Fade: OUT (Hay-makin' Man) - Completed

[Mixinthecloud]

Hey man I'm not sure what happened but the v1 "Fade" sounds better in the stereo field than "Fade 4".
v1 has a solid center and a clear L and R panning.
v4 has a weird sort of delay between L and R making the center odd sounding. It almost sounds like it has a phase problem. I don't know how else to explain it. It could be that reverb you used but I'm not sure as I also hear a stereo spread in the Bass track in a weird way.

Snare is not my friend on this track. Yours sounds good but still too awkward in the tonality of it. I'm not sure what it is perhaps a different snare should have been used in the recording but hey not much we can do here unless we use a sample to go with it ( which I'm tempted to use honestly).
Balances are pretty good overall but I found that Hammond (I believe so, I could be wrong) to be too overpowering with respect to the rest of the balance in the mix. I also agree the acoustic guitars jump at you way too much. I felt their purpose was mostly rhythm oriented so the strumming is what gave the track power more than the actual chord sound. I feel you boosted those for the chords to be heard. ( I could be wrong)
Solo sounds great and it does blend well with the mix. Tambourine and shakers work good, I should boost those in mine.

It's a hard mix so I'm not surprised everyone has a unique take on it.

Hey Shul,

Thanks for the listen. Yeah, the snare is a thorny issue. I am actually pretty happy with the sound I have settled on. It took some doing. I have a narrow band boost in the meat of the tone of the snare on its buss which I thought added some good character. It seems no one likes it. Oh well. 
You are spot on with Fade 4. I used the Ozone Imager on it in mastering and I may have over done it. Good ear. I may look at another stereo spreader just to add a bit more depth and width. I try not to go overboard with that.  I'm not sure it is the Hammond you are referring too. There are three keyboard tracks. For me it was the middle track. I have two heavy layers of compression on it to try and give it some impact but at the same time controlling its dynamics and stereo spread. It is a weak spot, for sure. I did automate the Hammond during the bridge/break to add more energy in the transition to the guitar solos. That was the real challenge for me in this song. And you are right, there are a lot of interesting takes on this song. I can see James sitting there sniggering at as all as we break our brains on his creation!  LOL. Gotta love a challenge.

[phil_basement]

Hi, I think it is a good mix. I can ear everything, generally well balanced.
A little bit too much fx for the vocal at the beginning for my taste, and may be too much higher harmonic distorsion, may be it is the stereo spreader you talked about, don't know.
But I like it, good job!

[Franz]

Hey MIXINTHECLOUD,

* your new-alt-arrgt

Interesting idea of the new arrangement. Problem is, this makes the title even longer compared to the original. You could perhaps reduce the intro for example - which is twice too long for my taste -.

Concerning the snare, your treatment is quite strange: at the intro we could have a sound close to rimshot but you have a defined sound and when the singing begins there should be a change of sound with the snare drum and you do not change nothing and unfortunately the snare is completely crushed. In addition, the rolls and ghost notes are missing which bring a completely different rhythmic atmosphere.

After that the choir took on a somewhat invasive dimension.
 
At the end of the title at the transition (bridge), the marriage of acoustic guitars with pseudo "metal" electric guitars is not very happy. And the organ completely interferes with the guitar solos. Ultimately you have not only one but poorly defined atmospheres. We are vaguely pop with a folk orientation and a hint of rock at one point. But I think that the original sounds of electric guitars (which I don't really like) induce these effects.

But your work is really well done and more than honorable.

Cheers

Franz

[Mixinthecloud]

Hey MIXINTHECLOUD,

* your new-alt-arrgt

Interesting idea of the new arrangement. Problem is, this makes the title even longer compared to the original. You could perhaps reduce the intro for example - which is twice too long for my taste -.

Concerning the snare, your treatment is quite strange: at the intro we could have a sound close to rimshot but you have a defined sound and when the singing begins there should be a change of sound with the snare drum and you do not change nothing and unfortunately the snare is completely crushed. In addition, the rolls and ghost notes are missing which bring a completely different rhythmic atmosphere.

After that the choir took on a somewhat invasive dimension.
 
At the end of the title at the transition (bridge), the marriage of acoustic guitars with pseudo "metal" electric guitars is not very happy. And the organ completely interferes with the guitar solos. Ultimately you have not only one but poorly defined atmospheres. We are vaguely pop with a folk orientation and a hint of rock at one point. But I think that the original sounds of electric guitars (which I don't really like) induce these effects.

But your work is really well done and more than honorable.

Cheers

Franz

Well Franz, there's a lot to fathom in your response. I think it is best to say that we disagree on the approach to this composition. 
The Alt. arrangement was just for fun. I did not take it too seriously and yes I considered taking out two of the four phrases which make up the intro, even making the second intro to the verse only one phrase long. Both work. Feel free to chop away on your own file and see what you come up with. I'd like to hear that. There are some things you raise I can agree with, namely the possible over-vigorous use of the acoustic guitars during the break. In Fade 5 I have backed them out a touch to even them out across the panoply of guitars in that section. I am trying to recall breaks similar to this I recollect from Led Zeppelin. I hope you can catch the reference. This is also where the song has its ultimate climax. Certainly, an arrangement which has its challenges. Dealing with all three sections in a consistent and enervating manner is a tough get. While you are not a fan of mine, I am quite happy with the transitions into and out of the middle break/bridge section. Please take a listen to Fade 5 for some changes you may like.
Thanks again for your input.

[Roy]

I listened to Mix 5. To me it feels like there's an overall stereo widening thing going on and it makes me lose perspective. I wish it were more grounded. I summed it to mono and found that a better listening experience. Also it worked pretty well in mono, so kudos.

Weird click at 1:58. Can't figure out where that's from. (Edit: It's just the sidestick but the timing feels off, huh)

The 2-3k range gets a bit much in the build up section. Again feels better in mono.

It's energetic and moving but the membranophones get lost in the climax. Not the first time I've said that.

In the end that's my 2 cents. Maybe it's my ears and or earpods but that's what I heard. I think you could go simpler. Still it does the job and moves the listener.

[Mixinthecloud]

I listened to Mix 5. To me it feels like there's an overall stereo widening thing going on and it makes me lose perspective. I wish it were more grounded. I summed it to mono and found that a better listening experience. Also it worked pretty well in mono, so kudos.

Weird click at 1:58. Can't figure out where that's from. (Edit: It's just the sidestick but the timing feels off, huh)

The 2-3k range gets a bit much in the build up section. Again feels better in mono.

It's energetic and moving but the membranophones get lost in the climax. Not the first time I've said that.

In the end that's my 2 cents. Maybe it's my ears and or earpods but that's what I heard. I think you could go simpler.  Still it does the job and moves the listener.

Hey Roy,
Thanks for the listen and the comments. Sometimes I can get lost in the weeds of the minutia. I wonder, can you listen to my first mix and let me know how what you think of that in comparison to the later mixes? 
I actually highly reduced spatial effects on Fade 5 as I had heard other comments about that. There are some other minor M/S adjustments but no serious spreading in this mix. I wonder where you are hearing it.
Again, thanks for the listen and comments.

[Roy]

I listened to Mix 5. To me it feels like there's an overall stereo widening thing going on and it makes me lose perspective. I wish it were more grounded. I summed it to mono and found that a better listening experience. Also it worked pretty well in mono, so kudos.

Weird click at 1:58. Can't figure out where that's from. (Edit: It's just the sidestick but the timing feels off, huh)

The 2-3k range gets a bit much in the build up section. Again feels better in mono.

It's energetic and moving but the membranophones get lost in the climax. Not the first time I've said that.

In the end that's my 2 cents. Maybe it's my ears and or earpods but that's what I heard. I think you could go simpler.  Still it does the job and moves the listener.

Hey Roy,
Thanks for the listen and the comments. Sometimes I can get lost in the weeds of the minutia. I wonder, can you listen to my first mix and let me know how what you think of that in comparison to the later mixes? 
I actually highly reduced spatial effects on Fade 5 as I had heard other comments about that. There are some other minor M/S adjustments but no serious spreading in this mix. I wonder where you are hearing it.
Again, thanks for the listen and comments.

I'm not able to go in depth at the moment but I gave the first mix a listen specifically with an ear comparing it to mix 5 and 5 has a 'phasiness' that the first one doesn't have. I'm focusing mostly on the intro bits. Mix one is relatively subdued, in a good way. Mix 5 has more overheads and maybe I'm reacting to that phase relationship? But I feel like I'm hearing it on the reverb too. But maybe you sent the OHs to the reverb and that would still have some phase issues.

Still, with mix 1 the vocal is there in front of me and with mix 5 it's less in focus. If that makes sense. It's an M/S thing but it's always a M/S thing when it comes to stereo.

[Franz]

Hey mixingthecloud !

Thank you for your feedback, very interesting for exchanging our points of view. And it's instructive.
 
In fact, you summed up the situation perfectly: "I think it is best to say that we disagree on the approach to this composition".

The various approaches (and therefore also those of the mixes of other friends who are members of MT Cambridge) are more or less distant from the original Fytakyte mix.   I would be curious and interested in what our composer friend Andrew Gosden thinks, who has not yet contributed to this title on the MT Cambridge site (unless I am mistaken). Wait and see.

I'm sure you'll find "a good compromise" for your final mix, perhaps taking into account the different opinions you've received so far (including mine, LOL...)

But, Cheers !

Francis

[Mixinthecloud]

Hey mixingthecloud !

Thank you for your feedback, very interesting for exchanging our points of view. And it's instructive.
 
In fact, you summed up the situation perfectly: "I think it is best to say that we disagree on the approach to this composition".

The various approaches (and therefore also those of the mixes of other friends who are members of MT Cambridge) are more or less distant from the original Fytakyte mix.   I would be curious and interested in what our composer friend Andrew Gosden thinks, who has not yet contributed to this title on the MT Cambridge site (unless I am mistaken). Wait and see.

I'm sure you'll find "a good compromise" for your final mix, perhaps taking into account the different opinions you've received so far (including mine, LOL...)

But, Cheers !

Francis

Hey Franz,

Can I ask you to compare my original Fade with the later version?  After all is said and done, I think my first impression and master was the best of the lot. The nice part about Cambridge and similar sites, especially in the absence of the artist as either a reviewer or client, is that there is no right or wrong. Most approaches are valid AND different. Criteria for me are pretty simple. Does it catch my ear and is it listenable. There is a lot of leeway there   
Thanks.

[Mixinthecloud]

I listened to Mix 5. To me it feels like there's an overall stereo widening thing going on and it makes me lose perspective. I wish it were more grounded. I summed it to mono and found that a better listening experience. Also it worked pretty well in mono, so kudos.

Weird click at 1:58. Can't figure out where that's from. (Edit: It's just the sidestick but the timing feels off, huh)

The 2-3k range gets a bit much in the build up section. Again feels better in mono.

It's energetic and moving but the membranophones get lost in the climax. Not the first time I've said that.

In the end that's my 2 cents. Maybe it's my ears and or earpods but that's what I heard. I think you could go simpler.  Still it does the job and moves the listener.

Hey Roy,
Thanks for the listen and the comments. Sometimes I can get lost in the weeds of the minutia. I wonder, can you listen to my first mix and let me know how what you think of that in comparison to the later mixes? 
I actually highly reduced spatial effects on Fade 5 as I had heard other comments about that. There are some other minor M/S adjustments but no serious spreading in this mix. I wonder where you are hearing it.
Again, thanks for the listen and comments.

I'm not able to go in depth at the moment but I gave the first mix a listen specifically with an ear comparing it to mix 5 and 5 has a 'phasiness' that the first one doesn't have. I'm focusing mostly on the intro bits. Mix one is relatively subdued, in a good way. Mix 5 has more overheads and maybe I'm reacting to that phase relationship? But I feel like I'm hearing it on the reverb too. But maybe you sent the OHs to the reverb and that would still have some phase issues.

Still, with mix 1 the vocal is there in front of me and with mix 5 it's less in focus. If that makes sense. It's an M/S thing but it's always a M/S thing when it comes to stereo.

No rush, Roy. And thanks for the quick listen. The 'phasiness' issue is a real thorn in my side. In the early mix I dealt with it mostly with level between the overheads, rooms and Toms. I do emphasis the overheads in Fade 5 after chopping out the cymbals from the toms. Another challenge was placing the hats properly against the overheads.  I started listening to your mix but the Cambridge site is acting up for me, causing listen-back to jump to the end of a song for unknown reasons. I have to close my browser and re-access the site in order to listen again to any playback.  Having only been able to listen to the intro of your mix I noticed how the open hat jumps to the right while the closed hat (from the overheads) is more central. This is a challenge I faced too, in trying to stabilize the drum image. I am using my SSL 4000e console template for this mix. I am still learning the dynamics on the channel strip.