There's a new song example up. See if you can guess what other track it's covering - a little more obscure than usual.
This is more of an internal demo so I can't release details, but it was an interesting job nonetheless. I experimented more with buss compression, letting it bite down on passages where there's a large shift in dynamic range. Normally you'd have pumping in that case, but there are ways to finagle the attack, release and ratio to only clamp down on those shifts in energy. I also remember using a side-chain filter to let the mids through. It's hard to get the proper snap with broadband compression squashing the middle; your snares and vocals attenuate fast.
I also tried a bit of summing with Acustica Audio's Nebula 3 and the results were generally an improvement from ITB renders with nothing on them. I run it on every channel in Reaper using the track as folder command - a quick way to instance one effect on all tracks without copy + paste or any other macros - and the difference is significant. It's not night and day, and I have encountered songs that don't like anything from Nebula on them, but like most plugs, it's just nice to have an extra option which (potentially) sounds great.
The next post will likely be another songwriting exploration, as I've found more in the back catalogs worth sharing.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Slow updates
Alright, so it's been a little under a year since the last post. At least I'm not Gary Whitta, who took a whole 36 months to resurrect his blog, but then again he wrote the Book of Eli so...
I did get a song done in this time and will post a clip soon. There hasn't been much work incoming and I'm not afraid to say that; my focus has been on merchandising for much of the last year. I love mixing to death and will not change focus with this blog, but there are plenty of other things in life.
I'll do it Tape Op style from now on: at least one post every two months. (Subscribe to that filthy, heavily informative rag if you haven't already.) It's not much, but it's something.
I did get a song done in this time and will post a clip soon. There hasn't been much work incoming and I'm not afraid to say that; my focus has been on merchandising for much of the last year. I love mixing to death and will not change focus with this blog, but there are plenty of other things in life.
I'll do it Tape Op style from now on: at least one post every two months. (Subscribe to that filthy, heavily informative rag if you haven't already.) It's not much, but it's something.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Synonymous with...
Ideas, pt. 3.
(Sorry for the playlist being down. I've now switched to a more reliable host.)
The track in question: Example 2
Not much to say about this one, really. It was another rejected idea, though the singer I was working with vetoed it, not me. A couple of ideas had already gone by at that time, and despite the rather pointless nature of this attempt (have you listened to it?), it was still better than the other two.
I wanted something sparse with drier drums (nod to the 70s) and a riff-based feel. We hadn't really tried for R&B yet, and this was as close as we got. Too bad the idea was dropped. I don't think the person who I was working with understood that my writing is a roulette.
(Sorry for the playlist being down. I've now switched to a more reliable host.)
The track in question: Example 2
Not much to say about this one, really. It was another rejected idea, though the singer I was working with vetoed it, not me. A couple of ideas had already gone by at that time, and despite the rather pointless nature of this attempt (have you listened to it?), it was still better than the other two.
I wanted something sparse with drier drums (nod to the 70s) and a riff-based feel. We hadn't really tried for R&B yet, and this was as close as we got. Too bad the idea was dropped. I don't think the person who I was working with understood that my writing is a roulette.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Synonymous with...
Ideas, pt. 2.
The song in question: Example 1
Here's a good demonstration of a song that came very close to release, but ultimately went nowhere because.. Well, I felt it didn't go anywhere musically.
I was trying out the KarmaFX Modular Synth a lot during this time, and still use it now and then for sounds when I'm low on ideas. It's inspiring for sure. I believe most if not all the patches in this song are from it; you can definitely hear the formant filters on the "Aahs" in the background, the bass droning away, the "pixie"-esque patch that explodes onto the soundscape in the middle of the song, etc. They're not presets, but I doubt I used a bunch of complex routing as this was one of the first modulars I'd encountered.
The entire structure evolved from the drums. Those came first. I wanted them very staccato, very drill-like. I also wanted them busy and sort of spilling over into the next phrase at various points (like at 1:33.) I felt it implied a veracity, even an anger to the percussion which only appeared occasionally throughout the song - as if they're going to hammer away and you're forced to listen to them, but suddenly they stop and go back to their own motions.
Notice how everything else is generally drawn out with sustained notes, not jumping around. It provides an important amount of contrast via changes in energy. The bass, "Aahs," and filtered electric piano are, in a sense, weeping, pleading against the background of the drums. Then the big synth comes in at a lull in the song at 1:10 to bring everyone together. It's both flamboyant and sustained, and combines aspects of each background which I described.
...
I realize this may all sound a bit pretentious, but it's how I think of songs. Only later when I analyze do I find why I made the decisions I did. However, things seem to come together best when my ideas are very exact to begin with. For example, about 4 or 5 patterns for the drums were, note for note, exactly what I heard in my head. I developed variations for them which I didn't hear at all.
The patch design for the pixie synth was also heard. I got as close as I possibly could with it (98% of the way, thankfully) and because its part was simple, went ahead and laid it down in the sequencer.
The bass, same thing.
The "Aahs," same thing.
Name almost any sound in there.. Same thing.
Yet I didn't release this. True. I liked the sound design, the composition was memorable, but I couldn't seem to write enough parts in for it be interesting past the two minute mark. Any shorter and it felt unfinished. So, it was a nice idea that I kept in storage.
...
P.S. Here's the pixie sound just for kicks: Synthy!
The song in question: Example 1
Here's a good demonstration of a song that came very close to release, but ultimately went nowhere because.. Well, I felt it didn't go anywhere musically.
I was trying out the KarmaFX Modular Synth a lot during this time, and still use it now and then for sounds when I'm low on ideas. It's inspiring for sure. I believe most if not all the patches in this song are from it; you can definitely hear the formant filters on the "Aahs" in the background, the bass droning away, the "pixie"-esque patch that explodes onto the soundscape in the middle of the song, etc. They're not presets, but I doubt I used a bunch of complex routing as this was one of the first modulars I'd encountered.
The entire structure evolved from the drums. Those came first. I wanted them very staccato, very drill-like. I also wanted them busy and sort of spilling over into the next phrase at various points (like at 1:33.) I felt it implied a veracity, even an anger to the percussion which only appeared occasionally throughout the song - as if they're going to hammer away and you're forced to listen to them, but suddenly they stop and go back to their own motions.
Notice how everything else is generally drawn out with sustained notes, not jumping around. It provides an important amount of contrast via changes in energy. The bass, "Aahs," and filtered electric piano are, in a sense, weeping, pleading against the background of the drums. Then the big synth comes in at a lull in the song at 1:10 to bring everyone together. It's both flamboyant and sustained, and combines aspects of each background which I described.
...
I realize this may all sound a bit pretentious, but it's how I think of songs. Only later when I analyze do I find why I made the decisions I did. However, things seem to come together best when my ideas are very exact to begin with. For example, about 4 or 5 patterns for the drums were, note for note, exactly what I heard in my head. I developed variations for them which I didn't hear at all.
The patch design for the pixie synth was also heard. I got as close as I possibly could with it (98% of the way, thankfully) and because its part was simple, went ahead and laid it down in the sequencer.
The bass, same thing.
The "Aahs," same thing.
Name almost any sound in there.. Same thing.
Yet I didn't release this. True. I liked the sound design, the composition was memorable, but I couldn't seem to write enough parts in for it be interesting past the two minute mark. Any shorter and it felt unfinished. So, it was a nice idea that I kept in storage.
...
P.S. Here's the pixie sound just for kicks: Synthy!
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Synonymous with...
Laziness this month, apparently.
I'm putting those examples up within one week from now. I hadn't heard them in awhile and got rather attached.
February 3rd or bust!
I'm putting those examples up within one week from now. I hadn't heard them in awhile and got rather attached.
February 3rd or bust!
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Synonymous with..
Ideas.
I was looking through my archives for about the past five years, and I found some definite keepers that I went ahead and copied to my current hard drive/rig. They're mostly unfinished songs.. None of them are exemplary mixes, but I think the ideas are worth sharing.
Watch for them soon.
I was looking through my archives for about the past five years, and I found some definite keepers that I went ahead and copied to my current hard drive/rig. They're mostly unfinished songs.. None of them are exemplary mixes, but I think the ideas are worth sharing.
Watch for them soon.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Synonymous with...
Reality.
Another problem I sometimes see is an inability to receive criticism. I'm not really in the position to hand that out during a mix, but if people want comments and actively encourage them, then they should be prepared to hear whatever may come their way, good or bad.
Occasionally artists will have a bad tendency to get extremely defensive about their work and have it be (essentially) irreproachable. I was there once. After laboring away on something for so long, after having to draw upon many different ideas to get three or four minutes of results, well.. It's not a talent many people have, nor is it easy despite natural ability. Then when the criticism rolls in, you start to wonder how many folks have been given the right to judge. Their comments seem endless, their distaste magnificent.
The truth is that the majority of people who listened get the right to judge your song. Not all of them - I'll get to that in a minute - but you may be surprised how many have valid criticisms.
I noticed a pattern of decisions I made when releasing anything new. They formed a small set of rules which rarely changed and made it much easier to accept criticism of any form. In no particular order:
1. If you don't want a critique on your song, don't show it to anyone.
I mean it. You'll get all sorts of feedback you never asked for simply by revealing your song to other people. Period. You don't get a choice in the matter! Your only choice is whether to let them listen or not.
This goes against one of the main goals in creating music: to share it with others. I would agree wholeheartedly. However, I don't display songs that are unfinished, need to be reworked, or are in other states of disrepair. I keep many revisions for internal use - and that even extends to mixing for others.
It may be tempting to share what you feel is a great idea right then and there, but know that you accept any criticism waged on that song from now until eternity. Some writers are fine with this, others not so much. One assumption the less experienced craftsmen make is assuming all criticism will be negative, which leads to my next point...
2. Never accept all criticism.
Not once in my life have I seen consistently good critique. There's always a certain amount which would have been better off never existing; people who hate the genre, people who only like organic music, people who only like more artificial forms of music, people who only like the sound of the 80s, etc. They aren't part of your audience (unless your music fit one of those descriptors.) They probably don't understand many of your intentions that were laid out well before you began recording the album.
Those are signs of a core disregard - or, more accurately, a core disinterest in what your songs are about. None of your work connects with them. It's not their fault, either; they simply have an innate attraction to other types of music which do work for them. I believe we all have an innate pull towards certain types of sounds over others which we cannot explain, and that leads me to the next point...
3. No matter what you do, someone somewhere will not like your song.
I know that sounds terribly negative, but it's another step closer to reality. I would make this assumption and be comfortable with it at all hours of the day, honestly. Occasionally a guy or gal won't be pleased with what you put out and there's nothing you can do about it. They may even do it continually. They're separate from the folks above in that they do enjoy music in your genre, do support your work, and maybe even have great, useful criticisms. They would be on your side.. But ultimately they feel you could do better.
This is always important to have. Regardless of success, word of mouth, and general public opinion, you and your music will never slip beyond reproach. Ever. Because of that, there will always be doubters amongst the crowd. This is the natural order of things and it's a positive attribute to have because things are in balance. You know, yin-yang? Can't have all good without a little bit of bad and vice-versa? An imbalance happens when the next point is ignored...
4. Never reject all criticism.
Chances are much slimmer than you think of people completely misunderstanding your work. There will be times when a reviewer/listener/passerby will hit the proverbial nail on the head when pointing out improvements to your songs. You probably have a list of compromises you made to get where you are, and thus the album is not truly "perfect." Your budget was not infinite, your time limited, and your marketing campaign scaled back.
No album, whether in the future or from the past, will be made or was made without compromises. There may have been fewer compared to your work, but they're always present.
Accepting this, other people may see where you wanted to do better but couldn't for whatever reason. They'll (somehow) take those concerns you have in the back of your mind and mention them in precise detail, one by one. These are the critiques which are rarest and most useful, and this is why I would never reject all criticism.
...
Hopefully this incessant droning about criticism helped. I know somebody out there won't like it no matter what I do, I won't be able to use all the comments I get, I'll be surprised by how much I agree with some of the comments I get, and I'm willing to share this post and allow comments regardless of whether I want them or not ( in this case I do.)
Another problem I sometimes see is an inability to receive criticism. I'm not really in the position to hand that out during a mix, but if people want comments and actively encourage them, then they should be prepared to hear whatever may come their way, good or bad.
Occasionally artists will have a bad tendency to get extremely defensive about their work and have it be (essentially) irreproachable. I was there once. After laboring away on something for so long, after having to draw upon many different ideas to get three or four minutes of results, well.. It's not a talent many people have, nor is it easy despite natural ability. Then when the criticism rolls in, you start to wonder how many folks have been given the right to judge. Their comments seem endless, their distaste magnificent.
The truth is that the majority of people who listened get the right to judge your song. Not all of them - I'll get to that in a minute - but you may be surprised how many have valid criticisms.
I noticed a pattern of decisions I made when releasing anything new. They formed a small set of rules which rarely changed and made it much easier to accept criticism of any form. In no particular order:
1. If you don't want a critique on your song, don't show it to anyone.
I mean it. You'll get all sorts of feedback you never asked for simply by revealing your song to other people. Period. You don't get a choice in the matter! Your only choice is whether to let them listen or not.
This goes against one of the main goals in creating music: to share it with others. I would agree wholeheartedly. However, I don't display songs that are unfinished, need to be reworked, or are in other states of disrepair. I keep many revisions for internal use - and that even extends to mixing for others.
It may be tempting to share what you feel is a great idea right then and there, but know that you accept any criticism waged on that song from now until eternity. Some writers are fine with this, others not so much. One assumption the less experienced craftsmen make is assuming all criticism will be negative, which leads to my next point...
2. Never accept all criticism.
Not once in my life have I seen consistently good critique. There's always a certain amount which would have been better off never existing; people who hate the genre, people who only like organic music, people who only like more artificial forms of music, people who only like the sound of the 80s, etc. They aren't part of your audience (unless your music fit one of those descriptors.) They probably don't understand many of your intentions that were laid out well before you began recording the album.
Those are signs of a core disregard - or, more accurately, a core disinterest in what your songs are about. None of your work connects with them. It's not their fault, either; they simply have an innate attraction to other types of music which do work for them. I believe we all have an innate pull towards certain types of sounds over others which we cannot explain, and that leads me to the next point...
3. No matter what you do, someone somewhere will not like your song.
I know that sounds terribly negative, but it's another step closer to reality. I would make this assumption and be comfortable with it at all hours of the day, honestly. Occasionally a guy or gal won't be pleased with what you put out and there's nothing you can do about it. They may even do it continually. They're separate from the folks above in that they do enjoy music in your genre, do support your work, and maybe even have great, useful criticisms. They would be on your side.. But ultimately they feel you could do better.
This is always important to have. Regardless of success, word of mouth, and general public opinion, you and your music will never slip beyond reproach. Ever. Because of that, there will always be doubters amongst the crowd. This is the natural order of things and it's a positive attribute to have because things are in balance. You know, yin-yang? Can't have all good without a little bit of bad and vice-versa? An imbalance happens when the next point is ignored...
4. Never reject all criticism.
Chances are much slimmer than you think of people completely misunderstanding your work. There will be times when a reviewer/listener/passerby will hit the proverbial nail on the head when pointing out improvements to your songs. You probably have a list of compromises you made to get where you are, and thus the album is not truly "perfect." Your budget was not infinite, your time limited, and your marketing campaign scaled back.
No album, whether in the future or from the past, will be made or was made without compromises. There may have been fewer compared to your work, but they're always present.
Accepting this, other people may see where you wanted to do better but couldn't for whatever reason. They'll (somehow) take those concerns you have in the back of your mind and mention them in precise detail, one by one. These are the critiques which are rarest and most useful, and this is why I would never reject all criticism.
...
Hopefully this incessant droning about criticism helped. I know somebody out there won't like it no matter what I do, I won't be able to use all the comments I get, I'll be surprised by how much I agree with some of the comments I get, and I'm willing to share this post and allow comments regardless of whether I want them or not ( in this case I do.)
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Synonymous with...
A vision.
If you ask me what a client has the least when it comes to mixing, recording, or any process related to those, it's a vision.
Now... I say that and have had the fortune to work with people who do have a vision, sometimes a very strong one. I don't mind a good mind's eye - give me more notes to work with! I can read.
The process always came naturally to me since I didn't leave a bunch of half-finished ideas in my songs when I was writing. They may have been part of the learning curve, but never suffered from a lack of direction or general clueless nature. I meant what I had laid down. If not, it got trashed. I was very unsentimental about getting rid of clutter or tossing melodies, sometimes even entire songs. I always came up with a better part or concept after doing so. Once I learned that key bit of knowledge about how I wrote, things became easier.
Not every writer works in this manner and there's no problem in that. All I'm trying to stress is, regardless of their working process, they have a vision - a certain amount of precognitive recognition about how the song should be. They hear it and try their best to capture it.
It's the same in mixing. I always get insight into how things should fit together merely by listening. I hear areas where the composition can open up, the general ramp of energy, if length seems too long or short, so on and so forth. The levels and tonal balance are part of the picture as well, but they're not as important because they help support the larger, more general concepts.
An artist would pick me because our ideas of how the song should be coincide. They'll never be exactly the same because we aren't the same people. Still, they probably hear a finished version in their head as opposed to the rough recording they came in with. This may seem like I'm working towards what I want. In many ways it is, but my goals simply happen to be the same as the artist. If not, that's when problems start.
We still go over revisions as necessary and keep or toss elements that help or hinder the song as a whole. It's not me sitting in my workplace, giving the client a mix and saying "Take it leave it." How is that fair? Conversely, it's not fair to have me revise at no cost for an unreasonable length of time. Again, if that happened I probably wasn't on the right project to begin with.
All these points are examples of both parties having a vision they share.
You may have read through and thought, "Isn't this obvious?" Remember, it's the biggest problem at the mix stage I've dealt with and its occurrence is not rare. Food for thought.
Are you ready to move on to the next step?
If you ask me what a client has the least when it comes to mixing, recording, or any process related to those, it's a vision.
Now... I say that and have had the fortune to work with people who do have a vision, sometimes a very strong one. I don't mind a good mind's eye - give me more notes to work with! I can read.
The process always came naturally to me since I didn't leave a bunch of half-finished ideas in my songs when I was writing. They may have been part of the learning curve, but never suffered from a lack of direction or general clueless nature. I meant what I had laid down. If not, it got trashed. I was very unsentimental about getting rid of clutter or tossing melodies, sometimes even entire songs. I always came up with a better part or concept after doing so. Once I learned that key bit of knowledge about how I wrote, things became easier.
Not every writer works in this manner and there's no problem in that. All I'm trying to stress is, regardless of their working process, they have a vision - a certain amount of precognitive recognition about how the song should be. They hear it and try their best to capture it.
It's the same in mixing. I always get insight into how things should fit together merely by listening. I hear areas where the composition can open up, the general ramp of energy, if length seems too long or short, so on and so forth. The levels and tonal balance are part of the picture as well, but they're not as important because they help support the larger, more general concepts.
An artist would pick me because our ideas of how the song should be coincide. They'll never be exactly the same because we aren't the same people. Still, they probably hear a finished version in their head as opposed to the rough recording they came in with. This may seem like I'm working towards what I want. In many ways it is, but my goals simply happen to be the same as the artist. If not, that's when problems start.
We still go over revisions as necessary and keep or toss elements that help or hinder the song as a whole. It's not me sitting in my workplace, giving the client a mix and saying "Take it leave it." How is that fair? Conversely, it's not fair to have me revise at no cost for an unreasonable length of time. Again, if that happened I probably wasn't on the right project to begin with.
All these points are examples of both parties having a vision they share.
You may have read through and thought, "Isn't this obvious?" Remember, it's the biggest problem at the mix stage I've dealt with and its occurrence is not rare. Food for thought.
Are you ready to move on to the next step?
Monday, October 12, 2009
Synonymous with...
Knowledge.
So, what of "Lauren" by Calgary, AB Canada band The Shapes? It was part of an open mix thread started by their drummer, Dan Bronson, over at Harmony Central. It was also a chance to work on a great song and view the interesting interpretations it spawned - I couldn't pass that up. Dan said he wasn't making it a contest and would not use any mixes on the final album, so I didn't make a red cent off this and it didn't end up as the definitive version.
You may notice I'm a bit harsh in that thread. It's true; I'm glad people can come up with drastically creative ways to spin a song, but that's rarely what I'd look for in a mix or a mixer. Furthermore, I'd rather hear a solid mix first and experimentation afterward. Which is more difficult to produce anyhow? Think about it.
I came from a place where I was given a huge amount of creative freedom. I like having that, but I'm very careful about how I implement my creative ideas. It's easy to become hooked on the sound of your ideas alone rather than the song. That's dangerous in mixing. It's having effects to have effects; it's using them as a mask to enable your ideas to take over.
I didn't want to go down the same tired road everyone had in the thread. I wanted the antithesis of what I was hearing. I wanted a solid mix. Hadn't I been remixing for years before anyway? I'd had that freedom and it was enough. Doing the same exact thing I'd already done for quite awhile would be.. What? Boring. Dreadfully so.
I posted my mix and provided the following notes. If you're wondering what I did to the song, 95% of it is right here (I've got to leave some small percentage of mystery.) I may post links to most of the plug-ins I used at a later point. It was my first time using Modern Compressor Black by Antress, for example, and I liked it quite a bit.
While you're reading: does this seem special to you? Does it provide any insight into how I do things? Would you feel comfortable handing your mix over to someone who could write an analysis like this? Did it even produce a good result? Tell me. Use the comments section! Check out The Shapes while you're at it, too.
I don't do these very often and never at the request of somebody else, but if I'm in the mood, I go ahead and make a post. It shines the light on one important part of many which make my labor skilled.
....
"[High end compression is] a start. It was mainly the Tracks 670s hitting 3-7 dB GR on 3 attack. Because those are also a little dark, the high end got rolled off smoothly. I felt boosting the highs was too spiky and harsh, so beyond a high pass at 270 Hz, the OHs did get a small lift at 7kHz. I opted for a more 'grabby' compressor during the verse leads and bypassed it otherwise (Rcomp w/ARC/Opto/Warm; 10.3 atk, 125 rls, 1.99 ratio; threshold was -28.5 in this case.) They also had a de-esser at 2151Hz taking the snare OHs sound back just a little.
The room mic was duped via a short delay to create a stereo pair, and each were hard panned, a risky move that could've introduced a lot of flamming. I filtered pretty heavily once again and didn't rely on these except for a cursory sense of space, so their levels were kept low. They were muted during the bridge to prevent even more apparent flamming.
Vocals were Modern Compressor Black, a free plugin from Antress. 35 threshold, 5 ratio, 12 attack, lowest release (100?) No EQ. The point there was to get something kind of aggressive, but not flat or "spitty," thus the needle moves a lot and keeps the dynamic range in check on louder parts, but compresses very little on quieter parts... Yet it's still not totally transparent like most compressors which do that.
BGV were duped to create a stereo set. Done with a 50 MS delay. Still some phasing, but it wasn't noticeable in the mix. It was hard to make them sound bad honestly.
Vocal send one was the 1/8th note delay, a free E-phonic Tape Delay plug-in. Medium feedback, some high cut, fair bit of low cut, some noise. It's not icy or saturated - good for simple, unobtrusive delay lines.
Vocal sends two and three were long mono Rverbs panned 80% L and R respectively. Why mono? Like I've mentioned, it can really help depth in a mix without cluttering the stereo spread. These two were off doing their own thing (as you would imagine, I rode their level all the time) without having much center information clouding up where the lead vocal is. It sounded really good. The key is that yes, you're creating a sense of space and forward depth, sure.. But you're not recreating a space and trying to be realistic about it. These were for the purpose of being ethereal.
Bass was 90% DI with a lot of sculpting. I think I put some minor distortion or cheap amp sim on the miked signal (bass amp), but it only developed articulation to a small extent. The DI went through at least two rounds of compression to get it under control. First was a 670 with longest attack (6); after that was a Tracks EQ1A with a huge 9dB boost at 60 Hz. It seems a bit extreme, but was going into the Tracks Opto Compressor to be tamed once again. 4.1:1, 19ms atk, 250ms rls, 6.4 compression. I wanted something round, something deep, but again, not flat.
Guitars had a HP all at 200Hz; melody guitar line had the lowpass for the second section of verse two obviously, little bit of Rverb. These needed hardly any help at all, so I just panned them appropriately and went about my business.
The kick I ran two replacements for: a Tama Starclassic (guess that's 18x22) and a bassy electronic sample I pulled from the archives. The Starclassic sample was the attack and a little bit of punch, so it got a low roll-off below about 300Hz. The electronic sample was also a little punchy but with much less high end and body (you don't want to hear the repetitious nastiness of the high end on a non-multi-sampled replacement.. It's awful), then more low end. They both went through the Modern Compressor Black with the same settings as the vocals except for ratio (6) and attack (12).
Snare replacement was a Pearl Sensitone Brass (sounded like 14x5) with the Modern Compressor again - 6 ratio, 15 atk, 120 rls. Most important was additive EQ at the low mids; an EQ1A with a 3.2dB boost at 100Hz.
Snare send was Rverb running with the Drum Plate preset. Very low in level.
Toms were a native plug-in gate. No EQ, no compression. They hardly ever got hit anyway (a good thing in the case of this song.)
Addendum
a) I rode OHs to get them more even in level; vocals for more expression, though they didn't need much. The kick and snare didn't sound natural being leveled via compression (surprise surprise), so I went ahead and did a lot of per-hit level checks. The bass got raised/lowered in sections, usually lighter during a verse and louder during a chorus. There were hardly any mutes beyond what was mentioned above.
b) I time corrected the pedal hi-hat parts (that's not accurate; basically the B sections of the verses) and the rolling kicks in the bridge somewhat, but I didn't spend a lot of time perfecting. The cuts were made with all the drum tracks together: group, split, slide, time-stretch where necessary if there were audible gaps, which only happened once.
c) I didn't opt for buss compression in this instance. Nothing needed glue, and the tracks didn't suffer much from Digititis™ where lots of parts sound too separate and whittled-down."
So, what of "Lauren" by Calgary, AB Canada band The Shapes? It was part of an open mix thread started by their drummer, Dan Bronson, over at Harmony Central. It was also a chance to work on a great song and view the interesting interpretations it spawned - I couldn't pass that up. Dan said he wasn't making it a contest and would not use any mixes on the final album, so I didn't make a red cent off this and it didn't end up as the definitive version.
You may notice I'm a bit harsh in that thread. It's true; I'm glad people can come up with drastically creative ways to spin a song, but that's rarely what I'd look for in a mix or a mixer. Furthermore, I'd rather hear a solid mix first and experimentation afterward. Which is more difficult to produce anyhow? Think about it.
I came from a place where I was given a huge amount of creative freedom. I like having that, but I'm very careful about how I implement my creative ideas. It's easy to become hooked on the sound of your ideas alone rather than the song. That's dangerous in mixing. It's having effects to have effects; it's using them as a mask to enable your ideas to take over.
I didn't want to go down the same tired road everyone had in the thread. I wanted the antithesis of what I was hearing. I wanted a solid mix. Hadn't I been remixing for years before anyway? I'd had that freedom and it was enough. Doing the same exact thing I'd already done for quite awhile would be.. What? Boring. Dreadfully so.
I posted my mix and provided the following notes. If you're wondering what I did to the song, 95% of it is right here (I've got to leave some small percentage of mystery.) I may post links to most of the plug-ins I used at a later point. It was my first time using Modern Compressor Black by Antress, for example, and I liked it quite a bit.
While you're reading: does this seem special to you? Does it provide any insight into how I do things? Would you feel comfortable handing your mix over to someone who could write an analysis like this? Did it even produce a good result? Tell me. Use the comments section! Check out The Shapes while you're at it, too.
I don't do these very often and never at the request of somebody else, but if I'm in the mood, I go ahead and make a post. It shines the light on one important part of many which make my labor skilled.
....
"[High end compression is] a start. It was mainly the Tracks 670s hitting 3-7 dB GR on 3 attack. Because those are also a little dark, the high end got rolled off smoothly. I felt boosting the highs was too spiky and harsh, so beyond a high pass at 270 Hz, the OHs did get a small lift at 7kHz. I opted for a more 'grabby' compressor during the verse leads and bypassed it otherwise (Rcomp w/ARC/Opto/Warm; 10.3 atk, 125 rls, 1.99 ratio; threshold was -28.5 in this case.) They also had a de-esser at 2151Hz taking the snare OHs sound back just a little.
The room mic was duped via a short delay to create a stereo pair, and each were hard panned, a risky move that could've introduced a lot of flamming. I filtered pretty heavily once again and didn't rely on these except for a cursory sense of space, so their levels were kept low. They were muted during the bridge to prevent even more apparent flamming.
Vocals were Modern Compressor Black, a free plugin from Antress. 35 threshold, 5 ratio, 12 attack, lowest release (100?) No EQ. The point there was to get something kind of aggressive, but not flat or "spitty," thus the needle moves a lot and keeps the dynamic range in check on louder parts, but compresses very little on quieter parts... Yet it's still not totally transparent like most compressors which do that.
BGV were duped to create a stereo set. Done with a 50 MS delay. Still some phasing, but it wasn't noticeable in the mix. It was hard to make them sound bad honestly.
Vocal send one was the 1/8th note delay, a free E-phonic Tape Delay plug-in. Medium feedback, some high cut, fair bit of low cut, some noise. It's not icy or saturated - good for simple, unobtrusive delay lines.
Vocal sends two and three were long mono Rverbs panned 80% L and R respectively. Why mono? Like I've mentioned, it can really help depth in a mix without cluttering the stereo spread. These two were off doing their own thing (as you would imagine, I rode their level all the time) without having much center information clouding up where the lead vocal is. It sounded really good. The key is that yes, you're creating a sense of space and forward depth, sure.. But you're not recreating a space and trying to be realistic about it. These were for the purpose of being ethereal.
Bass was 90% DI with a lot of sculpting. I think I put some minor distortion or cheap amp sim on the miked signal (bass amp), but it only developed articulation to a small extent. The DI went through at least two rounds of compression to get it under control. First was a 670 with longest attack (6); after that was a Tracks EQ1A with a huge 9dB boost at 60 Hz. It seems a bit extreme, but was going into the Tracks Opto Compressor to be tamed once again. 4.1:1, 19ms atk, 250ms rls, 6.4 compression. I wanted something round, something deep, but again, not flat.
Guitars had a HP all at 200Hz; melody guitar line had the lowpass for the second section of verse two obviously, little bit of Rverb. These needed hardly any help at all, so I just panned them appropriately and went about my business.
The kick I ran two replacements for: a Tama Starclassic (guess that's 18x22) and a bassy electronic sample I pulled from the archives. The Starclassic sample was the attack and a little bit of punch, so it got a low roll-off below about 300Hz. The electronic sample was also a little punchy but with much less high end and body (you don't want to hear the repetitious nastiness of the high end on a non-multi-sampled replacement.. It's awful), then more low end. They both went through the Modern Compressor Black with the same settings as the vocals except for ratio (6) and attack (12).
Snare replacement was a Pearl Sensitone Brass (sounded like 14x5) with the Modern Compressor again - 6 ratio, 15 atk, 120 rls. Most important was additive EQ at the low mids; an EQ1A with a 3.2dB boost at 100Hz.
Snare send was Rverb running with the Drum Plate preset. Very low in level.
Toms were a native plug-in gate. No EQ, no compression. They hardly ever got hit anyway (a good thing in the case of this song.)
Addendum
a) I rode OHs to get them more even in level; vocals for more expression, though they didn't need much. The kick and snare didn't sound natural being leveled via compression (surprise surprise), so I went ahead and did a lot of per-hit level checks. The bass got raised/lowered in sections, usually lighter during a verse and louder during a chorus. There were hardly any mutes beyond what was mentioned above.
b) I time corrected the pedal hi-hat parts (that's not accurate; basically the B sections of the verses) and the rolling kicks in the bridge somewhat, but I didn't spend a lot of time perfecting. The cuts were made with all the drum tracks together: group, split, slide, time-stretch where necessary if there were audible gaps, which only happened once.
c) I didn't opt for buss compression in this instance. Nothing needed glue, and the tracks didn't suffer much from Digititis™ where lots of parts sound too separate and whittled-down."
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Synonymous with...
Proof.
It's time for a who's who of the artists I have up on my blog player. The most recent song deserves its own post, so I'll skip that one for now.
The next song down is "Perfect Relationship," written by Andrew Rispoli. He was also an independent artist out of New York, not unlike David, had read my posts on Harmony Central and asked me to mix this song. There were plenty of good ideas there and admittedly, some challenges. It's also not every day that you work with somebody who has the vision but doesn't stomp all over your suggestions. Actually.. That's a bit rare.
"Sunrise" by Shannon Hurley is after that. This didn't end up going on the final album, but I still felt my interpretation was worth sharing. It's one of the few pieces where I didn't listen to the rough mix and kind of built the song around the parts I had. This resulted in a different focus of course, but I wasn't overly fond of the folky, almost too organic final version on the CD regardless. I wanted something different without even knowing what the original was like; that's just the way I heard it.
Next up is a remix of "The Song that Never Was," originally by Imogen Heap, though you don't hear any of her work in this version. I didn't finish this song because I had run out of time and energy working 50-60 hour weeks at a dead end sales job. This piece was not commissioned and only a potential contest entry for a Twestival.fm fundraiser, so it's not as if I was letting anyone down but myself. Then again, I'm unsentimental about song ideas and didn't mind this one hitting the trash in the long run. What little I wrote did sound good, however.
Finally we have the instrumental version of "Effort," another solo project I did. It started off with lyrics and was supposed to be an AAA-structured song, but I can't stand the sound of my own voice and I'm not a lyricist. Those are not things I do well innately, and quite frankly I don't enjoy them very much. I set the words aside for the final version.
I hope this gives you insight into why these songs are here, how they were developed, and why I chose them to represent my work.
-Skye
It's time for a who's who of the artists I have up on my blog player. The most recent song deserves its own post, so I'll skip that one for now.
The next song down is "Perfect Relationship," written by Andrew Rispoli. He was also an independent artist out of New York, not unlike David, had read my posts on Harmony Central and asked me to mix this song. There were plenty of good ideas there and admittedly, some challenges. It's also not every day that you work with somebody who has the vision but doesn't stomp all over your suggestions. Actually.. That's a bit rare.
"Sunrise" by Shannon Hurley is after that. This didn't end up going on the final album, but I still felt my interpretation was worth sharing. It's one of the few pieces where I didn't listen to the rough mix and kind of built the song around the parts I had. This resulted in a different focus of course, but I wasn't overly fond of the folky, almost too organic final version on the CD regardless. I wanted something different without even knowing what the original was like; that's just the way I heard it.
Next up is a remix of "The Song that Never Was," originally by Imogen Heap, though you don't hear any of her work in this version. I didn't finish this song because I had run out of time and energy working 50-60 hour weeks at a dead end sales job. This piece was not commissioned and only a potential contest entry for a Twestival.fm fundraiser, so it's not as if I was letting anyone down but myself. Then again, I'm unsentimental about song ideas and didn't mind this one hitting the trash in the long run. What little I wrote did sound good, however.
Finally we have the instrumental version of "Effort," another solo project I did. It started off with lyrics and was supposed to be an AAA-structured song, but I can't stand the sound of my own voice and I'm not a lyricist. Those are not things I do well innately, and quite frankly I don't enjoy them very much. I set the words aside for the final version.
I hope this gives you insight into why these songs are here, how they were developed, and why I chose them to represent my work.
-Skye
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Synonymous with...
Who I am.
Synonym Music is me, Skye Nash.
My first real foray into music was writing, entering acidplanet.com remix contests in 2004. The first one I encountered was for Holmes Ives: "Where You Are." I created 2 different interpretations that were rudimentary attempts at nu-electronica (or whatever esoteric genre you'd like to call it), though the feeling of accomplishment was like no other. Obviously I checked out the winner a month later and concluded, "Well... Maybe this isn't for me."
In retrospect the ideas I had were good, but holy cow was the execution flawed. Low vocals, static percussion, and hyper-repetitive song structure plagued the composition as a whole. Only a few glimmering bright spots remained in the choice of sounds and chorus. The mood was there, the presentation was not.
I'd dabbled throughout my high school years with predominantly sample-based music, how it was created, and the infinite possibilities it gave songwriters. My discovery freshman year was a mere toy, the Yamaha DJX box, loaded with prefabricated loops, basic hardware DSP, tempo control, and all sorts of admittedly cheesy bells and whistles. The next year it was video game-based software, MTV Music Generator 2, which contained a surprisingly powerful step sequencer and decent FX. I finally moved to a more stable PC platform and began composing with FL Studio, still in its infancy at the time.
Doesn't sound like much of a start, does it? It gets better.
By 2005 I had a number of contest entries under my belt, all works that I was glad to have earned experience and review criticism as well as conjecture from. One day an independent artist by the name of David Manley (http://davidmanley.com/Home.html) emailed me, interested in having me remix one of his singles after hearing my work on acidplanet.
The song was "So Unreal," and he had commissioned several other remixers to launch the single. My work was made difficult due to an aging computer and tireless 12th grade education, but somehow I pulled it off. The release was met with favorable reviews and an airy CD sleeve, not to mention David's satisfaction and a compliment from Barb and Chaz of Super Buddha (one of the remixers that had worked with the likes of Deborah Harry and Scissor Sisters.)
I'd had my first taste of success. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Once upon a time..
Wait, where was I? Oh, spouting off literary cliches.
Anyway, I continued to enter contests, grow my skills and see how far I could go. By 2006, I could consistently put out songs that had not only great ideas, but strong execution as well. I entered the commercial music program at the community college here to help further my endeavors.
I'm now at the end of my degree and have moved into the field of mixing based on these previous experiences. They prepared me with a huge wealth of knowledge and a desire to always be creative, inspiring, and in some ways, futuristic. I hope you enjoy the blog and it provides insight into how I think - I'm not here to cover the same ol' tired subject in the same ol' tired way.
-Skye
Synonym Music is me, Skye Nash.
My first real foray into music was writing, entering acidplanet.com remix contests in 2004. The first one I encountered was for Holmes Ives: "Where You Are." I created 2 different interpretations that were rudimentary attempts at nu-electronica (or whatever esoteric genre you'd like to call it), though the feeling of accomplishment was like no other. Obviously I checked out the winner a month later and concluded, "Well... Maybe this isn't for me."
In retrospect the ideas I had were good, but holy cow was the execution flawed. Low vocals, static percussion, and hyper-repetitive song structure plagued the composition as a whole. Only a few glimmering bright spots remained in the choice of sounds and chorus. The mood was there, the presentation was not.
I'd dabbled throughout my high school years with predominantly sample-based music, how it was created, and the infinite possibilities it gave songwriters. My discovery freshman year was a mere toy, the Yamaha DJX box, loaded with prefabricated loops, basic hardware DSP, tempo control, and all sorts of admittedly cheesy bells and whistles. The next year it was video game-based software, MTV Music Generator 2, which contained a surprisingly powerful step sequencer and decent FX. I finally moved to a more stable PC platform and began composing with FL Studio, still in its infancy at the time.
Doesn't sound like much of a start, does it? It gets better.
By 2005 I had a number of contest entries under my belt, all works that I was glad to have earned experience and review criticism as well as conjecture from. One day an independent artist by the name of David Manley (http://davidmanley.com/Home.html) emailed me, interested in having me remix one of his singles after hearing my work on acidplanet.
The song was "So Unreal," and he had commissioned several other remixers to launch the single. My work was made difficult due to an aging computer and tireless 12th grade education, but somehow I pulled it off. The release was met with favorable reviews and an airy CD sleeve, not to mention David's satisfaction and a compliment from Barb and Chaz of Super Buddha (one of the remixers that had worked with the likes of Deborah Harry and Scissor Sisters.)
I'd had my first taste of success. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Once upon a time..
Wait, where was I? Oh, spouting off literary cliches.
Anyway, I continued to enter contests, grow my skills and see how far I could go. By 2006, I could consistently put out songs that had not only great ideas, but strong execution as well. I entered the commercial music program at the community college here to help further my endeavors.
I'm now at the end of my degree and have moved into the field of mixing based on these previous experiences. They prepared me with a huge wealth of knowledge and a desire to always be creative, inspiring, and in some ways, futuristic. I hope you enjoy the blog and it provides insight into how I think - I'm not here to cover the same ol' tired subject in the same ol' tired way.
-Skye
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
