Music Mixing - The Short Story - How I feel about it.......

[Curve Dominant]

posted by Anderton:

So I suggest you take Bob at his word and don't take what he said personally, but as a general comment on something that a lot of people feel IS really screwed up about a lot of today's music: A complete lack of rapport and interaction in some musical projects.

Craig,

 

First off, thanks for feeling out the nuances of this issue.

 

But there's an aspect of this issue which is being overlooked (or perhaps underappreciated) here:

 

Adaptability.

 

What do I mean by that?

 

Humans are very adaptable. Your work with your friends in Germany demonstrates that. You make music, however you can make it happen. The important thing is, You DO SOMETHING. You MAKE IT HAPPEN. Whatever it takes. That's the SPIRIT. You invoke your collective spirits, and something, ANYTHING, is accomplished. Something is always better than nothing, right?

 

That SOMETHING is meaningful to the people who hear it. They are not agonizing over the gear choices the way audio snobs are. They are regular people who are feeling what we feel, and they feel the passion we put into our music. Or not.

 

Once we lose confidence in what we have to say, or the way we choose to communicate it, yes, it will "sound screwey," and people will not be compelled to listen, let alone take their hard earned cash money out of their pockets and pay for it.

 

The economics of recorded music is a rapidly and drastically evolving paradigm right now. We need to focus on the listener's needs.

 

Anyone in this industry who focusses on their own chauvanistic preferences, will be lost.

[Martin Kantola]

Craig Anderton has spoken: But I also don't question the experience of a Bob Ohlsson or a Bruce Swedien. When they talk, I listen. I don't always agree with the details, but that doesn't matter. As it so happens, in this case I'm 110% in agreement with Bruce about having a smooth-running tech situation so your intuition can come through...a subject I've written about a zillion times, particularly with regard to the physical construction of the brain, and how it processes stimuli. But if I disagreed, that wouldn't alter my respect for him.

Well spoken Craig Anderton! If anything could be added, I might say that the way I see it, Erics and Bruces should be treated equally on this forum. Their methods and views should not be beyond discussion and even critic, but they both deserve respect for what they've done for music AND as humans in general. It's stupid to offend any-one, who knows what great things he or she will do in the future? Let's hope I'm not stepping on anyones toes myself here.

 

Eric is not necessarily "the small guy" and Bruce "the big guy", only difference is one of them has had a lot more experience and the time to contribute more, and that deserves tons of respect naturally. Dare I mention that Bruce got into trouble in the beginning for his original ideas?

 

One more thing related to respect. Recently, I designed my first guitar pedal for a magazine and came up with what I thought was a very clever name, the Rocktaver. Only to find that a certain Mr. Craig Anderton already used the same name a good many years ago. Luckily for me, the thing doesn't produce the same effect at all, but still. The incident reminded me to go out and get all the Anderton books on music electronics, which I will. Sorry for stealing the name, Craig. You're the man, respect!

 

I join those who say that it's a true miracle to be able to talk to guys like yourself on this forum. Let's make the most of it!

 

Martin

 

(PS. that's why I'm not too fond of all the unmarked OT:s, please mark them)

[Keysking]

Someone a while back came up with the idea of virtual mixing...

sitting in your most favourite chair and mixing by "virtually" grabbing and tweaking in a virtual world...

[lrossmusic]

Originally posted by Anderton:

...but what Bob posted was:

 

Don't get me wrong or take this personally, you were absolutely right to do whatever it takes to please your client but what a perversion of American musical art.

Eric I agree with Craig in that I honestly feel you took Bob's comments in the wrong way. Spontaneous interaction is the core and essense of traditional jazz and makes it the unique artform that it is. Take that away and you have got something else. That's all Bob meant I'm sure.

 

Overdubbing, fixing things in the mix, sequencing, the use of prerecorded background tracks, written out solo's and many other techniques which may be common in other genres, would be considered a sacrilege in the jazz world.

[Bruce Swedien]

Brucie sez------->My original topic for this thread was....

 

Music Mixing - The Short Story

 

Ive always felt that music mixing is, in reality, an extension of arranging. I think that gut reactions translated to music recordings are the most believable.

 

Therefore, it follows that music mixing has to be entirely instinctive and intuitive. To be working on a piece of music, and then having to stop the creative flow, to think through a technical function, is absolutely impossible for me.

 

Brucie sez-------->I'm ashamed to see where a couple of you took this topic, and on top of that made it into something personal! What a bunch of horse-pucky!!!!

 

Stop it!!!!

 

I offered the topic in the spirit of giving.....

 

Bruce Swedien

[Martin Kantola]

Brucie sez-------->I'm ashamed to see where a couple of you took this topic, and on top of that made it into something personal! What a bunch of horse-pucky!!!!

 

Yeah, let's get back to the real thing!

 

If you scroll back to the top of this second page I had some thoughts which I believe were never commented, maybe we could pick it up again from there?

 

Martin

[sign]

Thank you very much Bruce and please accept my apologies.

[Bruce Swedien]

sign sez-------->Thank you very much Bruce and please accept my apologies.

 

Brucie sez-------->Thank you for the quick reply! I have no secrets and I want to help anyone here that is sincere.

 

Brucie the Viking!!!!!

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Martin Kantola:

Well spoken Craig Anderton! If anything could be added, I might say that the way I see it, Erics and Bruces should be treated equally on this forum. Their methods and views should not be beyond discussion and even critic, but they both deserve respect for what they've done for music AND as humans in general.

That is a nice sentiment, but unfortunately there will always be people who bank on others' good will and use our willingness to "treat everyone with equal respect" to their own selfish advantage.

 

Personally, I give everyone equal respect and benefit of the doubt until they give me reason to believe they don't deserve that respect, at which point it would be a pretense and an insult to those who DO deserve it, to continue to pretend they are equals. By the same token if I feel someone deserves MORE respect than usual I have no problem showing it, either.

[Bruce Swedien]

Martin Kantola sez-------> Therefore, it follows that music mixing has to be entirely instinctive and intuitive. To be working on a piece of music, and then having to stop the creative flow, to think through a technical function, is absolutely impossible for me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we return to this part of your post, please let me try to analyze what you are saying from a imagined designers' point of view. Some of it is very obvious, but that's how my brain works

1. what you want is full access to all channels and all their respective funtions when you are mixing.

 

2. all these functions should be automated, so you can save, copy and edit your work.

 

3. the audio processing quality should not be compromised,

 

4. at the moment, a good old analogue console does the best job. Not 100% reliable and convenient, but sounds great!

 

5. one conclusion would be that today nobody really builds the ultimate tool for mixing at the moment.

I refuse to believe that you have chosen your current tool only for sentimental or monetary reasons. I also refuse to believe that you are the only one thinking this way.

 

The console is an extension of me just like an instrument. Before, live mixing other bands often left with an unsatisfied feeling because I wasn't up there on the stage taking part in the music. I know how it feels after a good gig for a musician, and nowadays I can reach that behind my knobs and buttons (if I can find them quickly enough).

Martin

 

Brucie sez------->Martin - We know each other, you're a great guy, I want to help you.... My way of working and my work ethic is from the Dark Ages! There is no mystery to it.... I do think you are trying to make too much of this topic.

 

Do this..... Condense your thoughts into two short parts. (That will be very good for you!) You have my email.... email me the two VERY SHORT thoughts , or questions.

 

We'll get to the bottom of this for you, and then put it on the forum. I also have a suggestion for you.... Let's talk....

 

Bruce Swedien

[Lee Flier]

Back on the original topic... Bruce, being a musician I've always thought of a mixing desk as being very similar to a musical instrument. It seems important to develop a rapport with the mixing environment the way I do with my favorite guitar. Sure, I'm a guitar player, I could pick up any guitar and play it, but there are some guitars that feel like I'm fighting them every step of the way to express myself with them, and others that make the process seem effortless. People have these same types of preferences with desks I reckon. We do have relationships with our tools if they are used for artistic expression.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Keysking:

Someone a while back came up with the idea of virtual mixing...

sitting in your most favourite chair and mixing by "virtually" grabbing and tweaking in a virtual world...

Because of our tendency to trust our eyes more than our ears, I think a completely non visual, tactile mixing environment would be ideal. One where you can do everything by feel, even with your eyes closed. That's what I like about using real knobs and faders but it could probably get even wackier... like squeezing a piece of putty to "shape" sound, just to toss out one weird idea.

[Bruce Swedien]

Lee Flier sez------->Back on the original topic... Bruce, being a musician I've always thought of a mixing desk as being very similar to a musical instrument. We do have relationships with our tools if they are used for artistic expression.

 

Brucie sez------>Lee - Back on the original topic... Bruce... What a novel idea! You're a gasser, Lee!

 

To me, a mixing desk is very similar to a musical instrument. Perhaps even it is MY musical instrument! I definitely have a very close , personal relationship with my beautiful old Harrison!

 

Quincy says that the orchestra is HIS musical instument.

 

Absolutely!

 

Bruce Swedien

[StoneinaPond]

Originally posted by Bruce Swedien:

....I offered the topic in the spirit of giving.....

 

Bruce Swedien

And in giving, one should expect nothing.

 

That is the true nature of giving.

 

But while I'm at it, thank you for all your giving. Just don't expect anything.

[Martin Kantola]

Lee,

 

now it's getting exciting! Keep tossing out that stuff.

 

I totally agree with this, and feel you are saying what I'm trying to say!!! Don't let my spelling or grammar fool you, I'm not American, sometimes it's quite hard to find the right expressions.

 

Bruce, tusen tack! I'll email you. Soon.

 

Martin

[Bruce Swedien]

StoneinaPond sez-------->And in giving, one should expect nothing. That is the true nature of giving.

But while I'm at it, thank you for all your giving. Just don't expect anything.

 

Brucie sez------->I don't really expect anything, but it seems I am always grateful when I get a response like----->now it's getting exciting! Keep tossing out that stuff.

 

Brucie continues------>So I guess I am getting what I want most from all this forum doo-doo. The fun of helping nice, kind folks that all just happen to love recording music..... This forum doo-doo also helps one to continually re-think and re-shape the very basics of what we do. That's a good idea in itself!

 

Bruce Swedien

[Bill Roberts]

Ok...Got one for you Bruce.

 

Automation.

 

I use it instead of a compressor for vocals. I ride the faders and then set the memory. I am also a fan of mute automation, as long as it is for either arrangement purposes or I simply want to tighten up a snare drum, where a gate would be problematic.

 

Lets see what your thoughts are with automation. I would say, 60% of the time, I don't need nor use it but then there is that 35% or so..where it is a valuable tool.

[Bruce Swedien]

Bill Roberts asks the musical question------->Ok...Got one for you Bruce. - Automation.

 

I use it instead of a compressor for vocals. I ride the faders and then set the memory. I am also a fan of mute automation, as long as it is for either arrangement purposes or I simply want to tighten up a snare drum, where a gate would be problematic.

 

Lets see what your thoughts are with automation. I would say, 60% of the time, I don't need nor use it but then there is that 35% or so..where it is a valuable tool.

 

Brucie sez------>Bill - Great thought! When I record a song and we are doing the rhythm track, as soon as we are finished with the very basic elements, I make a computerized (Automated) mix of those elements to freeze my own gut reaction to the music at this very early stage in it's production. This way I have the ability to get back to those instinctive reactions to the rhythm elements before I have had a chance to think about the music too much and cerebralize it into the wastebasket.

 

One of the toughest thing to keep in focus, in recording modern popular music, is the fact that music must feel spontaneous in order to communicate a feeling to one's emotions. With the attention to detail that is necessary in recording modern pop music we are forced to concentrate on small elements of the composition for long periods of time. This makes it very easy to lose your perspective on the whole musical emotion of the piece of music that you are working on. I guess it becomes a sort of like the old saw "You can't see the forest for the trees."

 

Brucie the Viking!!!!!

[StoneinaPond]

Originally posted by Bruce Swedien:

...This way I have the ability to get back to those instinctive reactions to the rhythm elements before I have had a chance to think about the music too much and cerebralize it into the wastebasket.

 

One of the toughest thing to keep in focus, in recording modern popular music, is the fact that music must feel spontaneous in order to communicate a feeling to one's emotions...

Since the early 80s, with the advent of sequencers and drum machines, we as an audience have come to expect more and more "uniformity" to the point that with modern computer recording we can grid/quantize the life out of a rhythm track, edit-out breaths and string scrapes (because we can) and wonder at the end why the track is lifeless and sterile.

 

I'm a huge fan of leaving those little idiosyncratic "mistakes" in the mix, even a little bleed from something else, or the hardly noticeable guitar amp noise, can add humanness to the proceedings. And while they won't make up for a lackluster performance, or poor song, in the right context it'll provide evidence of the human endeavor.

 

But ultimately, a tight, human generated rhythm track is truly a thing of beauty.

[Anderton]

<>

 

And this is why we worship you, Lee!

 

This isn't strictly mixing related, but might serve as a useful addition to the putty comment. I knew a guitar player who played MIDI guitar but didn't use it to trigger notes!!! Instead, he used note, vibrato, etc. messages to mix and control his signal processors -- he didn't like having to take his hands off the guitar. He managed to create a sort of "totally tactile environment

[Bruce Swedien]

StoneinaPond sez------->.But ultimately, a tight, human generated rhythm track is truly a thing of beauty.

 

Brucie sez--------->May I suggest a little light listening?

"Stuff Like That" by Quincy Jones from the "Sounds And Stuff Like That" album that Quincy and I did in 1978. The rhythm players? - Eric Gayle, Richard Tee, Stevie Gadd and Ralph MacDonald. Anthony Jackson and Richard Tee played bass!

 

A human generated rhythm track that is truly a thing of beauty. I remember that session like it was yesterday!

 

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.....

 

Bruce Swedien

[StoneinaPond]

Originally posted by Bruce Swedien:

...."Stuff Like That" by Quincy Jones from the "Sounds And Stuff Like That" album that Quincy and I did in 1978. The rhythm players? - Eric Gayle, Richard Tee, Stevie Gadd and Ralph MacDonald. Anthony Jackson and Richard Tee played bass!

 

A human generated rhythm track that is truly a thing of beauty. I remember that session like it was yesterday!

 

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.....

So nice, he posted it twice.

 

Thanks and on order.

[Bruce Swedien]

I'm embarrassed! I never did get this technical S---! How do i delete what is left?

[Bill Roberts]

Bruce, that album really caught my attention when it came out. Fabulous. I still put it on the platter every chance I get..I think I will do so right now. Simply stunning.

 

(bedtime story..is totally to die for)

 

 

"The Dude" ranks way up there as well.

[StoneinaPond]

[Bruce Swedien]

Anderton sez-------->like squeezing a piece of putty to "shape" sound, just to toss out one weird idea.>>

he didn't like having to take his hands off the guitar. He managed to create a sort of "totally tactile environment....

 

Brucie sez------->I have always thought of my mixes as being Sonic Sculptures. For me, the real adventure in modern popular music mixing, is in projecting my concept of reality in the music I record. I dont very often strive for technical, virtual reality.

 

To me, the over-all "Musical-Sense" of a piece of music is the most important thing to consider. I like to let the music tell me what it needs in the way of recording and mixing values.

 

A good song, or piece of music, seems to have a life of it's own. Let the music "Tell us what to do next". In a mix-down session, if we work for hours to try to make a 'gated reverb' on the snare drum sound good, and in our heart if hearts we know it sounds awful, the fact is; the song dosn't want a 'gated reverb' on the snare drum. Don't try and force it. I dont think we can ever win out over the personality of the song. The music will always triumph.

 

Bruce Swedien

[Martin Kantola]

Every picture needs a frame and the limitations of our formats and tools are our frame for the mix. The number of colors we can mix from a limited palette is, on the other hand, unlimited.

 

M

[Philip OKeefe]

As I mentioned in my previous post, to me, a mixing console is definitely an "instrument", and I personally prefer to approach a mix as a "performance"... Doing everything with just a mouse is totally counter-intuitive for me. Yes, a mouse can be a useful tool for precision fixes or ultra detailed work, but overall, I prefer the "perform the mix" approach.

 

Well then, what about automation? I guess that's technically a compromise to that approach, but one I'm willing to make. I approach automation as analogous to a musician doing a punch in or doing a second instrumental or vocal track as an overdub - both of which are also techniques I'm perfectly happy to use whenever I feel it's appropriate. As a matter of fact, I used to use punch ins as a pseudo automation method back in my analog board / ADAT setup days... mixing to two ADAT tracks and punching in to correct sections where I botched a mix move or where there wasn't enough time to transition from one thing to another due to only having two hands...

 

Technically you can't sing with yourself in real time, but you can do it with an overdub. I'm old enough to remember when mixes were done with big analog boards, and the producer, engineer and whomever else was hanging around would have their hands on the board, with each person responsible for certain moves, mutes, etc. If one person blew it, it was back to square one and try it again... or get out the splicing tape. I look at automation as a replacement for the bass player who could never get his mix moves down cold. It gives me extra "hands", plus it offers repeatability and recall - both of which are handy for me to have.

 

Compression is kind of a split personality tool for me. I do like riding faders to control or enhance musical dynamics, although I'm not opposed to using a slight bit of compression when tracking... but when I do that, I want it to be fairly transparent and I tend to go very easy on it. The other side of compression is more of a "sound design" type of thing... using it as a means to a sonic end to acheive a particular effect or sound. IMO, both are viable approaches, depending on what you're going for. For example, I wouldn't be likely to use that approach on a traditional jazz recording where I was trying to faithfully capture a performance, but OTOH, something like what JJP did with compression on Jellyfish's "Spilt Milk" album - which was obviously a highly processed and overdubbed record - can also be very cool if used in the right musical context and applied musically in service of the music.

 

Personally I feel that an engineer IS a musician in a way that is similar to a orchestral conductor. Certainly the performance of a mix is a "musical" performance from where I sit. And like any good musician, I think a engineer / mixer needs to listen to what everyone else in the band is doing and play off of that... knowing when to add something to the conversation and when to let someone else have the floor.

 

Like any good musician, IMO the engineer needs to "fit" into the group. They should be willing to do whatever the musical situation calls for. But that means remaining flexible and adaptable and doing a lot of listening, and like any good musician, tailoring your "performance" and approach to what works best in support of the other musicians and the SONG.

[miroslav]

For me...mixing doesnt always turn into arranging.

 

If I record dozens and dozens of tracks...just to get a "five-piece" sound...or because I'm not really sure yet what the heck I want to do with the tune...

...then yeah, the mixing process can become arranging.

 

But...if I'm doing more minimalist recording...like no more than 16 tracks or so...

...then, I'm usually doing the arranging either during pre-production or as I track...or both...

...and the mixing stage is nothing more than...mixing.

 

Oh...and a small correction to something someone stated earlier:

 

"...the fact that analog tape is no longer manufactured.

 

This is a myth that is being spread like a bad cold.

[Curve Dominant]

posted by Bruce Swedien:

A good song, or piece of music, seems to have a life of it's own. Let the music "Tell us what to do next". In a mix-down session, if we work for hours to try to make a 'gated reverb' on the snare drum sound good, and in our heart if hearts we know it sounds awful, the fact is; the song dosn't want a 'gated reverb' on the snare drum. Don't try and force it. I dont think we can ever win out over the personality of the song. The music will always triumph.

Quite right, I concur.

 

Louis I. Kahn, architect and neighbor, had a saying: "What does the brick want to be?"

 

I made a sign which I posted on the wall of my studio, substituting the word "song" for the word "brick"...

 

What Does The Song Want To Be?

 

It's a very helpful tool, that sign. Whenever we get stuck on something, we look at it, and Louis Kahn's spirit seems to drift into the studio, logic resplendent. We always know what to do then.

 

The song always points the way. It has an emotional architecture that you can follow, on any level, from tracking, to overdubbing, to mixing...even to mastering.