SquareOne1004.mp3 (monitoring with a mid-level consumer grade jambox, flat EQ)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intro is clean and well-balanced.
Initial vocal entrance is clean and unchallenged, lyrics easily understandable.
First verse continues to be a good mix, simple and fresh.
0:34, first chorus.
around 00:41 the singer takes two preparatory breaths to enter into the next section of this first chorus.
artistically, it is a nice statement, and that is unique to leave them in there.
I think the coming 'true chorus' will be MORE of a effective, if we hear more silence there.
I would reduce those two preparatory breaths to nearly nothing, or cut them altogether as long as that does not promote a 'dead spot' at that section.
At 00:45, the instruments that join in the mix at that point cause a large cumulative increase in overall apparent volume of the instruments.
Consider a side-chain approach here. Run all the instruments to their own bus and put compression on that bus.
Let the vocal live in it's own submix bus. Compare meters of the two busses here.
I know when I put my headphones on, I will be hearing everything that is really going on in this mix, and the vocal is going to be challenged at this point, and the vocal should be flying at it's highest peak at this point in the mix.
The first presentation of the chorus and the hooks in this genre with a singer this good, need to be sweet and clean and the vox needs to be way out front, unquestionable out front, later you can do more in the choruses.
So, you have eaten up all the headroom for the vocal as you enter this point in the mix and this limits your flexibility later as the mix continues to develop.
Lower all the instruments by 2db at 00:45, and approach with fresh ears. The instruments do NOT need to be louder here, what you may be reaching for is a thicker texture instead, not necessarily 'louder instruments'.
The power of a texture, it's weight and thickness do not require the boosting of the volume. The instruments themselves, rock and roll instruments, are themselves designed to add weight and thickness to a mix ... no matter what volume they are.
The singer is awesome, don't ever challenge his vocal, not for a split-second, because the girls, who buy the CD, will NOT like that.
You might here them say 'yeah, its a great band but we couldn't hear the cute boy singing' ... and that affects CD sales dramatically. It's reality, live with it ok ...
At 1:09, look at the meters ... are the instruments, any one of the instruments peaking above the vocals consistently ? Think about the cumulative volume of all the instruments ... they are certainly peaking above the vocal consistently in some places, and some compression techniques can be used to alleviate some of that.
At 1:25, the instruments are challenging the vocal.
AT 01:35, things are better in this second chorus.
I know all of you are excited about 'the bands sound' and how the mix comes together and offers the cool mix of 'all the elements' but the vocal, the lead vocal in this element is a HUGE priority, it may NEVER be challenged.
And you will probably add some backup harmony vocals to this ... where's the headroom to fit those backups in underneath the lead ? You might be able to squeeze them in under the lead, but you are never going to have enough room to show off any character and really present those backup vocals. You need to make that headroom now, reduce the level of the instruments, OVERDO the headroom for the lead vocal.
This will also assist the backup vocalists as they lay their tracks, they will be able to monitor themselves much better, and sing in tune better ... etc ...
If you are not thinking of adding backup vocals to this, your really should think again. The genre demands it.
At 02:30, the vocal is really on top at that point, of course, and the dynamic contrasts can be even better, if his vocal is not challenged during the louder parts of the song.
Realize, that once you address any boominess or mud in the bass and lower mids of the guitar, a lot of these problems will be solved, or seem to be lessened, and you will get a new perspective on the mix.
SECOND LISTEN : (Sony MDR-7506, super clean pristine headphones)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guitar is quite crisp in the beginning, and I like it.
I hear a carefully crafted volume swell at 00:09 to 00:10 of a guitar ... cut that, it just interferes with the nice sweet beauty of that intro acoustic guitar, it's not necessary, cut it. And I could only hear it on the headphones. If anything it distracts from the nice clean vocal entrance, that vocal entrance is soooo good, you don't need to risk it with that tiny bit of guitar swell thing ...
Great pre-chorus, the
acoustic guitar gets a bit loud on the end of his vocal. Fashion a fade down on that guitar there. Let every single bit of his vocal have the light of day, always. The last little bit of his vocal is still very important.
And yes, sure, mix the guitar INTO the last bit of his vocal, but keep the vox on top for as long as possible.
This first chorus is great, but the instruments are approaching 'noisy', they could be much cleaner with some EQ work, and that's tough stuff and requires some homework. And that 'noisyness' is what is challenging the vocal.
At 1:30 the vocal is definitely challenged, and that's the actual title hook of the song, and that's a big no-no.
If no instruments were playing at all at that point, and he was belting out the lyric hook, that would be better than the challenge of noise at that point, somewhere inbetween those two points is going to be a great mix.
And pay attention here, I'm not being critical of the playing, all of you are fine performers ... good tracks ... you've got some real cumulative volume build up issues amongst these tracks, and judicious use of EQ is warranted here.
Working the faders alone is not going to do the trick to get the 'fantastic mix' I know all of you want. Some EQ work here is must for that 'mud'.
You have got to use your meters and think about what you are seeing on them ... ya paid for 'em didn' cha
...
At the vocal entrance at 02:15.
I hear some stuff, some vox backup echo in extreme stereo left, cut that or make it part of the song by bringing it up, at that level, it's ineffective and just adds to the cumulative noise effect.
If you are going for some type of subliminal thing ... that's only in the movies and on tv
...
GREAT SONG, GREAT PERFORMANCES ... GREAT BEGINNING of what can be a FANTASTIC MIX.
And it's certainly good enough now to press and sell, but I encourage you to take it to the next level, a professional level.
I think you and all of the band members should SERIOUSLY consider taking all of these tracks to a PROFESSIONAL well known mixing studio and sitting in on a session with their best engineer as he mixes and EQ's these tracks.
It will take him about an hour to do some INCREDIBLE things with the gear and ears he has.
This will be a really easy and efficient session for him as most of the work is done. I think for no more than $150.00 max you could come out with an INCREDIBLE mix.
Be sure and research the studio's engineers, know what and who they are mixing. DON'T get a friend to do it for cheap, you will end up with one less friend or a bad mix possibly and it's not worth it.
And this person that mixes at a pro studio is objective, and has fresh ears and that's well worth the money already. Then take it to another place and spend another $100.00 mastering it and you have an AWESOME song that will get radio play without a doubt.
Most importantly, after a pro mixing session on this tune, have a 15 minute discussion with the engineer and THEN ask questions about what he did, take notes, learn.
AND REPORT BACK TO YOUR FELLOW CLINIC MEMBERS
!
Thanks for posting and sharing, thanks for your hard work for the Clinic, your band and the music.
