Re: Finally finished mixing my first full-length album
rakmanenuff
> Yesterday afternoon I finally finished the last of the mixes for the album
> I've been working on for almost ever (though most of the vocals were
> recorded within the last 5 years, and about half of those in the last year,
> some of the MIDI tracks for the arrangements go as far back as 1996). The
> title will be "Love Holds On", and I've put up a SoundClick "user station"
> to preview the entire album in order at:
>
> http://members.soundclick.com/station/747317
>
> I've still got to figure out what I'm going to do on artwork and liner notes
> and such, and do some other admin and other work to actually get this out
> the door (I'm targeting having CDs ready to go by a show I've got on July
> 12th, so timing is really tight, and I'll probably have it up on some of the
> digital download stores somewhere between now and then, probably early July
> for the first ones). However, it's already feeling like a big relief to
> finally have the mixes done, as they have been a very long time in coming.
>
> Rick
> --
> =======================================
> Rick Paul
> Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP)
> Web:www.RickPaul.info
> MySpace:www.myspace.com/rickpaulmusic
> =======================================
I skimmed through your songs and listened
in a "non-technical" way.
Liked it a lot :) Really nice voice, both the single voice
and with the double-tracked effect. Nice character/atmosphere
and overall harmony/balance in the backing tracks/production.
I liked the track sequence, enough variation in groove
to keep it interesting, although it seemed to me that
there were many slow tracks towards the end, this
is not a complaint, just an observation - I was just
listening to Black Eyed Peas so anything would be
slow after that.
I'm somewhat intrigued by Gill Smith's response,
can't comment on whether there were enough
"memorable hooks", or "standout tracks"...
would have to listen more closely in a real "A&R" way
to check that out, I thought the songs were GOOD,
overall.
The only thing i WILL say is that there are many different
ways of keeping the listener's attention, atmosphere, mood,
emotion, character etc. I have a low boredom threshold
and I wasn't getting bored. But sure, it doesn't tick the
"Britney" "please-kick-me-in-the-nuts" boxes.
As for G.S's comment about different singers:
Some of the vocals sounded kinda "analog",
ie warm, fuzzy.
This is just a personal opinion based on first impressions
but I don't think there's any need for backing singers,
what I *would* have done personally if I was mixing it, is to
stick some more plugins on the vocals to push them forward a bit,
a touch brighter, perhaps a bit less reverb in places or a shorter
reverb. Not sure if that's a big deal either way though.
That's acually my biggest weakness as a mixdown
engineer, I become so obsessed with the vocals and
every single word being clear, having the right emotional
impact, energy etc, that I forget to make the kick drum tight
and fix the sub bass...
rakmanenuff
Why is this showing up as a separate thread in Google Groups?
Rick Paul
;-)
I'll just make some notes, out of context, but roughly in order of the
things in your note that may have sparked my thoughts:
There were definitely a number of slow tracks, and a little more balanced
toward the end. Initially, I had a lot of problems picking a mix of songs
for this because almost any playlist I'd have used to keep to my theme (or
other themes I'd had in mind earlier) ended up being way too ballad-heavy.
That is partly because some of my most popular songs (mainly in terms of
live show response, but also in terms of historical interest by other
singers, publishers, etc.) have been ballads. Part of the song selection,
and theme selection for that matter, was to try and at least incorporate a
certain number of "anchor songs" in there, while still trying to maintain a
reasonable balance of tempos and, despite having multiple musical styles,
also keep some coherency as an album from one "artist".
Another big challenge I had, once I had the final song selection, was
getting a track order that would keep the flow moving, not have multiple
songs in a row in the same key signature, etc. Originally I'd planned to
open with an uptempo number, using the title song for last as I often use it
as a closing song in my full-length shows. But then that stacked even more
ballads on the end, or maybe somewhere in the middle. (Actually, I kind of
did a mid-tempo feel on the recording of that song, but it is really a
ballad underneath.) I ultimately figured having a few more ballads late in
the game was better than having them too early. Also, the "biggest
offender" in that regard is the sequence of "When We Used to Hold Hands"
followed by "Portadown Rain", but I figured "Portadown Rain" is sufficiently
different in style from everything else on there, and also sufficiently
heavy on subject matter/story, that it might "save me" with respect to the
potential for multi-ballad boredom. ;-)
I was also not quite sure on what to make of Gill's note without some
further elaboration on what he (she? -- not sure from the name) meant, but
my best guess was he was talking about something along the lines of modern
commercial radio production, that tends to be very heavy on production-side
hooks. While there are a few songs on there that I think could fit into
certain modern radio formats (e.g. "Take Advantage of Me" did already get a
little airplay on an internet edgy country station that had a mix of about
two thirds major label acts and the rest indie, and "After Us" is definitely
pretty hooky in my book, though I'm not sure where it would fit format-wise
at this point), this definitely wasn't an album focused toward "hit radio"
play. Rather, it was more like a 70's style AOR focus along the lines of
classic albums from the likes of Jackson Browne, Dan Fogelberg, Elton John,
etc. -- i.e. back in times when people weren't afraid to mix multiple styles
up under one artist, or even on one album, and where some of the best tracks
might not necessarily be the radio-friendly tracks. My hope was that each
song, whether having "hit" potential or not, would be able to stand on its
own in terms of providing some sort of value to the whole of the album, and
would have the potential for being memorable at some level, though not
necessarily "hooky".
I also do tend to obsess a bit over vocals, and the "warm/analog/fuzzy"
thing was partly a factor of my voice (which is decidedly not of the
crisp/cutting variety a la country singers) and partly a factor of
production choices, including the plug-ins applied in the signal chain. I
often have a tendency to mix vocals too loud in a "country radio" or "song
demo" kind of way, but also had various people who were listening to my
mixes along the way "restraining me" somewhat on that side of things. In
general, though, I have a real problem with vocal levels, trying to get a
balance between too loud and not loud enough. I often use an aural exciter
plug-in to help vocals cut through the mix without having to be louder, but
ended up foregoing it on some of the more recent tracks I'd mixed for this
album, going a bit more for that analog feel and trying to avoid being
brittle. There were definitely a number of tracks where I was debating
where to put the vocal, blendwise, pretty much down to the final moments,
and I'd be the last to suggest I made all the best choices -- just the best
I could think of at that moment in time.
Part of my production choices on this, not specifically related to the
vocals, but rather overall, was to go for a dynamic range much more like a
classic album than a modern album -- sort of an anti-Loudness Wars stance,
but also because I find my ears getting fatigued listening to many otherwise
excellent modern albums because of the hypercompression they are using on
the mixes. One downside of going against that (and the average dynamic
range of my recordings as measured by a tool put out by a group trying to
reverse this trend is 11 dB, versus a more typical dynamic range of 4-6 dB
for modern recordings and more like 14 dB for recordings made back in the
early 80's -- see http://dynamicrange.de for more info on this general
subject matter) is that, if you listen to the recordings on my album
interleaved with modern recordings, the modern recordings will be a lot
louder and more "in your face". However, were you to listen to both
recordings through the kinds of extra compression radio stations use, that
difference would go away, and the greater dynamic range on mine should help
it still retain some dynamic range even after that kind of compression.
(Also, if you put both recordings at the same apparent loudness level, the
benefits of having more dynamic range become much more apparent.) The main
audience for my music tends to be mature adults, so I was trying to produce
more for those sensibilities than the teen or college age crowd. In any
event that is something that could also factor into the notion of
"hookiness" in a modern recording sense.
Ultimately, I guess my hope for this is that, for the people who do enjoy
the songs, and my singing and playing, the album will be the sort of thing
that invites repeated listening, and will stand up over the long term in
that regard. While this is by no means a "greatest hits collection" in
terms of my own take on my song catalog (there are 3-4 songs on here that I
might put in that category), it does include songs written as far back as
1995 or 1996 and as recently as last year, and most of those songs have
proven to work pretty well for me on the live front, so I hope they will
also work well on the recorded music front, independent of any commercial
results.
Rick
--
=======================================
Rick Paul
Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP)
Web: www.RickPaul.info
MySpace: www.myspace.com/rickpaulmusic
=======================================
"rakmanenuff" <rakma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f24d95ad-f3bf-48b4...@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
rakmanenuff
> I often use an aural exciter
> plug-in to help vocals cut through the mix without having to be louder, but
> ended up foregoing it on some of the more recent tracks I'd mixed for this
> album,
Not too sure about those, I've used exciter plugins to revitalize
dull vocals recorded on a home PC/cubase, but I stay
away from them otherwise. Can be ok on percussion or
snare drums IMO.
> Part of my production choices on this, not specifically related to the
> vocals, but rather overall, was to go for a dynamic range much more like a
> classic album than a modern album -- sort of an anti-Loudness Wars stance,
Yeah I hear you on that. That's what I noticed.
Personally I'm trying to match the exact level
and dynamic range of current releases, and it's not only
affecting how I mix but increasingly how I arrange and
write as well. Like, if a song is to have heavy drums with
lots of bass there's no room for big chords, or if the
song has big strings the drums have to be smaller
with a snappier envelope. There just isn't room for
a full 70s style arrangement.
Lots of filtering and cuts too.
> but also because I find my ears getting fatigued listening to many otherwise
> excellent modern albums because of the hypercompression they are using on
> the mixes.
Tell me about it, the combination of OTT digital limiting
and staring into a screen all day is very fatiguing.
Gill Smith
I'm trying to shift the concept of folk from performance to studio
production
so people accept crummy recording techniques done as somehow more
'authentic'
--
http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/
Gill Smith
news:edCdnXE4GJCyItTX...@earthlink.com...
It's OK Rick, you can get your own back shortly!
I've just finished a song where I've got 95% of what I wanted down on track
So any shortcomings aren't the"oh,
I'd-have-fixed-that-if-I'd-had-more-time/money/orchestra/yadder/yadder" sort
they're *my* fault/misguided idea of songs/hooks/accompaniment
Gill Smith
>
> I've just finished a song where I've got 95% of what I wanted down on
> track
oh, yeah, I was forgetting, my get-out-of-jail-free-card: the vocals
I really, *really*, REALLY cannot sing
I just hope there's enough notes on target to convey the melody to any
passing superstar singers
--
http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/
Rick Paul
On Jun 30, 8:30 am, "Rick Paul" <rickp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I often use an aural exciter
>> plug-in to help vocals cut through the mix without having to be louder,
>> but
>> ended up foregoing it on some of the more recent tracks I'd mixed for
>> this
>> album,
>
>Not too sure about those, I've used exciter plugins to revitalize
>dull vocals recorded on a home PC/cubase, but I stay
>away from them otherwise. Can be ok on percussion or
>snare drums IMO.
They were pretty commonly used back in the tape days, on vocals, acoustic
guitars, drums, mixes, and probably more. If I remember correctly, I first
heard about them back in the seventies in conjunction with use on some of
Linda Ronstadt's classic recordings. (I was reading music magazines long
before I had a studio of my own, though, back then I tended to try and
multitrack by going back and forth between two cassette decks.) The kind
I've used (initially an Aphex Aural Exciter in the hardware days, now some
plug-ins that do similar things -- as opposed to the BBE style that does
something different but nominally achieves similar ends) adds high-end
harmonics. The basic gist of it is that you can get whatever it's used on
to cut through a bit more without having to bump EQ in the treble range,
which can have more adverse side effects (depending, of course, on the
situation).
If overdone, the effect can make something sound brittle. But a touch can
help whatever it's being used on stand apart slighly from the rest of the
mix. Of course, it can also be used on the mix to make it a little less
dull sounding, but you also have to be careful you're not enhancing the
wrong things while trying to enhance the things you want to enhance.
Until this album, an aural exciter had pretty much been a part of my lead
vocal signal chain for a couple of decades (I think I got my hardware unit
back in the mid-80's, though I haven't had that now for at least 5 years,
probably more). This time out, though, I was trying some different
processors for compressor and EQ, and the aural exciter didn't seem as
necessary for getting the vocal to sit out front as it felt in the past.
> Personally I'm trying to match the exact level
> and dynamic range of current releases, and it's not only
> affecting how I mix but increasingly how I arrange and
> write as well. Like, if a song is to have heavy drums with
> lots of bass there's no room for big chords, or if the
> song has big strings the drums have to be smaller
> with a snappier envelope. There just isn't room for
> a full 70s style arrangement.
I hear you, and I can understand going that way if you're trying to compete
directly in that market. If I were producing something for an artist I felt
would be doing that, I'd probably do the exact same thing (at least once I
figured out what I needed to do -- I'm talking mainly in terms of
production/arrangement strategy here).
In my case, there really was no attempt to match modern radio styles,
because I'm not likely to have a budget for any serious radio promotion
anyway, nor, with a few exceptions, are the musical styles I'm doing here
the sort of stuff that would fit most commercial radio. Rather, I was
trying to go for what I felt best for the song, independent of where that
would take it in terms of fit alongside anything else (though I generally
did have "model recordings" to use as partial benchmarks to see if I was
getting in a similar ballpark so the recordings could actually fit alongside
those recordings, which sometimes were and sometimes were not radio-friendly
stuff), while also keeping in mind my audience, which, from the limited
fanbase I have at the moment, is likely to consist mostly of 40+ year olds
who are or have been married, generally have kids (of any age -- sometimes
even grandkids), and tend to listen to artists ranging from Josh Groban to
classic rock to contemporary country.