Ha - It worked! "Unfit for Consumption"

  • Thread starter Thread starter K-dub
  • Start date Start date
K

K-dub

Well-known member
I always envisioned this album meant as one long stream of various passages - very much like the backside of Abbey Road. It's a prog-rock/album oriented release of 8 "not radio friendly" pieces of music - hence the title of it.

This music wanders here, there, hither and yon.

But - rather than doing each individual song on Soundcloud, I did the full album stream with the 8 works segued the way I always imagined ... and Soundcloud shrugged it.

So if folks want to listen, click above.

Players (some from this group included):

Frank Basile - drums (Frank worked for Cakewalk and is the founder of Smart Loops midi drums)
Wayne Glaser - bass guitar (Mona)
Tjarko Busink - bass guitar, electric guitar (Black Magic, Sooner or Later)
Stu Gort - electric guitar (Sooner of Later)
Mark Crumb - electric guitar
Bryan White - electric guitar (this is my son)

This album was mastered with Ozone 11 using their artificial intelligence tool (w/ tweaks by a human)

Songs:

1) Without Radio
2) Consumption
3) Final Daze
4) Deeper as it Goes
5) Sooner or Later
6) Black Magic
7) The American Dream Trilogy
8) Mona


Any/all comments welcome, but the stream is long ... so be prepared.

Thanks to all - for the original performances as well as arrangement suggestions were gathered, in part, right here on this board. What I did in this version was I took some of the original drums Frank performed, changed the kick and snare to midi, and then blended the midi samples in with the live drums for improved detail. On the songs that were midi to begin with, I copied the original tracks and then fed them to two synths - blending the audio for improved detail. I also remixed them all with new tools and techniques.
 
Last edited:
I haven't listened, but have it on my list. I would assume feedback for mix and master is probably not expected unless something really bad (which, with all of the players, I am sure it has been scrubbed).

Just wanted to let you know, I will listen, but have to prepare for the commitment.
 
DM60 said:
I haven't listened, but have it on my list. I would assume feedback for mix and master is probably not expected unless something really bad (which, with all of the players, I am sure it has been scrubbed).

Just wanted to let you know, I will listen, but have to prepare for the commitment.
Click to expand...
We all started in on this board so many years ago as newbies without much a clue about even how to comment on things, so we'd say things like "snare sounds a little tubby" to help. :D

Most of the players above included. We've come a long way.

One of things we never really discussed was mastering - staying mostly to mixing topics. But mastering itself has its own skill set. It's a global commentary, concerned wholistically with the total presentation, versus, say, the snare sounding tubby.

Choosing which songs to include, then putting the songs in order of ebb and flow. Arranging the timing between them to flow well from one to the next. Making sure that the relative levels are equivalent between them in loudness so that none of them stick out like sore thumbs. Do they all "sound like they should be on the same album?" - all of this is the mastering.

There's a lot that goes into putting a cohesive collection together.
 
K-dub said:
There's a lot that goes into putting a cohesive collection together.
Click to expand...
I do all of my stuff as a whole collection, and what you say is really true. To get all of the songs to sound that they are related to each other, even when they have no sound connection, other than the concept. That is a tedious task, but when it all comes together, ...
 
DM60 said:
I do all of my stuff as a whole collection, and what you say is really true. To get all of the songs to sound that they are related to each other, even when they have no sound connection, other than the concept. That is a tedious task, but when it all comes together, ...
Click to expand...
Exactly - it's not oft discussed here in depth, but it is something worth knowing.

I started learning how to use compression here. Then I learned I was using WAY too much compression here.

But the focus was always the mix. It's funny. I'm still remixing things (I've a reputation to maintain), but what used to take me a week now takes me 10 minutes. I've learned to not try to overwork or overthink the sound. If there's issues with it, or if I want to make it "fit a frequency slot", I'll play with EQ on it and the like, but a good majority of the time, I'll leave the sound as is on most things now - versus trying to wrestle the remaining 500 hz out of the guitar. :D

Less is more became the eventual discovery.

But once the mixing is done, you're not done. If you release albums, you have to figure out how to make all the pieces and parts play nice together. That's mastering.

Plus, once I figured out that video is an additional requirement of distribution - I added that to the list of skill sets necessary to possess.

Mind you - I like learning new things along tech lines. It's creative. But it does eat up a bunch of time.
 
K-dub said:
Mind you - I like learning new things along tech lines. It's creative. But it does eat up a bunch of time.
Click to expand...
Everything eats up time, including doing nothing ;) Yet, time is limitless. ;)
 
DM60 said:
Everything eats up time, including doing nothing ;) Yet, time is limitless. ;)
Click to expand...
Quite true. All that matters is whether you enjoy what's going on. If so, it goes faster, and if you don't, it slows to a snail's pace.
 
I should add that part of the homogenization process starts at the mixing level. Put simply, the collection has to sound like it was mixed to be with each other - so the STYLE of the mixing needs to be consistent.

Fortunately, this no longer takes me longer than 40 or so minutes to do a mix for each piece. I also tend to listen to the day's prior mixes to get a sense of highlights to feature in the mixing approach.
 
I gave it a partial listen and it sound pretty good.
 
K-dub said:
We all started in on this board so many years ago as newbies without much a clue about even how to comment on things, so we'd say things like "snare sounds a little tubby" to help. :D

Most of the players above included. We've come a long way.

One of things we never really discussed was mastering - staying mostly to mixing topics. But mastering itself has its own skill set. It's a global commentary, concerned wholistically with the total presentation, versus, say, the snare sounding tubby.

Choosing which songs to include, then putting the songs in order of ebb and flow. Arranging the timing between them to flow well from one to the next. Making sure that the relative levels are equivalent between them in loudness so that none of them stick out like sore thumbs. Do they all "sound like they should be on the same album?" - all of this is the mastering.

There's a lot that goes into putting a cohesive collection together.
Click to expand...
My issue with mastering these days is that it's often just one more person sticking their finger in the pie. It's become "I'll make it sound good" which translate to "I'll make it sound the way I like". I once watch a video where someone sent a song to 5 different MEs and got back 5 totally different tracks. It included everything from Abbey Road to a guy who charged a few dollars to master a song and an online mastering site. Of the 5, I thought 4 were total trash. The 5th guy was ok, but I really didn't think it was an improvement over the original track (and no, it wasn't Abbey Road).

If you can sit down with the mastering person and work on what sounds good or bad, that might be a better solution. That to me is more what the producer used to do. Phil Spector, George Martin or Mutt Lange help craft the sound. Discuss what the best order might be, make sure things are consistent, etc,. Just sending a file off to some guy who calls himself a mastering expert seems to me to be a crapshoot. It could easily be some guy in his basement who bought Ozone and hung up a shingle. Put the smile EQ on, crank up the compressor until you hit a LUFS number and PRESTO! It's mastered.
 
Gave an ear to the first 2 tunes. Not bad at all.
50 mins is a lot of listening off the cuff.
 
TalismanRich said:
My issue with mastering these days is that it's often just one more person sticking their finger in the pie. It's become "I'll make it sound good" which translate to "I'll make it sound the way I like". I once watch a video where someone sent a song to 5 different MEs and got back 5 totally different tracks. It included everything from Abbey Road to a guy who charged a few dollars to master a song and an online mastering site. Of the 5, I thought 4 were total trash. The 5th guy was ok, but I really didn't think it was an improvement over the original track (and no, it wasn't Abbey Road).

If you can sit down with the mastering person and work on what sounds good or bad, that might be a better solution. That to me is more what the producer used to do. Phil Spector, George Martin or Mutt Lange help craft the sound. Discuss what the best order might be, make sure things are consistent, etc,. Just sending a file off to some guy who calls himself a mastering expert seems to me to be a crapshoot. It could easily be some guy in his basement who bought Ozone and hung up a shingle. Put the smile EQ on, crank up the compressor until you hit a LUFS number and PRESTO! It's mastered.
Click to expand...
Back when the internet was more alive with curious professionals, I witnessed this first hand among guys who did it for a living. You are absolutely right. The myriad interpretations were so varied and different. That's what makes attention to a unified "sound" so important when it comes to mastering.

I had an internet guy take one of my collections and he made it sound louder, but worse than my mixes. I had to send it elsewhere to be fixed. You can't really "fix" anything with mastering. It's an application of polish to make things detailed and shiny. You can kill a mix with it quickly, though. Your polish can be dull.
 
TalismanRich said:
My issue with mastering these days is that it's often just one more person sticking their finger in the pie. It's become "I'll make it sound good" which translate to "I'll make it sound the way I like". I once watch a video where someone sent a song to 5 different MEs and got back 5 totally different tracks. It included everything from Abbey Road to a guy who charged a few dollars to master a song and an online mastering site. Of the 5, I thought 4 were total trash. The 5th guy was ok, but I really didn't think it was an improvement over the original track (and no, it wasn't Abbey Road).
Click to expand...

Exactly. When I was looking for a trustworthy ME, I mixed the tune as well as I could, then put Ozone on the master out and 'mastered' it. Then I sent the pre-'mastered' mix to a guy who I thought was worth a shot. It came back goofily worse than my mix or my 'master'. I wish there was the audio equivalent of Trip Advisor so that I could post an anonymous review and spare people grief and save them money.

(I finally found a good guy on Fiverr. Tears have dried.)
 
dobro said:
Exactly. When I was looking for a trustworthy ME, I mixed the tune as well as I could, then put Ozone on the master out and 'mastered' it. Then I sent the pre-'mastered' mix to a guy who I thought was worth a shot. It came back goofily worse than my mix or my 'master'. I wish there was the audio equivalent of Trip Advisor so that I could post an anonymous review and spare people grief and save them money.

(I finally found a good guy on Fiverr. Tears have dried.)
Click to expand...
Same here, P. I used to just strap Ozone 9 across the two buss with a general setting I liked that would reasonably get me consistently in the ballpark I liked. It was always "close enough", but it was general purpose mastering in "one size fits all". I would mix w/ the GP mastering in place.

Part of the remix project (above and elsewhere) includes removal of the mastering plug. I still use a limiter to "trim the tops", but I mix even that to -6db to -12db with no peaks exceeding -3db.

Part of the learning curve w/ the artificial intelligence version of Ozone 11 is that the read of the content arrives at VERY different "auto-EQ" curves based on the underlying frequency blend. What that tells me is my GP settings were "not optimal".

... and I have been WAAAY more pleased with the results derived from the new process I've employed.
 
Time stamp on the song names would be a good touch.

First thing out of the shoot, had a Tom Petty feel, then moved away from it. It worked. I couldn't say was thrilled with the synth sound at the beginning of song 1. Not a huge nit, but since you are approaching a very high level, from a production POV, I would have it redone (if we were at a very high level, so this is meant as a positive more than a negative, high level for high quality).

The levels seem to be nice an even, I thought about releasing a single LP version on my last release, but I figure there wasn't go to be many plays.

Third cut (I think) had a Bowie vibe. Worked again, not too much, felt like more of a tip of the hat. The fourth cut had a Toy Matinee sound. Not a copy, but a sound/feel (8.51).

Mark @14:23 - so I can come back to listen more. I have a short attention span, that is why I have been doing mix tapes since the 70's and now have a huge play list. Doing albums has always been my weak point.

Up until that time stamp. very good production, levels sounded nice and consistent. It really had a nice "pro"ish sound quality to my ears. I could never nit pick songs on this board. Just obvious observations. Your's had nothing that I could say to improve really. Very good up to this point. I will come back and give it a continued listen. But to this point, very nice. I can't imagine you would/could screw it up past this point. :)
 
DM60 said:
Time stamp on the song names would be a good touch.

First thing out of the shoot, had a Tom Petty feel, then moved away from it. It worked. I couldn't say was thrilled with the synth sound at the beginning of song 1. Not a huge nit, but since you are approaching a very high level, from a production POV, I would have it redone (if we were at a very high level, so this is meant as a positive more than a negative, high level for high quality).

The levels seem to be nice an even, I thought about releasing a single LP version on my last release, but I figure there wasn't go to be many plays.

Third cut (I think) had a Bowie vibe. Worked again, not too much, felt like more of a tip of the hat. The fourth cut had a Toy Matinee sound. Not a copy, but a sound/feel (8.51).

Mark @14:23 - so I can come back to listen more. I have a short attention span, that is why I have been doing mix tapes since the 70's and now have a huge play list. Doing albums has always been my weak point.

Up until that time stamp. very good production, levels sounded nice and consistent. It really had a nice "pro"ish sound quality to my ears. I could never nit pick songs on this board. Just obvious observations. Your's had nothing that I could say to improve really. Very good up to this point. I will come back and give it a continued listen. But to this point, very nice. I can't imagine you would/could screw it up past this point. :)
Click to expand...
I didn't think SC would even allow me to load a file that large, so I'm merely counting my blessings. Agreed in full that a song marker function would add great facility to maneuvering around the file.

The "dated" synth is a design choice - just like the "melting background vocals" that are out of tune before the "American Top 40" jingle at the end of the song. You're right, though. It is cheesy midi sounding. Good note. If I decide to "augment" the arrangement, that's something to pay attention to. Thank you!


Glad you got through to where you did! The last half of the album has some of my personal favorites on it as well. The "front side" is more cohesively assembled. The "back side" - from "Sooner or Later" to "Mona" gets into more of the eclectic writing styles.
 
I listened to it - the vocals are odd - some phasing issues or something in places - other parts like when you harmonizing are rather good - music is a hodge podge - which I have to listen to it in full about a dozen more times to make any comment on it.
 
Papanate said:
I listened to it - the vocals are odd - some phasing issues or something in places - other parts like when you harmonizing are rather good - music is a hodge podge - which I have to listen to it in full about a dozen more times to make any comment on it.
Click to expand...
The music IS a hodge podge - which is why the collection is named accordingly. The vocal is ever so slightly phased to widen it. At times it is more noticeable than others. There's also a slight slap which can exacerbate the effect. Good ears. It's subtle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top