Thoughts on generic background noise and how/if to mix it

witm8

Member
Hi all,

I'm not really sure where I should post this (mods please feel free to move this)

Yesterday I quickly did a really really simple song - me + acoustic guitar (and then I quickly popped a 'solo' on it). It all sounded a bit flat and boring.

As it was so so simple, and could have been recorded anywhere, I had the idea of trying to make it sound as if it was recorded outside - so as I had my phone on me I popped it on the bench and recorded a voice memo of everything that was happening - imported the mp3 - then played it all the way through my song, quietly in the background.

It is distracting - just completely rubbish - something that kinda works - a thanks but no thanks ? Would it sit better in the 'mix' if I did something else with it ?

At the corner again by Random-Tangent | Random Tangent | Free Listening on SoundCloud

Many thanks
 
I must confess I didn't even listen to it.

But.... i have a story relevant to what I think you're going for.

In the late 90s I recorded a blues/rock band to tape. 3 piece band, drummer, bassist and guitarist who did lead vocals. These guys were tight, well rehearsed and road warriors.
So we recorded them all in the same room at the same time. Mic bleed all over the place. Vocals in the snare, bass in the guitar, snare in the bass ect. You get the picture.

Mixed it down all analog and it sounded great.

Years later I decided to remix in protools. I mean with the advancements in recording technology and editing capabilities, it had to be better, right???

So i edited all the bleed out that I could. I cleaned up all the tracks. Painstaking.

I was happy and did a mixdown. It sounded really clean.

About a month later i compared it to the original analog mix, because something about the new mix bugged me.

The original mix sounded light years better!
The new mix was incredibly sterile and lifeless!
Thanks to still having all the original audio files, I remixed ITB and left all the bleed in there, but still had the versatility availible because of the new technology. The mix turned out better than the original and everyone was happy.

Moral of the story?

In some genres, the stuff going on in the background is just as important as the stuff out in front. It gives you vibe, energy, realism, etc.
Some of the greatest music; ever recorded has tons of bleed going on and stuff in the background that contributes to the overall sound.
 
I listened to it and thought that you had the right idea. The beginning, I thought it really fit well. It started getting too busy there in the middle (for me). Maybe fading the ambient noise in and out would do better?? I tried to imagine what the song would sound like without the background noise and think you are on the right track with having it in there.....maybe just less of it....

I right now am in the mic bleed camp. Almost everytime I record myself, I have one mic on the guitar and one for the voice going to different channels and mix accordingly from there. The bleed seems to give the song more "depth" (...whatever that is.... :) ). Who knows.... in another year, I might be onto something else.....
 
I liked it but (along with [MENTION=180572]bachelorb[/MENTION] if I read his post correctly) think it might have been just as effective with a good bit less throughout, with a slow fade down at the start and then back up at the end. (And maybe you did that a bit, but not quite enough?)

It might help to get it pretty tightly compressed, and then even duck it against the vocal so it's not poking out where it could distract. I might consider experimenting with automating the pan a bit so it's a little narrower in the middle parts too.

Nice song and performance!
 
The background noise is much higher quality than the core acoustic and vox.

There's no real stereo image on the music itself, and it's in a much smaller frequency range.

I can see what you're going for, but the ambience needs to be squashed down to match the song, or the song needs to be fixed up.
 
Back
Top