Prev: Anyone running Sonar 7 on a Quadcore?
Next: Save XP petition at InfoWorld
From: Bill Durham on 17 Apr 2008 08:49
Guys,

this thread has been very interesting and all of the ideas and comments
were interesting, but one thing that jumped out at me was OF's
explanation of things like he buried the vocal because of the lyrical
feel at that point in time. I thought this was a pretty interesting
comment and I wonder how many other people "mix" considering what is
being said vs where the level fits best in the mix. I'm not making a
value judgment, just an observation. I tend to hear the vocal as
another instrument.. listening to the timbre and quality of the voice
and not so much the words.. so any comments?

BD
From: Sue Morton on 17 Apr 2008 09:43
I always find these discussions interesting too. But of course it really is
all subjective. How many "One-Hit Wonders" have surfaced over the years?
Many many many. All different. Conversely, why were these bands OHW? Why
didn't the rest of the music command attention like that one song did? Same
voices, same musicians, same instruments, same engineers, and same song
writers in most cases. What was different about "the one"?

Solve that in an identifiable way and you'll be rich for the rest of your
life :-)
--
Sue Morton

Bill Durham wrote:
> Guys,
>
> this thread has been very interesting and all of the ideas and
> comments were interesting, but one thing that jumped out at me was
> OF's explanation of things like he buried the vocal because of the
> lyrical feel at that point in time. I thought this was a pretty
> interesting comment and I wonder how many other people "mix"
> considering what is being said vs where the level fits best in the
> mix. I'm not making a value judgment, just an observation. I tend
> to hear the vocal as another instrument.. listening to the timbre and
> quality of the voice and not so much the words.. so any comments?
>
> BD


From: Bill Durham on 17 Apr 2008 12:45
Organfreak wrote:
>
> I have to confess that I didn't come up with the concept intellectually ahead of
> time, it's just that when I first started to mix the tracks, the vocal was
> already a bit too far back, and I liked the effect, since I could make out what
> he was singing quite clearly. And that was due purely to my own emotional
> response to the song. I know it sounds like pure rationalization, and maybe some
> of that came into play. That's one good reason to put prospective mixes out
> here, to find out if I'm barking up the wrong tree or not. Often, such
> "concepts" don't mean much to a fresh listener and need to be thrown out, as
> will be the case this time. What makes sense to me might come across as just
> annoying to someone else.
>
> But I do tend to use my emotional nature when I mix (I just realized from
> reading Bill's post), having been a theatrical lighting designer for many years,
> and thus sensitive to subtle shifts in focus that might add to the drama. Good
> comparison on Glennbo's part about shifting the spotlight. I wanted the light to
> be on the churning emotions surrounding this poor, overwhelmed "too blue" guy.
>
>
>
OF.. thats where I was going.. the emotional nature of the mix. I have
to confess.. I didn't listen to your song.. so I really haven't heard
what anybody was talking about.. but to hear you say that was the
desired effect.. and that being a little contrary to standard train of
thought.. being that lead vocals have a "place" to sit in a mix and that
is where they should stay.. was just interesting to me. And again, I'm
not saying its right or wrong.. just different.

BD
From: Steve Karl on 17 Apr 2008 13:59
I tend to see mix as a 3d stage with lighting.
The emotional perspective of the players ( or parts ) is usually obvious in the performance
and helps with how the parts interact on the stage.

Putting the vocalist in the center / middle ( middle as in 1/2 way back ) of the stage with some what dimmer lighting than
other instruments ... i.e. allowing or making other instruments "up stage" ( closer to the front )
the vocalist, ... I would see more as the role of a producer, and of course the engineer would make it
happen.

I have other pre judged perspectives about individual performance that I try to go for, as in balance and tone
of drums, and individual instrument tone, that can bring out the emotional content of a part, or balance
an overly emotional, or less (calm) focused than I'd hope for, performance, all subjective of course.
Relative time relationships can sometimes be changed with tone, after the fact, in the mix,
( I'm talking old school, before being able to slide clips in time, which will always be my last resort )
but more importantly,
a performance can be made or broken by the tone and balance the performer hears when cutting the part,
if the performer is mature enough in their art to respond to the environmental changes that the sound implies.
Once again the implications are subjective. I've met many that see things from different perspectives, but
generally the idea of geometry and space still apply. The trick is getting to know where the performer
prefers to "stand" on the stage, or what their sonic vision happens to be in that moment.

Steve Karl



"Bill Durham" <billdurham(a)attglobal.net> wrote in message news:vMGdnT3Seo3_2prVnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d(a)comcast.com...
> Guys,
>
> this thread has been very interesting and all of the ideas and comments were interesting, but one thing that jumped out at me was
> OF's explanation of things like he buried the vocal because of the lyrical feel at that point in time. I thought this was a
> pretty interesting comment and I wonder how many other people "mix" considering what is being said vs where the level fits best in
> the mix. I'm not making a value judgment, just an observation. I tend to hear the vocal as another instrument.. listening to the
> timbre and quality of the voice and not so much the words.. so any comments?
>
> BD


From: Steve Karl on 17 Apr 2008 14:25

"Organfreak" <plonk(a)plinkety.plunk> wrote in message news:2m1f04942jbohbmsmhqu6sbckohjvkg232(a)4ax.com...
> Bill Durham <billdurham(a)attglobal.net> blatted:
>>Organfreak wrote:
>>>
>>> I have to confess that I didn't come up with the concept intellectually ahead of
>>> time, it's just that when I first started to mix the tracks, the vocal was
>>> already a bit too far back, and I liked the effect, since I could make out what
>>> he was singing quite clearly. And that was due purely to my own emotional
>>> response to the song. I know it sounds like pure rationalization, and maybe some
>>> of that came into play. That's one good reason to put prospective mixes out
>>> here, to find out if I'm barking up the wrong tree or not. Often, such
>>> "concepts" don't mean much to a fresh listener and need to be thrown out, as
>>> will be the case this time. What makes sense to me might come across as just
>>> annoying to someone else.
>>>
>>> But I do tend to use my emotional nature when I mix (I just realized from
>>> reading Bill's post), having been a theatrical lighting designer for many years,
>>> and thus sensitive to subtle shifts in focus that might add to the drama. Good
>>> comparison on Glennbo's part about shifting the spotlight. I wanted the light to
>>> be on the churning emotions surrounding this poor, overwhelmed "too blue" guy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>OF.. thats where I was going.. the emotional nature of the mix. I have
>>to confess.. I didn't listen to your song.. so I really haven't heard
>>what anybody was talking about.. but to hear you say that was the
>>desired effect.. and that being a little contrary to standard train of
>>thought.. being that lead vocals have a "place" to sit in a mix and that
>>is where they should stay.. was just interesting to me. And again, I'm
>>not saying its right or wrong.. just different.
>>
>>BD
>
> Shoot Bill, you have made me think! It's occurred to me also that music (other
> than the very-important component of rhythm, which is all about the physical
> body), is chiefly about emotion. Or should be, IMO. "We" like it when a song
> gives us that strange feeling the defies being put into words. I think that is
> what the power of music is all about, and is being lost lately, a little.

My point of view is ....
I'd not choose to seperate "body" from emotion but see it all as an antenna inside
of a flexing shell. The antenna can transmit from any where on it's vertical axis,
in isloated sections, combinations of areas, or the whole thing equally.
I see 7 hot spots with smaller points inbetween ......
As in, is it from the heart, throat, guts, center of the forehead, leaning forward a bit ( forward motion )
or hangin' of da back poarch railing wit dat slide guitar tucked in ma lead belly.
Attitude is a "slant" of perspective, a slice of lifes geometry in the moment,
it is the actor playing a part.

Ideally, I hope our job as engineers is to bring out ( and or sometimes manage )
the emotional aspects of performance.
It's certainly very easy to mask and manage them if one wants to.
Just talking real instruments here, guitar, bass, drums, trumpet, flute, sax ...
I've "fixed" ( in the mix ) hundreds of my own overly emotional tracks over the decades
and that has most always given me a better perspective on how to approach the next similar
performance.
Body consciousness became very important to me a long time ago when playing, and it even still, now,
translates perfectly with midi and samples.
Main difference is that now I do very little in the way of mixing with tone choices.
Most all of it is balance between parts, timing and velocity, and release times, ( in that order ) and most all of it done
during the tracking.

Encoding the performance with the "message" can be conscious, or unconscious.
No matter ... It still gets done.

Steve



 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Anyone running Sonar 7 on a Quadcore?
Next: Save XP petition at InfoWorld