Sense and reason in Mixing

PaulBrewer

A friend sent me a mix recently.

The track was well enough performed and recorded, but left a little to be desired from an arrangement point of view, but was good overall.

However the mix made no 'sense' !

Mixing to me is 'leading' the listener through a track.

Vocals should be bright and strong and 'on top' of a track, or maybe less bright for a more intimate feel.

Drums must 'bang' to create excitement, or might 'lay back' to create a relaxed feel.

Parts must come in sufficiently loud to make the required statement (or not!), layered guitars must have their own sonic space to remain layered and not mushed etc etc.

In other words, parts and performance must play their part in telling the story of a song.

That's how a mix makes 'sense' to me.

What do da Brudders think ?

Rockshamrover

PaulBrewer wrote: »

A friend sent me a mix recently.

The track was well enough performed and recorded, but left a little to be desired from an arrangement point of view, but was good overall.

However the mix made no 'sense' !

Mixing to me is 'leading' the listener through a track.

Vocals should be bright and strong and 'on top' of a track, or maybe less bright for a more intimate feel.

Drums must 'bang' to create excitement, or might 'lay back' to create a relaxed feel.

Parts must come in sufficiently loud to make the required statement (or not!), layered guitars must have their own sonic space to remain layered and not mushed etc etc.

In other words, parts and performance must play their part in telling the story of a song.

That's how a mix makes 'sense' to me.

What do da Brudders think ?

Sounds perfect,

If only I could do it:mad:

SeanHurley

PaulBrewer wrote: »

A friend sent me a mix recently.

The track was well enough performed and recorded, but left a little to be desired from an arrangement point of view, but was good overall.

However the mix made no 'sense' !

Mixing to me is 'leading' the listener through a track.

Vocals should be bright and strong and 'on top' of a track, or maybe less bright for a more intimate feel.

Drums must 'bang' to create excitement, or might 'lay back' to create a relaxed feel.

Parts must come in sufficiently loud to make the required statement (or not!), layered guitars must have their own sonic space to remain layered and not mushed etc etc.

In other words, parts and performance must play their part in telling the story of a song.

That's how a mix makes 'sense' to me.

What do da Brudders think ?

Agree 100% with all you have said. I think it is a skill that comes with experience.

off.the.walls

SeanHurley wrote: »

Agree 100% with all you have said. I think it is a skill that comes with experience.

You do need experience but you could be a natural and just be able to mix the biggest pile of ****e that you have handed to you, its all about the feel of the song i think.

Rockshamrover

This may be of interest to those wanting to learn a bit more about mixing and getting space and depth in your mix.

Got this mail from Macprovideo this morning.

http://www.nedwebserver.com/ned-web/sonicdimensionmixing&nedweb&site=MPV&asv=2&sid=sp0cd45t813q1avbmbj4hp6nm6

splitrmx

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Vocals should be bright and strong and 'on top' of a track, or maybe less bright for a more intimate feel.

It depends on the type of music being made. A lot of the vocals on MBV's Loveless fore example are barely there, buried under layers of guitar and noise. It still works though.

MilanPan!c

There's really two aspects of mixing. Creating the tracks so that they'll blend together properly (eg EQ, compresion, layering, editing, comping) and getting appropriate levels for each "section" of a song.

I'm amazed how often I hear amateur mixes which fail in the second catagory. Vocals way to quiet (or loud) bizarre panning, insanely bad transitions, etc.

I think the first thing, he track creation/solidification is a much more technical job and should be the hard part. That's why I'm so suprised when folks so often fail during "leveling".

To me, leveling is kinda simple, in that you're basically trying to replicate what you like, ie the music you've listened to and apreciate personally.

I fault no one for not sidechaining effectively (for example) or doing a bit of sloppy editing or EQing, that's technical stuff. But if the drums are too loud or you can't hear guitars, etc., there's really no excuse...

DamagedTrax

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I fault no one for not sidechaining effectively (for example) or doing a bit of sloppy editing or EQing, that's technical stuff. But if the drums are too loud or you can't hear guitars, etc., there's really no excuse...

but one mans too loud may be anothers just right.

dav nagle

DamagedTrax wrote: »

but one mans too loud may be anothers just right.

Agreed, in my experience people over 40 like the vocals up a bit too much

PaulBrewer

splitrmx wrote: »

It depends on the type of music being made. A lot of the vocals on MBV's Loveless fore example are barely there, buried under layers of guitar and noise. It still works though.

True - however you will agree that that's the exception.

old gregg

PaulBrewer wrote: »

True - however you will agree that that's the exception.

Objection. Defence is leading the witness

PaulBrewer

old gregg wrote: »

Objection. Defence is leading the witness

Is that the same as 'stating the obvious' ... ?

PaulBrewer

DamagedTrax wrote: »

but one mans too loud may be anothers just right.

Indeed - but all now agree that's not the case.

old gregg

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Indeed - but all now agree that's not the case.

Objection. Hearsay



(sorry Paul, couldn't resist but I'll stop now)

tweeky

dav nagle wrote: »

Agreed, in my experience people over 40 like the vocals up a bit too much

Ahh here!

Personally i find American mixes usually have the vocals up.

woodsdenis

dav nagle wrote: »

Agreed, in my experience people over 40 like the vocals up a bit too much

Watch it young man:D

eviltimeban

Back in '93 the amazing Steve Albini was bemoaning modern rock mixing techniques, where there would be a really compressed vocal in the forefront and a "tiny murmur of a rock band playing in the background".

And its still the case today. Most modern rock, and that covers everthing from "emo" to metal, has this problem.

A mix should of course depend on the music, but for most rock music the mix should allow the song to breathe, will a lot of space and a feeling that you are in the room with the band. That's the kind of mix I like the most, where I can hear every instrument, the placing makes sense, the panning is used for dynamics mostly (I love when you think that's all the guitars there's going to be, then all of a sudden, new, louder guitars come in), and the drums are good and hard and not just pattering away in the background.

Of course, electronic music, R&B, jazz, folk, etc, all have different rules for mixing. For electronic music it should be close and almost claustophobic, where there's ironically no space and there's a good bit of compression in the bass. Jazz again is all about placing, drums can have nice reverb on them and be noticeable when they need to be (ie the drum solo).

Folk and acoustic music is the one time where you can put the vocals to the forefront, if you listen to something like Neil Diamond's "12 Songs", the balance is perfect because the focus is on Neil and his singing, and everything else is just there to compliment him. Its a very sympathetic form of mixing, and that's also down to the personality of the performer.

For music that defies classification, then its all about making sure its not too compressed, that the vocals sit rather than overpower, the effects etc are used for maximum effect and mixed in such a way, and the drums, be they electronic or live, have a personality. That's the main thing - that flat, non descript drum sound is the worst and laziest thing a producer can do. Most great drummers are known for their sound as much as their playing.

PaulBrewer

eviltimeban wrote: »

Back in '93 the amazing Steve Albini was bemoaning modern rock mixing techniques, where there would be a really compressed vocal in the forefront and a "tiny murmur of a rock band playing in the background".

And its still the case today. Most modern rock, and that covers everthing from "emo" to metal, has this problem.

A mix should of course depend on the music, but for most rock music the mix should allow the song to breathe, will a lot of space and a feeling that you are in the room with the band. That's the kind of mix I like the most, where I can hear every instrument, the placing makes sense, the panning is used for dynamics mostly (I love when you think that's all the guitars there's going to be, then all of a sudden, new, louder guitars come in), and the drums are good and hard and not just pattering away in the background.

Of course, electronic music, R&B, jazz, folk, etc, all have different rules for mixing. For electronic music it should be close and almost claustophobic, where there's ironically no space and there's a good bit of compression in the bass. Jazz again is all about placing, drums can have nice reverb on them and be noticeable when they need to be (ie the drum solo).

Folk and acoustic music is the one time where you can put the vocals to the forefront, if you listen to something like Neil Diamond's "12 Songs", the balance is perfect because the focus is on Neil and his singing, and everything else is just there to compliment him. Its a very sympathetic form of mixing, and that's also down to the personality of the performer.

For music that defies classification, then its all about making sure its not too compressed, that the vocals sit rather than overpower, the effects etc are used for maximum effect and mixed in such a way, and the drums, be they electronic or live, have a personality. That's the main thing - that flat, non descript drum sound is the worst and laziest thing a producer can do. Most great drummers are known for their sound as much as their playing.

I think things have changed a lot since '93 - back then it was primarily tape.