Mixing at the Source

[DM60]

Not 100% sure what I am trying to get at here, but let me describe the thought thread.

As I have been studying movie composers, Jan Hammer, Danny Elfman, Ennio Morricone, even Paul McCartney (Live and Let Die), since these people have to "compose on demand" and do very well. That then brings me to the old masters, pre-recording composers for the most part. They didn't have a mixing board, they had to mix "at the source". They either knew from studying music, or it became understood through practice. Either way, they had to know where each instrument sat in the mix based upon (from what I have gathered) the primary frequency range of the instrument/the note that instrument was to play.

I think many on the board instinctively know this, either consciously or subconsciously. But I am focusing on experimenting "mixing at the source". As the name implies, each instrument, each note is prearranged so that EQ and faders are being used as a tweak, rather than having major influence. But it is being done as a part of composing/arrangement area and less at the mixing stage. (Mastering still having it own focus).

Just some initial thoughts. I might post some experiments as I dive deeper into it. Feel free to post your thoughts on the subject.

 

[Slouching Raymond]

Look at your average classical ensemble. Everything sits naturally in the mix, without a mixing desk, just experience.
Then you had bands that all recorded into just one mic, with instruments placed at varying distances from it. Trial and error.

To 'pre-arrange' as you describe, could well mean writing it all down on a score, with all the dynamics written in there as well.
They they play it from ppp to fff, as they read it.

 

[DM60]

Here is an example of a chart I have been using for several years. But it is the basic concept. Look where the instrument is its optimal, then arrange the notes based on the keyboard/MIDI location (C1, C2, C3, etc/ as a reference since I am using MIDI lots of MIDI), by doing that, it should give an advantage when it is time to start mixing for the final.

Just something as stated, it could be instinct for some, but having this thought in the forefront before putting it to the track, can go a long way towards a good mix. As has been stated here very often, the source material is very important.

 

[rob aylestone]

I suppose the great of history just heard it in their head, when they were sitting at a keyboard. Either writing parts from scratch or orchestrating a piano or harpsichord/clav/celeste etc they just used the usual dynamic markings like we would do fader movements.
If they were writing something gentle and quiet, then they'd book the right number of players. Or, if it was a piece in multiple ,movements - the slow, the fast, the in your face etc, then they'd probably be thinking about the one that needed the most musicians and accepting that in the performance, many would do absolutely nothing. The chart would certainly be how it was - but they also had to consider the parts. The chart might scream trumpets - but how many? If there is a line for a solo instrument and it's a clarinet, then not only must their be a sonic 'hole' for it to sit in, but you also need to quieten the others, often changing the overall tone. Damn complicated. People like Morricone, my favourite in your bunch is really clever - playing off the sections against each other.

 

[DM60]

People like Morricone, my favourite in your bunch is really clever - playing off the sections against each other.

The more I read and listen about/to that guy, the more impressed I become. And to think about how he used sound "samples" in his compositions. Truly amazing vision.

I think that is why, with all I have at my finger tips, I should explore more.

 

[MusicWithMarky]

So, I'm coming from a completely different genre (with rock music mostly), but I find this practice to be so much easier and yield much more consistent results. It seems to me it falls under that "garbage in - garbage out" umbrella. The more close to final each track I create at the source is, the:
A) Much easier it is to mix in the gestalt and,
B) Much greater range of variation I have creatively with the sonic palette because it's "in the middle" instead of to on extreme.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

I think many on the board instinctively know this, either consciously or subconsciously. But I am focusing on experimenting "mixing at the source". As the name implies, each instrument, each note is prearranged so that EQ and faders are being used as a tweak, rather than having major influence. But it is being done as a part of composing/arrangement area and less at the mixing stage. (Mastering still having it own focus).

There are a number of "ah-ha!" moments I've had in my career as a home recording hobbyist/enthusiast, but one of the big ones was realizing how much a good arrangement is critical to a good mix. If nothing is fighting for stereo/frequency space that something else already has, things pretty much mix themselves and most of your mixing time will be spent on "creative" mixing rather than "corrective."

To a degree, this extends to tracking - using more distant "room" micing approaches to instruments that you don't want really "in your face," etc - but simply knowing where you want everything to sit and knowing there's space waiting for it there before you hit the record button goes a LONG way.

 

[Gtoboy]

I think I and many others who play/record music can get enamored with filling the space around the melody to the point where we lose track of what is supposed to be taking center stage. Pro arrangers don't seem to fall in that trap.

I feel like some discipline helps me, IOW planning out what is supposed to be 'center stage' at any given moment then making sure that everything else is clearly an accompaniment and supports without interfering. That way, even though I might have different parts, I can refer to what the theme is supposed to be and peel away that which does not support, no matter how much I like it.

Deciding which instrument to put in which frequency band is, for me , decided by the intended 'feel' of the part. The timbre of every instrument 'implies' to me an emotion or attitude which needs to be taken into account during the arranging process, not to limit anything but rather to create with intention after the inspiration that came with abandon.

 

[DM60]

Interesting you make that statement. I was watching a video by Anthony Marinelli Music on synths. I just purchased a UBX and I am trying to understand how they work. Anyway, on his video, he made the statement, when playing a synth, and he rightly stated it is a machine, that determining if the sound is the focus or support. I think that is true not just in synth music, but in all songs.

If you were to expand on that premise and it very much aligns with the thread, when composing/recording (very much the same thing for me), making sure you are know what is the focus. That part has space, the others are in support. In the synth world, he was stating it should have a bit of brightness (timbre wise) to assist it to pop out. In this particular case, he was referring to keyboard control voltage and how using that for focus/not focus. But it was another example of what we are discussing.

 

[Papanate]

I think your Point Source theory is more oriented towards what music your recording - i.e. classical music is less oriented towards a sound and more towards capturing the sound it makes - People like McCartney are not thinking that way usually - they have the notes and hear what might fit - and McCartney has certainly been better at it on his later compostions - but his classical compositions (to me) are weak - IMO it is not his strong point at all - Danny Elfman has become better at that - but when he initially started doing movie arrangement it was more hunt and peck looking for specific sounds (On Keyboards first) - and then real instruments second - Which is to say I think that @DrewPeterson7 has it right - whatever you have in your score is always fixed by arranging the parts first - then the mix takes care of itself - however if you introducing rock elements into the mix - then you have to work on EQing and Panning on top of Arrangements - to get the piece to sound right.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

Which is to say I think that @DrewPeterson7 has it right - whatever you have in your score is always fixed by arranging the parts first - then the mix takes care of itself - however if you introducing rock elements into the mix - then you have to work on EQing and Panning on top of Arrangements - to get the piece to sound right.

Well, I'm not even sure of that. If your arrangement, from day one, includes those rock elements, and the arrangement is well thought out to leave space for the bass and guitars, then you're going to have a LOT fewer problems in the mix than if you try dropping a rock band into an existing arrangement.

I've probably had more than the average amount of time to think about this stuff, since my own music is instrumental guitar music so when working on my own stuff I'm very much thinking about how I can get a rhythm guitar and a guitar melody or solo to "fit" together, beyond simply how they're panned. Just trying to stay out of the same registers helps a lot...

 

[DM60]

Even in Rock, you have a typical 4/5 piece, Bass, guitar, lead, drums, vocals. It has been done so much, it is not thought about that much. But it is inherently there. You can grab the EQ, but if you do at the source/composition level, while you still need EQ, your EQ'ing should be much less and drastic. But EQ'ing the everything to the max, if it comes out the way one wants it, I don't take issue with that personally. I am just trying to make it easier for me to get a good mix.

Many of my songs are just rather basic, 4/5 piece band concept. But by making sure each of those instruments plays the notes (or each part) is thought about before hand, at the right frequency/pitch, then it should naturally cut through when it should and drift into the background/support when it should and my EQ'ing is for the sound "sculpting" rather than sound editing.

 

[Papanate]

Even in Rock, you have a typical 4/5 piece, Bass, guitar, lead, drums, vocals. It has been done so much, it is not thought about that much. But it is inherently there. You can grab the EQ, but if you do at the source/composition level, while you still need EQ, your EQ'ing should be much less and drastic. But EQ'ing the everything to the max, if it comes out the way one wants it, I don't take issue with that personally. I am just trying to make it easier for me to get a good mix.

Many of my songs are just rather basic, 4/5 piece band concept. But by making sure each of those instruments plays the notes (or each part) is thought about before hand, at the right frequency/pitch, then it should naturally cut through when it should and drift into the background/support when it should and my EQ'ing is for the sound "sculpting" rather than sound editing.

I don’t think that much about the parts anymore - guitar, bass, keyboards, horns, vocals - there isn’t much to change anymore - although I do on occasion tweak the Master Buss EQ to give the songs a different sound - orchestras are easier - as the parts are usually arranged already - there isn’t much to do beyond capturing the acoustic quality -
its when you get into the instrumentation with rock stuff that it gets a bit more tricky - you have to make choices.

 

[DM60]

I don’t think that much about the parts anymore - guitar, bass, keyboards, horns, vocals - there isn’t much to change anymore - although I do on occasion tweak the Master Buss EQ to give the songs a different sound - orchestras are easier - as the parts are usually arranged already - there isn’t much to do beyond capturing the acoustic quality -
its when you get into the instrumentation with rock stuff that it gets a bit more tricky - you have to make choices.

This is what has led me to thinking about the topic. Sound and its placement. Recording quality (capturing) is important, but as most will say, "If it sounds good...". Which is the crux of the point. I think it is less subjective than we want to admit. If you know where you want an instrument and its parts (both gives you context), then when you capture the performance, then it is a matter of the performance as it relates to the mix.

Therefore I contend, it goes back to the premise of instrument, notes in the spectrum, place intended for the mix. I think most of us do this by instinct or experience. I am trying to accelerate the learning curve. It is just like when I was learning to brew alcohol, in the past, people had to learn by studying under a master. Now, I read the directions, take my meters and gauges, dial it all in, and with modern methods, I can duplicate what would take years of learning in a few short months. (The result set being pretty good) Making music is much more complex than making booze. Learning how to do it is even with modern technology is a simple endeavour.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

I don’t think that much about the parts anymore - guitar, bass, keyboards, horns, vocals - there isn’t much to change anymore - although I do on occasion tweak the Master Buss EQ to give the songs a different sound - orchestras are easier - as the parts are usually arranged already - there isn’t much to do beyond capturing the acoustic quality -
its when you get into the instrumentation with rock stuff that it gets a bit more tricky - you have to make choices.

But I guess my point here was if those choices are in the arrangement, rather than in the mix, they're WAY easier.

As an example, my dad is a pianist, and seveeral years back he, my uncle, and I did a roots rock sort of project together that was a ton of fun. Most of my dad's playing is unaccompanied, so he tends to sit down and come up with piano parts that cover as much musical range as he can - full notes in the bass, chordal midrange stuff, and upper register melodies. It sounds great solo, but in a mix, if there's also a bass guitar, and an acoustic guitar, then you have two other instruments tryting to fight for the same "space" and same role.

I got him to think about playing "smaller" parts, and either focusing more on those higher melodic parts, or having an acoustic playing chords on one side and the piano on the other to at least get similar registers into different parts of the stereo spectrum, and then just focus on having the piano and acoustic playing similar rhythmic "patterns" so they locked in with each other well.

But, as long as the arrangement is such that you've left space for everything, there's nothing innately "more tricky" about rock instruments. At the end of the day, sound is sound. If you leave space for it, and think about how you can make a part fit in with the rest of the parts around it, there's nothing inherently hard about it.

 

[Papanate]

But, as long as the arrangement is such that you've left space for everything, there's nothing innately "more tricky" about rock instruments. At the end of the day, sound is sound. If you leave space for it, and think about how you can make a part fit in with the rest of the parts around it, there's nothing inherently hard about it.

Electric Guitar - exepcially when distorted covers all the ground that Violins, Cellos, Violas. Trumpets and Sax’s Cover - It’s not hard once you understand it - but I think it’s difficult to master.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

Electric Guitar - exepcially when distorted covers all the ground that Violins, Cellos, Violas. Trumpets and Sax’s Cover - It’s not hard once you understand it - but I think it’s difficult to master.

I'm a guitarist. I've played and recoded for way closer to 30 years than I'm comfortable admitting. I'm exceedingly familiar with distorted electric guitar.

A big power chord will shit all over the same register as a viola, if it's also playing in that same range... but if you leave that for the viola and have a guitar playing high single note lines, they both have plenty of space. It's when you start trying to fit ANY instrument, especially ones with similar timbres, into the same pitch range and the same stereo space, that you have problems. That could be electric guitar and a cello/viola playing similar ranged pitches, that could be a distorted electric guitar rhythm part with a melody guitar playing a lead line in the same register, or that could be a cello and piano both playing in the same register.

When you don't try to put everything in the same space, and when you just make it a rule that when you add something in to your arrangement, it either needs to go where nothing else is, or you need to take something out there to maker space for it, that things just work better.

But, that's true of all instruments, not just electric guitar. Electric guitar is just an instrument that's theoretically capable of eating up a huge amount of bandwidth... but you don't HAVE to do that with it.