I Shall Be Released

  • Thread starter Thread starter dachay2tnr
  • Start date Start date
This is a great song, and nice job.

I only listened on my old Sony cans, and keep in mind I lean to more "back porch" kinds of recordings with the following kibbitzing... It all sounds a over-compressed to me, squashing much of the emotion from the piece. The bass, in particular, is heavy and sustained. I won't pick at it any more, since I haven't done anything that fully instrumented for some time.

Happy to listen to anything else in that genre you have!
 
keith.rogers said:
This is a great song, and nice job.

I only listened on my old Sony cans, and keep in mind I lean to more "back porch" kinds of recordings with the following kibbitzing... It all sounds a over-compressed to me, squashing much of the emotion from the piece. The bass, in particular, is heavy and sustained. I won't pick at it any more, since I haven't done anything that fully instrumented for some time.

Happy to listen to anything else in that genre you have!
Click to expand...
Much thanks for the input. I’ll take a look at it again. Bass was recorded DI. Not sure if I added any compression to it after the fact, but I’ll check it out. I do know I put a limiter on the whole mix when “mastering” it, and I can back off on that somewhat. Always helps to have other ears on these things.
 
My last band did this one. We did it wrong but it never stopped us from butchering it on occasion. Not bad sir. Yeah, buss compression might be a bit heavy but still not too shabby.
 
dachay2tnr said:
Much thanks for the input. I’ll take a look at it again. Bass was recorded DI. Not sure if I added any compression to it after the fact, but I’ll check it out. I do know I put a limiter on the whole mix when “mastering” it, and I can back off on that somewhat. Always helps to have other ears on these things.
Click to expand...
I just dropped it into the YouLean app and you have it pushed up high for the streaming targets, at least. take the limiter off and see where you are before you do anything. Normal targets are -17 to -14dB LUFS. You can see the loudness "range" is verging on "none" and the (admittedly, somewhat window-size skewed) view of the MP3 is approaching "sausage" in shape.
 

Attachments

  • lufs-released.webp
    lufs-released.webp
    29.9 KB · Views: 47
  • Screen Shot 2022-03-19 at 12.53.13 PM.webp
    Screen Shot 2022-03-19 at 12.53.13 PM.webp
    43.5 KB · Views: 43
OK, I replaced the original file with a newer version. I tried to let this one breathe a little more. I also rolled off some low end to bring the bass down a bit.

As for the "sausage" shape of the waveform, hopefully this one is better... but I will say that the song itself lacks a bit in dynamics. Maybe that's how we covered it, or maybe it's the song itself. Again, comments are welcomed.
 
Enjoyable rendition. Really nice. I thought maybe the high harmony in the chorus could come down a tad in the first couple of choruses. And are you singing "I see my life come shining" or "I see my life come shining in"? As for levels...I see some talking about loudness. Just for your info to play it at a comfortable level my end I found myself dropping the volume back to 40% or so.
 
Monkey Allen said:
Enjoyable rendition. Really nice. I thought maybe the high harmony in the chorus could come down a tad in the first couple of choruses. And are you singing "I see my life come shining" or "I see my life come shining in"? As for levels...I see some talking about loudness. Just for your info to play it at a comfortable level my end I found myself dropping the volume back to 40% or so.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the comments and for listening. The words are, I see my light come shining.
 
Acoustics sound fantastic, no nits at all, great listen on a Sunday morning, really enjoyed your version of this classic.
 
dachay2tnr said:
Thanks for the comments and for listening. The words are, I see my light come shining.
Click to expand...
Sorry yeah I meant to ask...did you sing "I see my light come shining" or "I see my light come shining in"?

My mistake I didn't mean to type "life". Was just curious if you're singing shining or shining in.
 
dachay2tnr said:
OK, I replaced the original file with a newer version. I tried to let this one breathe a little more. I also rolled off some low end to bring the bass down a bit.

As for the "sausage" shape of the waveform, hopefully this one is better... but I will say that the song itself lacks a bit in dynamics. Maybe that's how we covered it, or maybe it's the song itself. Again, comments are welcomed.
Click to expand...
Definite improvement!

Now, that bold text above is where you still have things you can do, if you want. Just because the performance (what "recording engineer" did) was captured a certain way doesn't mean that as the "mix engineer/producer" you are not allowed, call it poetic/artistic license, to re-think what the final mix should or might sound like. For instance, you might decide that the very first verse/intro might sound fine with only guitar and vocal, maybe change the kick to a floor stomp and the snare to brushes, and the first chorus might not build as much, maybe leaving the organ out until the next chorus. And, after that first chorus, there's still some opportunity to let even that build drop back to a lower chorus. I.e., the dynamics are all within your control using automation, or even sampling to replace, editing out or moving some things around. Go crazy :).

I'll suggest that iZotope video series I posted in the user contributions sub-forum. (I expect the next installment will be where he tackles compression and other FX.)
 
Monkey Allen said:
Sorry yeah I meant to ask...did you sing "I see my light come shining" or "I see my light come shining in"?

My mistake I didn't mean to type "life". Was just curious if you're singing shining or shining in.
Click to expand...
Just shining. No “in.”
 
keith.rogers said:
Definite improvement!

Now, that bold text above is where you still have things you can do, if you want. Just because the performance (what "recording engineer" did) was captured a certain way doesn't mean that as the "mix engineer/producer" you are not allowed, call it poetic/artistic license, to re-think what the final mix should or might sound like. For instance, you might decide that the very first verse/intro might sound fine with only guitar and vocal, maybe change the kick to a floor stomp and the snare to brushes, and the first chorus might not build as much, maybe leaving the organ out until the next chorus. And, after that first chorus, there's still some opportunity to let even that build drop back to a lower chorus. I.e., the dynamics are all within your control using automation, or even sampling to replace, editing out or moving some things around. Go crazy :).

I'll suggest that iZotope video series I posted in the user contributions sub-forum. (I expect the next installment will be where he tackles compression and other FX.)
Click to expand...
Good thoughts. Right now I seem to have misplaced the original mix. ? I only used the mixed down stereo wave file.

I’m sure I have it, because I’m pretty anal about this stuff, but it’s probably backed up on a disc which I‘ll need to find. Doesn’t seem to be on my hard drive for some reason. Fingers crossed it’s not dementia yet. :)
 
keith.rogers said:
Definite improvement!

Now, that bold text above is where you still have things you can do, if you want. Just because the performance (what "recording engineer" did) was captured a certain way doesn't mean that as the "mix engineer/producer" you are not allowed, call it poetic/artistic license, to re-think what the final mix should or might sound like. For instance, you might decide that the very first verse/intro might sound fine with only guitar and vocal, maybe change the kick to a floor stomp and the snare to brushes, and the first chorus might not build as much, maybe leaving the organ out until the next chorus. And, after that first chorus, there's still some opportunity to let even that build drop back to a lower chorus. I.e., the dynamics are all within your control using automation, or even sampling to replace, editing out or moving some things around. Go crazy :).
Click to expand...
OK, challenge accepted, lol. I located the original tracks (had them filed somewhat differently than I normally do. No idea why.)

So I remixed it using your ideas. I left the original mix up top for comparison purposes, but here is the remixed version. I like it, but I'm not sure right now if I like it simply because it's different, or because it's better. Any and all feedback welcomed.
 

Attachments

The previous version had a fuller, more live sound.

This one is subdued, more like a sterile studio recording.
 

Attachments

spantini said:
The previous version had a fuller, more live sound.

This one is subdued, more like a sterile studio recording.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Spantini. Interesting. Goes to show just how subjective music is.
 
It really is. The same song.. each day it sounds different. Even different at different times of the same day.
 
I think the re-do is more interesting, though probably something I'd have done differently. BUT, it's your mix/production, and in the end, it's whatever the "producer" wants it to sound like. :)

It's also a couple dB quieter than the first/second MP3, and we always like louder music. I've normalized (using RX) these to the -14.8dB LUFS, something like might happen on YouTube, for instance.
 

Attachments

It was a fun exercise. Listening to them back to back for the first time tonight, I tend to agree with spantini and would give the nod to the earlier mix. That said, there are some interesting things in the second mix, and I just might play with it some more. We'll see.

Thanks for the input everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top