Unlikelyman (A Kitchen-Sink'd Story-Song)

propman

propman

Active member
In keeping with the casually spoken pledge in my last post (An Experiment in Minimalism),
I offer here my first attempt at over-production in a long while. It's not exactly what I'd call a
traditional song but it turned out nicely, in my opinion.

I've tried to step up my game in the mixing department and would really appreciate some
critiquing in that area that I might continue to improve, assuming I've started to improve . . . :D

Unlikelyman: [MP3]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/65316259/Unlikelyman.mp3[/MP3]
 
I like the throb at the beginning.
We pronounce bakelite as bake a lite downunder.
The mix is really good Adam - everything settled in a good place to support the vocal.
The vocal? Well it sounds right for the track - a little distant, a little dictaphone a la 1950's definitely an intriguing story that could be added to an Ed Wood movie as the prologue (he was keen on those).
I like it!
 
Cool track, it's humorous but a good production too. Two suggestions:

1. Make the vocals drier if possible. They have to be crystal clear to pull this off.

2. The bass is a bit boomy on my headphones, especially where it's not needed (like the beginning). If you could get rid of some of the low end at the beginning, it will have more contrast when the "real" bass comes in. Nicely done, nice to hear a lil quirky song.
 
I had the pleasure of previewing this one a few months ago and it still sounds really nice. Have you made changes since then? I'm not sure I hear any differences.

Yes, the bass is very strong on this. I like it, but it might be too much for some people/systems?

I really like the "dictaphone" effect on the vocals myself.

Such a strange tune though...when do we get to hear you rawk ;) :D?
 
rayc said:
I like the throb at the beginning.
We pronounce bakelite as bake a lite downunder.
The mix is really good Adam - everything settled in a good place to support the vocal.
The vocal? Well it sounds right for the track - a little distant, a little dictaphone a la 1950's definitely an intriguing story that could be added to an Ed Wood movie as the prologue (he was keen on those).
I like it!
Click to expand...

Thank you, Ray! You know, I thought the vocals came out sounding a bit like the Batcomputer from Batman: The Animated Series.
I wanted it to sound like a radio (as I ran it through a clock-radio and mixed that signal with the dry vocals) but whatever it wound up sounding like (Dictaphone, Batcomputer, etc.) I'm happy with it.

I haven't seen many Ed Wood movies. Just Glenn or Glenda, which was intriguing to say the least.
"Pull da shtrrings! PULL DA SHTRRINGS!"

I'm glad you like it, Ray! Thanks for taking a listen.

DavidK said:
Cool track, it's humorous but a good production too. Two suggestions:

1. Make the vocals drier if possible. They have to be crystal clear to pull this off.

2. The bass is a bit boomy on my headphones, especially where it's not needed (like the beginning). If you could get rid of some of the low end at the beginning, it will have more contrast when the "real" bass comes in. Nicely done, nice to hear a lil quirky song.
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking a listen, David. It's much appreciated. Let me address your concerns one by one.

1. Am I to take it that some of the "lyrics" were unintelligible to you? I tried really hard to get the mix right between the wet and dry signal so that wouldn't occur. Are there any particular spots that stand out as non-understandable?

2. I tend to agree with you on that point but I'm unsure where the "real" bass you speak of comes in.
Are you suggesting rolling off the lows for the intro and throwing them back in when the drums start?
Also, are you suggesting that, overall, the bass is too overpowering?

Thanks again for listening!

heatmiser said:
I had the pleasure of previewing this one a few months ago and it still sounds really nice. Have you made changes since then? I'm not sure I hear any differences.

Yes, the bass is very strong on this. I like it, but it might be too much for some people/systems?

I really like the "dictaphone" effect on the vocals myself.

Such a strange tune though...when do we get to hear you rawk ;) :D?
Click to expand...

I knew you'd have to jump in here and act all special, Heat. :D
I didn't make any changes from then to now. I just got the nerve to put it out there and get some more opinions.

As for "rawking," it might be a while but not a long while. I'll kick something out that'll satisfy you in that department soon, OK?

Thanks for re-listening, Pete!
 
propman said:
Thanks for taking a listen, David. It's much appreciated. Let me address your concerns one by one.

1. Am I to take it that some of the "lyrics" were unintelligible to you? I tried really hard to get the mix right between the wet and dry signal so that wouldn't occur. Are there any particular spots that stand out as non-understandable?
Click to expand...
I can understand them fine. To me, it comes off as a "standing in the kitchen with a mic" kind of sound. If I'm not mistaken, the kind of sound you're after is the "One Night in Bangkok" sound. Any imitation of radio, old tape recording, phone etc will work better dry.

2. Overall, I suggest cutting some of the low end in any/many non-bass parts. It can build up, which is what I was hearing. If you cut some of the non-bass tracks below 80K, you'll end up with less mud. It may not sound present when you solo a track, it's when you have many tracks that it builds up.

 
DavidK said:
I can understand them fine. To me, it comes off as a "standing in the kitchen with a mic" kind of sound. If I'm not mistaken, the kind of sound you're after is the "One Night in Bangkok" sound. Any imitation of radio, old tape recording, phone etc will work better dry.

2. Overall, I suggest cutting some of the low end in any/many non-bass parts. It can build up, which is what I was hearing. If you cut some of the non-bass tracks below 80K, you'll end up with less mud. It may not sound present when you solo a track, it's when you have many tracks that it builds up.
Click to expand...

You don't have to post that video for me! I love that song!

The sound I was going for was obviously not meant to be "standing in the kitchen with a mic" but it was something similar.
I used an FM transmitter to send my vocals to a clock radio which I recorded from a distance of around six feet.
I then mixed that recording with the dry vocal track in an attempt to emulate the feel of listening to an old radio show in the den.
I wasn't going for Murray Head's radio-through-walkman's-stock-earphones sound, as much as I like it.
If you think that would suit the song better, though, I could do a quick work-up.

So, you're suggesting high-passing the tracks where the bass frequencies are more or less irrelevant?
I usually do that and thought I had on this track, though it was a while ago that I mixed this so I may be wrong.
I'll take a look. Thanks for the suggestions!
 
propman said:
The sound I was going for was obviously not meant to be "standing in the kitchen with a mic" but it was something similar.
I used an FM transmitter to send my vocals to a clock radio which I recorded from a distance of around six feet.
I then mixed that recording with the dry vocal track in an attempt to emulate the feel of listening to an old radio show in the den.
Click to expand...
What I'm trying to say: I don't think it's working as well as you think.:D It's probably a harder effect to pull off than either you or I are aware of, it's like Hollywood foley work. How to get that sound= I dunno. You might experiment with the exact opposite of what I said and take some dry out, or eq it differently, etc. I might try to take the vocals as is and cut below 150K. Old radios are very trebly, maybe that's the ticket to getting the far away radio sound. It's worth the effort, as I just listened again and it's a nifty lil track, very cool.

As for the bass, you have a really low synth effect about 2 seconds in. When I was listening last night with phones, I took off my phones because I thought there was a truck idling outside. It might sound fine on monitors but I live in an apt and it's too late to test it.
 
Very cool vibe, I dig the song.
The mix seems very "middle-y" and very distant. Don't be afraid of the sides when panning ;)
Also, everything is very far away from the listener. It's cool to have stuff way in the back, but some stuff needs to be up front and accessible. Especially that loop.

propman said:
In keeping with the casually spoken pledge in my last post (An Experiment in Minimalism),
I offer here my first attempt at over-production in a long while. It's not exactly what I'd call a
traditional song but it turned out nicely, in my opinion.

I've tried to step up my game in the mixing department and would really appreciate some
critiquing in that area that I might continue to improve, assuming I've started to improve . . . :D

Unlikelyman: [MP3]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/65316259/Unlikelyman.mp3[/MP3]
Click to expand...
 
The mix sounds pretty good. I like the AM radio effect on the vox.

I was expecting it to build to a big rawky part, actually. A little disappointed that it didn't. :(

Also, I heard something about steampunk? Nice!
 
I love the guitars...real kind of throwback. I have to say that I lost the thread of the narrative...Like someone else said..they need to be very clear.. Good production overall. Listen to Tom Waits "Franks wild years" for a really cool spoken word
song..it's on youtube
 
It took a little while but here is the second version: [MP3]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/65316259/Unlikelyman%20(Version%202).mp3[/MP3]
I was/am recovering from a nice little head cold so I took advantage of my messed up voice and re-recorded the narration.
Well, what do you think? Is it better? Did I hit the mark?

P.S. This is the first song I've mixed with the help of my new Grado SR80i headphones. They're fantastic!
 
Listened to both mixes...love the song! Both versions are really cool, The 1st version had more of that am radio kinda vibe with the vocals to my ear, I really liked that, while the 2nd version is much clearer, and easier to understand, I really liked the vibe of the 1st version vocal wise...instrumentally , the 2nd mix had a much fuller or wider sound to me....really cool song, and both mixes were very entertaining to listen to!
 
Hey Adam.

I liked the way you processed the voice on the 1st one myself. This time around it is certainly cleaner & clearer and drier. Your diction is like crazy good on the new one. No way anyone could complain about not understanding!
 
queepy said:
Listened to both mixes...love the song! Both versions are really cool, The 1st version had more of that am radio kinda vibe with the vocals to my ear, I really liked that, while the 2nd version is much clearer, and easier to understand, I really liked the vibe of the 1st version vocal wise...instrumentally , the 2nd mix had a much fuller or wider sound to me....really cool song, and both mixes were very entertaining to listen to!
Click to expand...

Thank you, queepy! Funnily enough, mix wise, I just changed the levels of a couple of things slightly. The extra 'wideness' may have come from having a dryer, narrower vocal track which, in theory, could have made the rest of the mix sound wider in comparison to the first. I liked the "am radio" vibe in the first mix as well but I thought my voice was too high, campy and hard to understand.

heatmiser said:
Hey Adam.

I liked the way you processed the voice on the 1st one myself. This time around it is certainly cleaner & clearer and drier. Your diction is like crazy good on the new one. No way anyone could complain about not understanding!
Click to expand...

OK, so another vote for the original vocal processing.
(By the way, I really appreciate you complimenting my diction! I really tried to get rid of all my Texas-ness this time around.)

VomitHatSteve said:
I think the old-timey radio effect on the vox in the first was cool. I might go back to that.
Click to expand...

OK, vote number three. Here's the question, though: Should I just revert to the first mix or should I apply a similar effect to the new vocal track? I'd like all three of you guys to weigh in on this issue.
 
Hey propman, I thought I commented on this first time around, but looking back it seems not. I much prefer the processing on the first mix - it makes a cohesive mix with all the lo-fi compressed drumbeat and David Lynch weirdness of the piece. Without it it sounds like you have the vocals in a completely different space from the music and it jars a little to my ears.

I really like how the first mix sounds and probably would have been happy to settle on that - it would be interesting to at least hear the first mix processing on the new vocal take. I like this a lot though!
 
I thought you'd commented too, as I remember complimenting your signature (big Morrissey fan) but that must have been on another thread. Looking back through the thread, though, I thought more people had complained about the vocal processing/delivery. Oh, well. Since there seems to be an outpouring of affection over the initial mix, perhaps I'll sick with that one. I'm more keen on that now than before after having my weirdness compared to that of David Lynch. However, for shits-and-giggles, I'll still try to approximate the original vocal processing and apply it to the new take (sooner or later).

Thanks for listening and I'm glad you like the song!
 
Being able to pick out all the lyrics in the second mix is nice, but the AM vox just seem to be to important a part of the song's shtick to remove entirely.
 
propman said:
I'll still try to approximate the original vocal processing and apply it to the new take
Click to expand...

Sounds good. What have you got to lose?...other than some time I guess.

Again, I liked the way it was done the first time around, but I will gladly check out any other incarnations you wish to cook up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top