The Metallurgist does µ's -Too Bright

[The_Metallurgist]

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

thanks for calling in and giving it a listen and posting your thoughts.

muting something isn't easy, especially for musicians. performance is what matters, so muting takes away performance by default at least at the micro level. and of course, if we've practised the guitar lick with obsessive regularity, taken a few attempts at getting a decent tracking, all objectivity can be lost regarding the overall song's presentation and where that part contributes emotionally. imagine if a mixing engineer muted out 50 percent of that work for the betterment of the song and it's delivery to a wider audience than the band's ears! as it used to say on Standard Fireworks; "Light blue touch paper and retire at once!". to be honest, such decisions per se, shouldn't really occur during mixing if the song has gone through a decent Producer, but mention Producer to most musician's and they get a rash, even if they can afford one (sadly...it's out of ignorance)! but what is happening more and more because people are cutting out as much cost as possible in order to minimise losses(!) unless they are doing it for their own entertainment, is the avoidance of a professional studio. which basically means one doesn't need to critically decide what needs tracking. so.......EVERYTHING gets tracked, even ideas and inspirations which; "...might come in handy at the mixing stage". a lot of mixes out there suffer from excess flab.....muting is a duty in such instances. however the musicians will want everything included, including the 12 guitar's even though it's only a 3-man band.

so, if you find yourself looking at a track and wondering what it's contributing in the delivery of the song....it might be a good candidate for muting...or even total deletion. the good news is that nobody is going to kick you in the teeth for doing so in the forum, only perhaps they still might metaphorically speaking

one of the spin-offs from muting is that it opens up a song spectrally, so there's more room for doing some sonic mischief in the fx department. but be warned, if you are not already familiar with bundling in fx, it can place an exponential demand on time because of all the additional issues it creates in getting them to balance and play nice with all the other stuff going on. but when it works, it feels great.

i think the jury is still out on the choruses, depending on taste and people's Terms of Reference i.e. what genres they play in, what their chosen instrument is, what they listen to....and the way they listen....and ESPECIALLY the gear they listen with. but this chorus was difficult because no matter what the approach, nothing was going to make it work, in my opinion; that bass-synth was being asked far too much to hold the chorus together and make it move and the total lack of rhythm in the drums, for example, merely contributed to the impossible challenge. but i had a go, nevertheless. i'm glad you liked it though (despite the limitations in the song), i put a lot of thought and work into this one.

i'm finding time a bit challenging at the moment, so my forum time has taken a bit of a bashing as of late. i will drop by and give yours a listen in due course, i won't forget. looking forward to hearing your approach, especially regarding your choices and delivery of ambiance.

thanks indeed for 'your' enthusiasm, i get valuable energy from this.

cheers
BigDave

[The_Metallurgist]

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 !

hi Don,

thanks as always, for dropping by and sharing your thoughts and ob's; your time is greatly appreciated.

the chorus lead vocal was mixed with a different processor to the synth for a contrast in their delivery. i used the Waldorf D-Pole on vox for the distortion, and this thing can be pretty brutal in it's harshness without due care and diligence - i think it should come with a health warning...having just typed that, i think it does!!! lol.

even if your monitors are not on the bright side and you're monitoring at an elevated SPL, i'd expect the vox to sound harsh because the perception of pitch will increase with increasing SPL. what is crucially important is not your monitors so much, but whether you are monitoring at optimum loudness where the ear's non-linear attributes are pretty much evened out, and importantly, in a decent sized room with controlled frequency response? how are you fixed?

Don, feel the fear and come on and mix it!

sorry for the late acknowledgement of your feedback...but i'm struggling with time management so the forum's been taking a back seat lately. should be back to normal soon...whatever normal is.

best regards

[The_Metallurgist]

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.

Pauli, you are clearly a novice, so on that basis, i can make an exception on this occasion. i think this mix, and my creative mixing approach (which comes without the attendant demands and requirements of an Artist's Brief), are outside of your Terms of Reference.

but when you don't understand my mixes, it might be best that you don't give feedback in future.

[pauli]

I'm sorry I offended you, it wasn't my intention in the slightest... my understanding was that you found any alternative perspective to be worthwhile feedback. If having a different opinion means that my feedback doesn't have value to you and expressing said opinion is going to make you upset, I won't bother you with it anymore. My mix of this sucked horribly and I've acknowledged that without reservation, so maybe that does make my opinion worthless.

This forum is either a learning resource or a playground, depending on the mix engineer and his skill level... and yes, I'm a novice, so I'm filed under the former. But I never said anything hurtful and tried to be clear that nothing hurtful was intended, but evidently I've failed to relate that much as I've failed to understand your vision. Keep doing what you're doing and taking pride in it... I've always respected that.

[APZX]

So, I mostly liked the intro and how you handled that. The rhodes (at least I think it was the rhodes) that goes off into that infinite echo was pretty cool. However, I felt that overall the rhodes while adding a layer of texture ultimately ended up being too distracting. It is almost just too much going on especially with the guitar right there with the vocal. Though you highlighted the rhode's interesting bits in a very interesting way. Including some of the effects to make it more driving. I really liked the way you treated it in general. But just in some parts it felt a touch too much.

Now, the chorus. I'm not entirely sure where you were going with it. It hits on extremely strong and then loses energy. The kick loses its power straight up, the snare seems like it went out for a drink and then returned just in time for the recording and the hi-hat. Well I kind of liked what you did there. Interestingly I felt the verses were better sounding then the chorus in terms of depth and power. Which is really strange to think about considering there is actually a lot more going on. However, when you consider the verse breathes more in pretty much every regard it actually makes more sense. The low end in the verses is more open and less congested, the overall balance of harmonics is better in the verses as well.

Then the breakdown. For the most part I rather enjoyed this and the only real complaint is how you ended it right there without a reverb tail or something to let "you" just linger on a tiny bit more.

I really do have to give you props for the vocals though. You gave them a much better tone overall and even that vocal doubling is interesting to listen to.

Overall most of your edits I felt were actually very appropriate and did make the track more concise and to the point.

As a slight tangent I find it surprising that so many people seem to be over complicating the chorus. I say this because I started mixing this yesterday and am pretty close to being finished myself. The one thing I noticed with the chorus is if you just allow it breathe appropriately I don't think it requires a really heavy hand to make it sound good and juxtapose it against the verse. Granted I've found it requires notching the verses and breakdown down though.

Anyway, interesting mix with a lot of very interesting ideas. Most of which are actually very beneficial to the track. At least my thoughts.

[The_Metallurgist]

So, I mostly liked the intro and how you handled that. The rhodes (at least I think it was the rhodes) that goes off into that infinite echo was pretty cool. However, I felt that overall the rhodes while adding a layer of texture ultimately ended up being too distracting. It is almost just too much going on especially with the guitar right there with the vocal.

when you mix this, you will understand the issues the Rhodes brought to the song overall. the instrument was present in the tracking ALL THE WAY THROUGH, even in the chorus - ESPECIALLY the chorus (caps for emphasis). if you take the instrument out in it's totality, the song is empty because it's a sparse arrangement to begin with. so, somehow, the instrument needs to be worked in a way that complements the intentions within the lyric and supports it, rather than simply being just another instrument working along side other instruments. importantly, it shouldn't be playing all the way through as it's tracking suggests in the arrangement, IMO. you are no doubt aware that an instrument that is playing for a while causes the listener to disengage with it...they will blank it out, basically. think about the implications......

this is why i've shaped the Rhodes differently at various times in the song. not once have i kept it original because original is stereophonically chaotic complete with extreme dynamics and spectral spread.

by the way, what do you think he means by "Freedom is on the other side"? what is the "other side" in the song's context...and do you think given this lyric that the way i've mixed the Rodes departs from this context or supports it?

it was an interesting project.

Though you highlighted the rhode's interesting bits in a very interesting way. Including some of the effects to make it more driving. I really liked the way you treated it in general. But just in some parts it felt a touch too much.

thanks...there's some heavy technical stuff here. my intention was to help make it express the lyric.....as well as to contribute to the song's sonic engagement which was fresh and different to "the norm". as it was presented in the tracking, the audio was nothing less than manic in the stereo field. i can understand how some might find my constrained approach still somewhat overbearing, but it's a subjective thing and i think it's nowhere near "too much" compared to the implied content in the original tracking. actually, i thought it was quite conservative in the circumstances. if i listen to the words of the song, i don't have an issue with it....and that's how it was mixed - to fundamentally express and support the lyric. this guy's got a lot of stuff going on in his head, right? to miss this opportunity of expressiveness is to miss the concept of the song. but it needed balancing and working throughout the song...and not simply be mixed as it was presented vanilla-style.

sure, if one listen's and focuses on it specifically, without taking it's performance in the context of the song, i'd agree with you

i'll be interested to hear how you approached this issue in your mix....

....Interestingly I felt the verses were better sounding then the chorus in terms of depth and power. Which is really strange to think about considering there is actually a lot more going on. However, when you consider the verse breathes more in pretty much every regard it actually makes more sense. The low end in the verses is more open and less congested, the overall balance of harmonics is better in the verses as well.

the only instrument that is the same in the verse as it is in the chorus (ignoring the vocal), is the Rhodes! the bass_synth track provides the bass here, and pretty much everything else across the spectrum. interestingly, this synth isn't present anywhere other than the chorus, which i personally feel is a major issue with the arrangement. i don't think it's a good idea to bring in an instrument in the chorus, then making it a major presence, if the audience isn't familiar with it to begin with - a Producer wouldn't let this through. we could be excused for feeling the song had changed, for one thing! the instrumentation during the verses was completely different (except for the Rhodes) and had more engaging content AND a beat! and this is the crux of the problem we are confronted with in the mixing....and i think you've missed that point, but so has everyone else? so, on that basis, how should we deal with it? my mix was my interpretation...or at least one of my interpretations

the problem fundamentally, is that we are all conditioned to hearing vamped-up choruses...and this didn't have a vamp in the chorus's arrangement....quite the opposite, but was intentional? if it was, i think that's a high-risk strategy....because if the audience expects a vamp and doesn't get one, it's over, damage done no matter what's going on lyrically. to suggest for one moment that simply cranking up the kick in a beatless chorus will save the day, or worse, bring attention to a weak arrangement by cranking the chorus's level up by a hamfisted 4LU's (Spede's approach, complete with 1.5dB of clipping no less) and losing all dynamics into the bargain, won't make a weak arrangement transform into a less than weak one. we gotta try and do something to save the day, but what, other than remix it?

i'd suggest it's a damage limitation exercise, in the circumstances.

Then the breakdown. For the most part I rather enjoyed this and the only real complaint is how you ended it right there without a reverb tail or something to let "you" just linger on a tiny bit more.

too cliche mate. i liked the contrasting abruptness which came from all the ambiance in the run-up to the ending. it supported the lyric and the fact that ".....I've just overdosed.....on you". if you overdose, that's it. it was intended to make an impact, that's why you noticed it (thanks for that); but i think you missed the subtle subconscious message of it's abruptness and what this was expressing......?

I really do have to give you props for the vocals though. You gave them a much better tone overall and even that vocal doubling is interesting to listen to.

cheers. the vox took some grappling with. part of my strategy in the chorus, was to lose the Rhodes in the first part, but to bring the Rhodes in during the second part as a kind of emotional pad (hence the depth and the contrast to the synth's more forward presentation). bringing it in at this juncture adds a punctuation as well as some instrumental change and variety......engage the audience, i say. i filtered out it's blips and just went for a sound-shaped pad idea. the vocal in the chorus was my center-piece and was meant to be the main focus of attention....with the synth and the synth+Rhodes supporting the vocal's emotional context within a sparse arrangement (as implied as per the supplied materials). the added distortion to the vocal here was also intended to draw attention while providing an appropriate texture to the context within the words. listen to the lyrics....there's some serious emotional stuff going on, wouldn't you say?

Overall most of your edits I felt were actually very appropriate and did make the track more concise and to the point.

the point being the concept of the song and the instrumental necessities to help communicate the lyric?

As a slight tangent I find it surprising that so many people seem to be over complicating the chorus. I say this because I started mixing this yesterday and am pretty close to being finished myself. The one thing I noticed with the chorus is if you just allow it breathe appropriately I don't think it requires a really heavy hand to make it sound good and juxtapose it against the verse. Granted I've found it requires notching the verses and breakdown down though.

i've simplified the chorus immensely, by taking out the Rhodes for one thing (50 percent of the instrumentation which made some space for the vocal FX), and bringing it back into the chorus a bit later to help deliver the emotional needs of the song but shaped towards a pad, as explained above. given the chorus was (intentionally?) devoid of a beat and the support of a rhythm section, i chose to drop the kick and make the snare present simply for a bit of sonic interest rather than a snare per se. smacking the skins now and again had no relevance so i thought i'd make a small sonic feature out of it instead and add to it's lack of relevance....LOL. i had fun fiddling with it for 10 minutes.

i think the arrangement was a problem personally. simply letting things breathe as you suggest, or cranking the chorus up and making a kick thump isn't going to change anything here and i think change is needed, the Rhodes being a case in point for the reasons i've discussed. it's akin to moving deckchairs around on the Titanic otherwise, but then, what isn't here? my approach to making the vocal the real focus and the application of FX is a different one to other's herein, given the lack of instrumental shove and push which one normally traditionally expects of a chorus. i think this song required a different approach by it's inference....but that's me.

Anyway, interesting mix with a lot of very interesting ideas. Most of which are actually very beneficial to the track. At least my thoughts.

many thanks for sharing them; appreciated. i'm looking forward to hearing your vision and exploring your approach.

catch you later...

[APZX]

You bring up a lot of points that ought to be considered indeed and the thought process is quite interesting and not that different than what I've done for some mixes.

However, as my mix is now up. I have to admit I did take a much more vanilla approach and instead focused on to make it work with minimal intervention on my part to the structure of the song as I honestly felt there was nothing immediately wrong with it. Perhaps because I come from an electronic background I don't see much of a problem with dropping new instruments in at will. Regardless of the headache it may cause the guy mixing it.

the instrument was present in the tracking ALL THE WAY THROUGH, even in the chorus - ESPECIALLY the chorus

That is all well and fine. But at least to me it seemed very clear the intention of the rhodes in both the verse and chorus sections and it really comes down to how the lyrics are interpreted no? To me the whole thing is a complete juxtaposition of elements and as such I felt that the extreme chaotic qualities are exactly what the song called for. Though I do agree that the rhodes in the chorus needed a big helping hand of aggressive processing to make it fit.

by the way, what do you think he means by "Freedom is on the other side"? what is the "other side" in the song's context...and do you think given this lyric that the way i've mixed the Rodes departs from this context or supports it?

Well I think we took the application of the interpretation differently. To me that indicates a shift in the direction the song will take. That is all. Granted I would have preferred a shift that instead of going wubby dub dub went more metal or classic rock crescendo and to me would make more sense. However, that was not the case. Instead we were faced with a change that indicates a big shift in the composition. You did just that. How you and I did that is entirely different. Which is better? Well to be honest only the artist can really say. Both approaches have their own merits IMO.

thanks...there's some heavy technical stuff here. my intention was to help make it express the lyric.....as well as to contribute to the song's sonic engagement which was fresh and different to "the norm". as it was presented in the tracking, the audio was nothing less than manic in the stereo field. i can understand how some might find my constrained approach still somewhat overbearing, but it's a subjective thing and i think it's nowhere near "too much" compared to the implied content in the original tracking.

Hey you did do an excellent job of highlighting certain points and I have hesitation in stating that. Now, when I said a bit "too much" what I meant was that it was kind of distracting to the actual arrangement. Not the lyrical content. I understand why you did it, but I just felt it could have been notched down slightly and still conveyed the feeling you were going for.

the problem fundamentally, is that we are all conditioned to hearing vamped-up choruses...and this didn't have a vamp in the chorus's arrangement....quite the opposite, but was intentional? if it was, i think that's a high-risk strategy....because if the audience expects a vamp and doesn't get one, it's over, damage done no matter what's going on lyrically. to suggest for one moment that simply cranking up the kick in a beatless chorus will save the day, or worse, bring attention to a weak arrangement by cranking the chorus's level up by a hamfisted 4LU's (Spede's approach, complete with 1.5dB of clipping no less) and losing all dynamics into the bargain, won't make a weak arrangement transform into a less than weak one. we gotta try and do something to save the day, but what, other than remix it?

Juxtapose it. I agree that choruses are overly hyped in modern tracks. No doubt. But to me it really supporting the lyrical content is to juxtapose it. The thing I didn't understand is why you decided to amp down the energy rather than amp it up. Reading your response though it makes sense why you did what you did. Now, I did push up the chorus a lot in my mix. But I notched the verses and breakdown quite a bit in comparison. Two different approaches.

too cliche mate. i liked the contrasting abruptness which came from all the ambiance in the run-up to the ending. it supported the lyric and the fact that ".....I've just overdosed.....on you". if you overdose, that's it. it was intended to make an impact, that's why you noticed it (thanks for that); but i think you missed the subtle subconscious message of it's abruptness and what this was expressing......?

That makes sense. I was just commenting on how it felt naked. But again after reading more about your approach from a philosophical perspective it makes sense.

the point being the concept of the song and the instrumental necessities to help communicate the lyric?

Pretty much. I did a different approach than yourself, but that does not in anyway say either is right nor wrong.

i think the arrangement was a problem personally. simply letting things breathe as you suggest, or cranking the chorus up and making a kick thump isn't going to change anything here and i think change is needed, the Rhodes being a case in point for the reasons i've discussed. it's akin to moving deckchairs around on the Titanic otherwise, but then, what isn't here? my approach to making the vocal the real focus and the application of FX is a different one to other's herein, given the lack of instrumental shove and push which one normally traditionally expects of a chorus. i think this song required a different approach by it's inference....but that's me.

See, I get where you're coming from. I really do. However, to me it really seemed that if you notched down the verses and breakdown and turned the chorus up it works plenty fine. The arrangement is actually quite sparse compared to some things I've mixed and finding places for things was not all that difficult.

many thanks for sharing them; appreciated. i'm looking forward to hearing your vision and exploring your approach.

I think you'll be disappointed in my approach. The only editing I really did was to move a crash around. As I said I really saw no gain in altering in the arrangement. But you did an excellent job which to me says that you're probably better at composition than myself lol.

I think the biggest thing is that we have a fundamentally and philosophical difference in the way we approach mixes. At least in the application of our interpretations.

[The_Metallurgist]

I'm sorry I offended you, it wasn't my intention in the slightest... my understanding was that you found any alternative perspective to be worthwhile feedback. If having a different opinion means that my feedback doesn't have value to you and expressing said opinion is going to make you upset, I won't bother you with it anymore. My mix of this sucked horribly and I've acknowledged that without reservation, so maybe that does make my opinion worthless.

This forum is either a learning resource or a playground, depending on the mix engineer and his skill level... and yes, I'm a novice, so I'm filed under the former. But I never said anything hurtful and tried to be clear that nothing hurtful was intended, but evidently I've failed to relate that much as I've failed to understand your vision. Keep doing what you're doing and taking pride in it... I've always respected that.

It's safe to say that most multitracks that arrive in the library are not of commercial quality i.e. they've not had the benefit of undergoing impartial assessment right from the start e.g. critical assessment of song length, song structure, consideration to the effectiveness of the melody, rhythm section, lyrics, density of the arrangement, instrumentation and their effective and appropriate notation (which also minimises masking issues later on etc), performance of each instrument including the vocals, critically and crucially the recording environment and signal chain which includes the appropriate choice of microphone....to mention a mere few! Some are doing it for fun and for their own personal enjoyment/satisfaction, so are not overly concerned about quality issues that would need to be addressed in order to maximise their audience and number of adoring fans along with their potential income opportunities. These most likely have a day job so it's not a life or death situation. A simple non-statistical glimpse at the minimal internet presence these artists have and poor play rates (ignoring those that have already rolled over) supports my judgement about commerciality. But this can also mask another issue....that the Artist lacks competent Marketing skills. A quick press of the play button clears that up.

So, by definition then, any attempt at mixing songs with one or more of the above mentioned defects inherent in a library multi will in the main, be unfixable without someone having to invest a lot of their time and energy doing a total remix (but that's not a guarantee). Read that last sentence again, and especially the word “unfixable”. While I might have a bash doing the impossible by fixing the unfixable through artistry and occasional flamboyant creativity, it will rarely address the core issue....because music and audio/sound quality is too complicated which is why a wise or talented artist would employ the benefits of a third party professional in the shape of a Producer to help them address potential problems early on – leaving it to the mixing stage is fraught with issues e.g. "Hello wrong mic on the vocal", so the points mentioned in the first paragraph are absolutely minimised or preferably totally eradicated.

So, what i'm doing here in the forum with my mixes, is playing the combined role of Gestapo Producer and mixing engineer. Gestapo in the sense that i'm initiating my own Producer game plan without having to be accountable or have to agree anything with the artist – I have total creative freedom to play and explore. NOTE WELL: most home/DIY musicians don't have the luxury of affording a Producer at any stage of the process, so it's often down to their mixing engineer to fulfil this role. If it's their mate, they won't get the impartial advice and ideas so those 12 guitar tracks will have to be mixed, even though it's only a 3-man band (Forkupines - Semantics comes to mind here...their engineer clearly had a gun at his head!)....and if it's a person who can't do the creative stuff, or knows instinctively when it's best to mute an instrument for the benefit of the song and the audience (i.e The Market), then it will suck even more and they will be contributing indirectly by default, to the artist's failure to connect.

You mix vanilla style (my term to describe basic fundamental mixing craft of panning, EQ, ambiance, levels etc), don't apply creative processes to your mixes and i've yet to hear you mute anything. Your mind-set is at a complete tangent to mine and it severely affects your ability to offer impartial judgement; my mix of Amber Sky's song Howlin being a case in point.

Working in an untreated room as you do, especially a small one where every time-delay arriving at your ears 30ms (or less) than the direct sound will create comb-filtering (ironic, given that you found my creative application of comb-filtering in the vocal delay a “distraction”), your EQ and mix decisions will be significantly constrained, affecting your mix decisions. Headphones are not a panacea, as fools believe, but merely bring other issues which many musicians are unaware of. Using consumer speakers also has it's inherent issues which you have yet to be alive to. Your speakers are skewed heavily towards a bright presentation and over-emphasise treble...and I won't talk about bass. Furthermore, if you can't calibrate your monitors (useless anyway in an untreated room), then your subjective judgements about EQ and compression will be not much more than a guessing game because you are hearing your room and not the mix! I suggest this is why your mix of Too Bright was all over the place. A "suitable" critical listening environment would have made your decisions more accurate and representative of the needs in the multi. You have yet to appreciate the benefits of gear (which includes a treated room). We listen, make a mix decision on what parameters need implementing to fix the issue(s), then we dial the parameters in. Not much good though if your room and monitoring is a mess, eh?

Which leads me to one final point. A DAW is a creative tool and so far i've yet to hear you engage the creative opportunities they afford beyond the process of 'simple' vanilla mixing. Basic studio tracking is...basic. We use a DAW because it enables us to add value to the studio tracking. If you can only do vanilla, then your work/skill/talent is limited and if you don't know when it feels right and appropriate to mute an instrument, you will be unable to offer impartial mixing advice beyond the craft of musicianship.

Was I offended by your feedback? Nope....we create our own emotional response and you are not responsible for my emotions. But hopefully I haven't been wasting my time with this post and that you can take something away from it and build upon it. If you only take one thing, that is progress and I applaud any progress because I know how difficult it can be to achieve. But i'm all too aware that while we can lead a horse to water, we can't make it drink. People are inherently resistant to change and I think your constrained mixing craft might be a reflection of that...along with your resistance to engage the need for decent gear and a good room. Mixing in a poor environment doesn't help facilitate self-development, it merely compounds and perpetuates bad habits. You need to break the loop but if you can't hear your mix because your room and monitoring is getting in the way of judgements, then it will hold you back...and this includes your ability to provide accurate objective assessments of other's mixes.

Do yourself a favour and instead of giving people feedback and mixing, run a frequency response analysis of your room at the monitoring position. If the results don't scare you into addressing the issues tomorrow, nothing will.

For critical listening, we need a critical listening environment.

[mik123]

Pauli, you are clearly a novice, so on that basis, i can make an exception on this occasion. i think this mix, and my creative mixing approach (which comes without the attendant demands and requirements of an Artist's Brief), are outside of your Terms of Reference.

but when you don't understand my mixes, it might be best that you don't give feedback in future.

Ufff!

With all due respect to your work and skills, I have to tell you just one thing!! Should I or they buy your "production"? I think not! Why? You are not so good as you think. How I know that? You and I have too much time on this forum! Good producers do not!

Come down to earth!


Google translate!

[pauli]

I'll reply to mik and Dave in the same post, no need for quotes or anything.

To mik, no need for any of that. There are misunderstandings here on both sides, and it's pretty clear to me that what I said isn't necessarily what I was trying to say.


To Dave:

I re-read my comments and better understand (what I perceived to be) the cool, slightly hostile reaction. I probably didn't react to it very well, either, because I'm sensitive (ain't that cute?) and emotions influence perception.

If we'd been having this conversation face to face, whilst listening to the mix, I'm pretty confident my comments would make more sense.

On the face of it, it probably does seem like I'm against creativity in mixing... not the case, though. It's true, I don't often indulge in creative opportunities, and never to the extent you do... although I make creative decisions and mute tracks more than you're suggesting but it tends to be a lot more subtle. The reason is partly, like you said, I'm still learning. It'd be far too easy for me to shoot myself in the foot with creative edits and heavy FX use that shadow the technical mix problems. Also, you called it terms of reference, which I suppose isn't a wrong name for it, but it's not my taste... I can work a heavily produced mix, but as with your version, I'm unconstrained by an artist's brief, so I mostly stick to vanilla mixing for the purpose of learning. Get the boring stuff right first, basically. You didn't say it outright, but it goes along with what you said that I don't use appropriate amounts of automation... I concede that humbly. Need to get better about that.

You're right, my mixing situation is limited compared to yours... but not quite as bad as you think. And it's true, my monitors are toppy (too small) and the acoustic treatment isn't as extensive as it should be. And better gear is always good, and it has gotten better since the last time we discussed it. Not expensive, but a lot more accurate than what I started with. My mix for this tune is all over the place, yes, but it's due to lack of discipline in taking proper breaks and inappropriate over-attention to factors that aren't under our control moreso than my environment. In fact, listening to some of my very early work with the moderate upgrades I've applied is a little embarassing, now that I can actually hear it...

Anyway, one man's overproduced is another man's underproduced and I failed to show proper respect for your personal taste, and I'm sorry for that, regardless of whether or not it offended you.

What's bothering me... I'm a little taken aback at the sudden shift in what you're saying about my ability now versus what you've said in the past. A couple of my mixes you actually seemed to think were pretty good, on the face of it... one mix you felt was in the upper quartile of technical merit on the forum, at the time. You're always invited to comment and express your views on my mixes because I respect your experience and ability, but if you were wearing the kid gloves and mollycoddling me before, and what I see now is how you've felt all along... well, I'm not sure how to feel about that, other than confused. I take your feedback very seriously, and as such your remarks constitute a very big part of my terms of reference... but now I feel like you're backing out on at least some of that? Encouragement is always welcome of course... but you can feel free to say what you mean without reservation, no need to spare my feelings. Here to learn.

Thanks for replying, and I hope you'll continue to welcome my feedback in the future.