portland to portland mp3

[number six]

1. Overall mix sound.
2. Clear what is going on, vocals understandable?
3. Tone considered 'harsh?' Meant as semi-affectionate parody.
4. Any other dimensions.

 

[VomitHatSteve]

The big thing that's not working for me is the rhythm guitar. It's just sounding like this constant mud on the right side. There's no definition to it.

Is the bass hard-panned too?

 

[number six]

Thanks for checking it out. There are two slightly (at times more than slightly) different rhythm guitars; one plays a more detailed part and another more "raw"or contextual/envelope. Should probably pick one, maybe re-record it cleanly. Yes on the bass as also hard-panned; Does this jump out and contribute to this same problem, or as a separate thing?

 

[TripleM]

I thought the song was pretty wacky and I loved it.

I didn't think the guitar on the right was muddy, but there certainly wasn't always enough on the left side to balance it out. I agree that it lacked a little definition (which really would have sounded nice).

The keyboards sounded nice.

The drum samples were a bit weak. The kick was real woofy and the snare was a little wimpy and slappy.

The lead vocal (the singing vocal) sounded much dryer than the instruments.

 

[VomitHatSteve]

Does [the hard-panned bass] jump out and contribute to this same problem, or as a separate thing?

Not really the same problem, but a new one. I generally subscribe to the idea that if something is crucial to the song (lead lines, core rhythm instruments, etc) it should be audible in both channels.

 

[Deleted member 196982]

The guitar on the right does seem to be playing to a different drummer, literally.

Rather than turning up the vocals I'd duck the guitars and keys against them and see if that lets it sit better.

I like the concept - pretty clever!

P.S. I think it goes on just a bit long. I like parody/satire/irony as much as the next guy, which means in small doses

 

[number six]

TripleM,
Will definitely review the 2 rhythm guitars issue. Tempted to push the keys on a stanza-by-stanza basis (eg, preacher gets a mediaeval church organ sound) so I"m glad they sounded decent to you. The drums were actually a live multi-mic'd kit, but will check out that aspect of mix as well. I think they are a bit more repetitious here due to concerns about "too much going on." Agree also about the dryness of the vocals which was attempt to counter that same issue. Appreciate your time/input.

 

[number six]

Keith, thanks for taking time to check it out. At the risk of illustrating the .sig someone has to the effect of, "what do you mean by 'mix'?!," I'm not sure what ducking the guitars/keys against [vocals] means--bringing them down with respect to the vocals, to avoid going up, up, on everything? Thanks for the conceptual comment!

Length is definitely an issue. I cut one stanza and combined it with another so far. This is a general issue for me. "Less is more!" Tempted to cut the "babe, you look out for Woody Allen" section, or combine the "permacultural left-necks" and following stanza to just one. The hope is that one will be 'charmed' by the overall flow and go with it, but it does seem the less effective aesthetic choice here. Point about length in satire well taken.

 

[Deleted member 196982]

Keith, thanks for taking time to check it out. At the risk of illustrating the .sig someone has to the effect of, "what do you mean by 'mix'?!," I'm not sure what ducking the guitars/keys against [vocals] means--bringing them down with respect to the vocals, to avoid going up, up, on everything? Thanks for the conceptual comment!...

So, I just felt that in places the vocals seemed a bit loud, and I'm a fan of on-top/out-front vocals! Since you asked about vocals, I wondered if you were pushing the level of those a bit to insure they could be heard, since they're obviously what makes the song. I use (possibly overuse) "ducking" to keep instruments (usually not bass or drums, at least not in that "group") in line by grouping them together (one way, anyway) on a single bus, then putting a clean compresser on that bus that is side-chained to the vocals (presumably already bussed). Fast attack and release, light compression can let the initial vocal attack and stresses through, increasing the comprehension (IMO) while maybe letting you pull a bit of gain back, so they feel a bit more in the mix. If you do it, and you have a compressor that lets you mix compressed/dry, i.e., does parallel compression, you might find that is another knob to fool around with.

If you want to add reverb to the vocals, but fear that's going to cause them to drift back, always add a tiny bit of pre-delay, kind of the same idea, so the initial attacks don't get swamped with reverb right away. I always have predelay on my main vocals' reverb - in fact I usuallly have it on the main reverb that everything goes to, and only for things I really want to push back will I set up a different reverb.

 

[number six]

THis makes sense to me and is a "next level" for my pro-tools development; so far I have used groups of tracks just for arranging how it looks on screen, doing more of a "micro manager" thing with track volume levels individually. Probably still need to do some of that, get the relative sound right for the defined group, then think of that as a unit, integrating overall sound/power level as you go to avoid pushing everything up. Regarding the pre-delay I will think about that more and see if there is a facility for that in the PT9 version that I have.

Very helpful comments, thank you.