j.hall wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 15:11 |
i tracked these drums. the kick shell and floor shell are just labels i use so i'll know what i'm dealing with. |
Quote: |
Who's responsible for the vocals? |
Quote: |
I thought this might be one of Grant's songs. I like it. And I already did mix it, thank you very much. |
Podgorny wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 23:11 |
I thought this might be one of Grant's songs. I like it. And I already did mix it, thank you very much. |
sstillwell wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 09:11 |
Okay, discussion...I'll bite. What purpose is the floor shell track serving? I've just muted the thing because it doesn't seem do me any good at all for the overall drum sound. I can see where you might want the kick shell...I'm not using it, but I can see the point. Am I missing something? Scott |
Quote: |
it's gonna make the teenage girls go crazy. |
Quote: |
How do YOU know when you're done? When is it "good enough"? |
grant richard wrote on Thu, 17 January 2008 11:07 | ||
when i get what i want. |
sstillwell wrote on Thu, 17 January 2008 12:30 | ||||
Then I guess I'll never be done...the semi trailers full of cash never seem to show up out front. Doomed, I'm doooooooomed. Scott |
sstillwell wrote on Thu, 17 January 2008 11:00 |
How do YOU know when you're done? When is it "good enough"? |
garret wrote on Sun, 20 January 2008 22:10 |
I was fine with 192kbps... 256kbps is okay too, but um, bigger. Anything above that seems like overkill for our purposes, and wastes PSW bandwidth. Downloading one 10MB mp3 is no big deal, but we have had 30 entries before... if my math is correct, that's 9GB of bandwidth if everyone uploads to the PSW server, and downloads every entry... FLAC would be huge... 5 times the size of 192kbps mp3. |
osumosan wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 08:47 |
I can't even listen to the song now since I mixed at 44.1K for a week. Sheesh! |
Podgorny wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 09:42 |
Hahaha. I just listened to it. I understand now. Can't you just import the file into a session without SRC, and then re-export it? |
Audio~Geek wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 11:07 |
Wouldn't the automation be in the wrong places then. The files would be a different length. |
osumosan wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 12:40 |
More of a case of not reading and having generally a static work flow. Hopefully, this is my lesson learned. Anyway. Yes all the automations, edits, would have to be redone. I couldn't do it today, and it would be NO fun. I could resample the speed, but I wouldn't want to submit that blindly either. Too late in any case. Hope you all enjoy it anyway, although I asked J. to take down the file in embarassment. |
osumosan wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 13:40 |
More of a case of not reading and having generally a static work flow. Hopefully, this is my lesson learned. Anyway. Yes all the automations, edits, would have to be redone. I couldn't do it today, and it would be NO fun. I could resample the speed, but I wouldn't want to submit that blindly either. Too late in any case. Hope you all enjoy it anyway, although I asked J. to take down the file in embarassment. |
UnderTow wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 17:52 |
I did a quick mix but my brain just isn't functioning. I won't upload it as I don't feel it is good enough. |
osumosan wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 12:40 |
More of a case of not reading and having generally a static work flow. Hopefully, this is my lesson learned. |
Quote: |
I don't know if my computer has messed things up, but your ID3-tag is Telesound/openeyes6loud and filename is imp16-GrantRichard.mp3. Then the mix from Podgorny has an ID3-tag that says Grant Richard/IMP16. I guess everything is in order, but just to be sure.... |
Quote: |
GrantRichard - your tune right? Did you sing this? What's the deal with the harmony? Obviously the singer can sing, but the harmony had several spots that were out of tune. Hard for me to listen to the "untuned" version. I guess I've listened to too much modern pop. |
SingSing wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 16:45 |
TGoodwin The lead vox ducks because of the limiter. This one really slaughters the original tracks. I like your kick, but I can't really hear the bass. The snare sounds like a highpitched conga. The lead vox might have an OK sound, but it's hard to hear since it's buried most of the time. The harmony is almost louder during the chorus. |
SingSing wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 15:45 |
I don't know if my computer has messed things up, but your ID3-tag is Telesound/openeyes6loud and filename is imp16-GrantRichard.mp3. Then the mix from Podgorny has an ID3-tag that says Grant Richard/IMP16. I guess everything is in order, but just to be sure.... |
Audio~Geek wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 17:47 |
J can I post an 'unmastered' version? maybe without the tapestop cheese too? |
UnderTow wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 20:02 |
(I hope I don't regret it tomorrow. Heh) |
Firefly wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 07:09 |
I found this forum a couple of months and thought imps were a superawesome idea (especially as i don't get to play with guitars much...well not the ballsy kind anyway) but after much careful vigilance of the forum I completely forgot to check the last couple of weeks! DOH! |
garret wrote |
billybehdaz. I'm hearing a flam in the drums that I think is a timing mistake... maybe something got slid around... there's a slapback on the snare, very noticeable around 0:21. The drums are a bit of a let down on this... otherwise the mix isn't too shabby... |
j.hall wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 10:59 |
i've listened to the intro of about 10 submissions. i think we have some monitoring issues out there. more notes to follow. |
j.hall wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 11:59 |
i've listened to the intro of about 10 submissions. i think we have some monitoring issues out there. more notes to follow. |
sstillwell wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 11:27 | ||
Amen...at least I know _I_ do. *sigh* Scott |
j.hall wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 12:04 | ||||
in my case, i have only myself to blame. |
garret wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 23:49 |
jason-t. lead vox is clean and under control, but it's getting buried at times. This isn't glueing together for me, and I think all the right ingredients are there... just get the balance right. |
sstillwell wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 12:47 |
. Seriously, I think that's the case (only ourselves to blame) for all of us...it's just less excusable/more important to fix if you're doing it as a full-time job. |
J-Texas wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 13:41 |
4 imp16 fantomas - Muddy. Especially compared to the last thing. Lead guitar is really out there. Vocal is just a bit hot. Nice drum balance. The vocal delay is kind of not necessary for me. Since this is pop, I would have spent some more time on the vocals. Cutoffs, tuning, etc. Whoooa dude! Let the demon out of the cardboard box! That beatbox was kind of distracting. I really do like the drums. The strongest suit to this mix I think. He’s really teaching those cymbals a lesson, huh? Oh man, where’s the fade. I like clean endings, not jam-room style. |
J-Texas wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 20:41 |
1 IMP_16-UnderTow – Like the bass guitar. The bgv is cool eq’d like that so it can be lower but still clear. It doesn’t sit well with lead vocal. The phasing thing is bugging me tremendously. Did you replace the snare? I would have used a different sample. Beatobx is really loud. It doesn’t give the real drums anywhere to go when they come back in. I like the long ending, but would have been nice for the trail to fade away. IMO. |
Quote: |
I did a mastered version of mine if anyone is interested in hearing that. Dave |
J-Texas wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 20:41 |
Different snare sample please? |
Patrik T wrote on Wed, 23 January 2008 14:42 |
There are no "samples" in my mix except from those that came along the RAR. |
J-Texas wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 20:41 |
Different snare sample please? |
deadbeef wrote on Thu, 24 January 2008 01:23 |
OK I missed the deadline and just now found this, so I did a quick 1 hour mix (with minimal edits) using REAPER and only REAPER included plug-ins. Here is the RPP, and the mp3: http://shup.com/Shup/19802/imp16_ghetto_mix.RPP and the song: http://1014.org/shiz/imp16_ghetto_mix.mp3 The way I did the drums is probably pretty bizarro, but it seemed to work ok (except for the intro, in retrospect).. -Justin |
garret wrote on Thu, 24 January 2008 21:51 |
part 2... If I left anyone out, please lemme know. -Garret ------------------------------- |
J-Texas wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 13:41 |
23 IMP16-slash5969 – Tighten up the head? Cool so far. Flanger sounds cheesy. Man if the vocals weren’t so dull, that would have sounded so cool. WAY too much background vocal. Only on the left? I really liked the feel of the guitars at the beginning. Bass guitar is big but very tubby. De-esser on the vocal please. Too much Toca egg. It sounds like the backup is over my left shoulder singing towards the speaker. It’s strange. More drums overall, tame the snare to match. Nice fade. |
Patrik T wrote on Wed, 23 January 2008 19:11 |
Slash 5869 - If I was a singer and had my vox done like this by a mix E, we would not work together anymore. I can’t concentrate on the music. The vox is just flanging all over here. It feels wrong. Behind the vox the mix sounds quite nice with its tape-y tone though but I can’t hear that. |
garret wrote on Thu, 24 January 2008 21:51 |
slash5969. I like the start with the guitars... good edit there.. volume balances are way off. vocal treatment is very strange. Muddy and unpleasantly phasey. Did you double the lead vocal somehow? (maybe you used the untuned and the tuned versions). I'd recommend you check your monitoring. |
deadbeef wrote on Thu, 24 January 2008 01:23 |
OK I missed the deadline and just now found this, so I did a quick 1 hour mix (with minimal edits) using REAPER and only REAPER included plug-ins. Here is the RPP, and the mp3: http://shup.com/Shup/19802/imp16_ghetto_mix.RPP and the song: http://1014.org/shiz/imp16_ghetto_mix.mp3 The way I did the drums is probably pretty bizarro, but it seemed to work ok (except for the intro, in retrospect).. -Justin |
grant richard wrote on Wed, 23 January 2008 11:39 | ||
i would be for sure. J, is it cool if Dave posts it? |
J-Texas wrote on Thu, 24 January 2008 20:58 |
Did a lot of IMP'ers do a "mastering" job themselves? |
Quote: |
-- The song is too damn long... it desperately needed an edit, so I made two. Looks like a couple other mixers also got out the razor blade. |
Quote: |
-- The vocals were really wooly.. anyone else think that? I had to use a pretty severe high pass and low shelf... more than usual. |
Quote: |
-- the guitars were just flawless, drop-in instant final tracks. Good work, Grant. |
Quote: |
-- good drum tracks, J... lots of power and fidelity.. I got surprising mileage out of the tom tracks for fill... and the shell tracks are great for accents... |
grant richard wrote on Fri, 25 January 2008 13:15 |
JHall - Great arrangement edits...oh wait, those were my idea. HA! |
grant richard wrote on Fri, 25 January 2008 20:15 |
Drums are a bit honky, and the kick drum isn’t all the way there |
Quote: |
The whole mix is smeary in fact. |
Quote: |
I also shortened a few of the super long held notes cause I thought it was a little annoying to hear you draggin those mofos out EVERY time you sang a long note. |
Billybehdaz wrote on Fri, 25 January 2008 07:50 | ||
You left me out! Mine was the second submission in the submissions thread. |
J-Texas wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 14:41 |
20 IMP16-Osumosan-fix - I don?t like count offs man! A lot of effect on the vocals. That kick is way out front. I like the lead guitar. Although the acoustic sounds nice, it sticks out in this mix. If you like its sound, try eq?ing the others to complement it. I think it goes nicely with the cymbals which is when I know I like the highs. De-esser on the vocals please. Sounds like the BGV is some dude on the other side of the room that wouldn?t shut up. I like the beatbox section. How about a different snare sample? The OH eq is nice. I think I could use more drums overall and less vocal and acoustic. More spread on the dirty guitars. Nice ending. |
osumosan wrote on Sat, 26 January 2008 13:30 |
Don't like count offs? How about "We've done four already and now we're steady"? |
J-Texas wrote on Sat, 26 January 2008 23:03 | ||
Seldom... if never in a "pop" song. Sorry. |
J-Texas wrote on Tue, 29 January 2008 16:26 |
I think (it could have been worse)? |
j.hall wrote on Tue, 29 January 2008 17:01 |
garret man, this is the most “top 40” I’ve ever heard you mix. This must have been grueling for you to sit through……HAHAHAHA man, I’m glad to hear you take a stab at a more “normal” sounding mix. I think your lead vocal could sit better in the mix. The tonal balance is not bad. Get the vocal placed better and I think you’ll hear the mix pop a bitt more. It’s thin, but your rhythm section is balanced which is WAY more then I can say about most. It would be cool to hear that chorus lift a little harder as well. OUCH, you left the bass flub in there at the head of the bridge. |
j.hall wrote on Tue, 29 January 2008 16:35 | ||
i was getting tired of typing................................. |
j.hall wrote on Tue, 29 January 2008 16:01 |
my reviews are done. fantomas snare is popin, even in that small theater. The mids in the vocal could be smoother, but it’s pretty good. Kick drum is gone in the chorus. Bottom end is thin. Vocals should be part of the music. The mix sounds filtered. Something in the upper mids is weird. |
fantomas wrote on Tue, 29 January 2008 19:32 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I dont get the vocals should be part of the music comment. are they too loud or soft or are they in another space Post by: j.hall on January 29, 2008, 09:41:58 PM
i'd pull it back 1db, perhaps a touch more. i'd compress it a tiny bit more. slow attack, fast release, about 6dB of gain reduction, de-ess the crap out of it. the de-esser needs to be last in the chain i'd pull out a touch of 750 Hz (medium to broad Q) i'd bump a tiny bit of 4.5k, and make certain that sizzle up at 8k and above was gone. i'd listen to see if a small boost around 150 - 200 did anything for me, but i'm guessing it would round out the low mids nicely. after that, i'd place that vocal right on top of the music just to where i don't struggle to hear a single word. if something gets lost, i'd automate it back up, if something it a touch hot, i'd pull it back down. GUYS, listen........ use your vocal EQ as a dynamic device. certain frequencies that stick out, you need to smooth those with EQ. compression is there for tone shaping, aggression, and overall dynamic control. that last 5% of dynamic control HAS to come from your EQ and maybe.....maybe some automation. you need to rough your EQ in with the compressor going, in solo. when i say "rough in" i mean get it 90% there. the last 10% of EQ'ing will be while the mix is coming in around it. don't scoff at this and walk away. what i just posted is very, VERY hard won information. application is everything, and i can't help you with that. but i can help you expand your arsenal of techniques. Post by: slash5969 on January 29, 2008, 11:27:10 PM
Actually, it's a touch of slapback on the tuned vocal track, and just a little chorus on the untuned vocal track. The real problem occurs when the two tracks are combined. Heh. I'm feeling sufficiently chastised, I think. Vocals aside, I worked pretty diligently on this IMP trying to improve the issues that were raised for me in IMP15, such as balance in the bottom end and not killing any more small animals with high frequencies. As always, I've learned from this - which is the whole purpose, is it not? And the post about using compression and EQ to make a vocal sit properly in a mix? Priceless. Thank you, J. I need more practice. Sigh. Post by: Podgorny on January 30, 2008, 01:32:18 AM To J. Hall in particular, thanks for being brutally honest. Nobody gets better by being told they're doing it all right. As far as my mix goes, I have to admit, I found this track to be something of a chore to mix. The tracks were not recorded very well, but then, this IS the "Indie" mixing project, not the "Professionally-Recorded Mixing Project". Besides, PRMP just doesn't have the same ring to it... Oh, and I think I need to turn the sub down. Post by: j.hall on January 30, 2008, 11:29:08 AM
well, the chorusing effect is dominating. it honestly sounds like a bad roland VS880 effect that bands use to hide their bad vocals when they send me demos. use the tuned vocal only and no chorus and see what you think of that. with music like this, you want that singer to feel like he's singing with his nose touching yours........RIGHT IN YOUR FACE.
like i said, i never learned squat from my mentor being kind. you're improving, but i want to be actively encouraging the improvement....... with comments like i gave you, it leaves the ball in your court, let pride run the show and stunt your growth, or step up, dig in and get back to it. i think you've made a good choice.
i'll be passing out more hard won info like that shortly. stay tuned. remember, information like that is only information. how YOU apply it is EVERYTHING. Post by: j.hall on January 30, 2008, 11:34:55 AM
i think the tracks were fine. not great, but well above average. it's interesting to hear stuff like that when a HUGE percentage of my projects come from artists recording themselves in their homes. i'm not even sure what i'd do with brilliantly recorded tracks. to me, these are the kind of things that people working in pro rooms say, that haven't developed the skill set of working with "sub-par" tracks i can count on both hands the records i've tracked in "real studios" in the last 5 years. and i'm doing about 30 projects a year. (in 2007 i did 43, 8 of which i tracked)
indeed! Post by: grantis on January 30, 2008, 12:21:12 PM
yeah, i was thinking along the same lines. kyle....tombstone is an awesome place, and when i walked in there during that session, i was shocked at how good EVERYTHING sounded, and i only wished i had the kind of gear selections (and rooms) to take my tracks to the next level. i think what's great about IMP is that sometimes the tracks are decent, and sometimes they flat out suck, and thats makes us grow as engineers. if we had the resources of tombstone when we tracked this thing, it would've sounded better for sure. i can surely vouch for that myself even after being in that room for 2 hours. but there is a whole new school of thinking (which i'm enrolled in) that believes that you can record anything, almost anywhere, and make it rock. Post by: Podgorny on January 30, 2008, 12:46:20 PM
Grant, I totally understand what you are saying about being able to record anywhere. In fact, I'm about to start a record in a band's practice space with my Pro Tools LE on my Macbook Pro. The thing is, where you choose to record does not make any difference in whether the bass is playing with the kick pattern in the bridge, or whether performances have mistakes left in them. Either way, I did like the song. And you're welcome to visit Tombstone any time and listen to me complain about stuff. Post by: grantis on January 30, 2008, 12:58:37 PM
ah ha! now that really IS a whole different can of worms. when you say 'recorded', my mind immediately jumps to track quality. maybe i'm just full of myself in thinking the performances were all there (minus the BGV of course). i'll be sure to do that when i get down there. that's a really cool place, even for how tiny it seems. Post by: j.hall on January 30, 2008, 09:20:44 PM
sometimes rock n roll just needs to be what it is. i'm not defending the performances of this track, and i'm not implying that i don't edit tracks to tighten them up. but sometimes, it's just a pop song, and it doesn't have to be perfect. i'd hate to hear what you might say about my band's record.........not even cut to a click!!!!!!!!!! Post by: grantis on January 30, 2008, 09:57:55 PM
Oh the joys of 7.4 Post by: garret on January 30, 2008, 10:23:44 PM But I don't hear a bass flub at the start of the bridge. I'm defining the bridge as the part with the beat box, where the vocal goes "your distance keeps my eyes away from you..." 2:40 or so in my mix... What am I missin? -G Post by: grantis on January 30, 2008, 10:25:57 PM
the bass track carries over into beat 1 (and after) of the beat box. Post by: Podgorny on January 30, 2008, 10:37:24 PM
It's probably better for it. Click tracks were invented to make engineers' lives easier, not to make music better. Post by: garret on January 30, 2008, 10:39:54 PM
Bah... That one held note that starts the bridge, starting exactly on the word "distance?" I don't hear that as a flaw at all. It fades out quick enough, and it's perfectly in key (it's the same note the vocal starts with, if I'm hearing it correctly). .. honestly I like it there. Maybe I listen to too much jazz... jazz bass technique is more of a set of suggestions than a steady set of patterns. Dropped notes, melodic tangents, are all par for the course. Post by: Podgorny on January 30, 2008, 10:45:40 PM
I DID mean recording quality - the vocals in particular. The guitars were pretty good. Drums were passable, with the exception of the toms (which has already been mentioned). I must admit though, it was better than MANY recordings that bear my name. Post by: UnderTow on January 31, 2008, 10:12:52 AM Still haven't had time to review people's mix.
Heh. I didn't think of posting there but why do we have a submissions thread in the first place? Surely it is easier and quicker to just go to the download page and grab all the MP3s that are there? Alistair Post by: sstillwell on January 31, 2008, 10:23:57 AM
Because the download page is supposed to be only for those that don't have bandwidth/webspace elsewhere. Not all files are posted there. Scott Post by: UnderTow on January 31, 2008, 11:43:25 AM
Ah yes that makes sense I guess. Alistair Post by: J-Texas on January 31, 2008, 11:50:45 AM Post by: j.hall on January 31, 2008, 03:50:50 PM
no no no there is a bass note. a "BAH". he jumps in early through a pause and then drops in on the down beat as he should have. many people left the obvious mistake in there. i left it in the original file to see who might chop it and who wouldn't. i think it's during the big triplet feel drum fill. Kyle, for a storage closet (yes closet) in a strip mall, i think the drums turned out pretty good. the overheads needed a bit of surgery in the EQ, HOWEVER, i never think tracks should be judged by where or how they were tracked. so passable i will agree with. it's also good to note that clean sounds are not my goal whenever i record and whatever i might be recording. clean is boring........ undertow, i only review mixes posted in the submission threads as that's the rules (due to others hosting their own files) and i think it's the most fair way to handle it. i go to one singular place, click the links and listen while typing notes. it's easy for me.....and not to be a dick, but the easier something like this can be for me, the better. especially considering i'm dealing with the front end, the management of it, the back end, and dishing out lots of hard won mixing information.......again, not trying to be a dick, but this is how i will do it, and those are my reasons. Post by: sstillwell on January 31, 2008, 05:59:31 PM
Oh, that. I didn't hear that as a mistake...I heard it as a lead-in to the bridge/fill/whatever. It's the correct pitch for a passing note to the next chord, unless I'm totally mishearing it. Sounds like something I would have played. In other words, I didn't let it slip by, I left it there on purpose....yeah, that's the ticket... Scott Post by: DCombs on February 02, 2008, 05:30:40 AM i also assume that the band playing is good enough to get what they want to hear down to try and leave as little cutting up to the engineer as possible. i didn't hear it as a mistake but something that they wanted to do on purpose because if they didn't want it there they wouldn't have played it. am i wrong? Post by: grantis on February 02, 2008, 02:47:13 PM
yes in fairness though, i know J really well, and when i heard that bass flub roll by when my bass player was recording it, i knew J would cut it out when mixing. i didn't want to stop and waste time on editing when the session was going so well up to that point. but i think you're right, in most cases, the printed audio would be correct, but then again, how many projects have the budget for a 'digital editing' engineer? i assume the producer or tracking guy would handle that. i've only ever seen an allmusic credit go to someone for 'digital-editing' on a semi-rare occasion. i don't spend a lot of time on that website though, so my view could be distorted. Post by: j.hall on February 02, 2008, 03:23:59 PM in the age of non-linear editing, and multiple levels of undue, it's so easy to back track when a client doesn't like a change you've made. i edit without a second thought. it can always be changed. Post by: R. Koehler on February 02, 2008, 03:48:24 PM Such arrogance and egotism. I think that arrogance and egotism instantly puts you in an F level mixer category for me. To each his own I suppose. And no, I'm not sitting here trying to take pot shots at J. Hall, I'm merely using his style of making a statement. Post by: grantis on February 02, 2008, 03:56:37 PM Post by: j.hall on February 02, 2008, 09:36:41 PM
welcome to the forums, i look forward to your contribution to the next IMP. as for this: http://www.myspace.com/candlelitproductions i am respectfully asking you to remove the song from your profile. the sooner the better. [/J.Hall style statement] Post by: R. Koehler on February 02, 2008, 09:39:05 PM Post by: j.hall on February 02, 2008, 09:46:55 PM
it's copyrighted material, that in this particular case (and in MANY IMP's) is being released, or is already released, for public consumption. i lack the time to get into the ethics of all this, but it seems rather obvious to me. i've amended the rules thread as apparently it's not obvious. you can like it, or not like it................. [/J.Hall style statement] Post by: Podgorny on February 02, 2008, 10:14:00 PM Oh, and usually, accusing the forum moderator of arrogance isn't usually the best way to introduce yourself to a forum. Post by: DCombs on February 02, 2008, 10:24:46 PM during tracking, as soon as the session winds up, haven't you had the artists ask you to make changes? since it seems like a lot of these bands are small, i assume they have a vision for their music. i personally like to make cuts, but i know a lot of people who end up not liking cuts or changes...so i try to stick clear of making cuts unless i know they will go unnoticed to the artist or by them asking. hey, j is leaving this stuff in the songs leaving room for us to pick and choose, or did you mostly do it to see who actually makes the cuts? Post by: sstillwell on February 02, 2008, 10:25:44 PM On a more positive note, got a chance to be on the other side of the console for a day...I feel SO good. Scott Post by: grantis on February 02, 2008, 10:28:37 PM
wow, i mean wow, that is NEW information... Post by: DCombs on February 02, 2008, 10:29:33 PM
also, i had never heard the song in my life, so it was hard to pick out what was "flubbed" unless i was told. otherwise i would leave it. Post by: j.hall on February 02, 2008, 10:40:16 PM
IMP is supposed to simulate the side of a third party mixer (which is what i most typically do). so, with that in mind, i think it's fair to assume that the tracks handed to you are simply that. just tracks handed off to you, for you yourself to "make rock" whatever that means to you and only you. the vast majority of my projects get handed to me with only this direction, "make it rock". so, i sit down and do whatever i feel is necessary to "make it rock", then the band comments and we make whatever changes they want. i was interested to see if people would make that edit. i did not make it a big point to create a pitfall for anyone..... Post by: DCombs on February 02, 2008, 10:42:44 PM
i don't think its my job as the engineer to be changing their song unnecessarily (maybe! only if the band thinks so). i'm all for making these cuts, but had i known what grant was after...i would be more willing to make the cuts. j, i think your mix was probably my favorite out of all of them, but you have a distinct advantage too. you helped track the song, and you have heard the song inside out. PLUS! you personally know grant, which then you know what HE wants to hear. i was shooting from the hip and it was only mediocre. but i believe that knowing the artist will really influence the mix. you get to hear his likes and dislikes, and you get his artistic vision. so your's came out much stronger than the rest, i believe. Post by: grantis on February 02, 2008, 11:15:27 PM
True, but I too had my artistic vision to help me, and J's mix still tops mine sonically. There is something to be said for achieving impeccable sonic balance and making a mix rock at the same time. I often get carried away with strange, out of control sonics while trying make mixes rock. It's that fine line that I think separates the men from the boys. And yes, I just called myself a boy, in terms of mixing. I have a lot left to learn, as do a lot of people here, and it's nothing to be ashamed of. So why don't we pick up our skirts and learn how to mix instead of worrying about this little stuff. The fact of the matter is, if a client wants a bass flub taken out, it would take 2 seconds. Let's focus on the more difficult aspects of mixing like sculpting low end and compressing vocals, etc. That stuff is what takes practice, not highlighting a bass flub and pressing delete. Return to regularly scheduled programming. Post by: DCombs on February 02, 2008, 11:21:52 PM
well lets just make this perfectly clear...we wear kilts. not skirts. Post by: grantis on February 02, 2008, 11:35:36 PM
Noted. Post by: j.hall on February 03, 2008, 02:28:10 PM
absolutely nothing wrong with the "hands-off" approach.
i think that's an over simplification of my mix and what went into it. BTW, grant had only three recalls for this song. he wanted me to add a snare sample to blend with the original, he cut the chorus repeat at the end, and he re-worked some vocal levels.
of course knowing the artist helps, but again, i think claiming that my knowing grant made my mix better is an over simplification of my mix. Post by: DCombs on February 03, 2008, 10:47:08 PM a good solid mix, with the knowledge of what the client wants is a key factor for a mix. your not going to mix a jazz record like a metal album. and i think that knowing what grant was after helped you create an impressive mix, that only you could have done. good work. Post by: J-Texas on February 11, 2008, 03:02:33 PM I'm COMPLETELY disappointed in the ratio of entries to reviews. Mixers spent at least a couple of hours working on this tune and there's not one hour left in the last few weeks to do a review of the entries? Lazy. I don't care if you're up to your ears in work (most of us are), you could do a couple here and a few there. Very disappointing. Post by: DCombs on February 11, 2008, 08:53:23 PM Post by: sstillwell on February 11, 2008, 09:47:01 PM
Well, given the response that my mix (deservedly) got, I'm not sure what my review is worth, but I'll give it a go ASAP. Scott Post by: slash5969 on February 11, 2008, 11:06:11 PM 1. sstillwell - It's certainly got some sparkle to it. Remember the old stereo receivers that had a "loudness" button? This mix sounds like somebody pushed the button, and I can't help but wonder how good it would have been without the button pushed.. Cymbals over-ride everything to the point of distraction, but underneath I hear some cool stuff going on - you worked the drum parts rather well. Nice impact when you get to the choruses - you pounce on them, which is exactly what the song demanded. 2. Billybehdaz - I like the balance right off. Bottom is solid without being overpowering. I like the acoustic featured through the beginnings of the verses. I'm wanting the choruses to punch harder, or else the verses to ease off a little bit. That beat-box break crackles - I didn't really care for the beat-box thing, but you handled it in a reasonable fashion. Nice harmonies - they gave me fits. 3. Electric Warrior - Mucho mids. I'm wanting some more bottom in the drum kit - it's like the bass is hanging out there all on it's own. Some snare boost around 400hz? Cymbals are hot and in my face. Your harmonies sound like mine - which isn't complimentary to either one of us, I'm afraid. 4. Audio Geek - Here's the bottom that EW misplaced. I'm the last one who should be critiquing vocal treatments on this IMP, so I'll just say that the de-esser is your friend and leave it at that. I wanted more guitars - it's a rock song, innit? Love the tape stop effect - way cool. Joe Hardy did that on the last McClure record and I dug it there too. Killer ending! 5. teleric - Ok, this is groovin'...nice balance to everything. Punch in the drums. Bass is solid. You didn't leave the guitars a little light in the loafers, either. Nice build to the choruses - hit em a little harder and you're there, I think. So far, this mix sounds most like the song sounded in my head. I'm not sure that's good, but there ya have it. 6. grant richard - Drums seem a bit loud overall in the beginning, or else the bass isn't quite loud enough. Guitars need some sense of seperation - they seem to all just kind of pile up in the middle when we get to the choruses. I like the arrangement through the verses. Nice harmonies. In fact, these are the best vocals overall so far. Nice ending. You worked on this song a lot more than I did, and it definitely shows. Pause for liquid refreshment and ear rejuvination. Back in a bit. Post by: SingSing on February 12, 2008, 09:52:19 AM
I agree. I need to get to the second half of the songs. IMP will grow once everyone tries to review the contributions. After all, this is the part where we get the much needed feedback. One other thing...wouldn't it be interesting if everyone explained their mix? Why we do things, and how we interpret the song. That would perhaps make it easier to critique the mixes. We all have our own reasons for making mix choices and perhaps we judge the others from this personal view. All the best, Stefan SingSing Post by: grantis on February 12, 2008, 10:57:42 AM ??? Post by: slash5969 on February 12, 2008, 02:26:43 PM 7. SingSing - Another mix that has a nice balance to it all around. Drum sounds are crisp and perhaps a little antiseptic. I miss the acoustic guitar. I don't miss the beat-box - thanks for omitting it. Disappointing ending, especially when you seem to have worked everything else in the mix. Stronger vocal treatments than most of these mixes seem to have. 8. Thomas F - Where's the bottom? Plenty of mids, but no punch in the kick, no hair on the bass. Sort of an AM approach, like it's geared for top 40 radio through a little 4" dash speaker. Hot cymbals, untuned vocals. Good ending. 9. Boedo Constrictor - Nice. Balanced. Good drum sounds. For raising your mix newly in three hours, you've done well. Good work on the vocals - they were the Achilles heel for many of these mixes, mine included. 10. Podgorny - Crisp drums. I like. I like the acoustic through the verses. Guitars rock. Beat-box break was rugged - the drag/speed up thing just didn't mesh at all with the rest of the mix. 11. J Texas - I'm diggin' the snare, but wanting some more oomph in the kick. Bass is a little anemic for the song, and I'm wanting less keys and more guitars. Nice vocal treatments, but vocals could be louder overall. Best use of the beat-box so far - a potentially ugly break very tastefully done. Good ending. 12. jhall - Here we go. Great drum sounds, crisp and punchy. Bass drives the tune right down the road. I'd prefer a little less keyboard through the choruses, but that's personal preference. Vocals are spot-on. The acoustic guitar/beat-box combo works really well - why didn't I think of that? Seamless editing and a very nice finish. This is what I aspire to do when I mix - make the sum equal more than all the individual parts. 13. Greg Dixon - Another good one right off. Snare is perhaps a bit hot, but everything feels balanced and solid for the most part. Guitars drive. Bass could come up a bit. Great drum sounds. No hamony is better than untuned harmony. Another nice take on the beat-box portion. Nice ending. 14. slash5969 - Ok, this one is mine - I recognize the intro. I like the drumless start, and I like the acoustic soloed when the vocals start. Drum sounds are pretty good. Bass drives the song. Vocals are over-the-top and not at all what I had in mind, but it is what it is and I'm not going to make excuses. Vocals aside, I like this mix - it's got much more power and balance than my previous IMP entries, and that means I'm progressing. Ok, another pause for the cause. Back in a bit. Post by: J-Texas on February 13, 2008, 01:03:00 PM
David, Many thanks for checking out my mix. I agree with EVERYTHING that you said. I think that your critique is spot on and more than fair. I knew as soon as I let it go that I wasn't happy. Bass tones are always the hardest for me to feel comfortable with. Finding that happy medium is key and knowing where to find it comes with practice. Below that point it's "anemic", above that point and it's amateur. I have to be the ball na, na, na, na, na, na, na. Do you take drugs Dany? I will stop holding back. I feel like the little engine that could and I can. I've got to get over the hump. I'm not content with being descent or safe. I will strut my stuff... look out! Post by: T. Goodwin on February 13, 2008, 06:04:01 PM I'd be more than happy to spend the time however, if anyone is interested in what the guy in the corner with the clipboard has to say. Post by: J-Texas on February 14, 2008, 12:25:20 AM
Come man! Does it tickle your pickle or what? Don't Try and make it technical. Make it emotional ... How does it feel? Post by: slash5969 on February 14, 2008, 10:11:59 AM 15. macbraddy – Interesting beginning – perhaps a much better use of the beat-box track than the beat-box break. I like it. Guitars are solid through the choruses. I miss the acoustic through the verses. I like the drum sounds, although the snare is a bit bright for my taste and had to grow on me. Beat-box break now has a certain “deja-vu” vibe to it. Nice vocal treatment. 16. Careful Collapse – First impression? Loud and bright. I don’t think the snare sound fits the song very well – it’s too mechanical sounding to my ears. I like the vocals, especially the occasional delays. You pounced on the choruses, and I like that – the song almost seemed to require it. 17. DCombs – Balanced, with great drum sounds. No harmony beats an untuned harmony. Interesting that you’d choose to omit the counter vocal track too. The overall effect was to remove much of the vocal power inherent in the song. 18. garret – I like the editing here, it’s refreshing to my ears after listening to the same arrangement so many times already. You worked the vocals quite a bit and it shows. I would have liked a little more from the counter part, volume-wise. Nice ending, but fade that organ! 19. maxim - Another interesting take here. I like holding the drums out of the intro. I think you held them out too long, though. I "felt" them starting when the bass did. Bass is perfect, fat and solid without overpowering the mix. Kick drum is either all beater or it's clipping - perhaps a little of both? I'm not sure the megaphone vocals work for me - they are the focal point of this song, and intentionally making them "lo-fi" seems counterproductive. I like that you think outside the box, but some of these ideas don't serve the song and should have been left on the drawing board. 20. Patrik T - This took so long to start that I thought something was wrong with the file. Nice impact on the choruses. More kick please, and a bit less cymbal. Good snare - nice pop. Nice work on the vocals. Another nice ending ruined by not fading that organ. 21. fantomas - This is good. Balanced and solid. Cymbals a bit hot, but good drum sounds. Untuned vocals detract from an otherwise rockin' mix. 22. ICombs - Rockin' mix. Drums are crisp and in my face. Nice balance. I like the balls on the kick drum. Sort of a heavy-metal approach but it's working. Standard beat-box break detracts a bit, but hey - you used what was provided so I can't really complain. If you'd worked the vocals, this would have been one of the best ones. Everything else is there. Post by: Boedo Constrictor on February 22, 2008, 09:37:14 AM Here are my first tand of reviews in no particular order. Maxim: The intro is interesting but it is late too much in to deposit the drums. The audio of the drums does not have the necessary punch to support the interest of the song. The bass is out of context in the parts with not drums. The trick of removing the drums repeats itself too many times. Fantomas Good overall balance. The BV its too loud (and out of tune of course) on the chorus and need some compression. I do not agree with the sound of the snare (sounds like in other context). WTF? Ah!!! The Beat Box FX. iCombs The drumkit sounds like General Midi kit (Sorry) Wrong samples replacers? The kick has a disturbing sub. Cymbals are too quiet. L-R Balance is not equal. Greg Dixon Good balance. Maybe too wide (do you use a spacializer thing?). Nothing hittin´in the center. Vocals are too loud. Acoustic is loud and hard panned so fightin for attention. CarefulCollapse The countermelody is not there, interesting. The vibe of the mix (ambiental, lo-fi drums) isn’t work with the tune IMO. Harsh overall tone (especially on the EG´s) Slash 5869 The whole mix sounds quite nice, perhaps a little muddy. Acoustic gtr treatment is very cool. GTR´s quiet, shaker loud. Vocal fx IT IS NOT COOL. Singsing A solid mix but overcompressed to my ears. The extremes sounds a little fake, like a BBS stuff. Vocals need more clarity maybe carving the mids solve this problem. The rearrangement of the breakdown its interesting, I am not very sure of the edit of countermelody in the outro, sounds weird for me. Podgorny Vocals TOO loud, especially on the chorus. I sit that is the only mix that does not grow in the chorus (maybe putting down the vocals?). Fx in the breakdown it´s strange and out of the tune. Grant Richard The mix is dark and muddy. The bass is too loud (and more loud in the chorus), it´s fighting whit the kick. Try multiband compression on the bass or less bottom emphasis. Toms are loud and need some treatment, same snare, sounds tinny, maybe a good sample for reforce o replace fix this.Good mix for a self-producer. Vocals balance, fx and tone are good. Mcsnare Dude, you don´t need a review. You need a manager!!! Awesome mix sounds, awesome rearragement... Direct to the Top 40! Post by: Gabriel F on February 22, 2008, 02:55:20 PM Gabriel Fonts. Post by: J-Texas on February 23, 2008, 12:19:03 PM
I hope that everyone can find the time Gabriel. Post by: Gabriel F on February 23, 2008, 12:49:44 PM Post by: Gabriel F on February 23, 2008, 02:47:17 PM grant richard: nice balance overall. Snare its grabbing too much attention. and lead vocal a touch loud.bass is a little uneven. nice vocal sounds. maxim: i like the intro idea but the drums or the entire band enters too late and without power. wow you took the drums out again i think its not a good idea in a pop song too do that. and bass its more upfront than most instruments. i like the way the bass sounds but it is highlited too much. i dont think distorted vocals works for this kind of song. drew: bass lacks power. the acustic guitar seems isolated. i like the drums. fantomas (this is me): i filtered too much the overheads and they sound weird. bass its a little hot. vocals levels are uneven. vocals are loud most the time. and background vocals all over the place. the drum loop part, well my first idea was to mute it and let just voclas and acustic gtr, but i tried i new plug in it seemed nice at the time now i know its overdone. icombs: bass sound boomy and muddy. i dont like the bass drum it sounds like pantera, the snare is nice. vocals could be brighter and maybe louder during chorus. greg dixon. organ a touch loud, electric guitars lacks definition and power, nice vocal sound, snare its too dry. mcbraddy: that intro i think it doesnt work, it sould start with power, shaker too loud, snare sounds thin, it needs some sustain. one of the electric guitars its too loud and they have too much mid range for me. nice phaser i would like it more subtle. no acustic guitar at the break Post by: T. Goodwin on March 04, 2008, 04:06:33 PM sstillwell - whole lot of shaker. don't like the airport terminal reverb on vocal. might be better if you cut out the sibilance in it. OH seems too bright. I like that kick drum. severely awkward tuning in places. I noticed an awkward tom cut somewhere in the middle. good snare sound. good ending, though it may have been better without the organ holding so long. mix overall is lacking meat. Billybehdaz - ah, here's the beef I was looking for. drum sounds are too dull and bulky. not sure what you did to the vocal, but I like it. Vox work well with the organ. kick drum is missing click. the beatbox part seems too edgy and prescent. overall a good mix, but the lows and lowmids could have been thinned out a bit. electric warrior - bass and snare are good and punchy, but too prominently displayed. vox don't sit well. maybe too dry? loud bg vox. everything sounds as if it's in different rooms. OHs sound phasey, but that's probably just my monitoring. this mix could have used the organ to pull itself together Audio Geek - mids are absent. I like the vox, but with no mids I'm struggling to hear them. Also makes the sibilance stick out much more. I love the tape stop effect, but not it starting back up. that's very much a matter of taste however. bass guitar too loud. I like how quiet you have the OHs. Teleric - Vox seem to drone and are pretty dull. Like the tone on the guitar leads. Lead and backup vocals don't blend. you've got a good thump going with the bass drum. grant richard - this one's got the beef without the mud. rythm guitars are the only parts noticebly needing high end. I like the hard panned guitars about a third through. did you add grit to the right one? bass guitar sounds great. It was really hard to get rid of the drone-y low end of the bass, but you did it extremely well. very velvety. whatever you did to the vocals is similar to what Billybehdaz did, and I've liked it both places. I like the organ quivering at the end. If you didn't do that, then I just must be noticing it. SingSing - good god this is loud. vocal grit would have been flattered by taking out more breath sounds. the drums coming back in after the beatbox part was spectacular, but I can't decide if I like the guitars there or not. great levels all around, and good creative use of distortion and tone shaping. Post by: Antman on March 08, 2008, 10:37:16 AM I wont take it personally if it's taken down given how late it is, but I would really love some feedback if anyone wants to give it a listen. Hopefully I can get back in on this IMP thing for the next one. I did really love these the couple of times I tried to participate. Post by: MGA on April 05, 2008, 12:29:11 PM
Okay I'm no expert by any means, though I'll give it a shot. Note the following is only my opinion, I'm a sucker for clarity and high end (so be warned), also I haven't participated in that IMP (but will in the next ) so I'm not very familiar with the song. Also please don't take it personal (I kept everything very short so it might seem rude, but believe me it isn't):: IMP16 Drew.mp3: Overall good mix, though the snare seems rather monotonic and thus really drawing too much attraction. I also kind'a miss the hats and cymbals a bit. IMP16-Audio~Geek.mp3: X The bass is a bit boomy and sometimes gets out of control. I also miss stereo spread. (Again there seems something with the snare, maybe that's just how it is.. we'll see). IMP16-BoedoConstrictorMIX.mp3: Snare on this one is good. Maybe the guitars are a bit too loud. But apart from that well done. IMP16-Osumosan-fix.mp3: Snare seems to be too isolated and kind 'a cracking on its own (I shall refrain from commenting on the snare from now on ). I think a softer less aggressive snare would have suited the song better. I don't like the verb on the vocals, makes the whole thing become unfocused. IMP16-PodgornyMIX.mp3: Kick is too weak. MP16-SingSing.mp3: HiHats are too present. Over compressed. Vocals don't integrate well in the mix. IMP16-slash5969.mp3: X The vocals are mixed very alternative IMO (is that a stereo phaser on them?), too loud and muddy and cover the whole mix. IMP16_tgoodwin.mp3: The vocals got a tad too much verb on them (though I must admit I don't like to long reverbs in general). The drums in the break part are a bit too loud and too snappy. IMP16_VKorehov.mp3: X Sorry I have to say it again the snare (I prolly wouldn't have done any better though). IMP_16-UnderTow.mp3: The toms (at around 24 sec) need some serious work. The idea with the round panning (?) BGVs in the chorus is nice thought but not were good elaborated. IMP_16_Billybehdaz.mp3.mp3: X The vocals could be a bit more up front/louder. Imp_16_Antman.mp3: X Well what can I say, probably passed a compressor and limiter on the master bus, so there isn't really much mix to judge, it refer to this as a master. imp16JHall.mp3: Nice mix, good balance, though the highs could sparkle a bit more through (Note: I like highs). imp16-GrantRichard.mp3: Sounds dull and muddy (I'm a sucker for clarity). imp_16_Electric_Warrior.mp3: Cymbals sound a bit washy. imp16-garret.mp3: Kick Seems a bit weak, as well as the cymbals. Shaker a tad too loud, though. imp16 fantomas.mp3: Snare doesn't integrate well, no real definition in the guitars. The clarity in the cymbals is missing. I might have missed some (sorry to those I missed, but my opinion isn't really important anyway, or?). Oh and those with an X were way to loud for mixes (that means, if someone asks me to master a mix like that, I'd tell them it was way over compressed for mastering and ask for a revision). I found it rather hard to judge those loud mixes, because I were fronted with a wall of sound that really hadn't much definition to it, I mean the mixes could have be good, but I personally can't really judge that. I guess that was it. Looking forward to the next IMP . |