local iowa band. listen!

americanruse

avante-gardian angel


i did this around june i think. there are some things i've noticed that are a bit annoying to me, but i was wondering if anyone else can tear it apart. it's been mastered at studio b in omaha.

criticism please.

thanks.

oh... and here's the bands website, if you like the music:

http://www.argosrock.com
 
Got it. Pretty hefty size. You can probably get a away with 192kbps.

The singer does a good impression the guy from Oasis (which ever Gallagher brother - I can never keep them straight).

Decent song. I liked the music. I loved those jangly guitars. Good power when everything kicks in (I wished the singer pushed the energy level during those sections).

Not sure about the bongos at the end. Not sure about the vibes at the begining. A few plosives (every time on the the word "peace").

I wished the vocals were double tracked - it would sound terrific on this one.

When everything is kicked in, the vocals get covered up significantly.
 
Yeah... ditto the Oasis sound-alike comment. (he's got that guy's voice down pat. :p)

Also ditto the vocal comment.

They're too loud in the intro (barely any presence on the git.. it's almost all vocal) and then everything kicks in and you can't hear the vocals nearly well enough. It's not so bad in the verse (1:10), but when everything comes in again at 1:45 it gets lost again. It's all kinda sloppy at that point. Can't really pick stuff out.

Lots of extremes too. Goes from crazy-loud/lots-of-stuff to really quiet/only-vox-and-git. I guess if that's their arrangement there's nothing you can do aboot it, but if you have any pull as a "producer" you might wanna suggest keeping a few more elements in during the "quieter" times (i.e perc, second guitar, etc.) Also, during the chorus, you might wanna pick out what needs more presence and bring everything else back a bit, and try getting more separation in your elements. (by EQing, panning, reverb, etc.)

Not bad, but the arrangement/mix could use some work.


P.S. Was that diamond at 2:08 an edit?


WATYF
 
Oh yeah, hit me with that powerful, dry, in your face ... vocal entrance ... grab me, hook me, good job !

Pan the xylophone hard left, notice that will make it sound louder ... you will then need to reduce the volume also.

And continuing with a dynamic 'frontman vocal' from 00:13 to 00:35.

At 0:18, your vocal needs to remain strong, and this is a good level ...and you could accomplish a lot by EQ'ing the guitars here, and I wish I could talk 'Spot On EQ frequency' fluently and direct you there, but that's a language I'm trying to learn.

At 00:36, the mix begins to fail. At 00:39, the mix fails. Not the mastering, you wasted your money on mastering this mix.

This is the chorus we enter here, and generally speaking we should hear a lead vocal line, and maybe some backup vocals, even harmony vocals. Of course what we have here is 'lead rythm guitar'. Totally disrespectful mix for the lead vocal, and I'm assuming there is one here.

Listen to Oasis mixes, nuff' said ? :)

The lead vocal in the chorus is in the low tenor, upper baritone range, the exact same sonic frequency as the mids on the rythm electric guitar.

Look at the meters here, the vocal meter and the rythm guitar meter. Which one is peaking higher. If the meters are the same, which one in actuality is much, much more 'apparently' louder ? :D <hint : the guitar>

Your lead vocalist in the chorus vocal must sit in the mix or slightly on top, not be squashed by it. Compress the hell out of the lead vocalist in the chorus and pump that tracks volume, then EQ the mids out of the rythm guitar, EQ some of the highs out also, this will give you a big, round ballsy full guitar, without the 'gnashing' that is stepping all over the vocal in the chorus. You can compress the rythm guitar also, and preserve some of the gnashing with good compression technique ... all is not lost ;-) , your participation on this board reviewing others, will save your sorry mix.

But you have a shitload of work to do on it.

So again, in the chorus you have me, nearly a veteran poster on the Mixing Clinic, with good headphones and keen listening skills, struggling mightily to understand the words in the chorus ... for your benefit don't you forget that. Remember, you could hear the vocal perfectly in your sleep ! with the dream fader on the vocal set to zero. You are intimate with the vocal and will play hell trying to mix it properly for any audience.

Now at ~1:04, that's a great breakdown technique, (and this is a killer tune dode), but it's a breakdown from instrumental to instrumental, not what you intended because the preceeding guitar buries the vocal in the chorus. The guitar in the chorus is not 'stepping' on the vocal, it is 'crushing' the vocal.

Your vocal, has touches of 'Coldplay' and of course Oasis as other board members have mentioned and ... other wildly successful mainstream British pop stars. Whoever is treating your vocal in this manner is a bloody fool. The lead vocalist is the star in the mix. Guitars, violins, pianos, drums are DIME A DOZEN, a lead vocal is GOLDEN and sells the band, otherwise it's just instrumental music, <in most cases>. In this genre you are strongly at vocal door #1, and may revolve into vocal door #2 at times.

And instrumental music is fine, as long as their is no 'songwritten vocal'.

I like what happens at ~01:10, that's a nice break to some 'sweetness' , but it's awkward, study up on 'cross-fading', and
volume envelopes. Need to work into it easier.

The vocal is fine here, this is the optimal level you want to shoot for, the guitar in left stereo is a little too loud, I would pan it out even further and reduce the volume substantially, it's an afterthought sort of thing, put some delay on it also.

01:38, vox mix is good.

This rythm guitar must be compressed. Again, at 01:51, there is a 'mumbling' lead, and no B.SABBATH are you ;-)
This was an 'instrumental chorus'.

I'm telling you, your vocal at 02:19 is THE SHIT, if you can mix to maintain your vocal as the 'frontman' you've got an ASS KICKING "MIX" and thus a great song.

I suggest you get some old fucker who doesn't smoke or drink or fuck around anymore to straighten your shit out ;-) .

At 03:00 ... aLeRt ALeRt !!! mix failure imminent ... <sirens> :D

The rythm guitar needs to be compressed, and the volume needs to come down by 6-8db in the chorus.

The outro is generally weak, cut it, ditch it, it is out of context for this tune.

You have great potential ;-) and I would spend the time listening again if you could remix, because I want to learn also.

If you don't remix and repost and draw my attention ... will I have benifited ?

If you don't review others work in the Clinic, will you benifit ?
Am I reviewing other's work at this very moment ?

Welcome to the board, and thanks for sharing.
 
At :41 when the guitars kick in we lose the vocals--is that a vibraphone in the background on the opening--hardly hear it once the guitars kick in. When the heavy guitar intrudes--bring up the vocals, they absolutely disappear.

2:20's acoustic guitar could come up.

At 3:00--it really falls apart---too much of everything except vocals. Sounds like noise.

With some re-mix, it could be a good piece. There are times where you lose the individuality of the instruments, other times they are quite nice. The harsh stuff can still be there without turning the mix into just noise. It just needs some balance.
 
thanks alot guys. first thing i've gotta say is that the band's guitarist produced the song. he also arranged it. i pretty much just did what he told me to do. and that would explain why the guitars are louder than the vocals on parts. ;)

like i said before... there's stuff i don't really like about it, but this is how the client wanted it... so i gave it to him.

there's nothing i would even be able to do about the arrangement. i was just wondering what people thought about the recording/mixing.

tripleM, you said:
"Not sure about the bongos at the end. Not sure about the vibes at the begining". did you mean how they were recorded/levels, or you weren't sure if they should be in the song?

and watyf, what's a diamond?

i really like this singer's voice, so i personally like the bridge and intro being basically just vocals. i agree about needing more in the chorus, also. and i like the extreme loud-soft-loud. you don't hear that much in music these days. most music is all overly compressed and just about loudness.

i panned the xylophone slight left, cuz i think that hard left woulda been kinda awkward. just a personal thing.

and i really don't like the sound of the fingers on the strings during the accoustic guitar part. where it's pretty much just accoustic guitar. but there's nothing i can do about that except make him do it over, and i think that's the best he could do.

anyways... thanks for the replys. most of you said the exact same things i was thinking. i just wanted to see if it was as noticeable to others as it was to me.
 
americanruse said:
tripleM, you said:
"Not sure about the bongos at the end. Not sure about the vibes at the begining". did you mean how they were recorded/levels, or you weren't sure if they should be in the song?

Sorry about being vague... I meant they didn't fit in with the rest of the song.
 
good:
Well, I am not clear if this is yourr recording but it sounds like a pretty pro mix to start with. The guitars are wide and bright.

bad:
I can't stand the singer's act of a vocal or the strange incongrous interludes.

The only problem I can find mixwise is the brightness of maybe the mastering seems to be giving this a bit too bright of a sound in the high mids. The cymbaks seem to fight for clarity in the highs of the guitars. The song doesn't come across very clearly the first listen and it may be better after a few doses but I'm all full of his feeling for now.

Who recorded this? Just curious.
 
i did all the recording/mixing. thanks for replying.


cyanjaguar- is that 'D' for the recording or the song? cuz it's not my band, so i'm only really concerned about the recording.
 
oh, the recording sounds fine. No problem with that at all.

The D is for the song. Good thing it is not your band. However, those guys at MTV2 are crazy enough to just put something like this on.
 
americanruse said:
and watyf, what's a diamond?
Sorry... "diamond" is a kind-of "slang" nashville-ish musical term that means to hit in unison on a downbeat (usually the 1 of the measure).

The downbeat at 2:08 sounds a little odd... and I thought there was a chance that it was an edit... but could just be my fried drummer-ears. :p


WATYF
 
Back
Top