The Metallurgist does µ's -Too Bright

[The_Metallurgist]

Greetings, gang!

Some mix notes and general observations (only for those who might be interested):
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My vision was primarily directed at several angles. I've explored sonic textures, depth and stereo imagery in an effort to make it more engaging generally. There's a significant amount of mutes, some subtle, some less so, to clear what i felt wasn't contributing to the delivery of the lyric and help make the remaining elements deliver the song with a more concerted focus. I felt the verses were as-originally arranged, more eventful than the chorus sections and I had a need to try and address this in order to make the choruses more embracing as one would expect normally.

The first 10 seconds of a song is crucial....miss this opportunity to engage your audience, and they will disappear most likely never to be seen again. This was my attempt at capturing the audience with the materials and time i had available. It then runs (with a distortion overlay to present the "...colours saturate my mind") into a heavily treated Rhodes. The trick here was to get the audience's ear to adjust to the timbre. As luck would have it, i had the perfect 20 second space to do so, before bringing in the BGtr etc and a fuller, more emotional sound scape. The BGtr had been muted up to this point, for example. The revised sparse arrangement during those 20 seconds also helps to focus attention on the lyrics and to set the scene. The kick and overheads were muted here incidentally, as was the LGtr.

There's a synth running @3:10, but i've applied some gating techniques to give it some rhythmic character and to make a break. It's then fed through a Moog filter, with an LFO to give it some movement and personality. I don't normally talk gear here, but some might find this kind of approach of interest.

The snare tracking suffered timbre contamination from the snare's 'bleed' in the OH's, so i side chained and ducked the OH mid channel at the snare's fundamental frequency to keep it out of the way without interfering with the cymbals in the stereo field. Talking of OH's...there's a horrible ear-bleeding frequency that's buried here (i think it might have been this in Sede's mix which i could hear but couldn't localise at the time of my feedback - sorry mate!). It wasn't possible to remove it entirely because of all it's harmonics, but i managed to clear the worst without losing the treble too much, unfortunately though, i can still hear it AND feel it!!!! The hi-hat got me irritated though (as a listener/audience participant...oh, and as a mixer!). It lacked rhythm, was repetitive, and had a frequency response that bored deep into my psyche - the sort of thing that can drive people insane? I messed with it, but have to admit the drums in the chorus sections were...ummmm.....missing something?

I cut the song short at 3:40 with some edits. I honestly didn't want to hear another burst of "IT'S MUCH TOO BRIGHT", etc etc. and felt the song had delivered it's goods by this point anyway.

The Rhodes was great fun to mess around with because of all the options it offered spectrally. High passing it at around 600Hz gives the blippy stuff and a chance to feed this into some stereo delays for a bit of mischief. They are quite difficult to control dynamically, but i found dynamic EQ to be the only effective solution - static EQ would simply screw up the treble. Low passing it at this value, and brutally shaping the outcome also has some great sonic scope too......

The pitched vocal 'dual tracking' (with it's own bag of FX possibilities, again exploited) was my inner voice telling me to do it, so i went with my intuition - I always go with it, but sometimes my logic wants to argue! Yeah, i know it's a taste thing and you can't please everyone all of the time..but as it was my mix and a playground to explore without a Brief or A&R over my shoulders, then why not, eh? The benefit of being different is that it makes the song stand out in an over-crowded market - hopefully for the right reasons :/

Last but not least, the vocal. The frequency response was weird, like the guitar amp mic' was pulled in for the role? Given a vocal is THE KEY to a song [in most cases], i'd expect the vocal to be given priority Quality tracking, but if you are a guitarist, then guitars are king right? My approach was a two-way tone, with a fuller delivery in the verses, but allowing a distorted and edgy mix for the chorus with the BV's helping to keep some sonic perspective (i.e. not edgy). The breathers were edited out. I think i remember the vocal tracking had a high noise floor? And best not talk about sibilance (which also impacted the eff's).

Loudness: It was Mastered to -13.4 LUFS integrated. No compression was used in the Master Buss, except for a tape emu running into a limiter. The limiter was soft-knee'd at -5dB and didn't show gain reduction - but i did blink now and again! I did some additional processing (well, it is a Master, right?) but i'll spare you the details...

Thanks for listening and for any comments (i'll take subjective ones too, OK?), and especially to those of you who pulled the wav and gladly suffered the inconvenience for the benefit of hearing 100 percent of my mix instead of only around 25 percent after being mauled by a codec! Thanks for your respect.

---------------
update:
removed the link to the 16 bit wav.

[juanjose1967]

Hi, Dave! this is a very interesting mix indeed. Once again, you make it different and appealing.

I read your post before playing the song, just to be prepared. Your point about the first 20 seconds really worked out. Here I was waiting for the change that finally arrived with the bass and the other instruments. The rhodes' treatment worked very well during those seconds before that first song climax.

Yes, I agree that vocals were very difficult here. (I still wonder how I manage to make them sound alright!). I also think that the chorus' delay on the snare work very well. Just the other day, while I was at the gym, I heard a similar effect on a video clip and I had in mind to use it in a future mix to see how it works, and there you come and 'steal' my idea

But anyway, just as a conclusion, you gave the song a new dimension and a total different point of view, which I'm sure the composer would be very interested in listening to good work!

[ptalbot]

Another very creative mix Dave! I'm really amazed at the things you do in a mix to push its boundaries.
This one gives indeed a different dimension to this song.

Subjectively, I'm unconvinced by the amount of edge you've pushed during the chorus. I understand the idea of making it stand out sonically and the fact that perhaps the material didn't offer enough to achieve this goal, but the vocal and underlying sonic background sounds harsh to me, in a bad way.
It stands out for sure, but to me it does so in a way which is not very palatable, and would make me stop the playing if I were to listen to this on a radio...

There's all sorts of tiny details and ear candies that I really like in what you did, the way you introduce the bass or the subtle delays and the yet different ambience for the end bit starting around 3:23, but that chorus treatment is not appealing much to me, sorry.
I find the end a little bit too abrupt as well, I get that you didn't want to repeat again that 'much too bright' part (I was bored with it in all the other's mixes), but I wonder if there is no way to make sound less like a cut?

[The_Metallurgist]

Hi, Dave! this is a very interesting mix indeed. Once again, you make it different and appealing.

I read your post before playing the song, just to be prepared. Your point about the first 20 seconds really worked out. Here I was waiting for the change that finally arrived with the bass and the other instruments. The rhodes' treatment worked very well during those seconds before that first song climax.

Yes, I agree that vocals were very difficult here. (I still wonder how I manage to make them sound alright!). I also think that the chorus' delay on the snare work very well. Just the other day, while I was at the gym, I heard a similar effect on a video clip and I had in mind to use it in a future mix to see how it works, and there you come and 'steal' my idea

But anyway, just as a conclusion, you gave the song a new dimension and a total different point of view, which I'm sure the composer would be very interested in listening to good work!

thanks for taking the time to have a listen and to scribe some thoughts. the vision was a difficult one to implement not least for the additional processing that is necessary when you start pushing things around. changing the EQ on one thing can cause a chain reaction through the rest of the mix and a train smash further on. one of the major learning points from my perspective is how i set projects up and route the audio. when creative ideas start flowing, one idea can quickly fire up other ideas. the danger is that things can get tied up together, making alterations later on near impossible. i've pretty much cracked it now though, thankfully. but what i haven't cracked is the time all this stuff takes before i can print it.

[Spede]

Allright! This mix start extremely promising. The mix does go beyond the dark side of the moon, but it's always inspiring to hear just how far things can be pushed.

I guess I'm a boring guy for saying I was expecting a bit more from the chorus in terms of wow-factor. If nothing else, the least you could do to improve the choruses is to simply push them a bit louder from the master fader or pull the verses back to even the dynamics; now it sounds like choruses come much much more quieter than the verses. This is most evident if you listen to it a bit quieter and don't blast it at full scale.

Annoying frequencies and taming them down is a hard subject. Once you hear a frequency, it's hard to "un-hear" it, even if you really solved the problem. The best way to deal with them would be find the correct ones (frequencies I mean) right off the bat, take those down like 6 dBs and move on. It's easier to inspect on the issue later after you've forgotten about it.

I saw the timer when the mix was coming to a close and was thinking "To end this mix on the middle-8 is gonna sound really really stupid" but when the ending came, it made me smile. I don't how you did it, but I felt it was great!

[HbGuitar]

What i really enjoy about listening to your mixes Dave is your judicial use of the mute button......something that for me is a bit alien....but something i need to get better at.....once I'm better at EQ, Compression and FX (lol). In fact i was about to post my mix but I'm inspired to dive back in and sort some wheat from the chaff so to speak.

Very interesting sonic landscape that you've sculpted...I think that you've succeeded in creating those layers of interest during the choruses - which is the major challenge imo of this mix given the fairly sterile source material.

As ever, your enthusiasm and attention to detail is commendable..... Great job

[The_Metallurgist]

Another very creative mix Dave! I'm really amazed at the things you do in a mix to push its boundaries.
This one gives indeed a different dimension to this song.

i also like to push my own boundaries too, including those of some forum participants who lean towards tradition

Subjectively, I'm unconvinced by the amount of edge you've pushed during the chorus. .....It stands out for sure, but to me it does so in a way which is not very palatable, and would make me stop the playing if I were to listen to this on a radio...

a couple of observations on that one, Patrick, if i may. the genre you are engaging in within the forum (Electronica, Dance.....and specifically Experimental) is THE LEAST supported by way of multi's in the library and indeed in the mixing pages. it's not too difficult to find people mixing in this category who say in their defence, "This isn't my genre, but i'm having a go anyway!". so, on the whole, i'd suggest that unless someone's tastes and general listening habits verge towards or within the edge-type scene, they're going to struggle getting into edge-type material and engaging with it. that's life, which i'm sure you'd totally agree with.

however, to ignore the audience out there who like their music with an edge would be to deny them a right to edgy material. we mix according to an audience's needs (and within the scope of the musician's). there are radio stations that broadcast this stuff and know there is a community that wants it. edgy is is not classed as "Peak Listening Time" material, but is easily found flicking through the stations after 22:00hrs....and into the late night. i'm not going to second guess what this specific artist's intended audience is as only an idiot would try and do so, but in the freedom of the forum where the only constraints are within an individual's self-determined mixing vision, anything goes. unless, that is, the mixer is stifled by their own tastes, listening habits and level of talent which forms their Terms of Reference. there's more than enough of those already.

Art is art. whether visual or aural, it's sheer nature makes it, by definition, subjective and open to taste. however that shouldn't prevent us from appreciating the work and skill (talent also?) that's gone into it, even if it falls outside of our taste-zone. i think even a subjective analysis needs to incorporate such consideration, and i'm sure you have done so, but chose not to express it perhaps. I've got quite a bit of material stacked on my CD shelves which doesn't suit my taste but that doesn't stop me from engaging with the Art that's gone into it, and appreciating the artist's, and their Team's endeavours. indeed, much of it has influenced me deeply, and i'm profoundly grateful for that.

I find the end a little bit too abrupt as well, I get that you didn't want to repeat again that 'much too bright' part (I was bored with it in all the other's mixes), but I wonder if there is no way to make sound less like a cut?

i can only conclude from this, that you haven't listened to the lyrics and you've missed the concept. i think the cut is perfect. i suspect you're listening to the music and instrumentation and analysing it rather than engaging with the story and it's message then seeing how the music is supporting it's emotional delivery. this is why the chorus was mixed edgy, by the way I wonder also, that because you know the song was shortened, that you've got some subconscious bias coming into play perhaps.

but to answer your question, there's a million ways to end a song, but which one is right will ultimately depend on the needs of the Artist and how they feel it supports their intended concept and that's how it should be, and what we think is irrelevant (unless we're also assuming the impartial role of Producer as well as mixer....but it's still the Artist's ultimate decision).

this was my mix, my interpretation and of course, my vision. if someone gave me this without any brief, this is what i'd do to it, but every mix will form it's own creative vision and i could easily shape a vision that suits the artist's goals, and do so. however, as already stated, it's ultimately the artist's decision of what gets printed.

If you were given the materials, just like other's, you're vision would be individual too; your choice of compression, panning, EQ, spectral balance, level balance etc would be individual. HOWEVER, the difference in my approach, is that i've gone well beyond the scope of basic macro and micro mixing in order to exercise and express MY creativity. of course, the macro and micro objectives still apply (which you've not embraced in your feedback). i must say that i find adding creative elements as i have done here for example, places a huge amount of demand on the mixing objectives that go far beyond a normal vanilla mix which forms the majority of approaches by people in the forum. in my experience, it's exponential in it's additional work-load and complexity. thankfully, i've been able to set up my work flow so i can quickly implement ideas and expand them without getting my knickers in a twist - the less i have to think about the needs of the DAW, the less distracted i am when it comes to the creative tasks; ideas can come quickly...too quickly on occasion! so, if i need to go back in and make adjustments, it's relatively easy...sometimes!!

try it

thanks again for dropping in....and especially for raising some good points for discussion.

PS: IOU a PM....Blue has been undergoing advanced developments taking the vision further, but i needed a break from it.

[ptalbot]

Thanks for your reply Dave!
I think you are right that the amount of edge that I perceived as excessive could well be expected in the genre.
And indeed it's not a genre I listen to much, so I just reacted with my own taste (it's hard to do without sometimes!) in a subjective way as I hinted. If I manage to put away my tastes, then I can understand your mix indeed.

Also true that I didn't pay enough attention to the lyrics and the message that you've enhanced in your mix.
I usually engage with music first, and rarely with the lyrics.
There's a good reason for that: being French, I've spent most of my youth listening to anglo-saxon music without much of a clue about what they were singing about (and was later very often disappointed when I understood them! ), so I still listen to music first, and then after a few listen, if the music appeal to me in any way, will I actually listen to the lyrics. To do so, I usually have to consciously concentrate on them.

Listening on the meaning of the end bit, it make sense that it ends abruptly, although musically it makes less sense.
I wonder if you could not add some sound bytes with a door closing and some footsteps for example, I would find it more satisfactory (although perhaps a little bit cheezy! )

I really do appreciate your artistic interpretations which goes well beyond the mixer's duty to present a coherent space for a song to shine (I realize that the mixer's duty is opened to interpretation as well, and that your definition would be much different from a lot of people). I find your approach to mixing fascinating and I can only imagine the amount of time and how much goes through your decision process when you mix.
It seems to me that you are in a position where the technicalities of mixing are no longer the issue, and past that, your focus is on the creative side. I find that really awesome and it's not something you find often. Being a musician first, and having my primary focus on songwriting and arrangement more than mixing, I relate to that.

It's clear to me that you are an artist on your own right, where the majority of mixers here (and in general) are music technicians (nothing wrong in that, it's just a different view of the trade perhaps). So keep doing what you do, it's an inspiration!

And thanks for the news, I'll be waiting for that Blue update, very curious about it and eager to listen to your explanations!

[thedon]

I 100% agree about the first 10 even a few seconds being crucial i also usually find myself skipping to the next song.
I Don't think I'm Technically ready to attempt this one yet .Just some thoughts While enjoying listening to your mix on my monitors.
I Love the intro with the rhodes effects synth, snare Vocals and bass in the intro and first verse and I actually cranked up the volume
The chorus I had to turn down the volume a touch as the chorus and mainly the vocals sounded a just touch harsh in the mix but i love the snare effects ,
I like how the synth comes up after the chorus at after 01.40 overpowing the vocals a touch.
Great Ending !

[pauli]

Hey Dave.

What's very impressive to me here is the management of the depth field during the verses. There are probably a lot more reasons for this than I actively understand, but I've found the depth field on this track a real trick and many of the mixes on the forum seemed to hint at similar difficulties. There are some odd moments where the placement of instruments is a bit surprising for me, such as when the guitars enter during the verses, they come further forward than the vocal, which is a bit of an unusual choice... although given your demostrated control of depth placement on this mix, I suspect it was intentional and a subjective artistic decision.

In some mixes I find your edits, particularly during chorus sections, a bit strident and distracting. How much of this is due to my different interpretation and familiarity with the song-as-presented, it's obviously difficult to be sure, but throughout the choruses I feel like the underlying rhythmic pulse of the song is undermined by the attempts to introduce more character/engagement. I think hints a bit toward your genre preferences (and I remember at least once you mentioned being a very passionate fan of Aphex Twin and the DnB genre) and in that context the more characterful processing elements make more sense to me. Obviously subjective comments are spheric at best since we all have different ears, especially when it's hard to zoom in on specific technicals, but perhaps "it doesn't feel quite right" is the best way to say what I'm trying communicate. The electro hi-hats and lead vocals are a bit abrasive on the top end, for my ears... there's also a bit of comb filtering/jumbly-wumbly created by the tight delays on the vocals that's a touch distracting.

Sometimes the overall sonic signature/texture is also a bit thick, such that the diverse elements of the choruses blend in with one another a bit too much to discern their musical contribution.

On this review it feels like I'm focusing too much on the negatives and not enough on the positives, which isn't to say that overall I didn't enjoy it, because I did. I already mentioned that I found the handling of depth and placement inspiring during the choruses, but I also enjoyed the treatment and "stereo-ness" of the Rhodes. The minimal compression at play is an interesting and refreshing choice given that this genre tends to suffer more from the excessive squeeze of modern production methods. Skrillex's music (is it music? lol), for instance. The main point I'd like to drive is how arrangement difficulties can lead to mixdown difficulty, even when the engineer is as proficient in handling that sort of challenge as you are. You appropriate diagnosed the main issue as presented... the verse are fuller, wider, more musical, more engaging, and tracked better than the choruses. Not generally a good thing, arguably. But in your attempt to solve the problem, have you perhaps taken things a little too far? Obviously that depends on your audience to a large degree. However, I feel (and I think this is not a subjective observation) that there's now too much happening in the chorus, such that I find myself frequently distracted and at times uncomfortable as I listen. IMHO, things have gone from being much too open to being a bit too dense and cluttery... a bit banal to almost confusingly eventful. I doubt the nature of this can be adequately described with simple, blanket technical answers. Is there too much reverb? Too many FX? Too many edits? I can't possibly say, but there's a bit too much something. This is all forgivable to me, because it took me two weeks of poking these tracks with a really long stick to get something I felt I could post without selling myself short... I can only imagine how long you noodled with this, and I'm duly impressed.

So what I'd like to discuss with the group... it's good to enhance the sonics as presented, especially when we feel that enhancement is required to get listenable results. But when is it too much? At what point do we sacrifice more character and engagement to make sure we're not throwing the baby out with the bad water? What less-than-the-best sonic attributes should we let makes it through to the master to avoid undermining the song in some other way. When should we undermine the musicality of a song to support the lyrics? Should we be doing that at all?

Furthermore, what does this constant push we feel as engineers to make things intensely engaging from start to finish say about our skip-button, media bombarded culture? Maybe the music isn't the problem... maybe our modern media format has trained our audiences to seek unmusically processed material to avoid being bored by it. Is there something the engineering community could/should be doing to correct that? If you tried altering the arrangement of Mozart's Ein Klein Nachtmusik to make it more rhythmically engaging, for instance, the resulting lynch mob could take down entire music hall... because that crowd hasn't (yet) been trained to seek different forms of engagement when they're not presented.

Hopefully this doesn't come off as hateful or mix-bashing... not my intention at all. But these observations I've made feel worth sharing to me, even if they're perhaps the observations of a man's soul in his 60's occupying the body shared by a much younger set of ears. Perhaps that make them irrelevant, but I do feel like many of the psychological drawbacks of digital mixing are evident here.