UnderTow wrote on Mon, 04 June 2007 13:16 |
Chance, I've got it at 84 BPM. Alistair |
j.hall wrote on Mon, 04 June 2007 10:00 |
*breathes deeply* AHHHHHHH fresh air.............. |
J-Texas wrote on Mon, 04 June 2007 18:50 | ||
J. is that around 9K? |
Fibes wrote on Mon, 04 June 2007 19:51 |
Too bad all i found out is that Newcastle was the drink of the night... |
j.hall wrote on Mon, 04 June 2007 21:53 |
how much compression was applied to hear such conversations? |
chrisj wrote on Mon, 04 June 2007 22:23 |
with lyrics like 'doctor please save me' it was clearly a fever dream and demanded to be treated as such |
Quote: |
I had a lot of fun too, though I did absolutely nothing to change the arrangement. I can't imagine trying to turn this into something coherent- with lyrics like 'doctor please save me' it was clearly a fever dream and demanded to be treated as such Smile |
CHANCE wrote on Tue, 05 June 2007 08:05 |
I blew it. I imported it as 16/44 and it's too slow. The bass drum sounded soo massive LOL. It's too late now to give it a shot. Now that I know the routine, I'll wait for #13 |
CHANCE wrote on Tue, 05 June 2007 08:05 |
I blew it. I imported it as 16/44 and it's too slow. The bass drum sounded soo massive LOL. It's too late now to give it a shot. Now that I know the routine, I'll wait for #13 |
J-Texas wrote on Tue, 05 June 2007 10:47 |
I ended up going with the oddly balanced miking on the drums. Hard left and right with a sampled, low pass, kick up the middle. Then a little verb for space and depth. Pretty cool. Wacky. |
chrisj wrote on Tue, 05 June 2007 10:52 |
can't make this 'nice', make it outrageous, on purpose |
UnderTow wrote on Wed, 06 June 2007 09:05 |
So which mix is J's and which one is Vlad's? Alistair |
WallyWest wrote on Wed, 06 June 2007 03:27 |
I was to late to enter this imp. But id just like to say that the song was quality. Does anyone happen to know what album the track was off? id be interested in getting a hold of it. Cheers. |
Quote: |
So which mix is J's and which one is Vlad's? |
CHANCE wrote on Wed, 06 June 2007 14:01 |
Is the process of uploading as simple as it seems? Or am I going to be in for some surprises. I will only have a few minutes to do this during a session (on a break) |
CHANCE wrote on Wed, 06 June 2007 14:17 |
Hmmm I burned it to a CD. I have it on my MAC desktop as wav. It's also in my Itunes library |
Quote: |
Do you have an mp3 encoder? I think LAME encoder is available for the mac, or itunes or quicktime can do it. Just googling around, I think this one will work... http://philippe.laval.free.fr/DropMP3/index_en.php Mac folks, can someone help Chance through this part? Cheers, -G |
M Carter wrote on Wed, 06 June 2007 15:25 |
so... how did everyone approach this one going in ? |
M Carter wrote on Wed, 06 June 2007 14:25 |
so... how did everyone approach this one going in ? |
iCombs wrote on Wed, 06 June 2007 15:46 |
HERE WE GO!!! ROUND 1: Jason Thompson - interesting cuts on that bassline at the top. Beatles, much? Except Ringo's kit was always on the left. The organ in the verse sounds weird. Like a delay that's drunk and stumbling on itself. I like the use of synths in the ending, but that feels like it needs more drama to me. |
iCombs wrote on Wed, 06 June 2007 15:46 |
Bennals - You didn't like much in the male vocal, huh? Rough. |
mcsnare wrote on Wed, 06 June 2007 19:28 |
Thanks Ian! I liked a lot of them this time around. I'll try to find time to listen and critique. Dave |
WallyWest wrote on Wed, 06 June 2007 16:11 |
i checked out the album J and it was stellar. Its a shame you guys only did the one album. The guitar tone is something special. |
iCombs wrote on Wed, 06 June 2007 15:46 |
J_Hall - WAIT. Nevermind. |
Quote: |
ok, either i'm missing something, or vlad registerd yet another user name and was caught yet agian by fletcher, ernie and/or brad. fill me in please, i was out all day. |
iCombs wrote on Wed, 06 June 2007 21:48 | ||
Yeah. Vlad posted a mix with your name on it. I'm not going to comment publicly, but if you get a chance to listen, it's still on the PSW server. |
Quote: |
Which is Vlad's? |
j.hall wrote on Wed, 06 June 2007 21:47 |
BTW, of course i'm too close to this, my mix represents what i wanted the song to convey emotionally. |
Careful Collapse wrote on Thu, 07 June 2007 09:59 | ||
It's assumed this one; don't know who else would have done this! http://www.prosoundweb.com/imp/files/IMP12_JHall.mp3 |
craig wrote on Thu, 07 June 2007 12:21 |
This is one of the first mixes I've done with my new monitors, so if anyone ends up listening to my submission I welcome comments on the overall frequency balance...too much lf, not enough, dull, bright, etc etc.... I haven't listened to this mix on any other system, so I'm interested to see how it'll translate. |
Quote: |
welcome comments on the overall frequency balance |
iCombs wrote on Wed, 06 June 2007 16:46 |
HERE WE GO!!! ROUND 1: BigMetal - It kinda sounds like you just threw up the faders and panned stuff and called it a day. Plus or minus some reverb. The vocals sit too far back in the mix...and this is coming from a guy who's pretty notorious for burying vocals. Get 'em up front where I can hear them. Start there, because I'll tell you that they are the most important thing in this track. |
BigMetal wrote on Thu, 07 June 2007 13:39 | ||
I wish I had faders!! badump pshh! I'm always guilty of mixes being too even. All the subtleties are too subtle because I think my mind tricks me (I know they're there so I hear them louder). I guess I didn't get the point of the exercise when I approached the mix. This isn't a knock on anyone, but many of the mixes seem like the "mix as a performance" is outplaying the actual performances. When I threw up the faders I heard a vibe that was vulnerable and shaky... leaving the mix more stripped down seemed appropriate. In hindsight I do agree that the vocals should be the focus. I need help making things sound bigger. |
dconstruction wrote on Thu, 07 June 2007 15:30 |
Hmm, I totally see it as a contest as to who gets it "most right." I mean, for a non-contest. I can flex my muscles all I want - but I may be exercising the wrong ones. I think realizing the performance is "vulnerable and shaky" is exactly the "right" thing to do, versus, say, proclaim, "this song, it no work; needs everything wrong made right," and then come up with Vlad's Euro-beat thing. Or even UnderTow's - a mixer I have *enormous* respect for sonically. I guess, in short, I wouldn't hire a "performance" mixer, and I wouldn't ask one to teach me anything other than their gimmicks. Now, all that said, I'm pretty sure I did not get it "the most right." L |
Billybehdaz wrote on Thu, 07 June 2007 15:51 |
Isn't that what mixing someone else's song all about? Not trying to make it your own, but serving the song? |
Quote: |
Having said that - I went way stripped down, cutting out a lot of the tracks for a more intimate feel, which I thought served the song best. I was surprised at other's interpretations, most were much more "produced" then I thought was called for, but what do I know? |
Quote: |
turned it into a lonely robot crying itself a river |
ATOR wrote on Thu, 07 June 2007 16:50 |
I don't think there is one right way to mix a track. The great thing about music is that recorded performances will evoke different feelings with everyone. It's obvious if you listen to the wildly varying results from this IMP. |
J-Texas wrote on Thu, 07 June 2007 16:52 |
DAMN!! I DEMAND A FULL RE-MIX FROM MYSELF IMMEDIATELY! I wish I knew the answers to the test before I started. iCombs - Now I know where you were coming from with the SFX outro being more pronounced. So when is IMP-13 again? |
j.hall wrote on Thu, 07 June 2007 15:58 |
j-texas, you'll learn in time how laid back i am. i was merely admitting my closeness to the track and why my mix ended up the way it did. iCombs and deconstruction, you are both right. the topic is really good, and i'm happy to see it come it. think of your opinions as two ditches. to me, they are both on the extreme end of what i consider a "mixer" to be (or at least consider myself to be). the ground in between those two ditches is where you need to attempt to stay. IMP is designed to teach you guys the ground inbetween the ditches by showing the ditches themselves. you only get to see the ditches through other people's mixes. WOW, i feel all king-fu now. 41 submissions!!!!!!!!!!!! this is going to kill me. mcsnare and i spoke on the phone today about a lot of things circling this imp, dave, would you mind sharing your comments about the lead vocal? i think people could learn a lot from that. use fibes' mix as your example. |
maxim wrote on Thu, 07 June 2007 23:02 |
in the end, the song could be about a boy and his father, a girl and her lover, a dog and his master etcetera don't prejudge the mixes because YOU know what was left out imo, the female vocalist delivered the emotion better than the male, so i put her in the lead |
J-Texas wrote on Thu, 07 June 2007 23:57 |
Dishing out spankings and talking about yourself in the 3rd person? I like your style. |
Quote: |
imp12_grantrichard4- I enjoy the background noise on the bass track! The guitar is stepping on it, though, I liked what the intro bass did so much that I want to hear more of it, want it (and the lead vocal) to be the centerpiece. Instead there's a droning quality I'm not liking, coming from the guitars and organ. I am also liking the drums, though. But too much is compressed at once. I don't hear it as good that EVERYTHING is smashed as a stunt. Good- no GREAT on the bass track but some of that stuff ought to lay back... |
chrisj wrote on Thu, 07 June 2007 18:37 |
IMP12_ CHANCE_WRONG_SAMPLE_RATE- Whoah. It's a troop of monks doing basso harmonies! Where did the rattler come from, I don't remember it? Maybe it's just the different pitch. Can't criticise this because working on the wrong sample rate is horribly distracting- it's interesting and the heavy use of harmonizer is a bold stroke, as is the rattle. I don't feel the song at all, though. Oh well- better luck next time, I made the sample-rate mistake once too and it ruined my entry that IMP |
chrisj wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 03:37 |
Oh my god, IMP12-UnderTow- Yay, weird introness! Synths cut and pasted everywhere! |
Quote: |
This is certainly establishing the 'so much sick' concept, though funnily enough the singer doesn't seem vulnerable at all. It sounds like he's SMILING, then he's on a telephone. |
Quote: |
A lot in the mix is supporting a disorienting lead vocal, but the lead vocal itself has been made stronger somehow. I don't remember it being sung strongly and solidly, there's a vulnerability that has gone away. |
Quote: |
WHOA- you have to tell how you produced a sort of flanged conga track out of what you were given, because I'd swear it was new tracking and if it was, BZZT |
J-Texas wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 08:44 |
FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Always save your work. I was almost finished my my critique and I hit the back button! |
J-Texas wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 10:44 |
FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Always save your work. I was almost finished my my critique and I hit the back button! |
iCombs wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 17:24 | ||
Kinda makes you want to drink drano, doesn't it? I actually sometimes type mine in word and copy/paste them. Then they are saveable. |
leester wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 09:43 |
So I'mma ask... how did you 'know' which was the lead vocal on this track? (you meaning all of ya) ASSumption? Familiarity? Preference? |
sidechain wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 10:10 | ||
Well for me, the fem vox was clearly a harmony. No question at all. I don't remember which one I added or heard first, but the part itself just plain isn't a melody. It doesn't interact with the root. The song itself told me where the melody was. I don't really know how to explain it better than that. It's kinda like looking at da Vinci's Last Supper and asking "How do we know which figure is the focal point?" Sure, there are probably any number of different interpretations of that question, but the artist's intention is pretty plain... - Devin |
iCombs wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 14:07 |
I honestly looked at it as a two-singer situation where both parts were pretty much necessary the whole time. I thought the vocal arrangements were really great, and that vocal work IS the song...did anyone take a moment and listen to those voices a cappella? They sound great...almost enough there to make a song out of with just those voices. When I put the faders up, I went, "Sweet...2 singers!" |
dconstruction wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 14:15 |
I don't know how anyone could continue to think the female was the lead when it gets to the chorus of "save me." It's so clearly a call-and-response. Right? |
Quote: |
Also, the tracks were labeled "Vox," "Vox_dbl," "Jen_1" and "Jen_2." I know that's not conclusive, but it sure seems to me that the track labeled "Vox" would be the, uh, main vox. L |
Quote: |
So far i think my favorite mixes are J's, mcsnares, grants, and fibes'(which is funny, because none of them sound anything close to mine). Those are at least the ones that stuck out right away. I haven't gotten through all of them yet though. |
Kim Watson wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 06:52 |
Hey Chris Thanks for your kind comments. >Polite mix.... Most of my mixes wind up being very conservitive. That is something I really need to work on. what do you think is the cause.... eq? or having the vocal to instrument balance. Kim x |
grant richard wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 14:30 |
compress both of the drum mics more and turn the overhead mic up. make those drums absolutely slamming. |
dconstruction wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 13:15 |
I don't know how anyone could continue to think the female was the lead when it gets to the chorus of "save me." It's so clearly a call-and-response. Right? |
J-Texas wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 14:34 | ||
Should she do do before or after thinking about dynamics? |
J-Texas wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 13:23 |
Grant Richard - I see where you were going with the panning, but it's really left heavy with that balls out guitar sound. Maybe some jizum on the organ to even it out? I love the vocal delay. Interesting to listen to. Great drums! |
grant richard wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 15:46 |
i firmly believe that compression holds the key to massive vibe, and if you harness it properly, dynamics still exist even when heavily compressed. |
garret wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 13:43 |
grant very solid mix... good work. the kick is a bit much... otherwise, nicely done. Good transition, pulled off with the synth in full glory... tricky tricky. |
garret wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 14:54 | ||
Not to be cheeky, but why does a track like this need to be massive? You're right, compression yields massiveness, and a track is still dynamic in one sense... but I find the heavy kick stuff distracting most of the time. It's weird, I hear far more kick-heavy mixes here than anywhere else... and I probably have a thousand records and don't live in a vacuum. Of course, the kick should be there, in the foundation, but it should never take focus away from the lead instruments (usually vocals). *Except when it should, like a special bridge or something where the kick jumps up and becomes a lead instrument for a bit. Flaming Lips pull that off very well... |
dconstruction wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 14:15 |
I don't know how anyone could continue to think the female was the lead when it gets to the chorus of "save me." It's so clearly a call-and-response. Right? Also, the tracks were labeled "Vox," "Vox_dbl," "Jen_1" and "Jen_2." I know that's not conclusive, but it sure seems to me that the track labeled "Vox" would be the, uh, main vox. L |
J-Texas wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 14:23 |
Big Metal - The girl is absolutely not the star of this track. I think she's awesome, but it is NOT the lead part. It's really weak that way. It's distracting to hear, what is clearly, the lead in the background too. Nice mix on the instruments though. I like synth. The segue seemed to hold out too long or something. I'll have to listen again. |
garret wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 14:43 |
big metal - very nice. good vocals, and somehow the bass doesn't bug me (see my mix for the only answer I found for its boominess). the synth transition doesn't quite work for me... I think the bang should be when the angelic vocals come back in, so the synth just before can't be too dominating. |
garret wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 15:54 |
the kick should be there, in the foundation, but it should never take focus away from the lead instruments (usually vocals). *Except when it should, like a special bridge or something where the kick jumps up and becomes a lead instrument for a bit. Flaming Lips pull that off very well... |
grant richard wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 16:02 |
i wasn't implying that the mix should be massive...let me clarify.... when i said 'massive' i was referring to the amount of 'vibe', not the sound of the mix. IMO, 'vibe' is what makes me want to keep listening to a mix, instead of moving on to the next one. all i was saying is that if something is well compressed....it can reveal massive amounts of vibe. |
BigMetal wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 16:03 |
with acoustic bass, it's really the performer's job to handle the dynamics. everything i tried made it sound bad, so i found a spot where i thought it fit volume-wise and sent just a bit of it to the verb bus that the drums were on to back it off a bit. no eq, no compression... |
Fibes wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 16:09 | ||
This was a Flaming Lips moment, most of us went the route where the drums were there for maximum impact. You didn't take that route and I'm curios why... |
garret wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 15:14 | ||
I can definitely agree with that. This bass track just didn't work for me... I like the musical ideas, but it was so tentatively played and toneless (all fundamental --- just round round round and boomy). I was happier hearing just the low end from the organ. If this were a real mix, the upright bass is the one element I'd want to re-track or replace with samples... I actually did keep the bass in my mix, but it's mixed way low so it almost disappears. Or am I hearing this wrong... experienced folks who've mixed real acoustic bass... is this bass track really keeper material? |
el duderino wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 16:05 |
I think Fibes said it best before when he said HE was the client and the mix was suppose to make HIM happy. thats pretty much the way i looked at it, its fun and should be enjoyable for me. |
garret wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 15:08 |
Maybe I'm just anti compression... |
Tom C wrote on Sat, 09 June 2007 07:14 |
garret: Save mix, not much experiments. I'd personally prefer to hear more dynamics (especially drums wise), but your more hold-back approach works for the song. BTW, you forgot to comment on my mix. |
J-texas |
I think the new monitors are lying to you about the mids and highs. Maybe a freq adjustment or not so much overcompensating if it sounds too brittle to you in the room. The vox are a little burried too. Probably the mid thing. Check it out. ps. I love the cranked up drama at the end. Very cool indeed. |
more from J-texas... |
Craig - I love the kick drum. Where's the beef? I need some decibels!!! Male voc is burried too. The organ is hot. I LOVE the outro!! |
Careful Collapse |
More obvious to me was the stereo balance; it sounds like everything in the center is too low in the mix; drums, bass, and vox |
chrisj |
craig_imp12- Very very gentle, but it feels like a mistake or monitoring issues, not a decision. Hey, there's the aggression- the whole outro is a huge contrast! I don't think it's executed well but I completely get what's being attempted. I don't think that has much to do with the song but I'm starting to think this song is way harder than it looked... |
garret |
craig – organ is up high where I like it, but the high end drawbars are too painful... they're overwhelming the vocals, which are mixed way too low... |
ATOR |
Craig This one doesn’t reach me, it all very distant, vague and dull. There’s nothing going on that captures my attention. |
ATOR wrote on Sat, 09 June 2007 06:04 |
DevinK How did you get the stringsound at the beginning? I like the way the lead and backing vocals go together. Nice percussion snarelike sound. The heavily distorted guitar adds to the big ending. |
Fibes wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 15:23 |
The bass: It wasn't my favorite upright sound and I think I just abandoned it at some point. One thing i did notice is that the bass track at the end was considerably different (read better) than at the top of the tune. Maybe it was the bass, the player or spacemen. |
ATOR wrote on Sat, 09 June 2007 08:04 |
JHall Did you cut the kickdrum loose from the rest to get it that long? Good sounds. I like how you almost fused the lead with backing vocals. |
ATOR wrote on Sat, 09 June 2007 09:04 |
Guitars are somewhere dark in the corner. Whoa, sounds like you've invented a compressor that goes to 11 and put it on the drums. Big loud synthsweep in the break. If you go this extreme with the drumsound the rest of the sounds should fit that approach but they are rather plain. |
Tom C wrote on Sat, 09 June 2007 07:14 |
For what it's worth, I did a blind-test (all this 5 zillion mixes randomly moved around in the DAW of my choice) to be able to judge more objectively, so if I wrote something bad it's not personal |
chrisj wrote on Mon, 11 June 2007 05:31 |
Once you realize you yourself have grown most the times you've had your ass handed to you in julienne slices, it really immunizes you from the fear of being critical to anyone else, pro or amateur... I don't ever want to make personal judgements on the PEOPLE who do these mixes. However, for the purposes of critting, whether I'm in a cheerful or pissy mood, I'm not going to spend a single moment wondering whether I'm really right or justified. There's a whole world out there to disagree with me- I owe you my straightest shot. Let's see some more crits, no personal attacks, but no shyness about your reactions please |
j.hall wrote on Mon, 11 June 2007 13:57 |
the going is slow. i've got about half done. with so many submissions, i hope i'm being helpful and not just blowing through them. do to the arrangement of the song, i have to listen to the entire track. it's taking a while. |
iCombs wrote on Thu, 07 June 2007 06:46 |
Greg Dixon - Tasteful edting...I like the cuts into the arrangement. The mix is straightforward. I like the way you worked with the thickness of the recordings. Everything sounds well-placed. My only bitch is that this mix feels like it's looking for that one thing to take it up over the top. Find that and you're golden. |
chrisj wrote on Fri, 08 June 2007 11:37 |
Greg_Dixon_IMP12- Something about this isn't interesting, as if it's trying hard to build the mix out of the performances, as if they are supposed to be rock performances in a normal rock context. The way the sounds are built, nothing is striking me as worth attention. |
ATOR wrote on Sat, 09 June 2007 23:04 |
Greg Dixon Good sounds. The drums panning is distracting me, it sounds weird and unnatural. Fix that and this is a great mix. |
J-Texas wrote on Sat, 09 June 2007 04:23 |
Greg - Straight mix. A lot of compression. Everything seats nicely though. |
garret wrote on Sat, 09 June 2007 04:43 |
greg dixon - good balanced mix. I'd like to hear the vocal pop more (probably just eq for more presence and maybe watch the compression level.) |
Tom C wrote on Sat, 09 June 2007 21:14 |
Greg_Dixon: I like this one,nicely balanced, nothing to complain. |
spoon wrote on Tue, 12 June 2007 06:25 |
Greg_Dixon - Very aggressive mix, vocals and vocal FX in the right channel. Nice drums too. Ah, extended the upright...compression I imagine. Fun how the vibe changes from that. |
Greg Dixon wrote on Mon, 11 June 2007 19:12 | ||
I'm not sure you're listening to my mix here. Lead vocal is centered |
spoon wrote on Tue, 12 June 2007 14:26 |
Bad punctuation. The mix is aggressive along with the vocals. Additionally, the vocal FX on the right adds to that quality. Did you elongate the bass? I gives the track a totally different feel. Very clever. Regards, David |
Greg Dixon wrote on Tue, 12 June 2007 05:07 |
Well I like the clever bit! Thanks. The vocal FX weren't centered on the right, but it might have appeared that way due to the drums. I think I had the main drum track centred, with the bass drum to one side and an aux input panned the other way with both drum tracks heavily compressed. It made the drums move, which a few people didn't like. I don't think I compressed the bass, as it just exaggerated the hiss, but I did ride the fader, so I probably brought it up to make it sound longer in places. That's something I do a bit with bass, when I want the sustain to be longer. |
spoon wrote on Tue, 12 June 2007 21:44 |
About the bass riding...that's old school. I do that to vocals all the time (not on this one though) instead of compressing. Usually it sounds better (to me). Cheers, David |
j.hall wrote on Tue, 12 June 2007 22:47 |
Garret no bass in the first verse, I kinda like it, but I?d like to hear it enter the first chorus, it would have given it a nice lift. The kick drum feels a bit out of place, but that?s cause I know what it originally was. I like your balance of vocals, I think it?s very appropriate. This mix is extremely close to the original mix that?s on the record. Did you cheat? Again, I?d like to hear the bass in the outro as it holds some good movement. |
Quote: |
J-Texas : Cool "Peppers" guitar sound. Very nice guitars. The vox are muddy though. Getting killed by the guitars. A few dB down in the 100Hz and down, they might have seated better. I like the effected vox on the chorus a lot! The organ is sort of getting on my nerves though. Sorry mcsnare, I just heard a better thump you in the galooms outro. Way to go. I like the ending too. |
Quote: |
iCombs : Vocals are up. Another asymmetrical mix. Until the end. Interesting. The guitars feel brittle. Woulda been nice to hear some more girth out of those. The female vox feel a little dark to me. |
Quote: |
chrisj : hey, this isn't IMP 9? Boxy voices, highlighted organ- what this does have going for it is the vocals are direct and communicative, and the rest of the track is completely whacked! It screams 'indie indie INDIE INDIE' which I think the song expects, I just don't like all the choices of what is highlighted. Whoa big outro, that's really loud. The word for this mix is NAIVETE. Normally I think you'd have to show more skill... big fan of the tail-off crackly-guitar-pickup organ chord, I really liked that idea, better than what I did. (yeah, I know, 'better than ChrisJ' is passive-aggressive insultry Wink ) |
Quote: |
garret : Vocals get a bit nasally in the upper mids at times. Organ is hurting me and overpowering the angels in the bridge. |
Quote: |
Tom C : Not much to complain here, extremely (but in a good way) panned. Would like to have less reverb on the male vocals and maybe the organ slightly less loud. Second, hmh, chorus(?) too loud, that completely shakes you out of that mood you were put in before. |
Quote: |
ATOR : Guitars and vocals sound good. The vocal reverb return could use some hpf or maybe it’s the vocal itself that has too much lows in it. I don’t like the sound and panning of the drums. |
Quote: |
spoon : Nice even mix, warm & intimate mvox. Good work on the 'Save Me' sections. Like the panning choices (organ & drums). Outro has good energy. |
Quote: |
j.hall : a touch of distortion on the guitars is a cool idea. The vocals are nice and loud and balanced well, just too dark. I like the panning in the chorus. I?d like to hear the drums thicker, but it?s nice to hear the mix get ?blown out?. Nice entrance of the bass in verse 2. Chorus 2 has a nice lift as well. Drum fade in the bridge again, though I think you did this a touch too soon. GOOD GRIEF the outro has a HUGE lift. I love it!! Kept the organ punch at the end??.almost perfect outro. Man that was cool. |
j.hall wrote on Tue, 12 June 2007 22:47 |
the guitar distortion doesn?t bother me. It creates a lot of tension that isn?t a bad thing for this song. |
Quote: |
the vocals are too dark, which doesn?t draw my ear to them, I keep listening to the guitars. |
Quote: |
You cut the ?please doctor? line??that?s a cold knife in my heart. A mixer?s job is to sculpt a song, but to also pay attention to where the point is. That single line is crucial, as my dad is a doctor??.it connects the metaphor back to the relationship being referenced. |
Quote: |
Your transition to the outro is simply stunning. The first mix yet that made the outro the biggest part of the song??well played! |
j.hall wrote on Tue, 12 June 2007 22:47 |
i feel like time is slipping away. i'll post the reviews i have done to at least prove that i'm doing them. i'll get the others up shortly. i'm starting to consider hiring an assistant.......i'm just burried. Fibes I absolutely love this mix. As an artist I?d say turning the male vocal down would have to change. It?s very difficult for the subject matter of this tune to be properly ?told? by my sister (Jen). The edit at the end removes the clincher which is a deal breaker for me. I love the vibe. You did a great job harnessing the ?enchanting? feeling I wanted this song to have |
Quote: |
scottoliphant Vocals are too dark. Blend of instruments is nice. I like the simple approach. This is easily your best sounding entry into the IMP world. The vocal needs to be brighter and louder, but all things considered, this is good. I like the drums. I would have faded that organ through the ?bridge? part, but that?s a subtle thing. You kept the drums at the end, thank you! |
j.hall wrote on Tue, 12 June 2007 21:47 |
M Carter another ?by the book? intro. I like hearing the bass featured, it?s a nice change of perspective, but nothing drastic. The vocal effects are making my ear push it to the back almost ignoring it. I can hear my hi-hat keeping time in the second verse, did you mean to do that? No female vocal at all? Interesting choice, care to explain? NO OUTRO????? Oof, that hurt. |
scottoliphant wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 08:17 |
i noticed several folks posted files not 44.1 16bit...it'd make it easier if we stuck to that for the mixdown? especially when there are 40 some odd files. just a suggestion |
j.hall wrote on Tue, 12 June 2007 21:47 |
Fibes I absolutely love this mix. As an artist I?d say turning the male vocal down would have to change. It?s very difficult for the subject matter of this tune to be properly ?told? by my sister (Jen). The edit at the end removes the clincher which is a deal breaker for me. |
Quote: |
I thought the files had to be 192k MP3s, no? |
spoon wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 10:04 |
Dude, your sister RAWKS! What a great job she did. |
Brian Lloyd wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 16:50 |
Now a side note....this is my first track really done inside the box. can someone shed some light on exactly what you guys mean by 2 buss compression? and what are its advantages? i know this seems like a total noob question but its something i'd like to get straight. thanks! brian |
Brian Lloyd wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 15:50 |
cant win if you play conservative right? |
j.hall wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 21:32 | ||
Indeed. had you been mixing the track for me privately, i simply would have ask you to put them back to the original order. |
Fibes wrote on Thu, 14 June 2007 06:14 |
Tom C I dig the intro, it's natural. I wish the drums weren't L/R but hey the vocals are telling the story. Maybe a little low pass on the vocal widener to creep some of the slickness out but it's prolly tubby time if that were to happen. Is this one peaking? |
j.hall wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 04:47 |
Tom C interesting intro. Other then the intro, that seems a bit out of place to me, I like the mix. It?s wide but still up front. Nice Tom. |
Brian Lloyd wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 23:37 |
if this was a TRUE session it would have been alot quicker and based more upon what the artist thought it should sound like....vs....giving me free reign. |
Fibes wrote on Thu, 14 June 2007 13:32 |
And J. woulda had me do a recall and get his majestic high hat ticks back into the end of the tune. |
j.hall wrote on Tue, 12 June 2007 22:47 |
Big Metal started nicely, but using my sister as the lead doesn?t do it for me. I think I?ll hear more of this coming up. I know she feels better, but the point of the song just can?t be delivered from her, plus her note selection sucks as the lead. If you flipped the male back to lead in the chorus it might have worked better. OH, the drum edit made me think you ditch the outro, nice turn around. Now that?s an interesting take on the outro. |
j.hall wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 12:47 |
Greg Dixon simplicity. The song was written this way for a reason, and you did a great job finding that, and serving it. I like your guitar EQ, they were tracked a bit dark, but you did a good job bringing them back, but not going too bright. The edit in the outro kills my buzz. Solid mix that serves the song. You used simple sounds, and built a mix that has me listening to the song and not your mix??that?s a really great thing! |
Fibes wrote on Thu, 14 June 2007 14:14 |
Greg Dixon Thanks for making the organ stereo, it really likes to move. The drums are doing some interesting moving too. |
scottoliphant wrote on Fri, 15 June 2007 10:47 |
greg dixon the drums feel a little woozy to me. are they bussed and compressed together? the snare hits center, and then drifts over to the right. may be intentional with the chorus on the organ. other than that, good mix |
grant richard wrote on Fri, 15 June 2007 04:49 |
are people deliberately not reviewing my mix??? that's the third or fourth person to skip it |
Quote: |
andrew briarley i long for more bass sustain. feels heavily eq'd, digital sounding. the drums feel way tweaked for that much hi hi end without hiss. the guitars feel like a bit of an after thought. again, wish the end got bigger. |
homerecordingodyssey wrote on Mon, 18 June 2007 01:34 |
I don't feel knowledgeable enough to offer opinions on the other mixes myself yet so I will leave that until I have a bit more credibility. Andrew |
garret |
jason thompson - interesting panning.. not sure I like it, but it's interesting. Nice vox! up front where they should be. the organ is hurting my ears, and fighting with the vox. |
tom c |
Jason_Thompson: Nice vocals, I'd like to have less bass in the intro section. Nice drum sound with extreme panning. Good! |
ATOR |
Jason Thompson -Why did you go for panned drums? I like the mix, good vocal treatment. Organ is too loud: boring dronesounds should be way in the back. |
spoon |
Jason_Thompson - Abit bass heavy, but otherwise a nice mix. The vocals sound good, but occasionally get dwarfed by the bass. Creative bridge to the outro. Very nice ending. Ended on a nice vibe, I did that. |
Fibes |
Jason Thompson - I can close my eyes and visualise a band but the organ player is running sound. Nice edit in the breakdown. |
bennals |
Jason_Thompson - Big bottom end Jason. Nice vox. Reversed organ is nice but the organ in general seemed to sit too high in the mix. One of the best treatments of the synths. I thought they were best left out but they work ok here. Excellent finish. |
scottoliphant |
jason thompson - pretty good mix, i wish there was more sustain on the kick with it being all the way over there by itself. i lose the guitars a bit.interesting rework of the bass leading up to the break. |
homerecordingodyssey wrote on Sun, 17 June 2007 18:34 |
I don't feel knowledgeable enough to offer opinions on the other mixes myself yet so I will leave that until I have a bit more credibility. Andrew |
Fibes wrote on Fri, 15 June 2007 08:53 |
I have roughly 10 mixes that have the name IMP12. Shame on y'all. |
Fibes wrote on Fri, 15 June 2007 15:53 |
I have roughly 10 mixes that have the name IMP12. Shame on y'all. |
j.hall wrote on Tue, 19 June 2007 11:14 |
J-Texas built yourself a little bass fill. Based on your guitar and bass sounds, the drums aren?t nearly hyped enough. The mix feels safe. You are either newer to mixing, or you just didn?t feel the track very much. The backwards organ is really cool, that?s a great touch. And you used it subtly. The bass in the bridge just feels off to me. The synth work is good. Interesting ending. I didn?t like it at first, but the last female vocal almost sold me on it. |
j.hall wrote on Tue, 19 June 2007 11:14 |
I'M FINISHED!!!!!!!!!!!! spoon I?m done commenting on the female vocal being featured, and I?m sure you?re sick of hearing it. The vocal verb is a too long, or too loud. It sounds good, but it moves the vocal past the dry music. Always look for a realistic picture of the whole band. Granted, this isn?t always the right approach, I just think it is for this particular song. your mix does a good job rolling by. Aside from the image of the verb, the song just happens, which is great. Rhythm section is balanced well too. Why did you want the outro to go that long? |
j.hall wrote on Tue, 19 June 2007 12:14 |
Chris J I really like the organ. Wow, the vocals are a lot louder then the music. Intentional? I dig the snare, the kick is too light in the low end. The huge compression only bothers me at the level the drums are mixed. You could sell it by turning them down and blending in some of the original sounds. There is something in the mids of the vocals that feels honky (male vocal). Nice bridge. That?s massive!!!!! You just need the drums to come around. That huge wide synth takes up a lot of space in a good way, but when it leaves, now the mix feels empty. This is my favorite organ sound. You made it sound like a pipe organ in an old church. |
j.hall wrote on Tue, 19 June 2007 09:14 |
I'M FINISHED!!!!!!!!!!!! Chance I thought I was going to hate the wrong sample rate, but it?s creepy in a cool way. Those vocal effects are freaking me out. The alt perc. is interesting, but out of place. Good grief, this mix is scary. I?m going to have nightmares. Do you work on horror films? The samples are A LOT brighter and louder then the music. For having the sample rate wrong, I think you did your best to make it work. That kick drum is HUGE!!!!!! |
j.hall wrote on Tue, 19 June 2007 12:14 |
el duderino did you re-amp the guitars? Oh you did for sure in the chorus. That?s to much, especially following it into the 2nd verse. The vocal balances are nice, but the left guitar is killing your really pretty mix. Did you not want it to be so pretty? The vocal delays are OK, you could have worked those a bit better. Honestly, the mix was great till the left guitar grew a mullet, bought a 5150, turned it to 11 and came to the wrong band practice. Curious what your thought was on that. |
Quote: |
homerecordingodyssey mix version 2 reviewed: the mix is a bit dark, but the drums are really bright and really loud. Though the bass is balanced with the kick well. The sonic differences can?t be fixed in mastering, FYI. When the drums are in, they just dominate. Overall, I think the mix is boring. You have some good ideas, but the music needs to come up to blend with the rhythm section. |
homerecordingodyssey wrote on Mon, 25 June 2007 18:10 |
Thanks for the comments. I am going to remix it again from scratch until I feel it is up there with some of the other mixes submitted for my own learning experience. Andrew |
Careful Collapse wrote on Thu, 05 July 2007 22:37 |
I kinda want to see the next one be anonymous. I'd have a much easier time being honest and writing up my critiques if I didn't have to second guess myself, thinking something like "I dislike this mix but he dislikes mine, I don't want to seem sour..." KnowwhutImean? |
Careful Collapse wrote on Thu, 05 July 2007 15:37 |
I kinda want to see the next one be anonymous. I'd have a much easier time being honest and writing up my critiques if I didn't have to second guess myself, thinking something like "I dislike this mix but he dislikes mine, I don't want to seem sour..." KnowwhutImean? |
ATOR wrote on Thu, 05 July 2007 15:55 |
Drop them in your DAW and write your review per tracknr. Then when you're finished look up the name behind the tracknr. |
J-Texas wrote on Thu, 05 July 2007 23:04 | ||
Hey, that's cool. When the discussion page comes out, the names and numbers could be listed then. Good idea! At least it's not biased that way. Oops, maybe that's what you were saying Careful Collapse. |
Tom C wrote on Fri, 06 July 2007 03:16 | ||||
That's exactly what I did last IMP: put all the tracks in the DAW, hide the track names, shuffle them around a bit and assign the comments to the track numbers. Un-hide track names, put the names to the comments and post it here. |
spoon wrote on Fri, 06 July 2007 09:41 | ||||||
Hey Tom, how did you shuffle them without seeing the track names...what DAW did you use? I like this technique. Regards, David
|
spoon wrote on Fri, 06 July 2007 16:41 |
Hey Tom, how did you shuffle them without seeing the track names...what DAW did you use? I like this technique. Regards, David |
Tom C wrote on Fri, 06 July 2007 10:30 | ||
Hi David, I use Cubase. I drag'n'drop all the mixes into Cubase, switch off file properties for the tracks (so I can't see the original file names) and move them around by hand/mouse because they are kind of alphabetical sorted in the files explorer I dragged them from. That's from memory, if you need more detailed information drop me a note and I'll have a look when I'm sitting at the DAW later today.
|