n00b question but hey...
Home > Home Recording Forum > Recording Techniques > n00b question but hey...
Posted on Mar 23, 2004 03:00 pm
Styx
Member Since: Jan 17, 2004
When people record songs they say that mixing takes that longest and requires the most work. But when u do the mixing what do u actually do? at the moment i just get the relative volumes right, play about with EQ's a bit and pan where i want things to go. What else do you do when mixing, coz i think this is where im letting my songs down. Soz for the basic question, but i would like some feedback on this.
Thanks
[ Back to Top ]
Mar 23, 2004 03:07 pm Well, I addition to what you said, there can also be a lot of automation to program, fading instruments in and out correctly, back and forth in the pan, EQing can take a ton of time to get each instrument in it's own sonic space and not interfere with each other while still complimenting each other. (blueninjastar wrote a GREAT article for HRC about just that)...done correctly it can take a ton of time.
juesContributor
Since: Dec 30, 2002
Mar 23, 2004 05:33 pm Other way round for me - recording can be done in a week whereas mixing will often last 2 to 3 per track (I can get very anal over things :)
compression, eq, effects - getting everything to sound great and then to sit with each other.
And then, as dB said, there is the automation and editing to be done as well - very time consuming - but luckily it's also quite good fun.
Mar 23, 2004 08:24 pm I agree with jues, there... It takes forever...
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Mar 23, 2004 10:21 pm I am in jues neighborhood on the mixing thing as well as dB. For me the cutting and editing is a large part as well as adding and subtracting FX and such. It is still alot faster then it was in the days of tape, but it can be a long winded process if you want to get it right.
But being anal over the mix is just the way some of us are. I have finished complete tracks in a day, but tht is an exception to the rule, and they generaly are very short or easy to mix.
flame...bringing sexy backMember
Since: Jul 01, 2002
Mar 24, 2004 11:56 am mixin takes me years...it took my about 12 monthes to do 'cheap tricks' and that was fairly simple...
LokiCone PokerMember
Since: Apr 07, 2002
Mar 24, 2004 08:34 pm I've never mixed.... I've never got a song "Complete" enough for it to be a mix... I'll go back a week later and realize that something needs to be changed and redo it and keep doing that until the song is butchered
juesContributor
Since: Dec 30, 2002
Mar 25, 2004 05:34 am :D eheheheh
EmSeeThe MusicManMember
Since: Dec 09, 2003
Mar 25, 2004 04:57 pm I think the mixing is more tedious and time consuming than the actual creative process. Once you have a beat or melody, it’s just a matter of putting it down, but getting everything in its place..priceless. Which is why I believe your music should go to a "master" before reaching the public. Lots of people think they can do it all at home, which I have no problem with, but the "master" has an ear for things, we as producers, my not hear.
ug2102Member
Since: Feb 03, 2004
Mar 25, 2004 06:21 pm honestly, i'm kind of the opposite. maybe i'm going to get criticized for this, and maybe my mixes suffer as a result but i'm a firm believer in taking much more time in actually writing, rehearsing, and tracking than the actual mixing. maybe this is a mentality i got from only playing in a group, and not making music by myself. everytime i've taken a long time over mixes it seems like the song just keeps sounding more and more dead and lifeless.
maybe i'm rushing my mixing process, and don't know enough about it to do it well, but for me, the point of recording one's music is to convey it from the person playing the music to the listener. if i had my way, i would never really turn the vibrations of sound into any other kind of signal. i know this board has a lot of strong supporters of digital technology, MIDI, and the like, and if that's your bag, then i think mixing takes on a whole new meaning that doesn't really apply to me. i'm not asinine enough to ignore any music made that way, after all i record using a computer, but that's because of necessity, not choice. i'd much rather play live for somebody rather than have them listen to our cd, but obviously that's not possible for everyone at all times.
this is kind of becoming a rant, and i apologize, but music i've labored over for too long loses its spontaneity. listening to alternate mixes over and over for hours, then notching out one frequency and listening again, staring at the computer screen becomes mind numbing. it's hard to let go of your creation, and attempt to perfect it forever, but i think doing so is very liberating in some respects. your music can never become art and it's own separate entity until you release it from your grasp and let it direct you in some aspects. i know this is a very lofty comparison, and i am by no means even close to being an artist yet, but michelangelo used to say that when he sculpted he could feel the figure within the stone, and all he wanted to do was to remove the excess and reveal that figure. maybe we should attempt that, and try removing excess and get to the core of what we're trying to do, instead of forever adding on more and more.
now to get back to how to record music, haha. i think if you take the time to write and arrange a song, instead of hurrying to record new material, maybe the song itself will help in the post-recording process. take the time to consider every single note you play, and how it fits with everything else. arrange your parts so they don't conflict, instead of EQ-ing the sound to avoid conflict. instead of adding lots of effect to beef up your guitar sound, maybe think about alternate chord voicings or how the instruments react to each other. i think if you do that, mixing simply becomes the process of clearing away the exteranneous garbage that blocks the most effective communication of your music.
wow, i apologize for the length of this message. this might fit better in the talkin' smack board, but as it is a reply to this post, i put it here. db, feel free to move it if you think it's irrelevant.
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Mar 25, 2004 11:16 pm All real good reflection. And each step of the process does take diligence for sure. I agree with Ug on the composition itself. Although I will say that the process of recording really brings out a lot of hidden aspects to a composition. I personally like doing a "pretty good" recording of a piece through mix and possibly pre-master for the group or composer to listen to for a few weeks. At least leaving one week between recording and reviewing to let the "rush" wear off along with the "brain filters" that make almost any recording sound good immediately after cut. Asses the recording in terms of group tightness, tonality, general musician skills and modify the composition to fit the musicians and or reherse to shore up any weak points. The actual recording is emparitive as well. Get the tone, dynamics, etc down...clean for the actual "studio" takes. Now there is a foundation to work with. Not that there won't be punch ins even later. It's almost inevatable. Now having listened to the "pretty good" album for a while in diferent moods, circumstances some good idea of what I really want will start to take form. Mixing the "studio" album is much easier with a good mental sonic image present. I guess if I where to pick a step in the process that is most difficult, it would forcing myself to take the time to just listen over time. Develop a good solid menal image of the sound I want to hear and get rid of the filters of excitement that fool me into hearing something that is not there. The trick is to pick the right moment to mix. Enthusiasm is a must, but excitement is decieving. Fine line.
