Would Appreciate Some Input on a New Mix of Mine

[andygabrys]

Stephen, its better.

Now my perspective is that you are mixing on a DAW in 2014. That gives you a lot of flexibility to be pretty surgical and really make everything heard and larger than life. So even though the song has a little retro edge, you can go farther with the mix to really make this something.

Some of these comments relate to mix technique. Some of the comments relate to arrangement ideas - because great songs don't happen by accident. they are arranged to give the dynamic curve that goes some place and knocks you out. You can make a nice mix of a song that is missing some arrangement ideas, but a mix of a tune that is arranged with absolutely knocking out the listener is going to be that much stronger.

There are still issues with lead vocal level changing slightly phrase to phrase most noticeably in the first chorus.

I would still try taking another dB or 2 out of 300 hz on the wide guitars.

I would also add a dB or 2 at either 1 khz, 5 khz or 10 khz on the kick to hear it a little more (the nail in the paddle). IMO it gets pretty lost. If that isn't enough, take a db or 2 out at 400 hz, and ad a db or 3 at 65-80 hz wherever you hear the "bloom" of this particular kick. These would all be fairly sharp Q boosts. Like Q or 2-4 somewhere around there.

I would likely add some parallel distortion on the bass (send from the bass track to an AUX with an overdrive pedal on it) and just mix it under so that the bass cuts a little more in the midrange, and that will help the bass and the kick be audible without the bass masking the kick too much. If that isn't enough take out a db or 2 out of the bass in the 125 hz - 250 hz region.

I like the wide guitars. Let me say that much for sure. What I am missing is the excitement when the chorus hits. Other tracks might have more narrowly panned guitars in the verses, and go wide and big in the chorus. Or you can add another guitar or keyboard doing some kinda figure like you have at the bridge before you go back to the wide panned guitars. Or you could have the guitar sound you do in the verses, and then kick in some extra overdrive for the guitars in the chorus, an overdrive with a little more cut and drive.

Same thing for the bridge. In most songs, the bridge is a high point. I would look at having some wide guitars in the bridge as well. Keep the center guitars doing their thing, and add some wide guitars hitting some sustained chords.

For sure in the last chorus, keep that center guitar doing the fill type parts in addition to having the wide guitars. Consider doing something similar to Chorus 2 as well, not quite as big and developed as chorus 3 will be

In a nutshell - the stereotypical building arrangement:

Verse 1 - smallest
Chorus 1 - bigger than verse 1
Verse 2 - Smaller than chorus 1 but with an extra development or sound that makes it distinct and give it more energy
Chorus 2 - biggest yet and building into the Bridge
Bridge - virtual atom bomb territory. Get everything rocking. Big.
Chorus 3 - As big as the bridge, and developed farther than Chorus 2. Extra BG vocals. maybe some special sauce on BG vocals. Adlibs. More guitar lines fills etc.

anyways, that's my 2 cents, and what I would work on. IMO - you could go and master this track and it would be fine, but I think you could turn some heads by working on the arrangement ideas with the aim of really making the mix pop.

I understand if you are done playing parts on this and looking to mix / master and be done. no worries.

edit: I see Rich just made a note about a Wheezer vibe. yeah, something like that. more dirt on the guitars, everything a little less round, a little more energy. That is mostly what my comments are orientated towards.

[Razor7Music]

Hey Guys—

Good morning. Because of the time-zone difference I haven’t had a chance to take a look at all of Andy’s input, but I thank you both SO MUCH. I am going for a retro-influence but not dated sound, so I like the edgy Weezer idea. I think because at the Road Rally mixing breakout sessions hearing they didn’t like amp modeling, I may have swung too far in the other direction and left my guitars wanting some more excitement.

I’m getting ready to start work and so as I said I haven’t had a chance to look at all the ideas for improvement, but I will definitely try them out.

I want to share some deliberate artistic/stylistic arrangement decisions I made in order to help tell the story of the song. In the story there is conflict and interruptions to the story teller’s peace, love, life. I tried to have the arrangement help tell the story by using some abrupt, maybe even dissonant sounding changes to represent these life interruptions.

One of these abrupt changes is from the single intro guitar to the start of the song. This represents the current relationship being interrupted by the memories of the prior relationship that Scarred Up (His) Heart. I actually wasn’t sure how this would translate into the song early on in the tracking stage, so I tried with and without, and because I like it as sort of an “I’m going to tell you a story/BOOM, here’s the story”. What I’ll probably do is end up with two mixes. One with the intro and one without—especially for the instrumental version.

The other abrupt interruption is the transition from the bridge to the last pre-chorus. This time the story teller is starting to remember the positive parts of the former relationship almost in a dream state, but then is abruptly reminded that overall it was mostly bad relationship/girl and goes back to telling how she scarred up (his) heart.

I plan in the mastering stage to add some chorus or some type of delay to the entire mix at the end portion of the bridge to subtly simulate the semi-dream state, and then abruptly cut it off when the pre-chorus starts—as it is abruptly changed now with panning, guitars, levels, etc. to simulate the story teller abruptly returning to the reality of how bad the relationship was—abruptly woken up.

Anyway, just wanted you to know those two abrupt changes in the flow of the song were deliberate and why.

Mix three, coming up!!!

[Razor7Music]

Andy-- outstanding feedback. I did read about the momentum of a song but I wasn't sure how to do it with this track, so I like your ideas.

I also wasn't sure if the energy in the chorus and bridge should be done in the mixing or mastering stage when it came to mixing.

I watched some Ozone mastering videos on YouTube and they were using a multi - band exciter on the choruses to make them pop. I don't have Ozone, I have Wavelab but I understand the concept.

As far as being past the mixing or arranging stage, I have a really bad habit of rushing through the mix and mastering stages when I don't think a song has what it takes and I'm really trying to break that habit.

From the feedback you guys have given me I think this track has potential. I'm going to mix it and master it as many times as it takes! !

I'm also trying to get away from over-producing so as I said I may have gone too far in the other direction.

I'm excited to see what the tips you guys gave me do to the mix. I'll A/B them and let you know when it's ready.

Might be a few days.

Many thanks!

[andygabrys]

Hey Stephen,

you remember CrazyHooks? John Acosta who was quite active on the forum here up till bout a year ago?

I remember asking him about his mixes as his stuff always sounded so AMAZING and so perfect (and he was working in primarily one set of styles that he was great at) - and his answer roughly paraphrased was:

"I try to get the song 100% of the way there in the mix"

meaning the only thing mastering did was a slight tweak, some volume maximization, maybe a little eq. Or if you are doing an albums worth of material, make each mix sound a little more alike frequency balance wise, trim starts and fades, make each song similar to the ear volume wise. But leaving stuff like reverb, delay, etc. as decisions to be made in the "mastering" stage isn't really saving any time. If you want a bright punchy song, mix a bright punchy song. Don't mix it dark and smooth and expect that mastering is going to fix it.

I would say that's the way forward. Make the mix 100% of what you want it to be. Its easier to fix stuff in the mix rather than the master, you get better at the finishing touches in the mix.

re: multi-band exciter.

imagine two scenarios.

In the first - you mix and master all your songs. You have total control (as you do in this present situation) to remix as many times as it takes to get it to the amazing level.

In the second - you mix your songs, or maybe contract out the mixing. And then it goes to the mastering engineer. Here you might not have the mix right, and the mastering engineer has one shot to make your song pop and really move. She notices that the choruses of your song need more energy. She chooses a multi-band exciter.


Now if you had known that the chorus was kinda flat, why not just fix it in the mix? Why not add some parallel high passed distortion to the vocals in the chorus (which is basically what an exciter is)? Don;t have to leave it for mastering.

Do you see what I mean?

[Razor7Music]

Hey Stephen,

you remember CrazyHooks? John Acosta who was quite active on the forum here up till bout a year ago?

I remember asking him about his mixes as his stuff always sounded so AMAZING and so perfect (and he was working in primarily one set of styles that he was great at) - and his answer roughly paraphrased was:

"I try to get the song 100% of the way there in the mix"

meaning the only thing mastering did was a slight tweak, some volume maximization, maybe a little eq. Or if you are doing an albums worth of material, make each mix sound a little more alike frequency balance wise, trim starts and fades, make each song similar to the ear volume wise. But leaving stuff like reverb, delay, etc. as decisions to be made in the "mastering" stage isn't really saving any time. If you want a bright punchy song, mix a bright punchy song. Don't mix it dark and smooth and expect that mastering is going to fix it.

I would say that's the way forward. Make the mix 100% of what you want it to be. Its easier to fix stuff in the mix rather than the master, you get better at the finishing touches in the mix.

re: multi-band exciter.

imagine two scenarios.

In the first - you mix and master all your songs. You have total control (as you do in this present situation) to remix as many times as it takes to get it to the amazing level.

In the second - you mix your songs, or maybe contract out the mixing. And then it goes to the mastering engineer. Here you might not have the mix right, and the mastering engineer has one shot to make your song pop and really move. She notices that the choruses of your song need more energy. She chooses a multi-band exciter.


Now if you had known that the chorus was kinda flat, why not just fix it in the mix? Why not add some parallel high passed distortion to the vocals in the chorus (which is basically what an exciter is)? Don;t have to leave it for mastering.

Do you see what I mean?

Yes, it makes 100% sense and I really appreciate your perspective. I plan on doing the mix as many times as it takes to get it where it needs to be. With my setup though, I can look at Wavelab as another tool in the arsenal, and not really just because I didn't do something in the mix. Some tools and access are just more convenient for me when working in WL since I've used it so long--but this isn't contrary to what you're saying at all--it's just using WL more for creative stuff than fixing stuff. I rely on my ears, but sometimes it's very helpful for me to use the analysis tools in WL as a reference to see what's going on overall.

Anyway, not to sound like a plug, but I just upgraded to WL 8.5 and I can listen to a mix under different file formats. I can A/B between wave and MP3 as an example, in real time and hear what the different format conversion will do to my mix. I can also print a mix out in multiple formats simultaneously. I think that's pretty cool--a little OT, but I do like my WL for more than just the typical mastering tasks.

I'm also OK with going back to mix if I find something during the mastering that I missed in the mix.

Again, I appreciate the input and I hear you. I also like the quotes from CrazyHooks. I learn a ton here!

[Razor7Music]

Ok, one vacation and one slightly lacerated finger later, the 3rd mix is up. I took into account pretty much everything you guys suggested with my own creative interpretations, and added a few improvements myself.

Please let me know what you think of this mix when you get a chance.

https://soundcloud.com/#stephen-davis-2 ... p-my-heart

THANK YOU!

Stephen

[Razor7Music]

I heard a couple things I needed to change, so here's mix 3.5 for your input:
https://soundcloud.com/stephen-davis-27 ... my-heart-1

Thank you so much!

[johnlewitt]

Stephen,

I dig it and I think you're there!

Let's see if others agree.

John

[Razor7Music]

Stephen,

I dig it and I think you're there!

Let's see if others agree.

John

Ah man, thanks so much.

I plan on using some overall compression to glue the tracks together and maybe adding a little gloss with the EQ in the mastering and that's it.

Thank you for listening.

Stephen

[Razor7Music]

All done. The link should take you to the final master.

I can't thank you all enough for the valuable feedback I got. You may not know it, but the comments from you that said you liked the song was a huge boost to me too.

Well, normally this would be the time I start working on my next tune (other than my notes when I get ideas), but darn it if my finger hasn't healed yet, so I'm going to remix an older tune that I can improve a lot. Maybe I can get it Taxi ready.