know about (with a cooler name)

Cheers

Duncan

[shownomarcy]

Yes, it's correct.

If I start to record too early, there is only crowd noise with a tape intro, I make it as the 1st track and the 2nd will the first song.
I usually keep some chat before the song if it strongly belongs the song. But if its very long, it stays at the end of the prev track.
I usually record at the end until every members leave the stage, to make sure every last comment is also recorded.

[Gutbucket]

This is a tread that pops up about once a year. It can be something of an editing artform placing markers at the perfect moments.  Each person their own style they prefer.  No one is right or wrong, except the other guy that doesn't do it the way you would. 

Since I don't make stereo recordings so much as collect data to feed the teleportation time machine, I aim to keep the 'live' experience as whole and immersive as possible, yet make the interesting points within it easily acessible.  I commonly keep a longer lead-in and lead-out than most will to help set the atmosphere, but I make those seperate tracks which can be easily skipped.  For some classical things, I may have 3 or 4 tracks before the actual composed piece begins.

Example:
1)fade-in room ambience & audience fill-in
2)orchestra tuning
3)conductor's introduction
4)1st piece/1st movement
5)1st piece/ 2nd movement
etc..
 
For bands, I typically have one lead-in track (fade-in, short segment of crowd/room abience, band takes stage) then track each song individually. I'll track long stage banter segments (say a minute plus if unrelated at the end of a song, shorter if before a song) and member introductions seperately from the songs.  All verbal comments related to a song get tracked as part of that song or as a seperate track, not appended to the end of a song that has nothing to do with it except for simply happening to be played just before it- one of my own personal peeves.  Fade in/out for set break, encore break gets it's own track, often the after encore lead-out + crowd energy die-down to end fade gets it's own track.

That way the entire experience remains complete, I can pretty much find or skip anything I want, and the individual song tracks hold up on their own without unrelated banter if pulled out of the context of the whole live show.  Numerous exceptions and compromises made for versions which must fit on a CD, I'll cross-fade to chop out dead-air and tighten up the flow to help condense those.

I really wish the track/sub-track hierarchical marker system of the early CD era was still in common use.  I still place sub-markers for my own reference since Samplitude supports them for burnign CDs, even though only a couple of my players (both hardware disc and software file players) support using them.  It's so useful for any type of live music to have sub-track markers within tracks, especially symphonic material featuring multiple movements which would be best as single tracks for each piece with sub-markers for each movement.

[cybergaloot]

Since I view my recordings as archival I include any intro, the entire performance unless there is an extremely long break somewhere and any outro, then fade out. I usually try to make each song an individual piece with any between songs banter as a separate track. That way a listener can skip the banter if they want. There are times with the banter fits logically with the song though.

[yltfan]

If the introduction is a long time before the music starts I'll leave it on the end of the previous track. I don''t like it when I'm listening to a gig and I want to jump to a track and have to listen to more than 30 seconds of chat before the music begins.

I mostly use the same kind of system, but I'm sure I'm not the only person who gets annoyed when you hear that long introduction, but then the shuffle/mix/cd/whatever does not play that next song...

[danlynch]

You're pretty close. 
I will label something "intro" if its just the band talking or messing around for more than like 20 seconds.  Otherwise, fade into the initial crowd swell, and just track it as track 1 if the band starts right away.
Always track "banter" if its more than a minute.  Always track the next song at its inception with no banter on the front.  That is, unless its a "this is a new song called xx", which can lead in well to the track.
Track the encore break separately.  Start encore break at the lull of crowd after the end of the final song.  End encore break at the beginning of first encore song.   Fade out after band has said goodnight.

[capnhook]

^this

[page]

I'm generally with Dan. I start my first track at the crowd swell when the band is about to walk on stage or the lights go out, and start track 2 when they start the first song. I think I started doing that after going to Hampton and hearing the crowd as the lights went out.

I'll tack on pre-song banter in the prior track most of the time (thus doing each new beginning as the beginning of a song) unless there is a really good reason or it's super long and deserves it's own track. My encore break starts after the last "goodnight!" is said as the band is leaving the stage or 10 seconds after the end of the song if they never say anything.

[bombdiggity]

Most of us agree on most of these things. 

I track the preliminaries including house MC/walk-on/intro/etc. (if more than a few seconds) and number it as track 00. 

I do really dislike when the intros/between songs are done as separate tracks (which as a byproduct inflates the track count to double or more the actual musical tracks).  I just append to the end of the track before or once in a while to the start if there's a very direct and relevant relationship between the comment and song.  I can see the logic in doing "banter tracks" but I don't like tracks in the middle with no musical content and it means I do then get the urge to hit the skip between every song, where if it is more seamless I'd readily go with the flow.  I think that choice falls the way of the listening habits of the person prepping the set.  The whole show sort probably almost all append, the "shuffle play" sort probably almost all cut tracks down to "music-only" so they can leave out all the rest when they load their players... 

For the walk off I sort of go with the audience.  I let it run on the end of the last track as long as they have good energy.  There's usually a natural break there (which tends to be fairly short with most of what I see - they're all old farts wanting to head to their cars/home before it's over a lot of the time). 

In the old days I would often turn off the recorder during the encore break.  I don't usually do that now since tape/battery duration and security/crowd/fatigue are non-factors these days.  When there is an encore break at what I go to it is usually brief and left on the end of the prior track.  If it runs very long I will track it independently since that is one track with no musical/artistic content I would skip on future listening.   

The one thing not mentioned above are medleys.  I very much dislike track marks placed in the middle of a continuous flow of music.  If the band intended it to be two or more "tracks" they'd have stopped (not to mention it's a rare breed who actually gets those in the right spot).     

[runonce]

Agree with all above - but have to confess - sometimes I get lazy - and just rough track, without even listening.

So - I might not adhere to the "Duncan Protocol" as strictly as might otherwise.

I do edit out long pauses - if the band screws around for 5-8 minutes between songs - with no banter...it might get cut.

With CDWave - I find similar periods of quiet, make that a track, and just uncheck it - so it doesn't get saved. (you can always re-check it for archival purity)

But if its just for CD "drop offs" at the local after hours...I do it quick and dirty!

[Todd R]

Is there a standard for track splitting because there should be

I agree with most of your post, meaning how you attack track splits, but couldn't disagree more with this statement.  Unless of course the standard is set to be exactly what I do. 

And after the standard is set, then what?  Ban uploads that don't conform to the standard?

From this thread already, I can see that splitting a show to avoid Gutbucket's pet peeves will leave it tracked so that it gets to one of my pet peeves.  Which is why the standard is (and should be): I record it and track it, I track it how I like it. You record it and track it, you track it to make yourself happy and I live with it.  That seems like a fair enough trade off to me. And adding of course, if you don't record, track, and distribute, you've got no right to bitch, so keep your comments to yourself on bit torrent sites or whatever. (This latter corollary not directed at those on this board, of course.  )

Not trying to be a curmudgeon, which of course I am, but I will continue to track in a way that suits my desires (which of course reflect how I listen to music, whether I use shuffle play, or set up playlists, or whatever), and I totally expect and respect that others may want to do it differently. Lots of people have chimed in with how they do it, and I understand why they like to, and respect their desires to do so.  But that doesn't mean it is what I prefer, and thus I see no reason for a standard, nor know how you would try to enforce the standard.  I can guess how dimeadozen would, which is probably exactly why I wouldn't want to see one.

As to how I track: much the same as many have stated.  I like the song to start right away though, so beginning of set crowd/tuning/banter often goes to its own track, as does encore crowd+pre-encore banter.  If there is a quick introduction to a song (artist that wrote it and name), it probably goes with the track, but long discussions about the song or why/when/where it was written gets appended to the end of the last song (as I rarely do separate banter tracks anymore, unless the banter starts the set).  If I don't want to hear it, I can fast forward; if I listen on shuffle, oh well if I heard the intro and not the song (if I want the full show experience, I listen from beginning to end anyway and there are no reasons for track breaks).  I don't do playlists, but if I did, I could really see the benefit of all crowd and banter and non-song activity gets put into its own track.  Medleys get kept together, but for the jamband music, there is a difference between one song that segues seemlessly into another, and then segues into yet another -- this could easily be 3 or more songs, but that doesn't make it a medley (and then of course there is the question of when is a jam just the end of one song that segues into the next, and when does the jam constitute its own track).  All told, lots I do fairly consistently, and lots that reflects what others do.  And lots of times I track in a way that hits someone else's pet peeves.  Sorry Gut, if you're listening to my stuff.

[Gutbucket]

No worries Todd.  I think we agree on everything except my one peeve, and that's more of a philosophical gripe to keep my song tracks cleaner on the live sampler collections I rarely make for friends. 

I do really dislike when the intros/between songs are done as separate tracks..

I understand that many of you all don't care for that even though I lean that way, and to make it easier for some I label those tracks so they are obvious and can be more easily skipped or not selected, something like 'what's-her-name talks', 'band-introductions, or 'name of the previous song (story about)' or 'name of the next song (intro)' if I deem the break long enough to merit it's own track.  But I don't upload stuff, and only occasionally still burn CDs to pass out to fans/artists/tapers at sellect shows, and will shut up and return to my curmudgeonly hole in the ground now. 

The one thing not mentioned above are medleys.  I very much dislike track marks placed in the middle of a continuous flow of music.  If the band intended it to be two or more "tracks" they'd have stopped (not to mention it's a rare breed who actually gets those in the right spot).

That and Todd's comments are great arguments for those unfortunately extinct sub-track markers. 

Without those, we can only mark things within a single piece to make them easily accessible by splitting into separate files, which is as subtle as a cutting pizza with a hammer.

I agree true medley pieces are best left intact.  It's the fast and nearly seamless song and jam transitions where precise track marker placement becomes something of an art.  The other place it becomes art is placing the marker just before the “..this next one is called Motorcycle Shindig.. 1, 2, 3, 4..” when that comes at the end of a long-winded story without much of a pause.

[Duncan]

Is there a standard for track splitting because there should be

I agree with most of your post, meaning how you attack track splits, but couldn't disagree more with this statement.  Unless of course the standard is set to be exactly what I do. 

And after the standard is set, then what?  Ban uploads that don't conform to the standard?

I was only half joking about the standard but I can imagine that a new thing for the Dime mods to get all pissy about would make their day :-)

I like the intro as a track 00 idea and I can live with an encore crowd track if it can be cut out without impacting the show as a whole
I'm dead against the separate tracks for non music bits in the middle of the set

I've lately tended to not cut up gigs at all unless I'm going to share it, I just fade in and out and that's it

I don't share every recording I do of a band, if I see them 5 times on a tour I'm not putting all of them out (not that I've had time to put anything out lately - currently working my way through about 40 gigs that I've not had time to finish)

The whole track splitting part is my least favourite bit of this great hobby, and don't get me started on track naming conventions, I've got no idea on that but I know I don't like any of them 

I'm also moving to just leaving them in 24/48 as I can't remember the last time I burned a cd but that's a whole different topic

I wonder what the Dime mods would have to say about a single track gig being uploaded? I'm tempted to try it

Cheers

Duncan

[Gutbucket]

Couple other thoughts-

You can save a cue file along with your one long track.

When achiving my untracked raw files, I append the file name with _00 for soundcheck, _01 for set one, _02 set two, etc.

A couple times if I had room for it on the disc I'd put the start of the the lead-in track before the track 1 start indicator on the CD.  The player would automatically start at the track 1 marker (start of the first song), but the listener could reverse to before the start of the first track to hear the ambient lead in if they wanted to.  That was a pretty geeky but cool trick.  Sort of like an Easter Egg.

[danlynch]

Dime Mods will ban a single track recording, no questions asked and no exceptions.   
I uploaded my Roger Waters The Wall recording as 2 tracks for each side of the album and it got bounced pretty quickly with no opportunity to explain the thinking.
It ended up on Yeeshkul where it was allowed to run without a problem.