dconstruction wrote on Tue, 19 September 2006 13:16 |
It's got to be a sample problem. Or maybe not: the drums sound cool. But, wow, it's hard to listen to this one slowed down like that. After hearing this song, oh, forty million times, this crunk version tears my liver out. |
j.hall wrote on Tue, 19 September 2006 17:14 |
if the thread is not locked then post. i try to lock it around midnight central time, which is 1am eastern. some times i forget till the morning. |
chrisj wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 00:04 |
Fortunately it's pretty easy to change and the deadline ain't up yet. Yow. Gimme a minute 'k? |
chrisj wrote on Tue, 19 September 2006 23:24 |
Actually, I EQed stuff like a madman ... John Kay Steppenwolf... Not- because I'm using some extremely weird filtering from the guy who writes SoundHack. They're called chebyshev filters- they're not really filters, they synthesize harmonics. YE GODS |
cerberus wrote on Tue, 19 September 2006 23:35 | ||
so that ringing is not reverb?! |
Quote: |
scott oliphant: talk about hard rock.. this one feels as solid as a stone billet...i get the feeling that the drummer has ruined his snare head for good.... probably bent the legs of the support stand as well. now that is anger! the banjo is in there? what's it doing? can't tell if it's coming or going.. well, if you went for the fiddle as a contrasting element, why not mandolins too? it's maybe just that i know which tracks are missing...great emphasis on guitar slides, i like those little hooks. |
cerberus wrote on Tue, 19 September 2006 22:35 |
has excellent contrast in the parts, decent separation on instruments. did not re-arrange the song for the band... so not that risky, of course. but i do sense some bus fx are putting a slight veil on it that i would prefer removed were i to master it. |
dconstruction wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 17:35 |
I'd really like to hear from those persons that mixed this song deemphasizing the background vocals. To me, and to the artist, they are THE sound of this song - and the album. What led you to underplay or even ignore those tracks? |
scottoliphant wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 09:51 |
how many folks feel comfortable critiquing their own mixes as well when they post their thoughts? I think i will |
spoon wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 10:19 |
Would it be cleaner if people PM me for clarification and then I post those clarification as part of my original review? And speaking of cleaner posts, should I post all the reviews in one thread or break them up? Thanks for the input. Regards, David |
chris carter wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 10:32 |
So in that vain, I consider it better to evaluate a final mix WITH a limiter as it's closer to what the the consumer gets. |
chris carter wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 10:32 |
So in that vain, I consider it better to evaluate a final mix WITH a limiter as it's closer to what the the consumer gets. |
dconstruction wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 11:35 |
In the meantime, I'd really like to hear from those persons that mixed this song deemphasizing the background vocals. To me, and to the artist, they are THE sound of this song - and the album. What led you to underplay or even ignore those tracks? |
spoon wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 12:34 |
starscream2010 - Full intro, nice vox. Chorus has slight pump, low voxen. Nice verse, low vox. Chorus two, side -chained kick? Nice bridge. Electronic beats break, banjo. Pumping kick outro chorus, low voxen. Nice FX outro. |
Quote: |
Starscream Vocal could be more upfront. Ugly 2bus compressor/limiter abuse, why mess up a good thing? |
spoon wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 17:19 |
And speaking of cleaner posts, should I post all the reviews in one thread or break them up? |
rankus wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 14:55 |
I feel that we should either make mastering (smashing and EQ’ing the two track) mandatory, or an automatic disqualification, as it makes things impossible to compare when some have smashed and others have not…. |
dconstruction wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 18:35 |
In the meantime, I'd really like to hear from those persons that mixed this song deemphasizing the background vocals. To me, and to the artist, they are THE sound of this song - and the album. What led you to underplay or even ignore those tracks? |
chris carter wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 14:07 |
J Hall - No, I think it sounds absolutely horrible! Can I make that clear enough? Bad, horrible, squashed, etc. |
j.hall wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 13:33 |
think modest mouse |
spoon wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 19:34 |
TomC - Nice intro drums, too much FX on Vox. Chorus vox late, from outboard processing? Nice chorus. No background vox on Chorus. Bridge nice, late vox. Break like mine. BANJO! Nice organ outro w/mandolins. |
ATOR wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 19:48 |
Tom C Leadvocal timing seems a little later, probably because of the fx. The dry leadvocal sound could be a bit louder or brighter to improve intelligibility. Instrument balance is good. |
j.hall wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 22:22 |
all i see is engineers, engineering, for other engineers, to geek out about engineering. |
Quote: |
"look at this sweet flanger" and less and less about actually mixing a song. |
Quote: |
i also think that many of you have mild to significant acoustics problems in your mix environments and it not only colors your own mix, but it colors your comments on other people's work. |
j.hall wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 16:22 |
i've never critiqued any single mix in these things. and no one has asked me for my opinion of their work either. the general consensus of mine is that i over compress, that's the #1 comment of my work in every IMP we've done thus far....... anyway......i'm going to give a critique of every one's mix at the same time and break my silence. i'm a bit disheartened with the direction IMP is going. seems like we're getting more and more about "look at this sweet flanger" and less and less about actually mixing a song. this is supposed to be a real world situation where you pretend there is a client you'll have to answer to, while still expressing yourself. here is the critique. no one has done a mix that makes me want to keep listening to the song. your job as a mixer is to sell the song. no matter how amazing the song is, you can always kill it. you have to make people want to listen. find the lelements that truly speak to a listener and exploit them. by no means am i saying that my mixes does this....... i simply saying, from what i've heard, no one else is really doing it. i also think that many of you have mild to significant acoustics problems in your mix environments and it not only colors your own mix, but it colors your comments on other people's work. if any one wants specific comments from me about your mix, i'll be happy to supply that. at this point, i just don't see IMP being as constructive of an educational tool as i originally planned. all i see is engineers, engineering, for other engineers, to geek out about engineering. |
j.hall wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 23:22 |
no one has done a mix that makes me want to keep listening to the song. your job as a mixer is to sell the song. no matter how amazing the song is, you can always kill it. you have to make people want to listen. find the lelements that truly speak to a listener and exploit them. |
j.hall wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 23:22 |
i also think that many of you have mild to significant acoustics problems in your mix environments and it not only colors your own mix, but it colors your comments on other people's work. |
j.hall wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 23:22 |
at this point, i just don't see IMP being as constructive of an educational tool as i originally planned. |
j.hall wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 23:22 |
all i see is engineers, engineering, for other engineers, to geek out about engineering. |
j.hall wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 17:22 |
no one has done a mix that makes me want to keep listening to the song. your job as a mixer is to sell the song. no matter how amazing the song is, you can always kill it. you have to make people want to listen. find the lelements that truly speak to a listener and exploit them. by no means am i saying that my mixes does this....... i simply saying, from what i've heard, no one else is really doing it. |
chrisj wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 00:05 |
saying either 'nice this' or 'horrible that' is nearly useless- you have to describe what is happening that you like or don't like, always within the context of your own limited understanding. |
j.hall wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 16:22 |
this is supposed to be a real world situation where you pretend there is a client you'll have to answer to, while still expressing yourself. here is the critique. no one has done a mix that makes me want to keep listening to the song. your job as a mixer is to sell the song. no matter how amazing the song is, you can always kill it. you have to make people want to listen. find the lelements that truly speak to a listener and exploit them. |
chrisj wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 17:05 |
I love it as much as I hate it when I get just slammed with criticism in these things, but it has to be detailed, it has to be a conversation. That's why I joked about 'nice crit', because saying either 'nice this' or 'horrible that' is nearly useless- you have to describe what is happening that you like or don't like, always within the context of your own limited understanding. I'm really looking forward to hearing your criticisms but only if they aren't 'nice/sucks'. It sounds like you can bring a different level to the crit table. Please do. I had a guy in a CaPE mastering wanting more 'wind and sea', or was it 'beach and tides'? I'd love to hear someone get funky like that with the IMP entries. I'll do my best- struggling to find time to listen to all the entries. I'm up to DMXR100, alphabetically. |
j.hall wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 14:22 |
this is supposed to be a real world situation where you pretend there is a client you'll have to answer to, while still expressing yourself. here is the critique. no one has done a mix that makes me want to keep listening to the song. your job as a mixer is to sell the song. no matter how amazing the song is, you can always kill it. you have to make people want to listen. find the lelements that truly speak to a listener and exploit them. ...... all i see is engineers, engineering, for other engineers, to geek out about engineering. |
iCombs wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 15:04 |
I also think, if I might piggyback on j.'s comments, that there's not a whole lot of discussion regarding WHAT about the song made you make the mix decisions you did. Was the bassline so irresistably funky that it had to get pushed up? Was there some crazy hi-hat pattern that glued the drumkit to the rest of the song? I know that, for me, the macrodynamics of this song were what interested me. There are 3 or 4 distinct dynamic levels if you look at it in terms of verses, choruses, breakdown, and the last chorus (which was like a regular chorus on steroids in my head). I wanted to make those levels very distinct and apparent. The sheer amount of instrumentation in the chorus made the "big" thing really easy to do in terms of deciding HOW I wanted to do it...all I had to do was find a spot in that wall of stuff for each instrument. (if I'm reading into j.'s comments correctly...this would be ther place where you'd normally insert technical discussion as it pertains to HOW you did what you did) also, and I mean this with no offense to anyone, but I heard a lot of mixes that had TONS of tracks stripped out. I'm not any kind of genious, but I think that for the most part, if they sent it to mix, they want it in the mix. Granted, when stuff gets doubled and tripled and stacked, it can make for a muddy mess where one or two tracks would have done just fine, but I heard a few mixes (need to organize all the files I dl'ed and see whose is whose) where there was no accordion. There were plenty of mixes where the breakdown was cut. That's a pretty ballsy call for a mix engineer to make without at the very least the producer's involvement, IMO. Seems like something that would be a no-no in a professional environment without the consent of the artist. |
chrisj wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 18:35 |
starscream2010- Well, this is polite. Nice and clear and very produced, in particular I'm hearing the bass working with the drums in a peculiar way that must have been hell to create. Rather than jukebox bass it's like big bouncing balloons bass the whole thing is bouncy as hell, in fact, the bounciness is more obvious than the words of the song. Everything sounds very nice. Definitive 'nice', all the details are sculpted artfully. It's the way they combine that gives that super-bouncy feel. |
starscream2010 wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 20:34 |
Is "bouncy" good, bad or weird? By bouncy are we talking about the sonics of the mix? Like... the way the compressor pumps at times or is it just a term being used to describe the feel kind of like 'happy' or 'poppy'? |
chrisj wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 19:56 | ||
It's the overall feel of the mix, everything. That's also a very hasty judgement, but those can end up being very important sometimes. If I was making a CD for a dance party and had ten seconds to pick between yours and another one that was like a Pink Floyd mix with a super slow heavy weight behind the bass and kick, it wouldn't take me even two seconds to pick yours. Of course, is the song really about being a dance mix? |
UnderTow wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 20:23 |
In contrast to what J. says (who btw is just projecting HIS vision of the song), most great albums and musical pieces have loads of stuff stripped and/or redone/replaced out before the final mix is approved. |
j.hall wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 16:16 | ||
not true at all......you know what happens when you make assumptions............ |
iCombs wrote |
also, and I mean this with no offense to anyone, but I heard a lot of mixes that had TONS of tracks stripped out. I'm not any kind of genious, but I think that for the most part, if they sent it to mix, they want it in the mix. |
j.hall wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 16:48 |
Some one said I just don?t believe in editing or something like that??HAHAHAHA oh man, you just don?t know how I normally work. If I dig the vibe of a song, I won?t touch it and I?ll increase what I think the vibe is??. Some one else mentioned mixing all the tracks that come in. no way man, if you don?t dig the part, mute it. That?s the whole point. Your job as a mixer is to focus the song to it?s purest form and present it to the public in a way that makes them feel compelled to keep listening. If that means muting a mandolin part, then DO IT! |
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. By practical reasons I mean that if you are in the studio, you have everything miked up, the musicians are there and ready to play, why not just record too much and cut out the superfluous stuff later on? It only takes a couple of minutes extra to keep recording at this point while having to add stuff later would take an immense amount of work comparatively. This was tagged as a project on a budget. To me that means maximizing time and resources. |
cerberus wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 22:32 |
volthause - the bass sounds a bit weird like it is stereo? i love your analog sound dude.. i forget if you use analog, but i do like your sound.. notice that the transients on the top end, such as vocal sibilants, where harshness can easily creep in... it's very sweet on top... sweet sound all over in fact... full dynamics, full range of the spectrum, nothing is muddy or smeary...interesting break treatment....... oh no, not another fade out... a longer fadeout is just longer agony for me! but what is the main identifying characteristic of your unique sound here? even order harmonics ? tubes ? |
j.hall wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 10:07 |
OK, fair enough. Nizzle: |
chrisj wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 10:51 | ||
*snip* J- do THAT with mine. That is exactly what I was talking about. So far I have 'usually everybody is too compressed but with you it's not compressed enough'. more, dude! |
j.hall wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 17:55 |
i need to add after further thought. i will start commenting on mixes. however, i doubt i will get to every single mix with the level of detail i want to do per mix. i'm thinking i should take notes on whose mixes i've commented on so in furture IMPs i can continual comment on different mixers. that way, you can get feedback from me, eventually. i know it's kinda lame.....but is this ok? |
chrisj wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 18:35 |
spoon- Drum treatments, huh? Against a good strong lead vocal which feels like the focal point. More drum treatments. Then woohoo, more drum treatments! It feels sort of experimental- if the voice wasn't consistent and upfront this wouldn't really work. It always sounds like the only thing we care about is the vocals and the snare. |
dikledoux wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 08:36 |
IMP should include a "scope and vision" statement from the artist or producer so that we don't have to guess. |
Quote: |
Still, hearing other peoples approaches is hugely beneficial for me. And while I understand that there is a serious dose of subjectiveness and personal taste with some of the comments... I STILL think it's beneficial. dik |
j.hall wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 09:48 |
Spoon: yeah man, you are right, we have to do what the artist wants. But you are wrong too. If you think for one minute that bob clearmountain or andy wallace hesitate for one second to "sell" a mix, you are mistaken. Those guys get hired because when they were us, they had big enough balls to do what they felt needed to be done. If you think people hire you because you are some blank slate that can do anything anybody wants, then I can't help you with that. |
dikledoux wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 15:36 |
Oh, and another thing. I think we should have a separate thread for crits only and one for general discussion. Just to keep it clean. So much info and I don't want to miss stuff because I'm skimming. But that's the anal/organizer goober in me <g>. dik |
j.hall wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 15:07 |
OK, fair enough. Nizzle: (snip) IMO, you balanced the mix well and stopped there. getting a good balance is not easy, i'm not slighting you for being able to do that......that's something to be proud of. the last little bit of "mojo" that separates mixers is the vibe. i think you need to expand upon your vibe. |
dconstruction wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 17:14 |
I'm going to go back and source out where that distortion was coming from (if I can even hear it). I suspect the overheads. I'm pretty careful when tracking, so I'm fairly certain there isn't pervasive clipping at the converters, but maybe the mic is squashing, or else the preamps get ugly when pushed. If you have a specific suggestion for tracking these better, let me know. |
Quote: |
Overall, Under Tow, I was the most amused by your mix (I'm not being condescending). I found it fun, and laughed out loud at that huge, cavernous drum hit coming out of the bridge into the breakdown. All in all, I felt you brought a "dance" sensibility to the track, which I enjoyed. I don't think I agree with your direction, and that's a matter of taste (so there's no accounting for it), but I will tell you I might steal some ideas from your outro. Thanks again! |
j.hall wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 17:55 |
PS- unter tow, i was typing my post when you corrected yourself so i didn't see it till after i posted. |
j.hall wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 11:55 |
i'm thinking i should take notes on whose mixes i've commented on so in furture IMPs i can continual comment on different mixers. that way, you can get feedback from me, eventually. i know it's kinda lame.....but is this ok? |
j.hall wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 09:48 |
Some one said something about not being able to talk to the artist, therefore my idea of mixing for the song is basically impossible. NOT TRUE. I very RARELY get direction from an artist. Granted I'm allowed to call and chat, but at the same time, I?m expect to do my thing. And that's exactly what I do. Personally, I don't really care what the artist wants until after I do the mix. It?s my job as a mixer to also be one part producer. Some one said I just don't believe in editing or something like that........HAHAHAHA oh man, you just don't know how I normally work. If I dig the vibe of a song, I won't touch it and I'll increase what I think the vibe is. Some one else mentioned mixing all the tracks that come in. no way man, if you don?t dig the part, mute it. That?s the whole point. Your job as a mixer is to focus the song to it?s purest form and present it to the public in a way that makes them feel compelled to keep listening. If that means muting a mandolin part, then DO IT! |
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. |
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.)
|
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. |
rankus wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 13:14 |
Rattle, I just listened again... yer right I was out to lunch.. I think it must have been the missing instruments in the choruses made the choruses sound smaller when compared to the other mixes... Upon listening again, I see where you were going... the choruses build as the song goes along... Probably as I say, the fact I listened to about 18 mixes back to back... and your first chorus was smaller... LOL Working fast over here.. stream of conciseness kinda thing... need to slow down.... EDIT: It's worth noting that as you turn up the vocal the "band" tends get "smaller" I usually use this trick to help ballance the vox/band.... I turn up the vox until the band starts to feel smaller, then use that point as a benchmark for making further decisions. I make this comment for the general population... not aimed at you rattle in any way... your shit is good. |
j.hall wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 14:58 |
iCombs......what i mean by muting whateve ryou want without hesitation is all based in my personal world. i do exactly what i want to do because if the band isn't digging it, they will ask for a recall. i don't work with bands that don't understand the process....not that i won't, i just haven't had to yet. i figure i get hired because of what it is i do.....therefore, i do it. if they want a certain part back that i muted, it comes back......but i'm not going to waste my time putting my name on a record without putting myself into the work. the end product always reflects what the artist (or the person paying the bill) wants......but when you hear records i've mixed, you should know that it started off with what i thought was best and went from there. so really, it's a give and take.....1part what i thought was best, and 1 part artist tweaks to finish it off. |
cerberus wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 15:56 |
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? |
Quote: |
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. |
Quote: |
could you please try to explain that better? this track was nothing like imp5... 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" does not even begin to explain what i want to know.] |
rankus wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 13:27 |
Liam, I find vocal level to the THE hardest part of any mix... I almost always have to do a few recalls for just that aspect. An EP I am working on right now will probably have three up down mixes, and I will ultimately let the band decide... (Shirks responsibility here) |
scott volthause wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 16:23 |
Well thanks. It's taken nearly a decade for me to learn how to mangle audio unlike anyone else. ... I would love to try to explain things better, but I'm totally not sure what you are really asking? |
chris carter wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 17:41 |
a) J. Hall. (bonus points if you talk about how you chose to replace the drum sounds and how you chose what to replace them with). |
dconstruction wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 16:14 |
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. |
Bill Urick wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 19:34 |
I ve been playing a bit of banjo lately and thought really hard about replacing it with the real thing but rules are rules! |
dconstruction wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 16:14 |
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. |
starscream2010 wrote on Fri, 22 September 2006 10:32 |
although didn?t feel as though they needed to be quite as high as the lead vox. |
dconstruction wrote on Fri, 22 September 2006 16:05 |
And they just sound cool. Which, to me, is justification enough. |
scott volthause wrote on Fri, 22 September 2006 13:09 | ||
Agreed. |
rattleyour wrote on Fri, 22 September 2006 14:01 |
Rankus – The Distorted guitars at 02:16 sound bass heavy and a little veiled to me— maybe just a taste thing, also these phones are muddy so you know, grain of salt. |
rankus wrote on Fri, 22 September 2006 15:11 | ||
Thanks Liam, Heheh.. .well I will break my "never defend your work" rule here.... A few of you mentioned the Electric Gtrs in my mix (thank you) so I will comment: In the interest of time I mixed from the most important to the least important elements, starting with the Vocal.... Truth is I never did get to the Electric Guitars.. I completely ignored them, as my intention was to come back to the mix and fix the "lesser elements", but never got the time... I recall trying to bury the gtrs., but thats about it. LOL This song reminded me of Tom Waits BTW... (for Dconstruction) GOOD SONG! |
j.hall wrote on Fri, 22 September 2006 15:19 |
you never want the snare drum to be more present then the lead vocal, but you don't want the lead vocal more present then the snare........crazy huh? it's a tricky balance, but once you get it, you'll see what i mean. |
Quote: |
A good rule of thumb for sure. A little trick to check this. When you turn your monitors down slowly to silence, the last things you want to hear before silence is the snare and vocal... (Snare sitting just a tad below vocal) I use this along with "turn the vocal up until the band gets small", as reference points regarding Vocal level. |
dconstruction wrote on Fri, 22 September 2006 22:05 |
Wow, Cerebus. If you'll forgive my opinion, I think you overthink. |
Quote: |
I'll state my opinion about the background vocals this way: what if there were no lyrics? Or gibberish? On a purely sonic basis, what's the point of this song? |
Quote: |
I love the singing in that Pink Floyd track ... damn what is it called? It is a women singing, no lyrics, just pure emotions. |
j.hall wrote on Fri, 22 September 2006 17:19 |
starscream (nick): solid balance man.....i think you've focused this mix quite well. the vocals need to come up a touch, but man you got the compression and EQ nailed. that's a great vibey vocal tone that wouldn't get destroyed on radio...nicely done. you need to concentrate on controling your drums more. kick could use a touch more bottom, but feels good where it is (consider the comment a matter of taste) the low mids in your mix are just about spot on, which is where all the impact and drive is coming from.....nicely done. those BGV need to come up. you need to lean heavily on them to drive the song forward. when the drums drop in the first chorus they are too loud. especially the snare but only by a few db. focus on the elements that drive the song. the elements that stand out as crucial. separate them from the pack (in your mind) and then pick the elements that best support the others. you have to build the mix around this. support, and lead roles. you never want the snare drum to be more present then the lead vocal, but you don't want the lead vocal more present then the snare........crazy huh? it's a tricky balance, but once you get it, you'll see what i mean. the drum break in the bridge comes in bigger then your main song drums....that's bad news. electronic drums should never bee louder or "bigger" then a real kit.....i'm sure i could find an exception, but let's not..... distortion guitars are perfect, you have great ears for guitar tones! the 2mix compression to me is great. you want it to be glue, nothing more, nothing less. and with glue you have to know how much to use and how little to use. keep working with it, it just takes time. i would apply more compression to the overheads and bring out something a bit more edgy in the drums. overall, i like the feel you went for....i just think the main focus of the song needs to come out further. i start losing the vocals when more instruments come in....if you need to atumate the vocals don't hesitate. a static mix is cool and easier, but our jobs are to stop at nothing to make it work. i think the madolin thing at the beginning is the player screwing around, if it isn't, then it's stupid anyway. too many people used it, delete it. once you get your mix "in shape" i think you need to spend time sitting back and trying to listen to it as a piece of art. see if the choices you made distract from the main focus of the tune. personally, the delay you used on the BGV is tastey, but a bit distracting. to me, this song is a dry (mayube a touch of short verb) rocker! just let it vibe on it's own and enhance that every where you can. |
maxim wrote on Sat, 23 September 2006 03:35 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Gig_in_the_Sky interesting back story |
Quote: |
In an interview[2], Clare mentioned that she was trying to emulate an instrument. |
UnderTow wrote on Sat, 23 September 2006 03:59 |
Lyrics are so over rated. Alistair |
rankus wrote on Sat, 23 September 2006 13:57 | ||
I'm in this camp as well... But there seems to be an equal number of folks out there that live for the lyric... Hip Hop fans come to mind... Even though we are not listening to the lyric much, we need to remain aware that they need to be very intelegible (unless your working for Mick Jagger LOL) |
j.hall wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 17:22 |
i'm a bit disheartened with the direction IMP is going. seems like we're getting more and more about "look at this sweet flanger" and less and less about actually mixing a song. ... ... ... here is the critique. no one has done a mix that makes me want to keep listening to the song. your job as a mixer is to sell the song. no matter how amazing the song is, you can always kill it. you have to make people want to listen. find the lelements that truly speak to a listener and exploit them. by no means am i saying that my mixes does this....... i simply saying, from what i've heard, no one else is really doing it. ... ... ... all i see is engineers, engineering, for other engineers, to geek out about engineering. |
cerberus wrote on Mon, 25 September 2006 22:58 | ||
i think alistair was egging you guys on with his smiley. perhaps you like his ear candy... but a great meal is not all sweets. it starts with the song...that is what people can sing themeselves. that is what is at the core of all great records: great songs. of course. how can we argue about that? it can be an instrumental...the lyrics can be abstract...speak in tounges... but there has to be a song. the music has to be about something; or there is no song.
i think we just saw the perfect example: a consensus has started to build that the lyrics aren't really important. would any of you guys express that attitude to the songwriter's face? imo. it's wrong. jeff dinces |
maxim wrote on Tue, 26 September 2006 08:02 |
perhaps it should be qualified that lyrics aren't that essential to music i am, primarily, a lyric writer, and it pains me to admit it, but it's true that's not to say that lyrics aren't important to other aspects of performance, just not music |
Calvin wrote on Tue, 26 September 2006 02:49 |
Ridiculous. You're making my point for me when you talk about the fact that songs can be instrumental, the lyrics can be abstract, or speaking in tongues. I can hear what the song means even without hearing every word. |
Quote: |
If it's Bob Dylan or Aimee Mann or someone like that, OK, you probably ought to pay attention to the lyrics, |
Tom C wrote on Tue, 26 September 2006 04:11 |
There's a reason why music without lyrics is still called music, but lyrics without music has lots of different names (speech, poem, prose, talk, lecture, ...., you name it). Not that I don't like a good Roger Waters lyric. |
Quote: |
You also seem to gloss over the parts in our posts where we emphasize the importance of intelligible lyrics and that the songwriter and much of the public very much pay attention to the lyrics and consider them important. |
Quote: |
Perhaps if most tunes had lyrics of Maxim's caliber I'd pay more attention. But we all know that's not the case. I'll always work to make sure the lyrics are intelligible, though, even if the lyric of a particular tune doesn't do it for me. |
scottoliphant wrote on Tue, 26 September 2006 09:59 |
sigur ros? still have no idea what he is singing about and they write very moving music |
J. Hall |
don't hesitate to do things that might not "make sense". you need to shed any "rules" for EQ'ing and compressing |
j.hall wrote on Thu, 28 September 2006 15:00 |
iCombs.... welcome to the hot seat. another mix featuring the madolin "warm up". vocal leads this tune off so i'll start there. the vocal is dark, and lacks anything truly compelling about it's tone. it sounds like ou used a tiny bit of compression, no EQ and just blended it in. when the band comes in (one count later) it brings a lot of good energy to the mix, but now i'm starting to see a monitroing issue. the whole mix from the beginning to the end is very dark. your room is either too bright, or your monitors are too bright, or both. i think you might have a stereo imaging issue as well, but i'll get to that in a bit. from this point forward the vocals are too quiet. some people like to blend the vocal back into the music. that does a few things for me as a listener. it makes me work a lot harder to pick out the vocal, which isn't something i'm interested in doing, therefore, i'll just shut the mix off and move on. and, it doesn't help the music create any "lift", which is something that keeps people listening. your overall blend of the BGV is great, you just need 3dB more of all of them, maybe more. the high feedback delay on the guitar hook is making your mix bog down in those sections. it washes out the clarity and murks up the waters. a delay on that guitar part isn't a bad thing, i'd just trim back the feedback and maybe look for something a little more vibey then just a straight delay. a tape delay emulator of something with a bit of nastiness would be cool. your chorus has great lift n contrast to the verse, nicely done there, it's just too dark the vocals are lost. fix those issues and you'd have something cool. the low mids in that bass guitar seem a bit out of hand which can be distracting, especially since the mix is this dark. it might tame down just by getting the top end of the whole mix in shape, or it might need some looking into. overall, i think your approach needs to see some sonic vibe tossed in. the concept of mixing isn't something you struggle with that much, but making it really pop off the speakers is where you are stuck. don't hesitate to do things that might not "make sense". you need to shed any "rules" for EQ'ing and compressing, and start playing with what exactly j.hall means by "sonic vibe". |
ATOR wrote on Thu, 28 September 2006 15:04 | ||
That's good advice, this week I started doing the exact opposite of what I would normally do and it's one of the best ways I've found so far to get out of my mixing box and get some new perspectives on sound. I've just spent some more time on this mix and I found it very hard to get all the instruments to sound good in the part where they are played all together and in the parts where they have more room. When I get the acoustic guitars to sound good in the last 'tutti' chorus they sound thin in the verse and in the break. And if I make them nice and fat the ending gets a mess. I wonder how you guys approach this, do you make everything small so it all fits and live with small instruments when they are featured on their own. Also how do you eq a wall of instruments, do you start with the lead instruments and fit in the rest by ranking order or do you pull up all faders and start cutting away. What do you do when the piano and the guitars fight in a freq they both need to have some body? It's great to be able to pull up different IMP mixes, every time I think: 'This is a good as this instrument will get', I hear a mix where it sounds way better and it's back to work for me |
ATOR wrote on Fri, 29 September 2006 00:04 |
I wonder how you guys approach this, do you make everything small so it all fits and live with small instruments when they are featured on their own. |
ATOR wrote on Fri, 29 September 2006 00:04 |
Also how do you eq a wall of instruments, do you start with the lead instruments and fit in the rest by ranking order or do you pull up all faders and start cutting away. |
ATOR wrote on Fri, 29 September 2006 00:04 |
What do you do when the piano and the guitars fight in a freq they both need to have some body? |
ATOR wrote on Fri, 29 September 2006 00:04 |
It's great to be able to pull up different IMP mixes, every time I think: 'This is a good as this instrument will get', I hear a mix where it sounds way better and it's back to work for me |
iCombs wrote on Thu, 28 September 2006 17:17 |
and I'm pretty sure my monitors aren't too bright. I know my room ain't all that great, but there's nothing I can do about it. |
Quote: |
..do you have any sort of cue you rely on to tell you that the vocal is in the right place in the mix? |
j.hall wrote on Fri, 29 September 2006 17:56 |
in DAW world, there is simply no reason to slack off on automation, editing, whatever. |
maxim wrote on Tue, 03 October 2006 19:56 |
imo, while the other guys' opinions are useful, the only one that really matters, is the artist's |
Quote: |
Dconstruction How did you like IMP7? |
j.hall wrote on Tue, 03 October 2006 22:08 |
i'm leaning toward this already for IMP8 mp3's will still be what we listen to, but i want to hear them without any L1, L2, L3, maxim or massey limiters used.....or whatever else you do to bump the level up. |
rankus wrote on Thu, 05 October 2006 19:32 |
I agree with J that we should have some sort of standard for everyone, It makes it a lot easier to compare. |
j.hall wrote on Thu, 05 October 2006 23:51 |
how about this. no more then 1db of GR on the limiters. what i'm after is to minimize all the artifacts that can smear a mix with bad limiting. |
Tom C wrote on Thu, 05 October 2006 15:15 | ||
Can of worms? When we start limiting the use of limiters on the 2 bus we have to do the same with compressors. And clipping. And all these other nasty tricks to make things loud. Request a final loudness and all is good. And easy to verify! |
rattleyour wrote on Thu, 05 October 2006 17:31 |
Can't we just tar and feather El Jefe ane move on? |