13-01-2019, 11:49 PM (This post was last modified: 14-01-2019, 08:21 PM by dagovitsj.)
Hi, I'm new here in this forum and this is my first mix.
Really love the song from the first time I heard it. An extra bonus to get the chance to participate in a mixing contest and I just had to be a patron when I had the chance to get a review by Mike himself!
I have done a few arrangement tweaks and tried to let the song shine together with the vocalist. Hope you like it - and please give feedback, I'm here to learn and also hope to give something back.
Hi dagovitsj! This mix offers another strong vision for the mix, with some cool arrangement ideas, upfront lead vocals and plenty of added reverb. Overall the mix tonality could do with a little less 3-5kHz and probably a bit more sub-80Hz low end too, because at the moment things get a bit harsh-sounding once you start turning up the playback volume. This sense of harshness is exacerbated somewhat by rather spiky hi-hat and ride-cymbal transients, so I'd try to find the tracks responsible for those and maybe apply some HF-only transient processing or perhaps analogue tape emulation to try to tame those spikes a bit.
The vocal timbre is also rather bright and overenhanced at the top end, with fatiguing consonants, which doesn't help the overall mix-tonality tendency. So I'd be tempted to shelve off a few decibels from that at about 5kHz, for instance, subsequently rebalancing the vocal fader to compensate for any loss of audibility. If the vocal isn't coming through the mix clearly enough, try cutting some of that same frequency range out of competing tracks -- the Hammond in Chorus 1, for instance, could usefully be cut at around 2kHz to make room for those vocal frequencies. Be aware, though, that detailed level automation is the only way to get a solid enough vocal here, and you still also need to do more work with frequency-selective dynamics or region-specific EQ to even out the singer's tone before you'll really be able to settle the voice into the mix at a reliable level. For example, check out "see is telling" at 1:47, which suddenly hops out of the balance because of a fleeting low-mid timbral shift. You'll never get that syllable to sit convincingly and translate across different listening systems unless you address things like that. Incidentally, if you're having trouble hearing the kind of level/tone unevenness I'm referring to, try listening to the mix in mono on a single-driver midrange speaker -- that makes things like this so much more audible.
I mentioned the reverb at the outset, and in principle I have nothing against obvious reverb. Here, however, there are several reasons why I'd reevaluate some of the reverb choices. The first is that most of Hannes's references are quite dry and intimate, and even the rough mix has more delay in it than reverb. The problem with using so much bright, wide ambience reverb as this is that it begins to sound rather too much like the 80s, where everyone was keen to flash around their expensive new Lexicon 480. But even leaving that general stylistic issue aside, the reverb also presents a number of more concrete technical problems. The first is that, because it seems to be applied fairly liberally to most things, it actually robs the mix of depth, rather than adding it. What I mean by this is that you've made everything sound a bit distant, whereas the way to generate a sense of depth at mixdown is to create contrast between foreground and background elements -- those define your front and back boundaries, so to speak. As things stand, most things are clustered in the middle distance, broadly speaking.
In addition, the reverb(s) you've used aren't very mono-compatible, so you get a big difference in mix tone and perspective between the stereo and mono mixes, which isn't usually ideal for mainstream music mixes. You've got the problem of vocal sibilance bouncing around in the reverb return as well, and then there's also the issue of long-term mix dynamics, because the reverbs seem quite static through the mix -- in other words they don't really change their character or level much to support changes in the music, as I'd normally expect from any pop song. Basically, it's a bit like you've tried to capture a whole film with one camera angle and zoom setting -- it dilutes the potential for drama. And, of course, the constant background level of reverberation also obscures low-level details of the raw tracks, which again will tend to make the recordings sound a bit bland.
So in the first instance I'd suggest stripping out the reverbs you currently have and experimenting first with reverbs you don't really hear in their own right -- darker and more understated settings with more of a natural tone (convolution can be great for this). Use these sparingly to indicate a sense of communal space, to glue everything together, and to help you define the perceived distance of each sound from the listener. Once those things are done, then you can always add more audible reverbs for tonal or sustain purposes to specific instruments or groups of instruments -- and because you should have some blend and space going on already, you'll be able to use much less of those audible reverbs to have a useful impact on the sound. Whatever you do with reverb, though, make a point of experimenting with EQ cuts on the reverb returns, so that the reverb energy you're left with supplements rather than overwhelms the natural details of the raw sounds.
The kick and snare work pretty well in general, but there's something funny going on with the first cymbal hit of the third Chorus -- it pumps in a really wierd way. I reckon the bass guitar could do with being more audible in the balance in general, seeing as it's such a musically and rhythmically important part. A few decibels of midrange boost would help make it more apparent without introducing too much low-end woof.
The opening arrangement trick is certainly ear-catching, although I think it might be a bit *too* ear-catching for Hannes and the band! The problem is that it makes you pay attention to something that isn't the vocal at the exact point where the vocal first comes in, so I think it's slightly self-defeating, and it also undermines the basic groove at the very moment where it feels like it should be settling in there. I do, however, very much like the way you've flown those mob vocals into the Reintro. This foreshadows the Outro texture, which makes it seem a little more logical, but it doesn't overshadow it, because the Outro definitely still feels fuller and more high-energy.
The drop-down just before the outro is another inventive idea, and one that has a lot recommend it in principle, I think. However, your implementation doesn't yet feel that successful. I like the moment when it does the drop-down (around 3:01), and the moment two bars later when the whole band texture returns (around 3:06), but the way the bass returns at the start of the second bar (around 3:04) weakens the impact of both those sections for me. It almost sounds like the bass-player came in a bar too early by mistake, and prevents the full-band texture making as much of a statement when it returns at 3:06. Personally, I think it'd function better if you kept the initial drop-down texture going for two bars, and then went into the full-band texture directly from that. Kind of cutting out the middle man!
Hope some of that makes sense and is helpful. Thanks for showing us another interesting alternative vision!
(17-01-2019, 03:57 PM)Mike Senior Wrote: Hi dagovitsj! This mix offers another strong vision for the mix, with some cool arrangement ideas, upfront lead vocals and plenty of added reverb. Overall the mix tonality could do with a little less 3-5kHz and probably a bit more sub-80Hz low end too, because at the moment things get a bit harsh-sounding once you start turning up the playback volume. This sense of harshness is exacerbated somewhat by rather spiky hi-hat and ride-cymbal transients, so I'd try to find the tracks responsible for those and maybe apply some HF-only transient processing or perhaps analogue tape emulation to try to tame those spikes a bit.
The vocal timbre is also rather bright and overenhanced at the top end, with fatiguing consonants, which doesn't help the overall mix-tonality tendency. So I'd be tempted to shelve off a few decibels from that at about 5kHz, for instance, subsequently rebalancing the vocal fader to compensate for any loss of audibility. If the vocal isn't coming through the mix clearly enough, try cutting some of that same frequency range out of competing tracks -- the Hammond in Chorus 1, for instance, could usefully be cut at around 2kHz to make room for those vocal frequencies. Be aware, though, that detailed level automation is the only way to get a solid enough vocal here, and you still also need to do more work with frequency-selective dynamics or region-specific EQ to even out the singer's tone before you'll really be able to settle the voice into the mix at a reliable level. For example, check out "see is telling" at 1:47, which suddenly hops out of the balance because of a fleeting low-mid timbral shift. You'll never get that syllable to sit convincingly and translate across different listening systems unless you address things like that. Incidentally, if you're having trouble hearing the kind of level/tone unevenness I'm referring to, try listening to the mix in mono on a single-driver midrange speaker -- that makes things like this so much more audible.
I mentioned the reverb at the outset, and in principle I have nothing against obvious reverb. Here, however, there are several reasons why I'd reevaluate some of the reverb choices. The first is that most of Hannes's references are quite dry and intimate, and even the rough mix has more delay in it than reverb. The problem with using so much bright, wide ambience reverb as this is that it begins to sound rather too much like the 80s, where everyone was keen to flash around their expensive new Lexicon 480. But even leaving that general stylistic issue aside, the reverb also presents a number of more concrete technical problems. The first is that, because it seems to be applied fairly liberally to most things, it actually robs the mix of depth, rather than adding it. What I mean by this is that you've made everything sound a bit distant, whereas the way to generate a sense of depth at mixdown is to create contrast between foreground and background elements -- those define your front and back boundaries, so to speak. As things stand, most things are clustered in the middle distance, broadly speaking.
In addition, the reverb(s) you've used aren't very mono-compatible, so you get a big difference in mix tone and perspective between the stereo and mono mixes, which isn't usually ideal for mainstream music mixes. You've got the problem of vocal sibilance bouncing around in the reverb return as well, and then there's also the issue of long-term mix dynamics, because the reverbs seem quite static through the mix -- in other words they don't really change their character or level much to support changes in the music, as I'd normally expect from any pop song. Basically, it's a bit like you've tried to capture a whole film with one camera angle and zoom setting -- it dilutes the potential for drama. And, of course, the constant background level of reverberation also obscures low-level details of the raw tracks, which again will tend to make the recordings sound a bit bland.
So in the first instance I'd suggest stripping out the reverbs you currently have and experimenting first with reverbs you don't really hear in their own right -- darker and more understated settings with more of a natural tone (convolution can be great for this). Use these sparingly to indicate a sense of communal space, to glue everything together, and to help you define the perceived distance of each sound from the listener. Once those things are done, then you can always add more audible reverbs for tonal or sustain purposes to specific instruments or groups of instruments -- and because you should have some blend and space going on already, you'll be able to use much less of those audible reverbs to have a useful impact on the sound. Whatever you do with reverb, though, make a point of experimenting with EQ cuts on the reverb returns, so that the reverb energy you're left with supplements rather than overwhelms the natural details of the raw sounds.
The kick and snare work pretty well in general, but there's something funny going on with the first cymbal hit of the third Chorus -- it pumps in a really wierd way. I reckon the bass guitar could do with being more audible in the balance in general, seeing as it's such a musically and rhythmically important part. A few decibels of midrange boost would help make it more apparent without introducing too much low-end woof.
The opening arrangement trick is certainly ear-catching, although I think it might be a bit *too* ear-catching for Hannes and the band! The problem is that it makes you pay attention to something that isn't the vocal at the exact point where the vocal first comes in, so I think it's slightly self-defeating, and it also undermines the basic groove at the very moment where it feels like it should be settling in there. I do, however, very much like the way you've flown those mob vocals into the Reintro. This foreshadows the Outro texture, which makes it seem a little more logical, but it doesn't overshadow it, because the Outro definitely still feels fuller and more high-energy.
The drop-down just before the outro is another inventive idea, and one that has a lot recommend it in principle, I think. However, your implementation doesn't yet feel that successful. I like the moment when it does the drop-down (around 3:01), and the moment two bars later when the whole band texture returns (around 3:06), but the way the bass returns at the start of the second bar (around 3:04) weakens the impact of both those sections for me. It almost sounds like the bass-player came in a bar too early by mistake, and prevents the full-band texture making as much of a statement when it returns at 3:06. Personally, I think it'd function better if you kept the initial drop-down texture going for two bars, and then went into the full-band texture directly from that. Kind of cutting out the middle man!
Hope some of that makes sense and is helpful. Thanks for showing us another interesting alternative vision!
Thanks for a very thorough mix feedback, Mike! Lot's of things to work further on. I heard your podcast with different tips after I had submitted this mix and also knew that I had to do more automation, especially regarding the vocal. The lyrics is rather hard to pick out in the raw tracks and also in my mix v1. Yes, I agree with your comment regarding my drop-down where it seems like the bassist came in a bar too early. I heard it after I submitted my mix, and I'm glad to get that confirmed from another listener too! I have to revisit Hannes's references and check how dry they actually are. I'll work with these things and come back with another version. Thanks again for your feedback!
The problem is that it makes you pay attention to something that isn't the vocal at the exact point where the vocal first comes in, so I think it's slightly self-defeating, and it also undermines the basic groove at the very moment where it feels like it should be settling in there. I do, however, very much like the way you've flown those mob vocals into the Reintro. This foreshadows the Outro texture, which makes it seem a little more logical, but it doesn't overshadow it, because the Outro definitely still feels fuller and more high-energy.