22-05-2015, 06:43 PM
(This post was last modified: 22-05-2015, 09:15 PM by londonmatt.)
** EDIT ** Having written this in a rush while also cooking tea for my kids, I realise I perhaps came across as more confrontational than I would have liked. Herewith a hopefully more conversational version 
Well I have an essay to write so apologies if my reply is rather more brief than others
Re growth mindset thinking - the central tenets as they apply to education relate to the type of praise given to children (telling a child "you're so clever" when they've solved a problem makes them *less* likely to try something more difficult next time because if their "cleverness" resides in their ability to solve problems correctly, their self-identity is questioned when they get something wrong. Conversely telling a child "you've worked really hard" when they've solved a problem makes them more likely to relish challenge) and to the extent to which our self-theories affect our aptitude. Psychologically speaking, it's pretty uncontroversial - elements of it are in Montessori and Dewey, writing a hundred years ago and it's backed up by decades of empirical studies.
The crucial point to take from it is not necessarily "I can be as good as Michael Brauer at mixing" but "there is no pre-set genetically determined limit to how good I can get at mixing, if I am prepared to put in effort". Moreover, effort, not genetic ability, is by far the greatest determiner of how successful anyone is at pretty much anything - even Mozart, who is regularly held up as a "born genius", wrote: "People make a great mistake who think that my art has come easily to me, nobody has devoted so much time and thought to composition as I... there is not a famous master whose work I have not studied over and over." To put it in context, the piano concerto recognised at Mozart's first great attempt in that genre (as opposed to more derivative earlier works), Jeunehomme no. 9, was his 271st published work.
Couple of other things - Dave, you said that the fact I have a music degree is "irrelevant" to mixing, which I found quite surprising. Leaving aside the fact that 30% of my degree was on Studio Recording Techniques and Electroacoustic Composition, the level of critical listening for nuance, balance and tone required to play at degree level in a classical ensemble is extremely high. Not to mention the years of ear training that makes me very sensitive to pitch inaccuracies, all the work I've done on harmony & counterpoint, musical arranging of many different genres etc - and of course I can communicate to musicians in their own language, so I'd say that it was highly relevant. However, I'm getting defensive, for which there is no need.
However, it does lead me onto a further question which is meant as a genuine discussion starter, not an attempt to start an argument: to what extent do you (or anyone else reading this) consider mixing to be an art or a science? I have a background in music and I - probably therefore unsurprisingly - consider it to be primarily an art. Your signature line implies an artistic leaning, but most of what I've read so far in this thread and a couple of others has all been about comb filtering, phase issues, mic bleed, frequency responses, the inadequacy of mp3 encoding, acoustic treatments etc etc - i.e., it's basically a science, and a highly mysterious and complex one at that. I find myself wondering: Where's the focus on the actual song rather than the technicalities surrounding it? Where's the meaning of the words and the feeling of the music? I know they're in there as well, but I can't help feeling that this kind of discussion is in some danger of not seeing the wood for the trees.
(OK, let's be clear, in this particular song, I've got no idea what most of the lyrics are, but you get the gist I think )
.... and back to the essay ....
Well I have an essay to write so apologies if my reply is rather more brief than others
Re growth mindset thinking - the central tenets as they apply to education relate to the type of praise given to children (telling a child "you're so clever" when they've solved a problem makes them *less* likely to try something more difficult next time because if their "cleverness" resides in their ability to solve problems correctly, their self-identity is questioned when they get something wrong. Conversely telling a child "you've worked really hard" when they've solved a problem makes them more likely to relish challenge) and to the extent to which our self-theories affect our aptitude. Psychologically speaking, it's pretty uncontroversial - elements of it are in Montessori and Dewey, writing a hundred years ago and it's backed up by decades of empirical studies.
The crucial point to take from it is not necessarily "I can be as good as Michael Brauer at mixing" but "there is no pre-set genetically determined limit to how good I can get at mixing, if I am prepared to put in effort". Moreover, effort, not genetic ability, is by far the greatest determiner of how successful anyone is at pretty much anything - even Mozart, who is regularly held up as a "born genius", wrote: "People make a great mistake who think that my art has come easily to me, nobody has devoted so much time and thought to composition as I... there is not a famous master whose work I have not studied over and over." To put it in context, the piano concerto recognised at Mozart's first great attempt in that genre (as opposed to more derivative earlier works), Jeunehomme no. 9, was his 271st published work.
Couple of other things - Dave, you said that the fact I have a music degree is "irrelevant" to mixing, which I found quite surprising. Leaving aside the fact that 30% of my degree was on Studio Recording Techniques and Electroacoustic Composition, the level of critical listening for nuance, balance and tone required to play at degree level in a classical ensemble is extremely high. Not to mention the years of ear training that makes me very sensitive to pitch inaccuracies, all the work I've done on harmony & counterpoint, musical arranging of many different genres etc - and of course I can communicate to musicians in their own language, so I'd say that it was highly relevant. However, I'm getting defensive, for which there is no need.
However, it does lead me onto a further question which is meant as a genuine discussion starter, not an attempt to start an argument: to what extent do you (or anyone else reading this) consider mixing to be an art or a science? I have a background in music and I - probably therefore unsurprisingly - consider it to be primarily an art. Your signature line implies an artistic leaning, but most of what I've read so far in this thread and a couple of others has all been about comb filtering, phase issues, mic bleed, frequency responses, the inadequacy of mp3 encoding, acoustic treatments etc etc - i.e., it's basically a science, and a highly mysterious and complex one at that. I find myself wondering: Where's the focus on the actual song rather than the technicalities surrounding it? Where's the meaning of the words and the feeling of the music? I know they're in there as well, but I can't help feeling that this kind of discussion is in some danger of not seeing the wood for the trees.
(OK, let's be clear, in this particular song, I've got no idea what most of the lyrics are, but you get the gist I think
) .... and back to the essay ....