Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > Recording Technologies and Techniques

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-01-2020, 08:29 PM   #121
Tod
Human being with feelings
 
Tod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kalispell
Posts: 14,745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dork Lard View Post
It's a bitch isn't it. It's just a bitch. It's close to being a drug I reckon. The need to work on that mix, every day, again and again,.. and again.
Ha ha, well we've all been there at some point in our lives and I don't think there's a mixing or mastering engineer, professional
or otherwise who would honestly disagree.

Speaking for myself, when I'm recording and producing a client's songs, I want them to be the best they can be. Not only for the
client, but for myself too. I take a lot of pride in what I do and when I get done with a client's production I want it to shine.

Of course it don't always work out that way, there are many things that can get in the way. Maybe the clients performance is not so
good, like maybe his/her rhythm is off. I will spend hours fixing little rhythm or vocal parts so they feel right and feel good in
the song.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you're in the need to work on that mix, every day, again and again,.. and again, it's
because you don't have a good room and monitors to work with that you can be confident with. Having confidence in what you hear is
probably the most important part of it all.
Tod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2020, 09:57 PM   #122
Kenny Gioia
Human being with feelings
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,105
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpanderson80 View Post

Here's another tidbit: investigate Parkinson's Law as it pertains to mixing. It offers an interesting and debatable topic of conversation.
Parkinson's Law can also apply to this thread.

4 pages?
Kenny Gioia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2020, 07:36 AM   #123
jpanderson80
Human being with feelings
 
jpanderson80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: near Memphis, TN
Posts: 531
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Parkinson's Law can also apply to this thread.

4 pages?
Bahahaha!
__________________
www.andersonmastering.com
jpanderson80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2020, 02:18 PM   #124
Dork Lard
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Pizza Hut
Posts: 284
Default

Allybye

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
You fix that by officially releasing it. The only mixes, I'm not still mixing years later are the ones I released which means they are now out in the wild for me to live with.

You'll always find something you wish you had done differently, the way to address and actually progress and move forward, is to use what you are kicking yourself over on the next mix/release, rinse/repeat. That is the numero uno way to truly progress for many reasons.

Also doing this over and over like that, you have different songs, different everything in some form, so that in itself helps you identify which things were the mix, which things were the instrument or the note choices and so on. It's that constant contrast from mix to mix, song to song... vs fretting over a single mix or two that really gets one towards creating mixes where they feel like they are making real progress.
Yeah. Thanks for that, it makes sense to me at this particular time. It's amazing but it feels like a mix can always improve, and not just "it CAN always improve" but that it's your duty as its creator to make it into the best accessible version.

It's like this: I'll listen again to my mix on a fresh new day. Sounds fine. But damn, those kicks aren't punchy enough, still. Add a bit more low EQ to it, change the comp. Now they're present, but I dunno the gtrs sound a bit too much in the background. Give them another db. But now the chorus doesn't sound loud enough when it comes, I dunno, the OH need more clarity and impact. You know the drill right ? And it's this constant battle of trying to make each instrument sound the best... I'm sure I'm still at a stage that's too experimental, even though I'm no beginner, and pro mixers just have it down to sth of an exact science, or very close to it. You have to just let it go at some point though, as you said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tod View Post
Ha ha, well we've all been there at some point in our lives and I don't think there's a mixing or mastering engineer, professional
or otherwise who would honestly disagree.

Speaking for myself, when I'm recording and producing a client's songs, I want them to be the best they can be. Not only for the
client, but for myself too. I take a lot of pride in what I do and when I get done with a client's production I want it to shine.

Of course it don't always work out that way, there are many things that can get in the way. Maybe the clients performance is not so
good, like maybe his/her rhythm is off. I will spend hours fixing little rhythm or vocal parts so they feel right and feel good in
the song.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you're in the need to work on that mix, every day, again and again,.. and again, it's
because you don't have a good room and monitors to work with that you can be confident with. Having confidence in what you hear is
probably the most important part of it all.
Hmm. I should really look into this room acoustics thing I guess. My thing though is to mix in my room on my monitors, and then export the .wav and listen to it on my crappy old PC's speakers in another room, and on my phone. I reckon if your song (esp. modern rock and metal) sounds good on your phone, then you're probably set. It can sound great on those monitors as you're mixing, but then it might display the symptoms of a bad mix on the phone (rumble in the lows, thickness in the middle, shrieks in the highs - the 3 usual suspects for me at least) that were not there during the session.
Dork Lard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2020, 02:21 PM   #125
Dork Lard
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Pizza Hut
Posts: 284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Parkinson's Law can also apply to this thread.

4 pages?
The ironicity is great.

Huh, "Ironicity"... sounds like a great name for a trendy new Kontakt library.

Too much yapping and overthinking. Guilty as charged...
Dork Lard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2020, 06:53 PM   #126
Kenny Gioia
Human being with feelings
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,105
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dork Lard View Post

Too much yapping and overthinking. Guilty as charged...
Something else that may help you:

I did this for a few people a few years ago as an educational experience and it worked out quite well.

I had them send me their tracks and I mixed a song for them (at my normal rate).

Then I gave them the project so they could see everything I did.

What they came away from it learning was that there is only so good their tracks were going to sound. But they still sounded 10X better than the mix they had. But they were able to see that nothing special was being done to make the mix come together. It's more experience than it is some fancy techniques.

That's why I tell anyone who will listen:

I can teach you any technique in about 10 minutes but it will still take you about 10 years to learn how to mix.
Kenny Gioia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2020, 02:11 AM   #127
enroe
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
...
But they were able to see that nothing special was being done
to make the mix come together. It's more experience
than it is some fancy techniques
(or any special plugin).
Maybe we should hang this as a big placard over this thread!
__________________
free mp3s + info: andy-enroe.de songs and weird stuff: enroe.de
enroe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2020, 06:31 AM   #128
Dork Lard
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Pizza Hut
Posts: 284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Something else that may help you:

I did this for a few people a few years ago as an educational experience and it worked out quite well.

I had them send me their tracks and I mixed a song for them (at my normal rate).

Then I gave them the project so they could see everything I did.

What they came away from it learning was that there is only so good their tracks were going to sound. But they still sounded 10X better than the mix they had. But they were able to see that nothing special was being done to make the mix come together. It's more experience than it is some fancy techniques.

That's why I tell anyone who will listen:

I can teach you any technique in about 10 minutes but it will still take you about 10 years to learn how to mix.
yeah that's all true, I'm sure, but I reckon there are particular pointers that would've saved me YEAAAARS of pure pain and hellish suffering (to be just a bit dramatic about it). Simple things that I haven't heard in the usual "Top 10 mixing tips" on YT, and I've watched all kinds of those.

I wish I'd come across a video that goes something like:
compress your vocals they'll sound neat, polished and focused - do parallel compression for all drum tracks - limit the mids/low mids (i.e. 250-800hz) they'll make your mix utterly horrible - go for a tight bass sound, focus the lows in the middle no stereo width... just a clinical short video like that would've been really great.
Dork Lard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2020, 07:36 AM   #129
numberthirty
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dork Lard View Post
...

The expectation from the public today is different. It's all about packaging, presentation of the product, fooling the consumer into thinking your product is worth their time, displaying that "badge of quality" somehow. The vast majority of the listening public out there IS NOT the individual who grabs a nice cup of coffee and patiently sits through an averagely produced album, then replays it the next day to get a deeper perspective etc. They want something catchy - gorgeous sounding - immediately attention grabbing - new (even in an obvious way). I'm not saying I'm whoring out with my stuff, but I know I must compromise at some level (give the music more space, maybe not include that technical part there, tone down that too-heavy part...).

CHEESE (pls read reason for editing below)
You need to let the people listening to music after YouTube does whatever the heck it does to music that they want something "Gorgeous Sounding..."

I am all but certain that they missed that particular memo.
numberthirty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2020, 08:03 AM   #130
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
after YouTube does whatever the heck it does to music that they want something "Gorgeous Sounding..."
.
YT doesn't do enough to matter for this thread subject anyway...

https://forums.cockos.com/showthread.php?p=2157014
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2020, 09:03 AM   #131
Kenny Gioia
Human being with feelings
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,105
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dork Lard View Post
yeah that's all true, I'm sure, but I reckon there are particular pointers that would've saved me YEAAAARS of pure pain and hellish suffering
Those are called "aha" moments. Where something just clicks.

The problem is that what "clicks" for you will be different than what clicked for me.

I didn't learn from videos. I watched other great mixers mix. As their assistant.

But it's never one thing and it was rarely anything they "taught" me. I would catch things they did along the way.
Kenny Gioia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2020, 10:23 AM   #132
Winfield
Human being with feelings
 
Winfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: The Underground Bunker
Posts: 705
Default

Do this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Something else that may help you:

I did this for a few people a few years ago as an educational experience and it worked out quite well.

I had them send me their tracks and I mixed a song for them (at my normal rate).

Then I gave them the project so they could see everything I did.
Or spent the the years learning it.

In my band we have a rehearsing room setup with lots of gear. We hired a mixing-engineer to come setup and mix a song we recorded off the floor - it took a day and we then had a really good sounding template to record all our stuff in. Perhaps the best money we ever spent on our sound.
-W
__________________
"if DAWs are religions, REAPER is atheism" - The big J
__________________
Windows 10x64 | Asus Z170-a i7, 32GB ram | RME-Digiface USB
Winfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2020, 01:35 PM   #133
Tod
Human being with feelings
 
Tod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kalispell
Posts: 14,745
Default

This is part of the last interview of Billy Triplett, an audio engineer I taught.
It would be his last one, he died of a heart attack 2 days latter. I loved this guy,
he was so much fun to have around. He'd come to visit me every 2 or 3 years and
he'd have my wife and I rolling on the floor with the stories he told us.

Quote:
After decades of touring the world as soundman and get-’er done guy for
individuals and bands as diverse as James Brown, Joe Walsh and James Gang,
Robert Cray, the Goo Goo Dolls, Pat Benatar and Prince, to name just a few of
his many musical associations, Billy Triplett accumulated a million stories of
life in the rock ‘n’ roll fast lane.

---------------------------------- <> -----------------------------------

Billy Triplett got goosebumps when he recalled the moment he knew he
would spend his life with music.

He was 18, in his hometown of Kalispell, Montana, “just a stupid kid who
listened to whatever pop-rock was on the radio,” he said.

Triplett was about to leave home to pursue a course of study in film and
television when someone told him about a guy who had recently moved to
Kalispell from Los Angeles and had built a recording studio in his home.

“I went to this guy’s home and he opened his studio for me,” Triplett said.
“It was an amazing control room. He played Bob Marley Exodus on a very, very
expensive sound system, and I heard the bass. I’d never heard the bass
before. It was so clear you could hear the shakers. He opened my mind to
music that was so expanding. I knew at that moment, this is my life. I never
did anything else.”

Instead of going away to school for film and TV, Triplett bugged the guy into
taking him on as a raw but eager student of the art of sound.

“At first, he said no, he couldn’t teach me. So I just kept showing up at his
door. Every day I would knock on his door. After about a week of kicking me
out, he said, ‘You’re never going away, are you?’ So he took me in, trained
me and taught me how to hear. He would buy every record that was ever
reviewed and we would listen to them. Why do they say this is a great record
and what is great? Not only was it production that was great, it was all about
performance and the artist.”
I highlighted some of the parts I think are important.

I heard the bass
It was so clear you could hear the shakers
taught me how to hear

"Taught me how to hear" is probably the most important part, and it's very
difficult to do that without a decent room and sound system to work with.
Tod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2020, 11:11 AM   #134
maxdembo
Human being with feelings
 
maxdembo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: All Hallows End
Posts: 2,132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dork Lard View Post
I wish I'd come across a video that goes something like:
compress your vocals they'll sound neat, polished and focused - do parallel compression for all drum tracks - limit the mids/low mids (i.e. 250-800hz) they'll make your mix utterly horrible - go for a tight bass sound, focus the lows in the middle no stereo width... just a clinical short video like that would've been really great.
Dude, anyone, just read a book on the basics, one written by a pro teacher, with years of experience. YT is great but...

Something like this is a great reference to have at hand -

https://www.amazon.com/Mixing-Secret.../dp/1138556378

Also, in my personal experience, when a mix hasnt translated from my studio monitors to my phone/stereo etc, its been because my studio room hasnt been treated correctly. Now its treated, everything regarding mixing is so much fucking easier.

GIK Acoustics are a marvellous company!
maxdembo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2020, 03:40 PM   #135
eq1
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: PNW, USA
Posts: 658
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bolgwrad View Post
I think you're mixing up 'ready' with 'perfect'. With respect, you might be looking for turd polish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dork Lard View Post
Sure, turd polishing, whatever linguistic description, all the same. What I know is NOBODY listens to music that 'sounds' shitty, no matter how creative and original and fresh. Atm it's much, much more desirable to have a song that sounds good even if it's only half interesting, than a brilliant piece of music produced by a DAW rookie...
I haven't finished reading the whole thread yet, but wanted to comment on this. I think I get what you're saying, maybe. To paraphrase, some stuff just sounds, not exactly 'amateurish', but not up-to-snuff, while other stuff sounds 'professional'. It's almost like some music has a 'sheen of respectability' while other music does not. And if your music doesn't have 'that sheen', it can easily get dismissed, like at first listen the listener can instantly dismiss it(?)... It's like the 'the cool outfit' - if you're not wearing the cool outfit the cool people won't give you the time of day.

A while back I thought the major difference was mastering, but not really sure now... Probably a combination of mixing and mastering.

I've listened to a lot of commercial stuff recently and some old 'demos' and what-not from friends' bands. To me it's just become quite clear that the line that separates the 'good' from the 'bad', the 'cool outfit' from the 'not-so-cool', is mainly a matter of critical listening on the part of whoever's doing the mixing and/or mastering.

'Amateur': dynamics and frequency just don't mesh, don't line up, loose threads and mismatches everywhere.
'Pro': everything is in order.

It doesn't take a major studio to be able to tweak compression and EQ in ways that make musical/audio sense. It does take someone who knows what to listen for, though... That's my running theory, at least.
eq1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2020, 04:11 PM   #136
eq1
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: PNW, USA
Posts: 658
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dork Lard View Post
If the song starts, and it's got that flimsy home made sound to it, let alone if it sounds like ass, most ppl will just tune out. Even if it's really well composed, original music. The first impression is: "what the hell is this, was this made in some obscure garage somewhere? Eh forget it", they feel like they're losing their time on a non-event, and then they listen to any studio produced song and the production alone is so seducing they stay there. MOST music out there that's listened to, even in metal (again, supposedly "underground") is redundant/generic, but well produced. You'll find the occasional gem on YT with 1000 views that nobody knows about, and it's good music but mediocre-produced, but I don't want to be that.
I couldn't say whether this is usually the case or not, like you do, but I'm pretty certain now that I totally get what you're saying. And I'd bet it is true. It's like the production aesthetic itself assumes the role of approving authorities - it IS the 'cool kids'. The production aesthetic says, "You shall listen to this because it is what's cool." Lacking that aesthetic, the piece is immediately dismissed... 'People' aren't all that critical, but they are like sponges, have a way of absorbing the 'cool trends', the 'cool sound' almost osmotically...

But, it probably can cut both ways: There's probably a lot of people who actually don't like that 'production aesthetic' but rather favor the more home-spun stuff. There's a fine line here, and likely a lot of subjectivity, probably politics and economics at play, too. Power. Etc.

Like, who gets to define what's cool? Who gets to define what 'that production aesthetic' is? It changes/can change - one day something more clinical and loud is cool, the next it might be something more organic and subtle. Yet, I do think there are certain trends that tend to prevail, a direction - where 'that aesthetic' is headed at any given time...
eq1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2020, 02:23 PM   #137
Dork Lard
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Pizza Hut
Posts: 284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eq1 View Post
I couldn't say whether this is usually the case or not, like you do, but I'm pretty certain now that I totally get what you're saying. And I'd bet it is true. It's like the production aesthetic itself assumes the role of approving authorities - it IS the 'cool kids'. The production aesthetic says, "You shall listen to this because it is what's cool." Lacking that aesthetic, the piece is immediately dismissed... 'People' aren't all that critical, but they are like sponges, have a way of absorbing the 'cool trends', the 'cool sound' almost osmotically...

But, it probably can cut both ways: There's probably a lot of people who actually don't like that 'production aesthetic' but rather favor the more home-spun stuff. There's a fine line here, and likely a lot of subjectivity, probably politics and economics at play, too. Power. Etc.

Like, who gets to define what's cool? Who gets to define what 'that production aesthetic' is? It changes/can change - one day something more clinical and loud is cool, the next it might be something more organic and subtle. Yet, I do think there are certain trends that tend to prevail, a direction - where 'that aesthetic' is headed at any given time...
I agree with both your last posts.

Human beings are generally highly impressionable in that they just need to be convinced what they're being offered is high quality. That's what YouTube thumbnails are for, and if you're into the YT game, you NEED to produce high quality thumbnails. The thumbnail is just some crappy photoshop patchwork that took about 15min, and it has no actual connection to the content of the video, but it HAS to look damn good because it's simply the product packaging, the candy that's going to attract the flocking consumers, and we all understand the power of packaging/marketing.

Likewise with music, your "packaging" has to be neat, has to convey a strong and *immediate* sense of high quality. And you do that through production. If your song in the opening seconds sounds pro, some crisp piano notes with super spacious pristine reverb, even if it's blatantly simple musically, most ppl would rather listen to that. Even if it's just a basic 2 chord progression, vs an advanced piece of original composition but meh production wise.

People simply hear the sound, before they hear the song. They just do.
Dork Lard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2020, 03:36 PM   #138
eq1
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: PNW, USA
Posts: 658
Default

^ Man, there's a lot of ways to parse all this. A lot of ideas, hard to focus-in on just the meat without getting lost...

I actually think there's a couple different things we're (perhaps you're) talking about - that I need to try to spell-out. The first is trying to really define what it is we're thinking about when we think of 'that sheen', 'that production aesthetic', etc. Because it's not a strict dichotomy between "amateur" and "pro." I've reflected on this a bit over the past few days.

In my eyes there's:

- a host of bad mixing/absent mastering that happens on 'amateur' stuff. Just flat-out bad mixes. They basically don't rise much above a collection of instruments happening at the same time, recorded and able to be played back.

-Then there's a 'professional'/'commercial' quality level - a step-up, yet not necessarily super-duper good mix.

-Then there's the really good stuff, the stuff that has this ineffable quality, where everything fits just so...

I was listening to a couple things posted on-line, examples that were probably posted as high-quality mixes that were probably considered to have 'that sheen'. But I don't think they did. They were good mixes, but sonically there was quite a bit of stuff that didn't sit well.

In one, the vocals were way harsh, and everything was so focused that nothing was focused. In the other, the composition itself didn't 'breathe' - multiple lines of music happening simultaneously from beginning to end, so there's not enough contrast/breathing room.

Both of these are hallmarks of - I don't know what we'd call it; in my 3 level hierarchy above they'd be professional mixes, but they just didn't shine like 'the really good stuff'... I'd say they fell short of typical 'airplay' commercial-quality as well...

I guess I'm back to the mastering idea: so much music could probably benefit tremendously if it were just mastered by, well, a good mastering engineer.

Sorry I probably sound way too big for my britches. But I sort of have to take a stand in hopes of getting any point across.

That's the first idea, one idea.


The second has to do with what you're/we're after in the first place. But it's a bit too nebulous for me to get into. I'll just say this:

When I read what you last wrote above, it strikes me that you seem to have a specific...goal, context in which you envision all your musical endeavors, there's a certain stage on which your 'musical career' plays out, in your head. Basically, you want your music to have a pre-defined, externally defined production aesthetic, one you think is a hallmark of quality, so people at least listen to it, perhaps buy it.

If that's the goal, if that's the context, then I think questions and answers can become more focused -- everything gets funneled into a much narrower window. Otherwise, there's a whole 'nuther side to all this that has more to do with art and craft than it has to do with 'the market' for music, the music business, etc.

There's also a lot of philosophical questions around these choices, like why do you want to subject your artistic vision/s to a shallow mass market anyway? Or, How does one stay true to artistic vision AND make a living? What IS your artistic vision, do you (we) even have one? What IS your aesthetic, do you (we) even have one? Do we make stuff that the mass market wants - who cares what we like? Or do we make what we like and hope the mass market comes along? And on and on...
eq1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2020, 09:12 PM   #139
vdubreeze
Human being with feelings
 
vdubreeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,613
Default

And the "aha" moments are the same as the ones that happen as a bassist or arranger or guitar soloist.

You put in your time doing it, listen to people who are getting tracks you dig in those categories, and then put in more time. Guitarists like to talk about their guitars and pedals but really it's because it interests them and they have a relationship with them. But when one comes over and picks up your $125 Rondo and smokes you, you get that none of the gear matters when it comes to evolving into someone who can do what the OP is implying, which is someone who can put down tracks that sound ready to mix, or mix a song into a mixed song and call it done. There is never a piece of hardware or software that they use that does that. It's merely and simply them using whatever they use and arriving at the place they know as being ready. Literally, nothing technical matters, because it's not a technical issue.

Why can you put the exact same 10 food ingredients in front of two people in the same kitchen and one makes a dish you can almost recognize as a chicken something and the other makes a Chicken Fra Diavolo that blows your mind? That person would say, sure I like to use tools that make them happy to be using, but that's about all the credit they'll give to anything you can buy or read about. Give them knives that are sharp, good quality ingredients and an oven that works. After making it 300 times they know when a Chicken Fra Diabolo is done. And it's the same with a mix.
__________________
The reason rain dances work is because they don't stop dancing until it rains.
vdubreeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2020, 09:40 AM   #140
TheLastUsernameInIdaho
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 45
Default Big statement

[QUOTE=Kenny Gioia;2309395]I'm going to disagree with you a bit on this. The problem that most amateur mixers have is that they're mixing their own recordings.

Which means they're mixing their songs, performed by them and recorded by them.

If they're not great mixers, they're probably not great songwriters, arrangers or engineers either.

--------------------------------

I don't see the connection. I've been playing at writing for 40 years, and I started mixing a few months ago. Does that mean I'm a beginner guitarist now? Did I just lose 40 years of playing experience in order to equalize my skills?
TheLastUsernameInIdaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2020, 11:19 AM   #141
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,562
Default

Well, you're obviously not a beginner musician!
But if you just took up guitar... yeah, you'd be a beginner guitarist.
Your musical experience will probably shorten the learning curve significantly since you are an experienced musician. You'd be a beginner guitarist though just the same.

Sounds like a beginner mixer then too.

Also sounds like a miscommunication or typo in there somewhere! Apologies as warranted.
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2020, 11:25 AM   #142
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLastUsernameInIdaho View Post
I don't see the connection.
There's not one because he's not talking about playing an instrument per se.

Mixing, arranging and songwriting really go hand-in-hand - one could spend all day trying to mix their way out of a bad arrangement or poor songwriting and get nowhere - I see it in threads all the time where everyone assumes that problem is mixing, editing or bad plugin choice problem, it isn't - it's real and the point that is the most missed by anyone amateur whomever that may be.

Where guitar playing would come in would not be how well you play guitar but how well you come up with what to play that makes the mix better and supports the idea of the song and vocal story more than being a cool part you like then... how well you can execute that in context. Just being able to play the instrument well, is not completely but mostly irrelevant to Kenny's point. Meaning, chances are you might make better decisions based on your 40 years of playing depending, which will likely make mixing easier, but that's not the point being made really. Kenny can keep me honest on that one.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2020, 12:01 PM   #143
Kenny Gioia
Human being with feelings
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,105
Default

Quote:
If they're not great mixers, they're probably not great songwriters, arrangers or engineers either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLastUsernameInIdaho View Post
I don't see the connection. I've been playing at writing for 40 years, and I started mixing a few months ago. Does that mean I'm a beginner guitarist now? Did I just lose 40 years of playing experience in order to equalize my skills?
Yes. When I said "probably" I meant "especially" you. SMH

BTW - All these things DO go hand in hand.

I'm a "pretty good" drummer but I'm actually a really good "studio" drummer because I'm an exceptional, engineer, producer and mixer.

IOW - Knowing how a record should sound ha s a lot to do with how you approach the instrument. So you can play guitar for 100 years and if you're practicing "wrong" you might be a terrible studio guitar player.

I say this because I spent a decade practicing drums the "wrong" way.

Watching great studio drummers that I hired made more of a difference than ever hitting a drum.
Kenny Gioia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2020, 12:25 PM   #144
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,562
Default

Heh.

One guy comes in with a mixed and matched kit. Everything a different brand. Makes a low key comment "Yeah, I put this together for the sound."

One guy comes in with a top of the line matched DW kit.

Guess which one sounded instantly like a fully mixed and mastered drum recording? I'll give a hint: It was the same one where the drummer tuned the kit after/while setting up. And yes, that means the other guy didn't tune his drums!

I don't know...
Should I start a thread about how DW drums suck and are impossible to work with and mix? Or could it have been something else?
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2020, 12:26 PM   #145
TheLastUsernameInIdaho
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 45
Default I get it

I understand. It just sounded wrong. If Bob Dylan decided to try mixing, would he then be a bad songwriter? Of course not.

But I think writing a good song to be performed is different than recording a good to be recorded. There's a different emphasis.

I like the idea of writing a song, and then playing it with a band for about six months. During that time, the song will evolve. Once it stops changing, then I'll record it.

But I know a few guys who write songs specifically for recording. They write the song and immediately begin recording it. They are working out parts while they are recording it. And once the recording is done, then they start playing it. The problem there is that recording allows you to do things you cannot actually play. It seems backwards to me.
TheLastUsernameInIdaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2020, 01:01 PM   #146
Kenny Gioia
Human being with feelings
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,105
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLastUsernameInIdaho View Post
I understand. It just sounded wrong. If Bob Dylan decided to try mixing, would he then be a bad songwriter? Of course not.

But I think writing a good song to be performed is different than recording a good to be recorded. There's a different emphasis.

I like the idea of writing a song, and then playing it with a band for about six months. During that time, the song will evolve. Once it stops changing, then I'll record it.

But I know a few guys who write songs specifically for recording. They write the song and immediately begin recording it. They are working out parts while they are recording it. And once the recording is done, then they start playing it. The problem there is that recording allows you to do things you cannot actually play. It seems backwards to me.
Both ways have their benefits.

I've seen bands go on the road for a year playing songs until they perfected them and they were much easier to record. Of course, things that work live may not work in the studio. And if you've been doing it one way for a year, it's harder to change.

I've also worked with a few bands who were pretty terrible before I recorded them. After the recordings were finished, they were great live because they learned how the songs should sound.

There's rarely a "better" way. Usually a benefit to different ways.
Kenny Gioia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2020, 01:33 PM   #147
Dork Lard
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Pizza Hut
Posts: 284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eq1 View Post
There's also a lot of philosophical questions around these choices, like why do you want to subject your artistic vision/s to a shallow mass market anyway? Or, How does one stay true to artistic vision AND make a living? What IS your artistic vision, do you (we) even have one? What IS your aesthetic, do you (we) even have one? Do we make stuff that the mass market wants - who cares what we like? Or do we make what we like and hope the mass market comes along? And on and on...
read the full post but quoted just this part for the sake of space on the thread.

That's actually a deeper set of questions that might seem at the surface. My personal basic answer to those is yes I have an artistic aesthetic vision, if anything I have too much of that and need to start materializing even 10% of it, but the larger question is how do you trim your artistic vision down to something that both is appealing to the public AND still satisfies you. Producing dumbed down bullsh*t is prob not going to serve you, because you're going to hate what you do and have little chance of making any money anyways, but you prob can't start out by going full-on either, chances are your stuff is really particular, perhaps too technical and twisted or just particular... so it's a compromise any way you look at it. A balance job.

This brings up the fact those big producers brought up in the OP are in a sense no longer musicians. Because they produce stuff they don't love, or even like I'm sure, and that's all they do. So they manage to maintain a level of professionalism despite not having that natural motivation and drive (which usually makes art great). I'd be interested to ask a few of those top producers after a few beers at the bar and having earned their trust, their honest answer about what they really think of most of the music they produce. I have an idea based on assumptions, but reality can sometimes be more shocking than expected.
Dork Lard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2020, 03:13 PM   #148
eq1
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: PNW, USA
Posts: 658
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dork Lard View Post
My personal basic answer to those is yes I have an artistic aesthetic vision, if anything I have too much of that and need to start materializing even 10% of it, but the larger question is how do you trim your artistic vision down to something that both is appealing to the public AND still satisfies you. Producing dumbed down bullsh*t is prob not going to serve you...
Yeah, I don't really have a succinct answer. Personally I never penetrated 'the business' (think Pink Floyd 'Have a Cigar') very deeply, mostly because I decided it just wasn't something I wanted to spend my life dealing with.

I think we Reaper users, musicians, recording artists - we who care anything at all about mixes - approach it all from a variety of angles, enter the arena from different doors. So the answers are just as varied. For instance, mixing might be one person's sole job, and it's approached as a job, more or less like any other. Nothing wrong with that. Or mixing might be the end of a long musical creative process for another, from writing the songs to tracking to rendering your final mix. Nothing wrong with that either - except there's a lot of work to do and it's hard, if not impossible, for one person to be a master of 'it all'.

When I started I was the lone music-dude with a synthesizer, guitar and outboard gear, etc. I was inspired by Gary Numan, as well as being a contemporary of Trent Reznor. When NIN came out with Pretty Hate Machine, I thought the style was very cool, much like I had envisioned myself doing. And as far as I knew he was mostly just this one dude programming stuff.* "Cool," I thought, that's what I wanted to do... Since then the technology has only increased to allow that sort of thing to be even easier - I'm just blown away by the power of Reaper, all that can be done, in like a $60 piece of software...

Anyway, I think the point I'm trying to get to is that I think the successful Trent Reznor types are the exception rather than the rule. There's a lot of people, money, and work that happens to make a popular tune - or to make a tune popular. I don't know for sure, but I think 'the artist' in most cases simply becomes one tiny cog in someone else's machine. Some recording artists accept that, while others are probably unwittingly dragged into it all, only to regret it later. The music business has always been rife with artists who lament their fame and fortune...

I guess, overall, I believe you cannot have it both ways - either you need to be 'an artist', a 'craftsman' - and let the chips fall where they may - or else you need to subject yourself to 'the market', 'the business', and all sorts of unsavory stuff...

* * *

One other comment I want to make, about your initial question - 'How do pros know when it's done?' But I'd change that to 'How do you know when it's done?'

It strikes me that here and along the way you ask this question and others as if there were either a clear-cut answer, a clear juncture at which a piece can be objectively assessed as "being done," or as if there were some external, objective criteria or outside 'force' that can determine 'done'. Maybe these are the same thing. You're the boss if you're the creator, you just decide it's done when it meets your own criteria, your own judgment, for whatever reasons. It's your responsibility. You probably know this.

You have to take a stand and go with it - it's much the same with all sorts of decisions in life: you have to move forward making decisions in ways that are acceptable to yourself, that you think you can live with. Sometimes they're wrong - and you just have to live with that, too, do something different the next time.

I actually think what I'm describing here is a skill, or a propensity or what-not, that not everyone has. You can gain it, develop it, if you don't have it. But it is 'a something' nevertheless. You get better at making decisions the more you make them. You get more comfortable with making decisions the more you make them. But a decision has to be made and there's no one to make it for you. Making music or any art is a supreme exercise in decision-making, and there's no tougher decision than deciding when a piece is done, IMO.

This is way different from 'how the pros' decide. Pros are making money and there's tons of things beyond their control that make the decision for them. Kenny says the producer decides when it's done. So there you go. If you're a lone dude then you're the producer, and you just decide when it's time to move forward.

I don't know, you're probably asking about criteria, but I think it might be useful to restate the obvious -- that it's up to you. I mean, that in itself is the essence of being an 'artist' (or a good one): revel in the freedom to make decisions, to make good ones and bad ones, and have it all be your own. Revel in the...'excitement' of facing uncertainty - yet moving forward anyway and ending up with the right decision. I think I'm advancing the thesis here that a good artist really has to take pleasure in this sort of thing; the bad ones will wither and wilt when faced with such 'ego-smashing' 'risks'.


* Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia about "Pretty Hate Machine," NIN/Trent Reznor. It pretty much bears-out what my impression was. I've never really read much about him/them...

"During working nights as a handyman and engineer at the Right Track Studio in Cleveland, Ohio, Reznor used studio "down-time" to record and develop his own music. Playing most of the keyboards, drum machines, guitars, and samplers himself, he recorded a demo. The sequencing was done on a Macintosh Plus. Reznor mainly used a Prophet VS, Oberheim Xpander, and Minimoog as synthesizers.

With the help of manager John Malm, Jr., he sent the demo to various record labels. Reznor received contract offers from many of the labels, but eventually signed with TVT Records, who were known mainly for releasing novelty and television jingle records. Pretty Hate Machine was recorded in various studios with Reznor collaborating with some of his most idolized producers: Flood, Keith LeBlanc, Adrian Sherwood, and John Fryer. Much like his recorded demo, Reznor refused to record the album with a conventional band, recording Pretty Hate Machine mostly by himself."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Hate_Machine

Last edited by eq1; 07-14-2020 at 04:04 PM.
eq1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2020, 05:13 PM   #149
onebaldbloke
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 79
Default

Having released a number of albums since 1973.......

We (bands) don't!

Often there are outside parameters which force the end of a mix. Generally, dates which are dependent on budget, or the record company needs the master by a certain date in order to get it out on time. Hopefully, if all goes to plan, the producer, or whoever the buck stops with, is at least marginally happy with the mix.

Then, of course, there is the mastering.....

Cheers,
Bob.
__________________
Guitarist, songwriter, engineer, producer - The Angels, Skyhooks, Rose Tattoo.
onebaldbloke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2020, 02:12 PM   #150
Dork Lard
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Pizza Hut
Posts: 284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eq1 View Post
...
I'd respond to that saying for a person like myself being the "artist" musician type rather than a sound-engineery type musician I could always tell in a clear cut fashion when my song was done being written. However when I started actually producing those songs with actual recordings and real instruments was when it felt the song was just on this seemingly endless loop, really pretty much endless. It's just amazing. And it isn't some sort of a subjective/psychological spiral thing either, because I keep an older version from every week and go back to them and they do indeed sound like shit compared to the current version, so I AM actually improving not just going in circles.

Hence the idea for this thread. As you say there's no clear cut point when it's objectively true the mix and mastering are done. However what those pro studios do have is experience, great mics and equipment, and a pretty great pro result probably almost immediately. At that point, they have to choose between 'great' or 'even greater'.

About Reznor: in my mind he's more of a sound engineer, who also writes music. Rather than the other way around. So anything he was going to produce was at least going to be educated engineering wise, because he was such a computer/synth nerd, and then add a touch of song-writing skill and you had a band that made it big. I think you NEED that sound engineer/computer guy in your band, if it isn't you already. Those are the bands that succeed - or artsy bands but that just go straight to major studios.

Quote:
Originally Posted by onebaldbloke View Post
Having released a number of albums since 1973.......

We (bands) don't!

Often there are outside parameters which force the end of a mix. Generally, dates which are dependent on budget, or the record company needs the master by a certain date in order to get it out on time. Hopefully, if all goes to plan, the producer, or whoever the buck stops with, is at least marginally happy with the mix.

Then, of course, there is the mastering.....

Cheers,
Bob.
Thx for that. I'm just wondering whether pro studios have just like an actual number of settings they automatically apply when starting a project, and then just tweak to taste for the next week.
Dork Lard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2020, 02:36 PM   #151
eq1
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: PNW, USA
Posts: 658
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dork Lard View Post
...when I started actually producing those songs with actual recordings and real instruments was when it felt the song was just on this seemingly endless loop, really pretty much endless. It's just amazing. And it isn't some sort of a subjective/psychological spiral thing either, because I keep an older version from every week and go back to them and they do indeed sound like shit compared to the current version, so I AM actually improving not just going in circles.
I don't interact with a lot of people mixing and mastering, so I don't know what's typical. But what you describe is something I've experienced almost verbatim. I imagine it's common, it's just the nature of the craft - yet something to combat.

The hardest part for me has been trying to develop a clear understanding of what good actually sounds like, to hone-in on key aspects of the mix that, if they aren't right, the whole thing falls apart. I spent a lot of time some months ago getting to the bottom of things... I'm kind of at the tail-end of all that.

One of my problems was bad monitoring. Another might still be my room acoustics. Probably the most common for me was simply losing 'the center' of the mix at some point in the process but not realizing it; thereafter every move makes things worse. You think you're making things better, but really your ears have gotten too used to bad stuff, you try to adjust things to 'balance' or what-not, but since that 'center' is off everything else becomes off... I can't tell you how many times in the past I've mixed something thinking 'this is great', only to come back later asking "WTF??"

Keeping 'fresh ears' is hard. Understanding what those key aspects are, that can keep you on track, is hard. I think, in a nut shell, it's mostly about clearly conceiving the 'voice', the 'through-line' of the piece, the thread that carries the song from start to finish, and then mixing around that, trying to maintain it, enhance it, etc. It's like there is (or should be, rather) this one focal point at any given moment, that carries on from moment to moment, that can shift, and it needs to flow in a more or less sensical way...

If the music is created by a live band, then the focal point is like what every band member is hearing at any given moment, and reacting to, which in turn produces the next move, and so on. When a band is really in sync, when they're all responding to the same shared soundscape, the music is awesome. I think the same thing is at play with mixing... I think this is mostly about dynamics, or really an interplay between dynamics and frequency response. Here 'frequency response' is simply another shade or flavor of dynamics, where something darker doesn't sound as loud or present, and vice versa, something brighter sounds more present, louder.

If you've got two dudes - let's call them dueling-banjos - and one of them insists on playing twice as loud as the other, he 'overwhelms the mix', dominates it. What does the other dude do? Say he plays louder. Then what does dude 1 do? Maybe he gives up and plays softer, and then dude 2 plays softer, and on and on. There's an interchange here, a conversation taking place. I think that's the music, through-line, center, etc., and critically, what needs to be understood when mixing and mastering. A bad 'mix' of our dueling-banjos would fail to conceive of this center, this conversation. A bad mix would, say, compress the louder banjo, dude 1, in the first instance, maybe add some high end to banjo-dude 2, and totally fail to see that dude 2 started to play louder, dude 1 started to play softer, and then dude 1 started to play softer, and so on, the whole interchange is lost...

And that's just two banjo dudes. You can imagine how it'd get way more complicated adding more instruments, FX, etc.

Anyway, I think something like this is at minimum really important, if not 'the key' - yet frequently not heeded, even in commercial 'pro' mixes/masters. It's almost a given in any 'amateur' mix - that there is no through line, or it's very muddy/obscure, or there's countless mix-moves that clearly violate the through-line, the center...

I think what I'm talking about here is more about what separates the good from the great, rather than the bad from the good or amateur from pro. Few mixes achieve a crystal clear center. But, I think it applies to evaluating any mix, so using this 'center' approach you can distinguish bad from good and good from better, and better from best. And, of course, the idea is that if you can grasp the 'center' concept, really understand it, then you can apply it to your own mixes.

Does this have anything to do with 'knowing when the mix is done'? I think so. If you can grasp the center of a piece, conceptualize it, understand it, then you know the mix is done when the center is communicated clearly enough. Or on the flip side, it's done when stuff at least doesn't compromise the center...

edit:
Here's a link to an old SoundOnSound article, common mix mistakes. A lot of the suggestions dovetail with the 'center' concept:

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mix-mistakes

Last edited by eq1; 07-16-2020 at 06:11 PM.
eq1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2020, 08:55 PM   #152
numberthirty
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dork Lard View Post
...

About Reznor: in my mind he's more of a sound engineer, who also writes music. Rather than the other way around. So anything he was going to produce was at least going to be educated engineering wise, because he was such a computer/synth nerd, and then add a touch of song-writing skill and you had a band that made it big. I think you NEED that sound engineer/computer guy in your band, if it isn't you already. Those are the bands that succeed - or artsy bands but that just go straight to major studios.

...
Without trying to be too grumpy here...

If cumulative engineering/gearhead know how was actually worth what you say it is?

The album Bad Witch would have been incredibly successful because it would represent the longest period of accumulated technical knowledge.

Meanwhile, out in actual reality?

It wasn't all that big.

On the other hand, The Downward Spiral was massive.

The reason why?

It's not his "Technical..." know how. It's that he wrote "Closer" and "Hurt" for a single album.

You are really kidding yourself if you are downplaying that reality.
numberthirty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2020, 07:33 AM   #153
valy
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 1,927
Default

Actually, Trent Reznor realized that he needed to understand engineering to create the music he envisioned, so he got a job in a recording studio and learned the basics of how to do that.

He didn't start out as an engineer then say, "Hey, you know what...I think I wanna make some music."
valy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2020, 01:50 PM   #154
Dork Lard
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Pizza Hut
Posts: 284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by valy View Post
Actually, Trent Reznor realized that he needed to understand engineering to create the music he envisioned, so he got a job in a recording studio and learned the basics of how to do that.

He didn't start out as an engineer then say, "Hey, you know what...I think I wanna make some music."
No one says "Hey, you know what...I think I wanna make some music". However. It's in you from the start or it isn't. And the engineer types usually naturally gravitate to that stuff, just like natural athletes naturally gravitated towards sports. You might be able to force yourself to change your very nature like a maniac with years of grueling work and become the engineer type. Although I do know the kind that just could never do it, they're just too far on the artistic side, those definitely exist too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eq1 View Post
FIND YOUR CENTER, SIMBA
Ooh, this is sounding too damn close to what I've been experiencing. It felt like I was reading my own thoughts lol, the first paragraphs in particular.

The part about the center of the mix speaks a bit less to me prob because I haven't experienced it yet really. It's a bit of a foreign notion at this point to me although I'll bear that in mind.

To be honest, I think the biggest difference-maker is ... simplicity of mind. Some people just know how to be dead simple, go straight for what matters, while others will over-complicate things like crazy spontaneously. I see it in other fields besides music producing, individuals who may not be super creative, or unique with their approach, but are super efficient. They know how to keep it simple, and they just make it work. Wtvr it is. Those are the type that'll write a straightforward song, with straightforward arrangements, and manage to get a straightforward mix out of it. And you'll be confused by how easy they got there. I think there's a necessary drop in creativity for those types, because you can't be both super creative and ultra efficient-minded at the same time, or at least not without years of deliberate and uneasy self-improvement.

I'll read the article and get back to you, thx for sharing.
Dork Lard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2020, 04:23 PM   #155
eq1
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: PNW, USA
Posts: 658
Default

^ Love the "SIMBA" reference (though I never saw Lion King)... It wasn't about finding your center, but the center of the music. Truthfully they both do come into play. If you're feeling blue, or whatever, and mixing, it can mess with your perception.

A quick point about the center concept: When you're listening to stuff and making decisions, the 'center concept' would say, "Avoid getting tangled-up in the details, like a frequency band, an effect, a tubby kick drum, etc. Always come back to the music, 'the center', and ask how this or that change helps or hurts it."

You do have to detailed work though, so it's good to put on a different hat, the engineering one, and tweak to your heart's content. But always put the 'artiste' hat back on when you're finalizing stuff - come back to that center.

That's more of the theory, at least...
eq1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2020, 10:46 PM   #156
hardplay
Human being with feelings
 
hardplay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South
Posts: 1,211
Default

What i've learned so far, the know when it's ready when it sounds good even when the sound translated well on pc speakers or in a normal car stereo. They know it's ready when it translates well in mono.

If the next day they playback the mix and they can hear all the stuff and magic they created the day before then it's ready !!

Pro's have a deadline, so they know what to do and how to achive the goal. The know their gear and know the limits and benefits of what they have at their disposal.
__________________
Visita l'indice dei miei Tutorial e anche l'indice dei miei Corti
hardplay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2020, 05:48 AM   #157
Dork Lard
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Pizza Hut
Posts: 284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eq1 View Post
^ Love the "SIMBA" reference (though I never saw Lion King)... It wasn't about finding your center, but the center of the music. Truthfully they both do come into play. If you're feeling blue, or whatever, and mixing, it can mess with your perception.

A quick point about the center concept: When you're listening to stuff and making decisions, the 'center concept' would say, "Avoid getting tangled-up in the details, like a frequency band, an effect, a tubby kick drum, etc. Always come back to the music, 'the center', and ask how this or that change helps or hurts it."

You do have to detailed work though, so it's good to put on a different hat, the engineering one, and tweak to your heart's content. But always put the 'artiste' hat back on when you're finalizing stuff - come back to that center.

That's more of the theory, at least...
Yeah I know what you're saying. You spend so much time on one same song and you pull it in so many different directions throughout the hours and hours of session work, you'll sometimes not even remember why you thought it was worth all the work in the first place. Like, if I play this song now, what would people even like about it so much ?

Interesting article btw. Points 5 (unhelpful arrangements) and 8 (Buried details) as well as 10 (inappropriate processing on the mix bus) tend to be the issue for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hardplay View Post
What i've learned so far, the know when it's ready when it sounds good even when the sound translated well on pc speakers or in a normal car stereo. They know it's ready when it translates well in mono.

If the next day they playback the mix and they can hear all the stuff and magic they created the day before then it's ready !!

Pro's have a deadline, so they know what to do and how to achive the goal. The know their gear and know the limits and benefits of what they have at their disposal.
Right the mono thing is certainly a good objective reference point. If it sounds good in mono it sure as hell will sound good in stereo. And yes if you listen to the song the next day with fresh ears and it sounds good, then it's good. But there does tend to always be sth that just sounds a bit off every time somehow !
Dork Lard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2020, 01:02 PM   #158
eq1
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: PNW, USA
Posts: 658
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dork Lard View Post
...Interesting article btw. Points 5 (unhelpful arrangements) and...tend to be the issue for me.
That one really dovetails with the center/through-line concept. And I'm just rediscovering that with a couple things I've worked with in the past week or so. Really difficult to spot, particularly if it's your own song.

You can tweak stuff 'on the surface', thinking that's what's needed or that's what will help, only to realize that the arrangement itself is what's lacking in whatever way (basic song structure, instrumentation, etc.). The way you can spot this is, again, by reflecting on the 'center' or 'through-line' -- the song just doesn't seem to ever get anywhere,** despite your tweaks/wonking on 'the mix'. You'll take a step back, listen to the song, try to follow that through-line, and it breaks down in various places and various ways. You can't really get passed those with mixing tweaks and treatments.

In my recent case, the ending of this song was always lame, too long and drawn out, didn't quite fit the rest. The solution was more or less to repeat a phrase at the end of the 3rd verse and forget the original ending. I had real problems with endings in my early work, had a real aversion to doing stuff like that - repeating a phrase or chorus just for the sake of making the song seem complete. It seemed gimmicky to me. BUT, it's not, it's just the way composition goes.

I also downloaded a multi track project from some song contest (can't remember if I mentioned that) and worked a bit with those tracks. This song was compositionally a disaster... Amateur bands seem to have a propensity to wonk on two chords and call it a 'bridge'. You gotta be willing to cut stuff up, re-arrange parts, recognize the underlying harmonic progression - that's established early in the piece - and follow through with it. Otherwise the song and even mix will always sound incomplete, anemic, wanting.

The harmonic progression, the basic song structure - these are the major building blocks of what gives a song direction, movement - a center or through-line. If they're good then your mixing actually has a purpose, your mixing has a function, something to facilitate. If they're weak whatever mixing you do just kind of floats in space and time with no real function...

edit: Actually, "buried details" and "inappropriate processing on mix bus" seem germane to 'center/through-line' as well:

-details get buried because the mixer isn't asking himself what function those details serve in the first place. If they were important they wouldn't get buried, they'd be missed.

-I think a lot of inappropriate processing on the mix bus is likely an (unwitting) attempt to compensate for more fundamental problems in the mix and/or song. The first thing that comes to mind is over-compressing - the dynamics of individual instruments/parts aren't treated/respected appropriately at the track-level, they never quite gel, build together, etc. So, the seemingly easy fix is to squash the dynamic range of the whole mix, force those instruments/parts together. The problem with this is that then you often end up with a mix that's overly loud in the wrong places, you destroy the natural dynamics - another key piece to establishing/maintaining that center/through-line...

** edit2: It just occurred to me that this needs clarification. It's not that a song and mix 'have to get somewhere'; it's that the song and/or mix itself creates expectations early-on in the piece, is continually creating expectations - and then can fail to make good on those expectations. This is important. I think that article actually mentioned this too, in similar wording.

It's a pretty central concept in classical theory, and I think it applies nearly equally to 'popular' music and mixing. Think of Beethoven's 5th symphony: "Da Da Da Dum... DA DA DA Dummm..." - with those 1st 8 notes the entire thematic basis for the rest of the composition is established. Often, classical compositions are judged in part on how well they develop such thematic material. Something similar is happening when it comes to 'judging' whatever songs and mixes, though probably not often in such a formal way...

Last edited by eq1; 07-21-2020 at 02:13 PM.
eq1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2020, 01:45 PM   #159
Dork Lard
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Pizza Hut
Posts: 284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eq1 View Post
That one really dovetails with the center/through-line concept. And I'm just rediscovering that with a couple things I've worked with in the past week or so. Really difficult to spot, particularly if it's your own song.

You can tweak stuff 'on the surface', thinking that's what's needed or that's what will help, only to realize that the arrangement itself is what's lacking in whatever way (basic song structure, instrumentation, etc.). The way you can spot this is, again, by reflecting on the 'center' or 'through-line' -- the song just doesn't seem to ever get anywhere,** despite your tweaks/wonking on 'the mix'. You'll take a step back, listen to the song, try to follow that through-line, and it breaks down in various places and various ways. You can't really get passed those with mixing tweaks and treatments.

In my recent case, the ending of this song was always lame, too long and drawn out, didn't quite fit the rest. The solution was more or less to repeat a phrase at the end of the 3rd verse and forget the original ending. I had real problems with endings in my early work, had a real aversion to doing stuff like that - repeating a phrase or chorus just for the sake of making the song seem complete. It seemed gimmicky to me. BUT, it's not, it's just the way composition goes.

I also downloaded a multi track project from some song contest (can't remember if I mentioned that) and worked a bit with those tracks. This song was compositionally a disaster... Amateur bands seem to have a propensity to wonk on two chords and call it a 'bridge'. You gotta be willing to cut stuff up, re-arrange parts, recognize the underlying harmonic progression - that's established early in the piece - and follow through with it. Otherwise the song and even mix will always sound incomplete, anemic, wanting.

The harmonic progression, the basic song structure - these are the major building blocks of what gives a song direction, movement - a center or through-line. If they're good then your mixing actually has a purpose, your mixing has a function, something to facilitate. If they're weak whatever mixing you do just kind of floats in space and time with no real function...

edit: Actually, "buried details" and "inappropriate processing on mix bus" seem germane to 'center/through-line' as well:

-details get buried because the mixer isn't asking himself what function those details serve in the first place. If they were important they wouldn't get buried, they'd be missed.

-I think a lot of inappropriate processing on the mix bus is likely an (unwitting) attempt to compensate for more fundamental problems in the mix and/or song. The first thing that comes to mind is over-compressing - the dynamics of individual instruments/parts aren't treated/respected appropriately at the track-level, they never quite gel, build together, etc. So, the seemingly easy fix is to squash the dynamic range of the whole mix, force those instruments/parts together. The problem with this is that then you often end up with a mix that's overly loud in the wrong places, you destroy the natural dynamics - another key piece to establishing/maintaining that center/through-line...

** edit2: It just occurred to me that this needs clarification. It's not that a song and mix 'have to get somewhere'; it's that the song and/or mix itself creates expectations early-on in the piece, is continually creating expectations - and then can fail to make good on those expectations. This is important. I think that article actually mentioned this too, in similar wording.

It's a pretty central concept in classical theory, and I think it applies nearly equally to 'popular' music and mixing. Think of Beethoven's 5th symphony: "Da Da Da Dum... DA DA DA Dummm..." - with those 1st 8 notes the entire thematic basis for the rest of the composition is established. Often, classical compositions are judged in part on how well they develop such thematic material. Something similar is happening when it comes to 'judging' whatever songs and mixes, though probably not often in such a formal way...
pardon the late reply.
Yes this all rings very true to me and hits home once again. You have to know your instruments inside out and the limits of your own mixing and even mixing as a whole. You can't just write up a song in MIDI and then expect it to sound great in the real world with actual instruments. Which is surely the one thing pro producers do really really well, they know immediately and exactly what needs to be done when they hear the first concept for a song. They surely spot the areas that will need some instrument cutting, or a more convincing buildup (and how to ACTUALLY engineer that buildup) and what not.

Some times as an artist one can get too stubborn having written a verse a particular way and meaning for it to remain that way, with say guitars AND synths AND vocals plus drums bass etc... but really, people are more interested in how -good- your verse sounds rather than how well written it may've been initially. Sometimes removing some elements that made your section more intricate and impressive, actually improves your song.
Dork Lard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2020, 02:52 PM   #160
eq1
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: PNW, USA
Posts: 658
Default

I've been thinking about this stuff off and on since my last post. The bulk of my thinking has revolved around something akin to this: "But aren't we (I) starting to blur the lines too much between, say, songwriting, producing, and mixing?"

I'm not a professional and never have been, so I don't really know what the pros do. I read a mixing book by Rory something-or-other, and he described the mixing engineer's job in very wide terms. Everything I mention above is fair game according to him - from cutting stuff up, rearranging parts, to adding/changing instruments, et al. But I gather most engineers probably don't do so much, or there's wide variation from context to context.

Strictly speaking, I think 'just being a mixing engineer' would greatly simplify the process. But if you're (one is) a DIY home studio bloke, who goes from nothing to master, well, it's no wonder you'd get lost in the process and never know when 'it's done'. There's just so many options, junctures at which you can get lost...

Really hard to say. As a mixing engineer, I still think you'd need to be aware of, say, when the 'problem' is the arrangement or something else, so you don't end up trying to fix something with one tool or method when really the underlying problem is something else. Maybe you don't change an instrument or re-arrange, but you do realize that you can't fix 'that problem' with an EQ tweak or something... You know the limits, can pinpoint 'opportunities and constraints', and don't waste your time doing the wrong things...

You probably realize that I've been mixing-up this thread's topic with one of the previous thread's topics you posted (I think it was 'Why my mix sounds like ass?'). I don't see a problem with that, but just so you know, my mind is still waffling between the two threads.

Here's a link to that book, BTW. I thought it was pretty good. I'm not exactly recommending it for you, Dork, but it'd probably be good for a beginner. It's by "Rory Izhaki":
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1138859788...v_ov_lig_dp_it

Also, the other day I was re-reading a bit out of a book I have, titled "Digital Audio Explained." For some reason it crossed my mind that the chapter on the ear, (Chapter 6 "The Ear") would interest you. I think it was the description of how certain neurons work, how they trigger (or don't trigger), how that leads to our perception of frequency and loudness, etc., that made me think of these discussions, probably thinking about the need to keep ears 'fresh' when mixing - and understanding why they don't remain so... Here's a link to that one: https://www.amazon.com/Digital-Audio...6233601&sr=8-1 It's a very dense and technical book overall, though it tends to flow and build, albeit, the language is stilted...too many words.

Last edited by eq1; 07-31-2020 at 03:24 PM.
eq1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.