| dconstruction wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 11:14 |
What an interesting conversation! I'm learning so much; thank you all for tackling these tracks.
A few points, as the producer/engineer of this track:
1.) I hate the pizz. violins; they're ported straight from the artist's bedroom demo because he's still in love with them. In all my mixes, they're muted. I threw them in because they're there, and I was interested in what you guys could do with them. In general, I've heard some very interesting approaches, but I think the consensus is that they shouldn't be there, and I agree.
2.) The accordion is the same (ported from the demo), but since it's more of a pad, it doesn't bother me much. We'll be replacing this track with an old pump organ I found.
3.) And yes, the banjo is from the demo, too, though it is perhaps the most successful. I've got a banjo player coming in this weekend to record a replacement track. The bells are from the demo, too. Don't really have an opinion about them. They're probably superfluous.
4.) The background vocals are, as I opined earlier, the key to this song. Even if I had prepared a creative brief to outline the vision for this song, I think I might not have mentioned this point, as it is so obvious to me. I was very interested in those mixes that deemphasized them, have listened to them over and over, and just cannot like them as much as those where a wall of vocals hits me in the chorus. Maybe I'm too close to the material.
5.) Acoustic bass. What a nightmare. So very out of tune. I threw it in, really only because it might sound nice on the break. Some of you picked up on that. Others ignored it completely, which is probably what should happen.
6.) | Quote: |
Straight away I noticed that alot of instruments just kept playing through out the whole recording (or alot of it) and all came in at the same time. I had two explanations for this: 1) They were intended to play throughout the whole track 2) They were played throughout the whole track for practical reasons.
|
Yep. Option 2. This is nearly always how I work. I've got the disc space so, by God, I'm going to use it
|
WOW! you see... i heard all these little things... banjo, mandos, accordian, fiddle... and this said "southern/country rock" to me. and i was glad the "twang" wasn't so exagerrated, you know...tasteful country! like alison kraus, or johnny cash, or the wallflowers like i mentioned. purely american music, and as i hear it, from well below mason dixon, not seattle! but... if i had thought they were from.. say... boston, i would have mixed it way differently.
now i am getting the idea that being a "good ole boy" is not what this band is about!
the pizzicatos... i feel that is a quite a literal representation of the sexual aspect of the story. i was very amused by this interpretation, it made for lighthearted moments in what is a very heavy song. counterpoint, paradox, perspective.. the mysteries of the delights of life... i think the artist would say that's why it's important to the song.
so once i identified their importance, the other "hokey country" sounds went with that. the banjo. i used to represent the "good ole boy" roots... it solos in the "simple part" and contrasts with the e-drums in a perfect way for me in this case. and the very "offspring like" guitars, (which i know sound gated, but actually i didn't touch them!) make the contrast with the "growing up and venturing into urban life" experience of encounters that thrill, but lack the kind of personal intimacy that relationships developed in fast paced urban envornments often do.
the cycle of contrast-paradox-irony-thrill-boredom agony is very important i think. the reference to the moon comes to mind. the distaff part.. [even chris' wife it seems forgot to insist upon...] how would a woman hear this track? do they buy these types of records? i think so.
| rankus wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 15:45 |
| iCombs wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 12:23 |
but I will say that the mixes that all but ignored the ancillary instrumentation (mandolins, accordion, banjo, etc.) seemed to run counter to the (at least to me) obvious vision of the song.
|
Amen brother.
|
it seemed like the whole point of the song, in fact. otherwise it's just a rant that is one sided and one dimensional, imo.
for me the hammond sits right between "quaint church" and "house of ill repute". it is a sound used to represent the lord's glory and the devil's penetration into life... a universal sound, so i considered it to spearhead the choruses and allowed it to dominate parts where i intended to bring on orchestral-like fury, so as to highlight the "tortured paradox" outlined by the story.
to leave any of these instruments out is to help yourself make a more coherent mix, but i thought it would decimate the song...
then again some of these mixes would be very cool worked into "remixes"... sometimes a single is released with lots of remixes on the b-side...that can be fun.
---------
thanks j. hall for jumping into the pool with us. my comments about your mix assumed my opinion that the acoustic instruments are more important than lindsay's assessment of the track. now i would say that you probably came closer than i first thought.
but i am into the sublime, the delicate lace held just close enough to the roaring fire that it begins to char or even melt, but is not destroyed.
it seems most of us would have needed more time.. so then the compromises we made... the choices... such as my [vocal was strong, not the weakest part, so i'll work on the bass first] strategy.
---------
my mix: jaegermeister! wish for grey goose.
those of you who made the perceptive comments, you know who you are... yes, correct 100%. you guys are trusted ears for me.
forgetting about the vocal please, i ran out of time. what should i try to do more of in general?
---------
my desire from this learning experience is to develop a consistent and distinctive sound which i can sell... just being "good" or competent or not enough... if that is the case, i'd want to be known as "a chameleon". i am here to find a signature style and sound. that would reflect on all of my work. that i could
sell.
---------
scott... do you intentionally make this very strong characteristic image for yourself that extends to your sound? or is it all a coincidence?! yes, i read you use: paris [!]
but that is just a tool, so not to focus on it... but it makes me think that either you are willfully different? or are sticking with something old and proven?
so much remains not understood to me. because your imp mixes are very distinctive sounding. i think that if we did imp8 anonymously like we do wumps lately, i would identify your signature sound easily.
could you please try to explain that better? this song was nothing like the other imp song you mixed where i heard exactly the same sound, and liked it then too.
but, you must know what i refer to! [i refer to even order harmonics, i think. that is my subjective perception; so saying you work "itb" or providing a gear list does not even begin to explain what i want to know.]
jeff dinces
