02-08-2015, 10:05 PM
Preface: I'm not making a direct comparison to your original version as I write these comments. Overall I feel like you've improved over the original, but I still have some food for thought that you're more than welcome to disagree/disregard.
The loops are cool, mate... I considered binning them, too for the same reasons. My solution was to turn them way down and use them more like a subtle rhythmic texture more than a part of the actual groove. Something felt more than actively heard. You could try a little stereo narrowing and a bit of taming with a transient designer to keep them from sounding so alive if you like... that will also keep the verses a little more restrained to give you room for more payoff in the choruses.
I'm finding I like your vocal fx treatments more this time around. Whether or not you've adjusted them, it's hard to tell, but it seems like an improvement. The vocal could still use a little more clarity and upfrontness, though, and there could be many reasons for this. In this case, it doesn't seem to be your FX that are the culprit... honestly you might try just turning it up a dB or two before you try anything else... but the clarity is a little dodgy throughout the mix and I'll get to what seems to be happening.
AndyGallas has suggested that the choruses aren't evoking the emotional payoff they could be and I agree. The big culprit IMHO again is a lack of clarity in the mix balance. From the low midrange up into where the vocal character starts opening up in the mids-proper, you've got a lot going on and its a bit of a sonic wash in my monitors. For the record, I don't really care about or believe in separation, because it's not necessary for a clear mix, but it's tough to distinguish what's happening musically on the bottom half of the spectrum. Even if it sounds decent, and your mix does, this still creates a distraction from connecting to a fully emotional experience.
Main thing here is that the Rhodes is up really high in the balance, which is cool if that's the sound you want, but care should be taken with such a low mid heavy instrument, especially when it's presented in stereo. Both the Rhodes and guitars have much of their body in the same sonic space, and spreading them across the speakers will only help superficially, so you'll need to make a sacrifice and decide what you want to convey the music. For me personally, the guitars are more interesting both rhythmically and harmonically, so I chose to carve away most of the fullness of the rhodes and to use it primarily as a pad. This gave me room to use the guitars as the primary source of chordal harmony in the mix. Alternatively, you might try carving away the fullness from the guitars, or perhaps muting several of them, allowing the Rhodes to convey the underlying harmony and using the guitars mainly to support the groove. This is personal taste, which path you take, and there are surely many more than what I've described, but the key is to -make a choice- and mix the music with intention. In the chorus currently, I can actively hear only a few elements: the vocal, drums, bass, and a harmonically rich wash, which suggests you haven't made a conscious decision what elements you really want to represent the music.
Hopefully I never make a criticism without suggesting a potential solution. Step 1 is to decide what you feel is the most powerful musical message in the backing track for this song. Once again, for me it was the guitars, but there are no wrong answers and it's a completely personal artistic decision. Normally we'd have a musician telling us what he wanted to convey his music, but the beauty here is that the decision is yours. Go with what you feel and don't look back unless it doesn't feel right. Step 2 is to decide whether or not the message is being conveyed and why. Just for example: is the sustained, harmonically rich Rhodes sitting in the balance such that the rhythmicity of the guitars can't cut through? If so, is the entire sound is too loud, or are there only certain frequency ranges that are interfering? Or is it only sometimes too loud, or maybe sometimes too soft? Step 3 is that now armed with the knowledge why the emotions aren't getting through, you decide how you'll fix that, using which tools. In my example, if the Rhodes is interfering with the guitars throughout its sound, well, I'll start by turning it down before I try anything else. But if it's only a problem in certain frequency ranges, I'd start by turning those down with an equalizer. Or if it's dynamically unstable, only occasionally interfering during the odd volume swell, maybe a compressor is the best tool. And if I spend a half hour trying to make room for the guitars and can't do it without ruining the sound, well, maybe I might consider muting it on occasion.
There are other things to consider, like panning, stereo spread, transient envelope, and all manner of technical whatsits, but that's the thought process that I think is missing from your mix: just a little more conscious decision making while setting up the static balance. It seems like you understand your tools and how to use them.... just remember that all the tracks are tools, too!
Keep up the good work, Cudjoe.
BB
The loops are cool, mate... I considered binning them, too for the same reasons. My solution was to turn them way down and use them more like a subtle rhythmic texture more than a part of the actual groove. Something felt more than actively heard. You could try a little stereo narrowing and a bit of taming with a transient designer to keep them from sounding so alive if you like... that will also keep the verses a little more restrained to give you room for more payoff in the choruses.
I'm finding I like your vocal fx treatments more this time around. Whether or not you've adjusted them, it's hard to tell, but it seems like an improvement. The vocal could still use a little more clarity and upfrontness, though, and there could be many reasons for this. In this case, it doesn't seem to be your FX that are the culprit... honestly you might try just turning it up a dB or two before you try anything else... but the clarity is a little dodgy throughout the mix and I'll get to what seems to be happening.
AndyGallas has suggested that the choruses aren't evoking the emotional payoff they could be and I agree. The big culprit IMHO again is a lack of clarity in the mix balance. From the low midrange up into where the vocal character starts opening up in the mids-proper, you've got a lot going on and its a bit of a sonic wash in my monitors. For the record, I don't really care about or believe in separation, because it's not necessary for a clear mix, but it's tough to distinguish what's happening musically on the bottom half of the spectrum. Even if it sounds decent, and your mix does, this still creates a distraction from connecting to a fully emotional experience.
Main thing here is that the Rhodes is up really high in the balance, which is cool if that's the sound you want, but care should be taken with such a low mid heavy instrument, especially when it's presented in stereo. Both the Rhodes and guitars have much of their body in the same sonic space, and spreading them across the speakers will only help superficially, so you'll need to make a sacrifice and decide what you want to convey the music. For me personally, the guitars are more interesting both rhythmically and harmonically, so I chose to carve away most of the fullness of the rhodes and to use it primarily as a pad. This gave me room to use the guitars as the primary source of chordal harmony in the mix. Alternatively, you might try carving away the fullness from the guitars, or perhaps muting several of them, allowing the Rhodes to convey the underlying harmony and using the guitars mainly to support the groove. This is personal taste, which path you take, and there are surely many more than what I've described, but the key is to -make a choice- and mix the music with intention. In the chorus currently, I can actively hear only a few elements: the vocal, drums, bass, and a harmonically rich wash, which suggests you haven't made a conscious decision what elements you really want to represent the music.
Hopefully I never make a criticism without suggesting a potential solution. Step 1 is to decide what you feel is the most powerful musical message in the backing track for this song. Once again, for me it was the guitars, but there are no wrong answers and it's a completely personal artistic decision. Normally we'd have a musician telling us what he wanted to convey his music, but the beauty here is that the decision is yours. Go with what you feel and don't look back unless it doesn't feel right. Step 2 is to decide whether or not the message is being conveyed and why. Just for example: is the sustained, harmonically rich Rhodes sitting in the balance such that the rhythmicity of the guitars can't cut through? If so, is the entire sound is too loud, or are there only certain frequency ranges that are interfering? Or is it only sometimes too loud, or maybe sometimes too soft? Step 3 is that now armed with the knowledge why the emotions aren't getting through, you decide how you'll fix that, using which tools. In my example, if the Rhodes is interfering with the guitars throughout its sound, well, I'll start by turning it down before I try anything else. But if it's only a problem in certain frequency ranges, I'd start by turning those down with an equalizer. Or if it's dynamically unstable, only occasionally interfering during the odd volume swell, maybe a compressor is the best tool. And if I spend a half hour trying to make room for the guitars and can't do it without ruining the sound, well, maybe I might consider muting it on occasion.
There are other things to consider, like panning, stereo spread, transient envelope, and all manner of technical whatsits, but that's the thought process that I think is missing from your mix: just a little more conscious decision making while setting up the static balance. It seems like you understand your tools and how to use them.... just remember that all the tracks are tools, too!
Keep up the good work, Cudjoe.
BB