Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
James May 'Eliza Jane'
09-04-2017, 12:27 PM (This post was last modified: 18-04-2017 12:17 PM by Dangerous.)
Post: #1
James May 'Eliza Jane'
My Attempt.
Beautiful raw tracks and performance. I didn't feel the need to get too carried away with this one. A light weight mix keeping things natural with a bit of automation throughout to aid the arrangement.

Thanks for listening

Dave

Mix#2 added 10-04-17

I have trimmed some fat from the thighs and cleaned up some of those low mids as suggested. Added some extra automation moves around the arrangement. I would love to spend a couple of hours refining it further. (I think it would be worth it). Lastly I've raised the level of the overheads by copying the original, high passing and removing the snare with a side chained comp and then throwing it back into the drum bus. It's helped with some extra sparkle. Still some issues with the vox, but I'm doing more harm than good in my attempt of any improvement.

Hopefully an improvement on the first version.

Mix#3 added 17-04-17

Just some added arrangement tweaks. I have tried to feature the mandolin and pedal parts more purposely and selectively throughout whist being complimentary to the song. I am happy with the pedal steel at this stage but the mandolin is possible still a little over represented and could be trimmed back further. Some of the runs and licks are quite repetitive.
See how I feel about it in a couple of days.Smile


.mp3   JamesMay_ElizaJane_Dangerous#3.mp3 --  (Download: 11.98 MB)


.mp3   JamesMay_ElizaJane_Dangerous#1.mp3 --  (Download: 5.99 MB)


.mp3   JamesMay_ElizaJane_Dangerous#2.mp3 --  (Download: 5.99 MB)


Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2017, 01:31 PM
Post: #2
RE: James May 'Eliza Jane'
This sounds really good. It's nice and thick and full sounding. Maybe a little too full in the lower mids of the bass and kick? They're masking each other a bit.

My only other issue is the cymbals. They're pretty quiet but I know they're kinda that way on the multitrack and it's hard to get loud enough.

Overall, everything works pretty well. I've been trying to get a good mix of this one on here but I can't seem to do it. YOu've got a pretty good one here though. Good job.

I only have earbuds to listen and mix with at the moment. Take everything I say with a grain of salt.
-
A mix doesn't have to be good, it just hast to sound good.
Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2017, 08:49 PM
Post: #3
RE: James May 'Eliza Jane'
I agree with RoyMatthews about the low mids, they are masking your low end. They especially need work on the vocals, they sound a little dull. Good balance, though. Clean it up a bit and you've got a pretty fine mix.
Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2017, 12:48 PM
Post: #4
RE: James May 'Eliza Jane'
(09-04-2017 01:31 PM)RoyMatthews Wrote:  This sounds really good. It's nice and thick and full sounding. Maybe a little too full in the lower mids of the bass and kick? They're masking each other a bit.

My only other issue is the cymbals. They're pretty quiet but I know they're kinda that way on the multitrack and it's hard to get loud enough.

Overall, everything works pretty well. I've been trying to get a good mix of this one on here but I can't seem to do it. YOu've got a pretty good one here though. Good job.

Thanks Roy, right as always.Smile I have made some adjustments based on your thoughts. I've pushed the overheads up. The cymbals could have been a bit louder but they were starting to stick out in a bad way, so I've stayed a little conservative.

Thanks again for your help.
Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2017, 12:52 PM
Post: #5
RE: James May 'Eliza Jane'
(09-04-2017 08:49 PM)Damian Oakes Wrote:  I agree with RoyMatthews about the low mids, they are masking your low end. They especially need work on the vocals, they sound a little dull. Good balance, though. Clean it up a bit and you've got a pretty fine mix.

Thanks Damian, hopefully I've sorted out the low mids in version#2. Still some improvements needed with the vocal. I will try to address this in the future, time permitting.

Cheers
Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2017, 01:26 PM
Post: #6
RE: James May 'Eliza Jane'
I listened version 2

Overall sound very nice and full, it’s balanced and everything.

Esses and effes quite loud. Well, I guess everybody has that problem with these multitracks, but in this case it disturbs the listening.

One tricky task to test: ask the singer to take a one step aback away from the microphone, but try to keep the vox dry sounding without audible reverb.
Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2017, 05:28 AM (This post was last modified: 11-04-2017 06:54 AM by HbGuitar.)
Post: #7
RE: James May 'Eliza Jane'
Only listened to V2 so cant offer any progressive analysis

Very solid job with the backing track (drums, bass, guitars etc). Love some of the mandolin runs....sounds like you've automated them nicely....

I feel the vox could come up in level after the middle 8 for the final vamp......those lovely mandolins tickle the ears in ways that leaves them a little fatigued after the solo ....Verse/chorus 1 & 2 sound well balanced.....that closing vamp gets a bit busy making the vox seem a little buried i think.

Cheers, Simon

Be fierce in your encouragement, kind in your criticism and try and remember that the art of a good critique is not to make someone else's mix sound like yours...but to help the mixer realize their own vision.

https://soundcloud.com/hbguitar
Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2017, 12:28 PM
Post: #8
RE: James May 'Eliza Jane'
(10-04-2017 01:26 PM)Olli H Wrote:  I listened version 2

Overall sound very nice and full, it’s balanced and everything.

Esses and effes quite loud. Well, I guess everybody has that problem with these multitracks, but in this case it disturbs the listening.

One tricky task to test: ask the singer to take a one step aback away from the microphone, but try to keep the vox dry sounding without audible reverb.

Thanks Olli, yes it's a tough one. I think it's probably best left fairly natural sound without trying to emphasis the highs to much. Still, they are lovely sounding raw tracks.
Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2017, 12:39 PM
Post: #9
RE: James May 'Eliza Jane'
(11-04-2017 05:28 AM)HbGuitar Wrote:  Only listened to V2 so cant offer any progressive analysis

Very solid job with the backing track (drums, bass, guitars etc). Love some of the mandolin runs....sounds like you've automated them nicely....

I feel the vox could come up in level after the middle 8 for the final vamp......those lovely mandolins tickle the ears in ways that leaves them a little fatigued after the solo ....Verse/chorus 1 & 2 sound well balanced.....that closing vamp gets a bit busy making the vox seem a little buried i think.

Cheers, Simon

Right you are Simon. I tend to get over excited with all the sonic candy, that I try to high light it all. Cutting back would keep us eager for more rather than introducing fatigue as you suggest.
I also agree, with the vocal, it could come up a dB or 2 after the bridge section as the song intensifies.
Thanks for the helpful pointers.Smile
Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2017, 03:40 PM
Post: #10
RE: James May 'Eliza Jane'
#2

I think this is about ten posts all in one. Make the most of it doll Big Grin

To me anyway, the mandolin during the introduction really sets the scene for the listener and readies us for the vocal performance. Why isn't it in the spotlight? I think this illustrates the problem with the mix as a whole, the subject of emotion. All the supporting instruments (too many for the task perhaps?) are devouring it's gentility - the luuuuv it's presenting.

I did a search on this JM stub for posts containing the word "emotion". Not one came up! I find this surprising, because all this song is about, is finding it, the emotion, the best way possible, and enhancing it with the tools at our disposal. There's loads of talk about instruments, and levels and compression, and all that nerdy stuff, but nowt on the very basic principles this concept is based.

My advice to you would be to get in touch with your feminine side, and go find it, the emotion, that is. I think your mix will be transformed and JM will have to employ you for ever more!

Watch out for the sustains, of which there's a lot here (obvious statement, sorry!), because they have a habit of masking. The Hammond gets suffocated on occasion, for example. Some might say that's a good thing Tongue

I find this a busy mix, with a lot of elements vying for my attention across the stage. Your intro rightly gave me a clue of what was to follow. Is the song over-represented instrumentally for the concept? Do you know how many things the brain can focus on in a song before it overloads and hits the Goodbye button? What instruments, and when, does this voice need to support it, that emotional delivery thing?

I'm, like, not always sure what you are wanting to give to me, and instead of deciding, you deliver everything? Is it supporting the melody, or is it providing it? Perhaps making some decisions with depth and level and being decisive with the mute button might help thin things out, or spotlight to support the lyric and emotional elements more. I heard things, but I didn't feel. I need to feel this concept, and I think the vocalist certainly wants me too.

I would personally add more presence and definitely a chunk of air to the vocal, it would help bring him forwards of the instruments (and do so without necessarily changing the level directly, depending on the outcome) as well as better define the lyric and help his diction. You'd need to fight the sibilance which will most likely come forth?

Being a long song, we have to work extra hard on retaining interest, which you are aware of. I think with more intensity in some places and less in others, you could make the resultant dynamic which subsequently flows, bring interest and help the emotional element too. Just a little too static for me and then I find myself wondering what to cook tonight.

And hey, you also need to fix the intersample peaks. Back your limiter off and give it more room perhaps. I'd also recommend fixing your room acoustics so you can dial in the bass elements and balance the rest of the mix off of this. I've quickly listened to a couple of previous mixes and they need help. If you can't hear it, you can't fix it and you'll be here forever doing the two-step. Do you think the kick works at 40Hz? According to my bookshelf rig, there isn't a kick. Many consumers won't hear it either so it isn't translating the way it should. I'll leave you with my thoughts, which I do hope you found constructive and informative? It's not an easy arrangement to fix, so please keep things in perspective.

Awesome thanks for the listen and for sharing it with us.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Support my video work!
Advertisement: