Audio "STEMS" are NOT "Individual Audio Tracks"

[ctmullins]

Good luck with that. We still mix tremolo and vibrato and there's no sign that's going to change anytime soon

AAAAAARRRGGGGHHHHH

Use "salt" instead of "sugar" in a recipe and see how many people call you out on it!

Words have specific meanings, folks.

grrrrrrr

 

[joebingo]

AAAAAARRRGGGGHHHHH

Use "salt" instead of "sugar" in a recipe and see how many people call you out on it!

Words have specific meanings, folks.

grrrrrrr

the science of linguistics disagrees

 

[Brian Patterson]

The confusion arises from it being a stupid name. The names has no relation to it being what we used to know as a submix, but stem? It made me think that it was something super basic and simple, more akin to a single track loop. But whatever, it's the name in use so I use it.

apart from the stems and seeds I smoked in the 70's, I like the connotation but it takes a little familiarity to understand - which is why I come here!

 

[ctmullins]

the science of linguistics disagrees

The "science of linguistics" can take a flying leap.

Within the context of anything technical, words must have specific and unalterable meanings. MUST.

Otherwise you risk life and limb, or worse.

Try substituting "cheese" for "aluminum" in a parts manifesto and see what happens.

Sheesh. It's hard enough for normal humans to communicate using language as it is. Arbitrarily changing the meanings of words helps NO-ONE.

 

[trevcda]

Words have specific meanings, folks.

the science of linguistics disagrees

This reminds me of the current usage and definition, or lack there of, for the word "random". And "literally". To name just a couple of examples.

 

[joebingo]

The "science of linguistics" can take a flying leap.

Within the context of anything technical, words must have specific and unalterable meanings. MUST.

Otherwise you risk life and limb, or worse.

Try substituting "cheese" for "aluminum" in a parts manifesto and see what happens.

Sheesh. It's hard enough for normal humans to communicate using language as it is. Arbitrarily changing the meanings of words helps NO-ONE.

So I used to work in TV. We referred to the raw video from the camera as rushes, whether it came in on hard disk, memory card, tape, or film. Rushes originally referred specifically to prints made from camera negatives for review.

What has come to be called rushes is closer to what used to be called the 'original camera negative'

 

[darwin-bass]

Language evolves shocker!
Who knew

I submit English is devolving. Give it another 1000 years and it will be just grunts and coughing sounds. Like German.

 

[GR7G5TER]

Words have meaning, while that meaning might change over time it still must have meaning. Just using any word you want regardless of it's generally understood meaning is not linguistic evolution.

To be fair, you don't get to say what is or isn't linguistic evolution, it has no regard for your opinion

In the US you use the word dove. It's meaning is a type of bird, but you now use it as the past tense of dive. People may have had an opinion on that but it is now common usage and I rarely hear my US brethren use dived.

For reference I use stem in what you would deem the correct manner.

Peace.

 

[darwin-bass]

Stems, tracks, submixes, comps….
As long as everyone is talking about the same thing they can call it whatever they agree upon. …even if the agreed-upon name is a little dopey.

Agreed - but unclear language means that we're might NOT talking about the same thing.

 

[darwin-bass]

Verily, good sir or madam, thou dost prate most fervently upon the shifting sands of our mother tongue, as though words were graven in stone and not as leaves upon the bough, blown hither and thither by time's unceasing breath. Dost thou reckon that our forebears spake as we do now, or that their forebears afore them did hold to one unchanging tongue? Nay, the speech of men is a river, not a pool, and he that would seek to dam its course doth but wrestle with the tide.

Perchance thou art vexed that words, once stout of meaning, have waxed wanton in their ways, yet is it not meet that a living tongue should grow, as doth the mighty oak from acorn's smallness? Consider well: the word 'silly' was erst but 'blessed' and 'fond' was once 'foolish'; shall we then chide our ancestors for their own misdeeds of meaning? Or perchance thou wouldst have all frozen in place, like unto a fly in amber, where naught may flourish nor take new life?

Prithee, cast aside this peevish lament, and instead embrace the dance of words, which in their merry capering do but mirror the hearts and minds of those who wield them. Thus, if 'awful' no more doth strike awe and 'nice' hath grown mealy of purpose, let us not gnash our teeth, but marvel at the humours of tongue and time.

Post of the day!!!! I'm going to read it twice just for entertainment value alone!

 

[Freight Train]

The confusion arises from it being a stupid name. The names has no relation to it being what we used to know as a submix, but stem? It made me think that it was something super basic and simple, more akin to a single track loop. But whatever, it's the name in use so I use it.

It's been in common use in audio production since the late 20s, originating in mixing sound for film. It wasn't that long ago that anyone involved in professional sound recording, mixing or mastering knew exactly what stems are. But now that everyone and their cousin is an engineer, we are way off into the weeds of amateur land. We've completely lost the definition of "producer" for God's sake! Yes, by all means pander to people by not correcting them so our whole industry becomes a Tower of Babel.

 

[GR7G5TER]

It's been in common use in audio production since the late 20s, originating in mixing sound for film. It wasn't that long ago that anyone involved in professional sound recording, mixing or mastering knew exactly what stems are. But now that everyone and their cousin is an engineer, we are way off into the weeds of amateur land. We've completely lost the definition of "producer" for God's sake! Yes, by all means pander to people by not correcting them so our whole industry becomes a Tower of Babel.

As the saying goes, keep up with the times or get left behind.

Moan about it all you want but you won't hold back charge of linguistic evolution.

Peace

 

[Matt O]

On its own, “stem” can mean a few different things depending on context, so It never hurts to ask what someone actually wants when "stems" are requested, or to be very clear when you are making the request. "Send me the stems" is too broad.

@FullumMusic is right on. If I'm sending stems to the cowbell player, I'm going to comp whatever relevant tracks the cowbell player needs to get their job done. I should actually take a second to ask the cowbell player what is needed for them to do the job and then send the requested “stems”. It might be an entire rough mix, it might be several sections comped, it might be kick, snare, and bass. The cowbell player then needs to record their part on a separate time coded track and send that track to me which I then sync into the multi. In the context of mixing, stem can mean something else. When you mix a multitrack recording, you don’t do it all at once, you do it in sections/pieces or “stems”.

Stems are “pieces” of recorded material. What exactly those “pieces” are depends on the task at hand. Context is everything.

Also, sometimes stems can be individual audio tracks.

Also, sheesh.

 

[ctmullins]

So I used to work in TV. We referred to the raw video from the camera as rushes, whether it came in on hard disk, memory card, tape, or film. Rushes originally referred specifically to prints made from camera negatives for review.

What has come to be called rushes is closer to what used to be called the 'original camera negative'

Imagine if the new generation of TV engineers collectively decided to begin calling these "chrysanthemums".

Would that be beneficial? Would productivity be improved?

(Actually, is it even called "TV" any more? Don't the kids today call it "streaming" or some such?)

 

[Podgorny]

The content of a "stem" can be groups of sounds or individual sounds, but the critical part is that they are created by soloing sources in a finished mix, so that the resulting files may be used for live performance tracks and remixes. Multitracks are the parts of a record before they've been mixed.

 

[FullumMusic]

On its own, "stem" can mean a few different things depending on context, so It never hurts to ask what someone actually wants when "stems" are requested, or to be very clear when you are making the request. "Send me the stems" is too broad.

@FullumMusic is right on. If I'm sending stems to the cowbell player, I'm going to comp whatever relevant tracks the cowbell player needs to get their job done. I should actually take a second to ask the cowbell player what is needed for them to do the job and then send the requested "stems". It might be an entire rough mix, it might be several sections comped, it might be kick, snare, and bass. The cowbell player then needs to record their part on a separate time coded track and send that track to me which I then sync into the multi. In the context of mixing, stem can mean something else. When you mix a multitrack recording, you don't do it all at once, you do it in sections/pieces or "stems".

Stems are "pieces" of recorded material. What exactly those "pieces" are depends on the task at hand. Context is everything.

Also, sometimes stems can be individual audio tracks.

Also, sheesh.

Oh yeah, i should have added...

When i tell someone to send me stems, i always also specify, "Send me the stems and by stems i mean bounce/export all individual tracks starting from 0:00:00," because i know just asking for stems could mean either all tracks or subgrouped. Sometimes i'll say the percussion can be a stereo stem, or all the background vox can be a stereo stem if they want. But usually if i want things separate or sub-grouped, i specify.

Lol, i think my pet peeve in the whole "send me stems" thing is when someone just sends over audio files that don't all start at 0:00:00, like i'm supposed to guess where in the timeline that sample or section of song that track is supposed to go. Whether we're talking individual tracks or sub-groups, i don't know too many people who think stems are anything other than from 0:00:00. And yet, i still have to specify "from 0:00:00" because apparently not everyone thinks that.

 

[Tosh]

apart from the stems and seeds I smoked in the 70's, I like the connotation but it takes a little familiarity to understand - which is why I come here!

It sure don't deliver the shake and the shiver ....

 

[Freight Train]

As the saying goes, keep up with the times or get left behind.

Moan about it all you want but you won't hold back charge of linguistic evolution.

Peace

Yeah and that's insane. In any discipline, communication is of prime importance. "Linguistic evolution" (LOL!) should not enter into anything that borders on or is science, which music production is a combination of art and science. If new terms need to be added, then of course that's crucial. But for terminology to change midstream just because a field is suddenly inundated with amateurs... no.

Peace on you.

 

[Brian Patterson]

To be fair, you don't get to say what is or isn't linguistic evolution, it has no regard for your opinion

In the US you use the word dove. It's meaning is a type of bird, but you now use it as the past tense of dive. People may have had an opinion on that but it is now common usage and I rarely hear my US brethren use dived.

For reference I use stem in what you would deem the correct manner.

Peace.

I agree - if you know what you're doing, terminology isn't an issue...

I startign an Audio Engineering course in the fall. Looking forward to all the confusion! LOL

 

[TheReceder]

I was going to ask (sarcastically) Who came up with the name of, and the color purple?

Then to be safe, I looked it up, when I got to the origin potentially being related to the vomit of a dog that ate a snail, I decided to go back to pondering "can you plug a cord into the output?".