A couple of new songs I'm working on. http://www.soundclick.com/util/getplayer.m3u?id=5756340&q=hi http://www.soundclick.com/util/getplayer.m3u?id=5740784&q=hi http://www.soundclick.com/util/getplayer.m3u?id=5740771&q=hi Comments welcome. Out of towm client re-recording probably not possible. Thanks, Max Arwood
Re: New Songs "Max Arwood" <> wrote in message news:IbZEi.14395$... >A couple of new songs I'm working on. > > http://www.soundclick.com/util/getplayer.m3u?id=5756340&q=hi > > http://www.soundclick.com/util/getplayer.m3u?id=5740784&q=hi > > http://www.soundclick.com/util/getplayer.m3u?id=5740771&q=hi > > Comments welcome. Out of towm client re-recording probably not possible. I'm only listening on crappy computer speakers, so you probably need to take all sound-related comments with a grain of salt. That said, here are my quick thoughts: "The One": Generally this is pretty nice. Most comments are niggles. The percussion part felt a bit incessant to me. While there is some variation, there seemed line there was a part that was constant throughout, too, albeit possibly varied in levels, and I would have liked to have had that given a rest altogether to help vary the feel a bit as the song developed. At some points I also felt something was a bit stuffed up -- i.e. sounding a big muddy somewhere between the percussion and other sounds going on in the same range. That one might be a speakers issue. Can't say I was thrilled with the synth sound that felt like it was imitating a strings line, either. That made it feel fairly dated. Perhaps you could double it with some sampled strings or something richer/warmer in timbre? As I said, though, these are niggles level comments. Overall it sounds good. "Pray for Me": This is nice, too. It's an interesting choice to have guitar-like sounds that are used in a more piano-like context as the main hooky part of the instrumental side of things, but I think it works. Only thing I might suggest is building the arrangement more over time, for more of an arc over the course of the song. As it is now, other than the vocal pad-like thing going on after the normal lyrics end, the instrumentation seems to stay about the same throughout. Perhaps the layers of pad could be built up a section at a time or something, then backed off just toward the end to wind back down? "He Is Our Father": I'm not as fond of this one song-wise as it feels a bit overly repetitive. The way you build the arrangement over time is what I was talking about with the previous one. There isn't as much need to build in that one as this one, but it could still use a little of that. Anyway, back to this one, I like the way you build the arrangement, and the general sound seems good. Sometimes the drums feel a bit tentative, where maybe there's some awkwardness around a fill or something. The first time I noticed that was somewhere around 1:50, give or take 10 seconds, but it happened at various other points in the song, too. The guitar sound got a bit flangy for my tastes later in the song, too, but all this stuff is very subjective, and overall it was a good job. I might add that the singer seems to have a pretty good voice for this sort of thing. And generally the production seems to be the sort of thing I could easily imagine on an indie CD. FWIW... Rick -- ======================================= Rick Paul Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP) Web: www.RickPaul.info MySpace: www.myspace.com/rickpaulmusic =======================================
Re: New Songs Thanks for taking the time. I don't know if I like these enough to spend mega time on them, but I'm gonna do a few things. >"The One" That funky hi-hat thing kinda got on my nerves after a while. I cut it out here and there. Thanks for the suggestion, sounds much better like this. I had another synth I was thinking about layering to this one. So, I guess I will. Might layer only on the 2nd half of the lead part to help the song build . Also putting it in an octave lower. >"Pray for Me" I think it needs a percussion part. It is an untimed song. I would have to go and set up Audio Snap, or do like Glennbo and just play in the part. Problem is: Audio Snap will take some time to setup and I don't play like Glennbo does! >"He Is Our Father": I'm not as fond of this one song-wise as it feels a bit >overly repetitive. Wow that's saying it nicely. I wish the song writer would finish this song. I like it, it's catchy, but where are the rest of the words?? That's what I ask myself about this one! Thanks Again, Max Arwood "Rick Paul" <> wrote in message news:... > > "Max Arwood" <> wrote in message > news:IbZEi.14395$... >>A couple of new songs I'm working on. >> >> http://www.soundclick.com/util/getplayer.m3u?id=5756340&q=hi >> >> http://www.soundclick.com/util/getplayer.m3u?id=5740784&q=hi >> >> http://www.soundclick.com/util/getplayer.m3u?id=5740771&q=hi >> >> Comments welcome. Out of towm client re-recording probably not possible. > > I'm only listening on crappy computer speakers, so you probably need to > take all sound-related comments with a grain of salt. That said, here are > my quick thoughts: > > "The One": Generally this is pretty nice. Most comments are niggles. The > percussion part felt a bit incessant to me. While there is some > variation, there seemed line there was a part that was constant > throughout, too, albeit possibly varied in levels, and I would have liked > to have had that given a rest altogether to help vary the feel a bit as > the song developed. At some points I also felt something was a bit > stuffed up -- i.e. sounding a big muddy somewhere between the percussion > and other sounds going on in the same range. That one might be a speakers > issue. Can't say I was thrilled with the synth sound that felt like it > was imitating a strings line, either. That made it feel fairly dated. > Perhaps you could double it with some sampled strings or something > richer/warmer in timbre? As I said, though, these are niggles level > comments. Overall it sounds good. > > "Pray for Me": This is nice, too. It's an interesting choice to have > guitar-like sounds that are used in a more piano-like context as the main > hooky part of the instrumental side of things, but I think it works. Only > thing I might suggest is building the arrangement more over time, for more > of an arc over the course of the song. As it is now, other than the vocal > pad-like thing going on after the normal lyrics end, the instrumentation > seems to stay about the same throughout. Perhaps the layers of pad could > be built up a section at a time or something, then backed off just toward > the end to wind back down? > > "He Is Our Father": I'm not as fond of this one song-wise as it feels a > bit overly repetitive. The way you build the arrangement over time is > what I was talking about with the previous one. There isn't as much need > to build in that one as this one, but it could still use a little of that. > Anyway, back to this one, I like the way you build the arrangement, and > the general sound seems good. Sometimes the drums feel a bit tentative, > where maybe there's some awkwardness around a fill or something. The > first time I noticed that was somewhere around 1:50, give or take 10 > seconds, but it happened at various other points in the song, too. The > guitar sound got a bit flangy for my tastes later in the song, too, but > all this stuff is very subjective, and overall it was a good job. > > I might add that the singer seems to have a pretty good voice for this > sort of thing. And generally the production seems to be the sort of thing > I could easily imagine on an indie CD. > > FWIW... > > Rick > -- > ======================================= > Rick Paul > Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP) > Web: www.RickPaul.info > MySpace: www.myspace.com/rickpaulmusic > ======================================= > >
Re: New Songs "Max Arwood" <> wrote in message news:d83Fi.6601$... >>"Pray for Me" > I think it needs a percussion part. It is an untimed song. I would have > to go and set up Audio Snap, or do like Glennbo and just play in the part. > Problem is: Audio Snap will take some time to setup and I don't play like > Glennbo does! To be honest, I wouldn't worry about adding drums, just building on the musical arrangement a bit, perhaps adding additional synth pad layers as it goes along. Of course, I suppose you could also add some percussion, like congas or shakers or something, which might be easier to play manually than a drum set type part. My general sense is this is fine without drums, but the arrangement was just a bit flat, rather than building to a climax. If you want another example of what I'm talking about, with no drums, check out "All the Love Two People Need" at: www.soundclick.com/bands/songInfo.cfm?bandID=160864&songID=5730161 That has just three instruments: piano and two synth pads. One of the synth pads is string-like (or it may have been a SoundFont string sample), and the other is French horn-like (I think that one is DreamStation), but the way it builds up over time gives it an arc and a climax. (This is a 2001 recording made with SONAR 1, though I did recently remaster it in SONAR 6. I was hoping to do a quick remix, but, unfortunately, the CD-R backup was corrupt, and the BUN file was the key thing I could not rescue. One of these days I will probably rerecord the vocal and see if I can find any sounds I like better for the other instruments now that I have a lot wider variety of possibilities, though I actually still really like the Dreamstation patch in that context.) That said, if you do want to use AudioSnap, one thing I've found helpful is to set M:B:T alignments at the start of every song section to see how things lineup without going into finer granularity. Then only go to finer granularity if you need to, perhaps every 4 or 8 measures, then every measure, then down to individual beats, but only as far down in this as you need to to get the beat close enough for feel. Sometimes even doing stuff at the start of each song section can be enough. It really just depends on how steady the tempo was in the freeform playing. >>"He Is Our Father": I'm not as fond of this one song-wise as it feels a >>bit overly repetitive. > Wow that's saying it nicely. I wish the song writer would finish this > song. I like it, it's catchy, but where are the rest of the words?? > That's what I ask myself about this one! LOL. I do agree, though, that it is catchy on the musical side. Of course, I can completely understand the notion of not spending a lot of time on something if you're not that excited about it and what you have is already sufficiently in the ballpark. You have to call it a wrap at some point. I think it is easy to get to the point where the last 5 or 10 percent can end up taking 90 percent of the time if you're not careful. Rick -- ======================================= Rick Paul Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP) Web: www.RickPaul.info MySpace: www.myspace.com/rickpaulmusic =======================================
Re: New Songs > If you want another example of what I'm talking about, with no drums, > check out "All the Love Two People Need" at: > www.soundclick.com/bands/songInfo.cfm?bandID=160864&songID=5730161 Now that song builds up nicely! Is that Garratin Orchestra stuff? Strings and horns really add to that song. Max Arwood "Rick Paul" <> wrote in message news:... > "Max Arwood" <> wrote in message > news:d83Fi.6601$... >>>"Pray for Me" >> I think it needs a percussion part. It is an untimed song. I would have >> to go and set up Audio Snap, or do like Glennbo and just play in the >> part. Problem is: Audio Snap will take some time to setup and I don't >> play like Glennbo does! > > To be honest, I wouldn't worry about adding drums, just building on the > musical arrangement a bit, perhaps adding additional synth pad layers as > it goes along. Of course, I suppose you could also add some percussion, > like congas or shakers or something, which might be easier to play > manually than a drum set type part. My general sense is this is fine > without drums, but the arrangement was just a bit flat, rather than > building to a climax. > > If you want another example of what I'm talking about, with no drums, > check out "All the Love Two People Need" at: > > www.soundclick.com/bands/songInfo.cfm?bandID=160864&songID=5730161 > > That has just three instruments: piano and two synth pads. One of the > synth pads is string-like (or it may have been a SoundFont string sample), > and the other is French horn-like (I think that one is DreamStation), but > the way it builds up over time gives it an arc and a climax. (This is a > 2001 recording made with SONAR 1, though I did recently remaster it in > SONAR 6. I was hoping to do a quick remix, but, unfortunately, the CD-R > backup was corrupt, and the BUN file was the key thing I could not rescue. > One of these days I will probably rerecord the vocal and see if I can find > any sounds I like better for the other instruments now that I have a lot > wider variety of possibilities, though I actually still really like the > Dreamstation patch in that context.) > > That said, if you do want to use AudioSnap, one thing I've found helpful > is to set M:B:T alignments at the start of every song section to see how > things lineup without going into finer granularity. Then only go to finer > granularity if you need to, perhaps every 4 or 8 measures, then every > measure, then down to individual beats, but only as far down in this as > you need to to get the beat close enough for feel. Sometimes even doing > stuff at the start of each song section can be enough. It really just > depends on how steady the tempo was in the freeform playing. > >>>"He Is Our Father": I'm not as fond of this one song-wise as it feels a >>>bit overly repetitive. >> Wow that's saying it nicely. I wish the song writer would finish this >> song. I like it, it's catchy, but where are the rest of the words?? >> That's what I ask myself about this one! > > LOL. I do agree, though, that it is catchy on the musical side. > > Of course, I can completely understand the notion of not spending a lot of > time on something if you're not that excited about it and what you have is > already sufficiently in the ballpark. You have to call it a wrap at some > point. I think it is easy to get to the point where the last 5 or 10 > percent can end up taking 90 percent of the time if you're not careful. > > Rick > -- > ======================================= > Rick Paul > Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP) > Web: www.RickPaul.info > MySpace: www.myspace.com/rickpaulmusic > ======================================= > >
In news:IbZEi.14395$ the killer robot "Max Arwood" <> grabbed the controls of the spaceship cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons... > A couple of new songs I'm working on. > > http://www.soundclick.com/util/getplayer.m3u?id=5756340&q=hi > > http://www.soundclick.com/util/getplayer.m3u?id=5740784&q=hi > > http://www.soundclick.com/util/getplayer.m3u?id=5740771&q=hi > > Comments welcome. Out of towm client re-recording probably not > possible. Clicking the links above, I'm getting a page that says: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This window starts the SoundClick player. If you have enabled a pop-up blocker, you can click the link here: play the song You can then safely close this window. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- And clicking the link on that page doesn't do anything in Opera. If I try it in IE, it trys to popup a player, but then the player doesn't play. -- Remove YourHeadFromYourAss to Reply by email ________ ____ / ____/ /__ ____ ____ / __ )____ / / __/ / _ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ / __ \ / /_/ / / __/ / / / / / / /_/ / /_/ / \____/_/\___/_/ /_/_/ /_/_____/\____/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Glennbo http://www.soundclick.com/glennbo Non-Linear Sound http://www.soundclick.com/jambits Hear My Music http://www.soundclick.com/ThePseudonyms
Re: New Songs "Max Arwood" <> wrote in message news:FK4Fi.6614$... >> If you want another example of what I'm talking about, with no drums, >> check out "All the Love Two People Need" at: >> www.soundclick.com/bands/songInfo.cfm?bandID=160864&songID=5730161 > > Now that song builds up nicely! Is that Garratin Orchestra stuff? > Strings and horns really add to that song. Thanks, no that was way before GPO even existed, back in 2001 -- done with SONAR 1. Only thing I did recently was remastered from the original 24-bit mix, using the PSP MasterPack plug-ins. I know the "horns" were a DreamStation patch. From the name I gave the track, I think it may have been the Pad 02 Warm one. Strings were a freeware SoundFont called Concerto (feels kind of like a combined string quartet thing) from LiveSynth. Back then I was using GigaPiano for all my piano parts. Rick -- ======================================= Rick Paul Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP) Web: www.RickPaul.info MySpace: www.myspace.com/rickpaulmusic =======================================
Sorry you could not listen. Don't know that much about Opera, except that I hardly ever go to them any more. Max Arwood "Glennbo" <> wrote in message news:Xns99A757359140ABrownShoesDontMakeIt@207.115.17.102... > In news:IbZEi.14395$ the killer robot > "Max Arwood" <> grabbed the controls of the > spaceship cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons... > >> A couple of new songs I'm working on. >> >> http://www.soundclick.com/util/getplayer.m3u?id=5756340&q=hi >> >> http://www.soundclick.com/util/getplayer.m3u?id=5740784&q=hi >> >> http://www.soundclick.com/util/getplayer.m3u?id=5740771&q=hi >> >> Comments welcome. Out of towm client re-recording probably not >> possible. > > Clicking the links above, I'm getting a page that says: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > This window starts the SoundClick player. If you have enabled a pop-up > blocker, you can click the link here: play the song > > You can then safely close this window. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > And clicking the link on that page doesn't do anything in Opera. If I > try it in IE, it trys to popup a player, but then the player doesn't > play. > > > > -- > Remove YourHeadFromYourAss to Reply by email > ________ ____ > / ____/ /__ ____ ____ / __ )____ > / / __/ / _ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ / __ \ > / /_/ / / __/ / / / / / / /_/ / /_/ / > \____/_/\___/_/ /_/_/ /_/_____/\____/ > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Glennbo http://www.soundclick.com/glennbo > Non-Linear Sound http://www.soundclick.com/jambits > Hear My Music http://www.soundclick.com/ThePseudonyms
In news:3whFi.1853$ the killer robot "Max Arwood" <> grabbed the controls of the spaceship cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons... > Sorry you could not listen. Don't know that much about Opera, except > that I hardly ever go to them any more. Internet Explorer acted squirly with those links too. I'll try going in through the main page when I get back to my house. -- Remove YourHeadFromYourAss to Reply by email ________ ____ / ____/ /__ ____ ____ / __ )____ / / __/ / _ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ / __ \ / /_/ / / __/ / / / / / / /_/ / /_/ / \____/_/\___/_/ /_/_/ /_/_____/\____/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Glennbo http://www.soundclick.com/glennbo Non-Linear Sound http://www.soundclick.com/jambits Hear My Music http://www.soundclick.com/ThePseudonyms
IE did find for me with Max's links, but I did have to click the "if you don't see the popup" (or whatever it said) link to get the SoundClick player the first time (on account of the popup blocker, no doubt). After that it just used the same popup window that was already open.. Rick -- ======================================= Rick Paul Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP) Web: www.RickPaul.info MySpace: www.myspace.com/rickpaulmusic ======================================= "Glennbo" <> wrote in message news:Xns99A79D59D7759BrownShoesDontMakeIt@207.115.17.102... > In news:3whFi.1853$ the killer robot > "Max Arwood" <> grabbed the controls of the > spaceship cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons... > >> Sorry you could not listen. Don't know that much about Opera, except >> that I hardly ever go to them any more. > > Internet Explorer acted squirly with those links too. I'll try going in > through the main page when I get back to my house. > > -- > Remove YourHeadFromYourAss to Reply by email > ________ ____ > / ____/ /__ ____ ____ / __ )____ > / / __/ / _ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ / __ \ > / /_/ / / __/ / / / / / / /_/ / /_/ / > \____/_/\___/_/ /_/_/ /_/_____/\____/ > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Glennbo http://www.soundclick.com/glennbo > Non-Linear Sound http://www.soundclick.com/jambits > Hear My Music http://www.soundclick.com/ThePseudonyms
In news:Xns99A79D59D7759BrownShoesDontMakeIt@207.115.17.102 the killer robot Glennbo <> grabbed the controls of the spaceship cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons... >> Sorry you could not listen. Don't know that much about Opera, except >> that I hardly ever go to them any more. > > Internet Explorer acted squirly with those links too. I'll try going in > through the main page when I get back to my house. I got 'em to play by pasting the URLs directly into IE. Nice clean sounding mixes. Frank sounded a little bit like Cat Stevens (peace train vocal sound I think) in the intro of "The One". -- Remove YourHeadFromYourAss to Reply by email ________ ____ / ____/ /__ ____ ____ / __ )____ / / __/ / _ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ / __ \ / /_/ / / __/ / / / / / / /_/ / /_/ / \____/_/\___/_/ /_/_/ /_/_____/\____/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Glennbo http://www.soundclick.com/glennbo Non-Linear Sound http://www.soundclick.com/jambits Hear My Music http://www.soundclick.com/ThePseudonyms
In news: the killer robot "Rick Paul" <> grabbed the controls of the spaceship cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons... > IE did find for me with Max's links, but I did have to click the "if > you don't see the popup" (or whatever it said) link to get the > SoundClick player the first time (on account of the popup blocker, no > doubt). After that it just used the same popup window that was > already open.. Got 'em to work by pasting the urls directly into IE. -- Remove YourHeadFromYourAss to Reply by email ________ ____ / ____/ /__ ____ ____ / __ )____ / / __/ / _ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ / __ \ / /_/ / / __/ / / / / / / /_/ / /_/ / \____/_/\___/_/ /_/_/ /_/_____/\____/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Glennbo http://www.soundclick.com/glennbo Non-Linear Sound http://www.soundclick.com/jambits Hear My Music http://www.soundclick.com/ThePseudonyms
This might be a long thread but hear goes....... I think my mixes / mastering is ok. But still as I compare mine to big studio stuff, I still fall short. So, how do I go from good mixes / mastering to great? Or is that more related to recording - mike placement, room, etc? Or is it just a combination of everything from room to mastering? What would you say is the worst thing about my mixes? I have bought lots of books, DVD's etc. Any more Ideas? Thanks, Max Arwood "Glennbo" <> wrote in message news:Xns99A7E6A6E75EBrownShoesDontMakeIt@69.28.173.184... > In news:Xns99A79D59D7759BrownShoesDontMakeIt@207.115.17.102 the killer > robot Glennbo <> grabbed the controls of > the spaceship cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons... > >>> Sorry you could not listen. Don't know that much about Opera, except >>> that I hardly ever go to them any more. >> >> Internet Explorer acted squirly with those links too. I'll try going in >> through the main page when I get back to my house. > > I got 'em to play by pasting the URLs directly into IE. Nice clean > sounding mixes. Frank sounded a little bit like Cat Stevens (peace train > vocal sound I think) in the intro of "The One". > > -- > Remove YourHeadFromYourAss to Reply by email > ________ ____ > / ____/ /__ ____ ____ / __ )____ > / / __/ / _ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ / __ \ > / /_/ / / __/ / / / / / / /_/ / /_/ / > \____/_/\___/_/ /_/_/ /_/_____/\____/ > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Glennbo http://www.soundclick.com/glennbo > Non-Linear Sound http://www.soundclick.com/jambits > Hear My Music http://www.soundclick.com/ThePseudonyms
In news:UToFi.1917$ the killer robot "Max Arwood" <> grabbed the controls of the spaceship cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons... > I think my mixes / mastering is ok. But still as I compare mine to > big studio stuff, I still fall short. So, how do I go from good mixes > / mastering to great? Or is that more related to recording - mike > placement, room, etc? Or is it just a combination of everything from > room to mastering? What would you say is the worst thing about my > mixes? I have bought lots of books, DVD's etc. Any more Ideas? What I'd try is to sculpt with EQ. Like accentuate the upper bright edge of the acoustic guitar and vocals to get them more in front of the mix, then maybe scoop some frequencies in the acoustic guitar's upper mid range to let the electric piano have a space just under it, and so on. EQ can be used to get an instrument off another so they both can breathe. -- Remove YourHeadFromYourAss to Reply by email ________ ____ / ____/ /__ ____ ____ / __ )____ / / __/ / _ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ / __ \ / /_/ / / __/ / / / / / / /_/ / /_/ / \____/_/\___/_/ /_/_/ /_/_____/\____/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Glennbo http://www.soundclick.com/glennbo Non-Linear Sound http://www.soundclick.com/jambits Hear My Music http://www.soundclick.com/ThePseudonyms
"Max Arwood" <> wrote in message news:UToFi.1917$... > I think my mixes / mastering is ok. But still as I compare mine to big > studio stuff, I still fall short. So, how do I go from good mixes / > mastering to great? Or is that more related to recording - mike > placement, room, etc? Or is it just a combination of everything from room > to mastering? What would you say is the worst thing about my mixes? I > have bought lots of books, DVD's etc. Any more Ideas? Before I forget: On the subject of books, have you checked out "The Art of Mixing" by David Gibson? It uses a visual approach that is kind of interesting for this stuff. I just listened back to your three latest mixes through headphones (and the better quality D/A converters of my E-MU 1820M), to get a better feel for what you are getting at here. Mind you, I'm coming from a similar perspective in comparing my mixes to the major label stuff, and feeling like I'm coming up short most of the time (though getting a little closer each time, hopefully). Glennbo mentioned EQing different instruments differently to give each its own place in the mix, and it's possible that could be part of it if you're not doing that already. However, when I listen to these three specific mixes, the thing I notice that is a more basic issue for this specific consideration is related to the arrangement, rather than the mix processing. It is actually very related to the thing I mentioned on the second song, where I talked about varying the dynamic of the mix over time, though, after listening to all three mixes more closely, I note that a similar, or at least related, thing could be applied to all three recordings. In particular, what I'm hearing is an arrangement that is reasonably flat over the course of the song. It does build as the song goes on in many cases, but it doesn't vary so much at the micro level. For example, on the first song, both the first and second verse accompaniments, and the first chorus accompaniment for that matter, seem to be reasonably similar -- the same basic drums, bass, electric piano, and guitar. The blend may be somewhat different in the various sections, but it still feels like the same accompaniment. It isn't until the second chorus where another instrument comes in with the synth background, then that stays reasonably constant again until the third chorus where what I think is a distorted electric guitar is added to the mix. Try listening to a major label release that you consider well-produced in a similar style, and pay attention to what is playing where, not only at the section level, but even within sections, and I think you'll hear some interesting revelations. I tried pulling up a couple of Michael W. Smith songs on Napster for something I thought might be similar in genre -- okay, a bit different on style, but not so far off -- and noticed some marked difference between sections. Just as one for instance, perhaps in the first verse you just keep the drums, electric piano, and bass, without the strumming guitar. Maybe you add a few guitar fills between vocal lines for variation, and perhaps some strums on the chord changes, but without a rhythmic thing going in the guitar. Then maybe in the second verse, you bring back the strumming guitar and drop the electric piano out or just use it for ornamentation between vocal lines. Perhaps in the first chorus a synth pad could come in, dropping out the electric piano and switching the guitar to some other pattern. Drums could vary much more between sections. Maybe the basic backbone beat could stay similar, but with different "ear candy" in each section. (Think of that in a way similar to how you might use hi-hats during verses and ride cymbals during choruses with acoustic drums, while also varing the beat between sections, perhaps building a bit more intensity over the course of the song, even on the basic beats.) It's not just a build over the course of the song, but also a build in each chorus, then a coming back down in the next verse, albeit to a place that isn't as low (i.e. dynamically speaking) as the first verse, then building to a slightly higher level than the first chorus in the second chorus. A related thing is the instrumentation. You seem to be using a set of basic tracks -- i.e. acoustic guitar, electric piano, RMX-style drums, and bass -- that are more or less constant throughout the song, then you add the synth pad, then you add the distorted guitar. As each instrument comes in, though, it becomes more or less featured at equal intensity with everything else that is already there. Sometimes the blend varies in terms of fader levels, but most everything has relatively equal, and relatively constant (i.e. once it enters the mix), intensity in the arrangement itself. It might be helpful to have some parts that are of varying prominence and intensity, for example some "ear candy" bits that are used just for highlights, but don't just become another basic track once it is used. And some of the basic tracks could vary in function over time (but that's more or less what I was talking about above). A good way to get a feel for how the arrangement is working is to leave all faders constant throughout -- i.e. no mix automation -- and see how interesting the track is. It should be pretty close (i.e. unless you're using the faders for arrangement purposes, such as taking parts down to negative infinity to prune down the arrangement) as opposed to purely for blend purposes. If you do that and it feels like there is too much there, then the issue is probably in the arrangement rather than the mix. Getting back to the mix, though, one other thing I noticed is that, other than in fader levels, it feels a bit like most of the instruments have equal prominence in the mix, so beyond just the vocal, which always tends to command attention when it is there, it is hard to know where to focus the ear when listening. This also relates to front-to-back positioning. If you think of a real life soundstage, some things are further back than others. The vocal is usually right there upfront. Background vocals and main rhythm instruments may be more or less in a plane a bit behind that. Bass and drums may be further back. If there is a string section, brass section, or synth pads, they may be even further back, or possibly in between the bass/drums and the acoustic guitars/piano/electric guitars, depending on the functions. Different types of ear candy instruments could be most anywhere, depending on function. If an instrument is right up in your face, it may sound great soloed, but may take up too much space in the mix. When it is further back, how you might envision it on a soundstage, it may not sound as good soloed -- e.g. it would be duller -- but it may blend better and not take attention away from more featured elements of the mix. Thus, you may want to consider using EQ not only to let different instruments fit in different portions of the spectrum, but also to affect their apparent position in the front to back soundstage, or simply the degree of focus you want to give them in your mix. On a related note, specifically to the front to back positioning part, one thing I've found that can be helpful for making a mix have more depth is to selectively delay various tracks by anywhere from 5 to about 25 milliseconds. The idea is that sounds that are farther back on a soundstage take longer to reach your ear. Thus, if you want something to appear to be farther back, in addition to making it a bit duller via EQ, you can delay it somewhat in relation to parts you want to feel more upfront. Of course, it doesn't have to be a physical soundstage simulation like a band setup. It could be whatever you want to suggest from a creative standpoint. Make sure you're in the sweet spot of any nearfield monitors for checking this, though, as things will serve to blend together much more once you get further back. Of course, the room, mic position, and all that sort of thing obviously do enter into this. However, I think there is a lot we can do with modern day DAW facilities to overcome the limitations of our recording environments. For example, putting something in a bigger room via an reverb that uses impulse responses, changing the apparent microphone used via Mic Modeler, simulating a band soundstage layout with panning, track sliding, EQ, and reverb, etc. The caliber of singers and musicians is obviously also a factor. But I do think that one of the biggest factors that can make the difference between something that "sounds like a major label record" and something that "sounds like an indie recording or good quality demo" is often the arrangement. (This is actually something I noticed back in college in making some general comparisons between headlining acts at concerts and support acts. Of course, sometimes the support acts had it all together on the arrangement front, too, but I'm talking generalities here.) Rick -- ======================================= Rick Paul Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP) Web: www.RickPaul.info MySpace: www.myspace.com/rickpaulmusic =======================================
Thanks for the reply. The last 2 days I have studied dzs of songs. I never paid attention to how much the actually do change. Even if the verses are kind of like each other there is almost always some thing different. I got to be sure I keep this in mind. I think most of the original stuff that I have done does not have enough variation in the parts. I also think I need to pay attention to those spots where little frills can be used between breaths the singer takes. >"The Art of Mixing" by David Gibson? It uses a visual approach that is >kind of interesting for this stuff. I read that one. It was good. I don't think I've read a book or watched a DVD that I did not learn something from. I really liked his ideas so, I set out to try it on one of my songs. I tried so hard to visualize each instrument, like he did with little circles and squares and stuff. On my mix all I could visualize was a lopsided pinapple! <g> Thanks again, Max Arwood "Rick Paul" <> wrote in message news:... > "Max Arwood" <> wrote in message > news:UToFi.1917$... >> I think my mixes / mastering is ok. But still as I compare mine to big >> studio stuff, I still fall short. So, how do I go from good mixes / >> mastering to great? Or is that more related to recording - mike >> placement, room, etc? Or is it just a combination of everything from >> room to mastering? What would you say is the worst thing about my mixes? >> I have bought lots of books, DVD's etc. Any more Ideas? > > Before I forget: On the subject of books, have you checked out "The Art of > Mixing" by David Gibson? It uses a visual approach that is kind of > interesting for this stuff. > > I just listened back to your three latest mixes through headphones (and > the better quality D/A converters of my E-MU 1820M), to get a better feel > for what you are getting at here. Mind you, I'm coming from a similar > perspective in comparing my mixes to the major label stuff, and feeling > like I'm coming up short most of the time (though getting a little closer > each time, hopefully). > > Glennbo mentioned EQing different instruments differently to give each its > own place in the mix, and it's possible that could be part of it if you're > not doing that already. However, when I listen to these three specific > mixes, the thing I notice that is a more basic issue for this specific > consideration is related to the arrangement, rather than the mix > processing. It is actually very related to the thing I mentioned on the > second song, where I talked about varying the dynamic of the mix over > time, though, after listening to all three mixes more closely, I note that > a similar, or at least related, thing could be applied to all three > recordings. > > In particular, what I'm hearing is an arrangement that is reasonably flat > over the course of the song. It does build as the song goes on in many > cases, but it doesn't vary so much at the micro level. For example, on > the first song, both the first and second verse accompaniments, and the > first chorus accompaniment for that matter, seem to be reasonably > similar -- the same basic drums, bass, electric piano, and guitar. The > blend may be somewhat different in the various sections, but it still > feels like the same accompaniment. It isn't until the second chorus where > another instrument comes in with the synth background, then that stays > reasonably constant again until the third chorus where what I think is a > distorted electric guitar is added to the mix. Try listening to a major > label release that you consider well-produced in a similar style, and pay > attention to what is playing where, not only at the section level, but > even within sections, and I think you'll hear some interesting > revelations. I tried pulling up a couple of Michael W. Smith songs on > Napster for something I thought might be similar in genre -- okay, a bit > different on style, but not so far off -- and noticed some marked > difference between sections. Just as one for instance, perhaps in the > first verse you just keep the drums, electric piano, and bass, without the > strumming guitar. Maybe you add a few guitar fills between vocal lines > for variation, and perhaps some strums on the chord changes, but without a > rhythmic thing going in the guitar. Then maybe in the second verse, you > bring back the strumming guitar and drop the electric piano out or just > use it for ornamentation between vocal lines. Perhaps in the first chorus > a synth pad could come in, dropping out the electric piano and switching > the guitar to some other pattern. Drums could vary much more between > sections. Maybe the basic backbone beat could stay similar, but with > different "ear candy" in each section. (Think of that in a way similar to > how you might use hi-hats during verses and ride cymbals during choruses > with acoustic drums, while also varing the beat between sections, perhaps > building a bit more intensity over the course of the song, even on the > basic beats.) It's not just a build over the course of the song, but also > a build in each chorus, then a coming back down in the next verse, albeit > to a place that isn't as low (i.e. dynamically speaking) as the first > verse, then building to a slightly higher level than the first chorus in > the second chorus. > > A related thing is the instrumentation. You seem to be using a set of > basic tracks -- i.e. acoustic guitar, electric piano, RMX-style drums, and > bass -- that are more or less constant throughout the song, then you add > the synth pad, then you add the distorted guitar. As each instrument > comes in, though, it becomes more or less featured at equal intensity with > everything else that is already there. Sometimes the blend varies in > terms of fader levels, but most everything has relatively equal, and > relatively constant (i.e. once it enters the mix), intensity in the > arrangement itself. It might be helpful to have some parts that are of > varying prominence and intensity, for example some "ear candy" bits that > are used just for highlights, but don't just become another basic track > once it is used. And some of the basic tracks could vary in function over > time (but that's more or less what I was talking about above). > > A good way to get a feel for how the arrangement is working is to leave > all faders constant throughout -- i.e. no mix automation -- and see how > interesting the track is. It should be pretty close (i.e. unless you're > using the faders for arrangement purposes, such as taking parts down to > negative infinity to prune down the arrangement) as opposed to purely for > blend purposes. If you do that and it feels like there is too much there, > then the issue is probably in the arrangement rather than the mix. > > Getting back to the mix, though, one other thing I noticed is that, other > than in fader levels, it feels a bit like most of the instruments have > equal prominence in the mix, so beyond just the vocal, which always tends > to command attention when it is there, it is hard to know where to focus > the ear when listening. This also relates to front-to-back positioning. > If you think of a real life soundstage, some things are further back than > others. The vocal is usually right there upfront. Background vocals and > main rhythm instruments may be more or less in a plane a bit behind that. > Bass and drums may be further back. If there is a string section, brass > section, or synth pads, they may be even further back, or possibly in > between the bass/drums and the acoustic guitars/piano/electric guitars, > depending on the functions. Different types of ear candy instruments > could be most anywhere, depending on function. If an instrument is right > up in your face, it may sound great soloed, but may take up too much space > in the mix. When it is further back, how you might envision it on a > soundstage, it may not sound as good soloed -- e.g. it would be duller -- > but it may blend better and not take attention away from more featured > elements of the mix. Thus, you may want to consider using EQ not only to > let different instruments fit in different portions of the spectrum, but > also to affect their apparent position in the front to back soundstage, or > simply the degree of focus you want to give them in your mix. > > On a related note, specifically to the front to back positioning part, one > thing I've found that can be helpful for making a mix have more depth is > to selectively delay various tracks by anywhere from 5 to about 25 > milliseconds. The idea is that sounds that are farther back on a > soundstage take longer to reach your ear. Thus, if you want something to > appear to be farther back, in addition to making it a bit duller via EQ, > you can delay it somewhat in relation to parts you want to feel more > upfront. Of course, it doesn't have to be a physical soundstage > simulation like a band setup. It could be whatever you want to suggest > from a creative standpoint. Make sure you're in the sweet spot of any > nearfield monitors for checking this, though, as things will serve to > blend together much more once you get further back. > > Of course, the room, mic position, and all that sort of thing obviously do > enter into this. However, I think there is a lot we can do with modern > day DAW facilities to overcome the limitations of our recording > environments. For example, putting something in a bigger room via an > reverb that uses impulse responses, changing the apparent microphone used > via Mic Modeler, simulating a band soundstage layout with panning, track > sliding, EQ, and reverb, etc. The caliber of singers and musicians is > obviously also a factor. But I do think that one of the biggest factors > that can make the difference between something that "sounds like a major > label record" and something that "sounds like an indie recording or good > quality demo" is often the arrangement. (This is actually something I > noticed back in college in making some general comparisons between > headlining acts at concerts and support acts. Of course, sometimes the > support acts had it all together on the arrangement front, too, but I'm > talking generalities here.) > > Rick > -- > ======================================= > Rick Paul > Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP) > Web: www.RickPaul.info > MySpace: www.myspace.com/rickpaulmusic > ======================================= > >
