R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Down

Author Topic: "Big Picture" methodology  (Read 8830 times)

chrisj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 959
"Big Picture" methodology
« on: August 22, 2006, 02:17:51 AM »

So, I've been putting a bunch of work in trying to develop mixing skills. My experience has mostly been live sound mixing, which hasn't been a great preparation for studio mixing because instinctively I'm trying to separate everything out like crazy as if I was being clobbered with awful acoustics, muddy bass amps etc. Also, I always liked Steely Dan mixes, which separate out really well and tend not to teach me the following:

The Big Picture.

I'm having it brought to my attention that I fixate on little stuff, and lose the big picture. This actually has worked against me before, such as with my main gig which is mastering.

I'm participating in J Hall's 'IMP 6' mixathon and am finding that by trying to think 'big picture' I'm getting better results, but it still doesn't come natural. It's like I'm arriving at places that surprise me, that are good, but I don't really understand quite how I got there.

Has anyone else had to learn this more or less against their will?  Rolling Eyes

Bill_Urick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1626
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2006, 06:29:01 AM »

chrisj wrote on Tue, 22 August 2006 07:17

Also, I always liked Steely Dan mixes, which separate out really well  



That could get you into quite a bit of trouble around here.
Logged
Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed; for everyone thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that those even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else, do not usually desire a larger measure of this quality than they already possess.

chrisj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 959
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2006, 02:37:41 PM »

Bill Urick wrote on Tue, 22 August 2006 06:29

chrisj wrote on Tue, 22 August 2006 07:17

Also, I always liked Steely Dan mixes, which separate out really well  



That could get you into quite a bit of trouble around here.


Oh, I know  Laughing

I'm just explaining my problem. If the reaction is, "Ooooooh, that's too big of a problem, can't fix that!" I will be sad but will still try to learn what I need to.

What's jumping out at me is this: part of where I'm at is a getting-partly-there problem. I could impress the hell out of a lot of amateurs at this point because I can organize my thoughts and tracks and get an 'audibility mix' very easily ('slipperman' concepts all) but I'm getting trapped in that. I have professionals around these parts, and not just that but people who like me and think I'm a nice enough guy, making little faces and finding something very missing. I don't like friends getting uncomfortable and politely trying to tell me I suck, so I gotta sort out what I'm doing wrong, and this 'big picture' concept seems to always come up.

I'm enough of a pedantic nerd-boy to see why this might be happening, and I'm not oblivious- if some people are loving it and others hating it that's one thing, but if I'm not seeing ANYBODY going 'oh my god, that's amazing!' then I'm not there yet. If I'm doing the things I do right, somebody will like it Smile

wwittman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7712
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2006, 07:34:02 PM »

well I'm not at all clear from your post WHAT exactly you think your problem is...

but as a big picture exercise...

how about this?

try pushing up all the faders to zero, and then without ANY processing.. try to push things around into a good balance.

the idea being to get a sense of how the musical elements interact rather than focusing on things as isolated "sounds"

do a mix like that.

then perhaps do the opposite... push things back to all zero in a line, and then "mix' ONLY by adding EQ to things, without altering any levels.

allow yourself to push the lead vocal up perhaps but nothing else.

of course depending on how things are recorded, this may be more or less successful as a real mix.,

but the idea is to THINK about what changing level versus changing EQ gets you... much better than thinking of each sound as an individual thing to be tweaked in isolation.


or,
why not allow yourself only a set time... say 1/2 hour?, to do a quick mix and print it.

listen to it tomorrow and see how you did; what you'd change, what you DID like about it, etc.


or,
put a really heavy, perhaps 20:1, compressor on the stereo buss and mix through it, like it's already pumping away on the radio.
Force yourself to mix that way just as if it IS on the radio.. make the drums punchy enough and the vocal cut through enough and so on, but naturally, it's on the radio, it cannot sound as good as a 'pristine' audiophile mix (thank god).
now take the compressor off and print the result.

how's THAT sound tomorrow?


it seems to me the idea is to shake up your habits if you feel you are getting too fixated.. and any of these might be a way to start that process.

hope this helps.




















ps Steely Dan blows



Logged
William Wittman
Producer/Engineer
(Cyndi Lauper, Joan Osborne, The Fixx, The Outfield, Hooters...)

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #4 on: August 22, 2006, 08:15:04 PM »

great stuff!

for me, the "big picture" is how does it make you feel?

does it make your stomach contract or your toes curl

does it make you smile? ...make you cry?

if you can feel ANYTHING, that's a start

but, imo, a lot of it is balance

every cook has access to salt (ok, the pros know to use fleur de sel, but you get the idea..), but everyone will add a different amount

according to taste (the one thing most often seen missing)
Logged

redfro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 292
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #5 on: August 22, 2006, 08:22:59 PM »

To me it's about being able to hear the SONG, not the tracks. Stop mixing and listen to what will help the song.

And I like WW's ideas on breaking out of the box. Good stuff to try.

























ps Steely Dan sucks.
Logged
Wes Pitzer
WCS Media

compasspnt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16266
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #6 on: August 22, 2006, 09:01:00 PM »

One of the most important things in recording, both as an Engineer and as a Producer, is to be able to see BOTH the little things in isolation, AND the Big Picture.

The better you can do both, the better everything will sound and be produced.

I know that many here may not like everything that Mutt Lange has produced, but no one can deny his success and the professional quality of his work.

Having worked with Mutt, and knowing him as a friend, has been  very inspirational to me in regard to "seeing both little and big."

He is the never-to-be-disputed Master of that concept.  Mutt will be the first one there every morning, and the last to leave at night.  You will rarely, if ever, see him out in the hallway, or going to the loo, or eating, or on the phone.  He will be working intensly all of the time, focusing intently on the most minute of sounds or parts.

But he NEVER loses sight of the whole, whilst most around him only see something hazily on the horizon.

This quality has served him quite well.

How else could you produce to such a high degree "Highway To Hell" AND "Man! I Feel Like A Woman!"

Logged

Unwinder

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 467
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #7 on: August 22, 2006, 09:18:15 PM »

Highway to Hell... KICKS ASS!!!  

 Very Happy  

chrisj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 959
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #8 on: August 22, 2006, 09:27:59 PM »

Actually I just hit on something that helped, but it's kind of funny Very Happy

If you can wave a conductor's baton (or any 14 inch stick) steadily to the music without thwacking it like a drum- there is groove. If you can't, there isn't. (groove is the main 'big picture' thing I'm struggling with- I actually spent a lot of effort painstakingly doubling a bumpy kickdrum part note for note on bass this last CaPE, and ended up worse off than if I'd just plunked away without paying attention)

I shall make a line of rock conductor's batons. With friction tape for handles Very Happy

wwittman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7712
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #9 on: August 22, 2006, 10:24:17 PM »

Mutt has an almost unique ability to focus on something tiny, like the high hat for 2 days solid, without losing his big picture vision.

VERY few other humans can do that without getting lost up their own bums.

Mike Chapman was a bit like that.
But he also knew when to lighten it up and have some fun to keep everyone from getting crazy.
Logged
William Wittman
Producer/Engineer
(Cyndi Lauper, Joan Osborne, The Fixx, The Outfield, Hooters...)

feedback loop

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 645
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #10 on: August 22, 2006, 10:44:03 PM »

Most non-professionals do not focus on the mix when judging a piece of music.  Therefore, if your friends are politely telling you that you suck I suspect your "big picture" problem is your music, not mix technique.  
Logged

Unwinder

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 467
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #11 on: August 23, 2006, 12:54:11 AM »

Good point.  But...

His friends aren't telling him that he sucks...they're telling him that he's being anal...

they believe the music/mix could be better...

You already know the answer to your question Chris...so why are you asking?

Focus on the feeling of the song...


D.

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #12 on: August 23, 2006, 01:23:10 AM »

wwittman wrote on Tue, 22 August 2006 22:24

Mutt has an almost unique ability to focus on something tiny, like the high hat for 2 days solid, without losing his big picture vision.

VERY few other humans can do that without getting lost up their own bums.


i know why too...

because we professionals like to act like rome was built in a day. look elsewhere in these forums and discover that the mix the thread starter refers to was completed within a few hours.

and finally william says it: this sh_t is work, it doesn't come naturally, you have to sweat everything. mutt lange is an artist... but here we get told that we are not THE artist so butt out! and hurry up! what are you slow? 2 days just for hihats.. yes, i can do that too, if you all stop rushing me and make like the album should be finished in that time frame.

over in mastering, we'll spend 20 minutes on a track if one is lucky.. this way the forest CAN'T get lost in trees unless one has severe attention deficit disorder. but then again it might take that long for me to feel where the groove really is. an artist has vision, if you are an artist, how can the vision ever get lost?

answer?: you put business before art so you can make music your career, not because you are an artist first; otherwise you'd spend as much time as you need to get it right, like mutt.   how does he do it?  was he working by the clock on the wall once too?  when he was starting out, who budgeted him two days for hihats?  

answer?: i don't know for mutt, but i usually hide that extra work i do from everyone, to make me look "more pro"... so people think i'm "normal" and not a freak of a time waster who would spend two days on hihats.  but that's how i work...late into the night when nobody is watching...

jeff dinces

knightsy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #13 on: August 23, 2006, 10:34:00 AM »

Chris, this is the main thing I picked up from Slipperman's thread: It's about the music first and foremost. What are the most important musical aspcts at any given moment? Emphasise them. Turn the other stuff down. It's certainly a good thing to overcome these issues in tracking, but sometimes we mix other peoples stuff.

Be brutal.

Chop that sucker down to kindling if you have to.
Logged

Tim Gilles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 189
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #14 on: August 23, 2006, 11:35:16 AM »

knightsy wrote on Wed, 23 August 2006 10:34

Chris, this is the main thing I picked up from Slipperman's thread: It's about the music first and foremost. What are the most important musical aspcts at any given moment? Emphasise them. Turn the other stuff down. It's certainly a good thing to overcome these issues in tracking, but sometimes we mix other peoples stuff.

Be brutal.

Chop that sucker down to kindling if you have to.


Amen.

Thanks, Knightsy. You managed to condense one of those 90 minute long harangues into a concise and intelligible paragraph,

Brevity and lucidity have never been Slipperman's hallmarks.

Unfortunately.

Best regards,

Tim "Rumblefish" Gilles

PS. Steely Dan rules.

Mix NYHC and Emo for 2 decades and get back to me on what's fun to work on/listen to.

wwittman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7712
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #15 on: August 23, 2006, 12:53:39 PM »

I don't know, Jeff...

I still don't think most people BENEFIT from spending 2 days on high hats.

It obviously works for Mutt.
But not for most.









steely dan drools
Logged
William Wittman
Producer/Engineer
(Cyndi Lauper, Joan Osborne, The Fixx, The Outfield, Hooters...)

Fibes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4306
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #16 on: August 23, 2006, 02:14:26 PM »

wwittman wrote on Wed, 23 August 2006 12:53

I still don't think most people BENEFIT from spending 2 days on high hats.



That sounds uncomfortable no matter what way you slice it.


It has always seemed to me that the faster we get to point A the more likely the artist will blow the roof off. If I was after ersatz perfection I'd move to LA and get into plastic surgery. Even then you don't spen two days on an asscheek.
Logged
Fibes
-------------------------------------------------
"You can like it, or not like it."
The Studio

  http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewArtist ?id=155759887
http://cdbaby.com/cd/superhorse
http://cdbaby.com/cd/superhorse2

compasspnt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16266
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #17 on: August 23, 2006, 02:44:40 PM »

wwittman wrote on Wed, 23 August 2006 12:53


I still don't think most people BENEFIT from spending 2 days on high hats.

It obviously works for Mutt.
But not for most.



This is precisely the point.  It sounds like an easy concept to grasp, but it takes so much to execute it properly, and few are actually able to do it with taste, perfection and class.

This ability is truly what separates the boys from the men from the gods.


On the Steely Dan front:

Several years ago I was meeting an appointment with Bob Ludwig as we were about to master one of the ZZ Top albums.  Just finishing with Bob was the production and engineering team for SD, doing their then-newest album.

When they saw that my mixes were on analogue 1/2", they asked if I had tracked on analogue 2".  When I answered in the affirmative, the reply was, "So you're still recording on compressors; hah!"
Logged

McAllister

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1145
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #18 on: August 23, 2006, 05:09:21 PM »

Quote:

"So you're still recording on compressors; hah!"


That's pretty funny.

M
Logged
Only put off until tomorrow what you are willing to die having left undone.

Brian Kehew

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2914
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #19 on: August 23, 2006, 05:22:35 PM »

1- I commend you for "working on" your skills. Amen - we all still learn, and to know you want to get better/higher/farther is a great drive to have!

2- As a FORMER Mutt Lange fan, I think the records he made after Highway to Hell sound like doodoo... I don't think his approach works myself.

3 - I'd stay away from Steely Day asa guide. They DO focus on the "little picture" view - arrangements and details of sound quality, while forgetting that they're going to put terrible singer on top of it all!

4 - MANY times, mixing is only difficult because the tracks are not cut/arranged well. It IS a secret of good world-class mixing to start with better (perfect?) tracks. So maybe when someone hears S Dan or AC/DC or whatever - they are hearing well-recorded, well played insstruments and voices. So - do you feel your mixing is better, equal, or worse than the quality of tracks you are dealing with?
Logged
Relax and float downstream...

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #20 on: August 23, 2006, 06:00:35 PM »

it sounds obvious, but it helps to, actually, SEE the big picture

the better you can see it, the easier it is to put into practice

the more often you do it, the easier it gets

but, to me, the absence of the big picture is a real reason why most art sucks (i mean, do you, really, think that ricky is going to keep that number for longer than 10 secs?)
Logged

stevieeastend

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1297
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #21 on: August 23, 2006, 06:02:53 PM »

I am feeling that my mixing is equal than the quality of the tracks I am working with but worse than the quality of my arrangements.

One of my recent production (12 songs kind of indie rock) has been (re)mixed by well established guys in the U.S.

After listening and comparing to my mixes I can say that I like mine better in terms of how the arrangements translate in the mix. The songs felt more natural to me, it has this certain flow you get when the arrangement is right but....

In terms of EQ and dynamic I have to say that these guys showed me how my tracks could sound best. Snare is definitely more punchy, bass and bass drum jumping out of the speakers and stuff, which made people notice, "ahh these guys really rock"...

I could imagine that a combination of both would represent the "big picture" with all the little details for this project. Neither me nor them would be able to translate both in the mix.

Although this project will never get any big as a decent production brings out the (real) quality of a singer and the songs, which is good but not great. But who knows..

cheers
steveeastend

feedback loop

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 645
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #22 on: August 23, 2006, 06:05:10 PM »

While I have no first hand knowledge of the Steely Dan situation (although I knew William Burroughs who created the name) I was an eyewitness to some of the recording nonsense that occurred during the late 70s - early 80s with several wildly successful recording acts that went through a Steely Dan "little picture" phase.  Maybe Mutt is the exception but based on what I observed, the one day on a floor tom business was always motivated by insecurity not creative genius.  Some of what I saw in those days was painful to watch.  
Logged

compasspnt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16266
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #23 on: August 23, 2006, 06:59:57 PM »

fbaugher wrote on Wed, 23 August 2006 18:05


...based on what I observed, the one day on a floor tom business was always motivated by insecurity not creative genius.  Some of what I saw in those days was painful to watch.


Indeed.

99% of the time this method leans more towards The Troggs type of outcome, rather than something that benefits from the modus operandi (or some might even say modus vivendi).

Again, this is where the true "Big Picture" element comes into play.

Without proper knowledge of that BP, the small things do tend to be painful wanking, borne of insecurity.
Logged

feedback loop

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 645
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #24 on: August 23, 2006, 07:33:29 PM »

compasspnt wrote on Wed, 23 August 2006 15:59

fbaugher wrote on Wed, 23 August 2006 18:05


...based on what I observed, the one day on a floor tom business was always motivated by insecurity not creative genius.  Some of what I saw in those days was painful to watch.


Indeed.

99% of the time this method leans more towards The Troggs type of outcome, rather than something that benefits from the modus operandi (or some might even say modus vivendi).

Again, this is where the true "Big Picture" element comes into play.

Without proper knowledge of that BP, the small things do tend to be painful wanking, borne of insecurity.



It depends on what you mean by "big picture."  In one case of extreme painful wanking, the big picture was that a R&R Hall of Fame level artist who had lost creative focus was facing being dumped by his label if his next album didn't produce some hits.  The level of angst and micro-management bullshit was unbelievable.  So when talking about big pictures it's important for the younger guys to understand the "big picture" isn't always confined to the song level. This was a case of big picture/little picture meltdown.  
Logged

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #25 on: August 23, 2006, 08:04:25 PM »

If you have a very clear idea of what you're after before you start to record, it's likely that by keeping that idea in mind you will get close enough so that imperfections don't matter. The mistakes may eventually become part of the solution. You constantly adapt and re-interpret the recording during the process so that it represents the original vision.

I liken it to having to chat up a girl, you don't have to speak in perfect syntax but you do have to make a clear impression without falling into confusion when she throws a curve at you, or setting up the wrong mood or argument.. blowing it in other words..

I prefer the type of recording where there is a 'spiritual' meaning that jumps out at you, the kind of recording that is a representation or result of something in the artist and producer's heads BEFORE the record button is pushed, not necessarily a SOUND.

in the end, as a listener you CAN tell the difference.

the big picture implies that you be doing the track for some actual purpose other than just getting it down on a master.

Logged

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #26 on: August 23, 2006, 10:24:10 PM »

Fibes wrote on Wed, 23 August 2006 14:14

wwittman wrote on Wed, 23 August 2006 12:53

I still don't think most people BENEFIT from spending 2 days on high hats.

That sounds uncomfortable no matter what way you slice it.


It has always seemed to me that the faster we get to point A the more likely the artist will blow the roof off. If I was after ersatz perfection I'd move to LA and get into plastic surgery. Even then you don't spen two days on an asscheek.

i did not mean to suggest it as a default working method. but would someone please recount how al green cut a hundred re-takes for "let's stay together"?  that story always inspires me.  

jeff dinces

compasspnt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16266
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #27 on: August 23, 2006, 10:55:46 PM »


Not sure what you mean by "a hundred retakes" story, but I can assure you that on those early Al Green recordings, the vocals were punched and punched and punched.

Often times single words or even syllables.

So much so that if you listen carefully (try this in "Tired Of Being Alone" for instance) you can hear that many breaths are missing because of the overlaps.

This  in my mind lead to a heightened sense of excitement in the delivery.
Logged

wwittman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7712
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #28 on: August 23, 2006, 11:41:41 PM »

Brian is right in almost everything there...
and I think because he gets to remix so many classic recordings, he KNOWS that the sound is there on the tape more often than not.

It doesn't take genius mixing.

mixing, as a concept is overrated, although i'm always happy to do it for way too much money.

(as my friend Will Lee says "it would be my financial pleasure...")


on the Mutt thing (again), I think he was very influenced by Chapman (at least he told Mike that, once, and it makes sense)

He can pay attention to the small details BECAUSE he has the big picture so etched into his brain.

That's the OPPOSITE of the kind of compulsive, A-D-D, thing where the little things become so distracting that you cannot get BY them and on to the big picture.


It's always a good idea to remind yourself who you are making the records for.
Sure, it's for you, but it's MORE for the audience who really couldn't care less about the little noise in bar 326 or the way the high hat sounds.

where I disagree with Brian is that I think Mutt still makes exceptional records.
Always classy, incredibly clear and effective... not always of music that I love, but always VERY well made.

an interesting Steely Dan aside (an oxymoron, I know) is that despite the "recording on 24 compressors" remark, Fagen did an interview recently where he extolled the virtues of analogue sound and said it was really Becker and Nichols who were the anal digital guys. He and Elliot liked the analogue.

who knew?

perhaps he's trying to put the anal back in analogue.


Logged
William Wittman
Producer/Engineer
(Cyndi Lauper, Joan Osborne, The Fixx, The Outfield, Hooters...)

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: "Big Picture" methodology
« Reply #29 on: August 29, 2006, 05:38:44 PM »

chrisj wrote on Tue, 22 August 2006 21:27

If you can wave a conductor's baton (or any 14 inch stick) steadily to the music without thwacking it like a drum- there is groove. If you can't, there isn't. (groove is the main 'big picture' thing I'm struggling with-
listening to your latest imp mix, it would seem that you are not struggling with groove any more.

some VERY respected mix engineers have posted in this thread, but i was able to apply your tip immediately when i was mixing the same imp track (j. hall's forum).  i find metal/heavy/dense guitar music can have "symphonic" qualities. your idea gave me a clue about how to approach more than ten separate heavily distorted guitar tracks.

as soon as i assumed a "conductor's posture", i found myself not only more sensitized to rhythm and groove <<6/8 timing, muchos fun!>>, but also "orchestral balance" in terms of frequency, dynamics, and imaging.

late last week i found myself suddenly recalling some disjointed details from a zappa show i saw in 1982. now i realize why: he was conducting (with baton) during most of the set.

Quote:

but it's kind of funny Very Happy
hmmmmmm... how about opera?  Laughing


jeff dinces
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 18 queries.