mixing doesn't matter

[junplugged]

after listening to those wacky mixes of the best of the best most famous of all classics, they are all over the place for so many reasons yet, they are still the best music of all time, you know what i'm talking about, mix any way you want, just get over it, do it, done.

 

[RawDepth]

...they are still the best music of all time...

That's a matter of opinion. There are lots of famous classics that I think sucked. Maybe some of those sucked because they were somewhat poorly mixed or simply didn't sound exciting to me.

My point is that some people get their enjoyment from how well the mix sounds, not just the tunes themselves. To me, the mix DOES matter.

 

[Greg_L]

Lol. Asinine.

 

[gecko zzed]

I grew up with sixties music. I was very non-discriminating, and loved everything that came out. In those years I was not interested in, and knew nothing about, production. And nor did I care. I loved the songs, and their production values were invisible to me.

Years later, after becoming involved in recording, I listened to those old songs, and realised how badly some of them were mixed. I still like the songs, but some I now find very difficult to listen to.

 

[allegro1650]

A good song is a good song despite a bad mix. However, a bad mix doesn't let people hear a good song to its' fullest potential.

 

[dobro]

after listening to those wacky mixes of the best of the best most famous of all classics, they are all over the place for so many reasons yet, they are still the best music of all time, you know what i'm talking about, mix any way you want, just get over it, do it, done.

Being in tune doesn't matter.

Playing in time doesn't matter.

Tracking things well doesn't matter.

There. A vision of a world in line with your opinion of mixing.

 

[Schwarzenyaeger]

So if I mute the drums tracks, boost the bass by 30 dB and then crush everything with a compressor, that would be an equally good mix as a "normal" approach?

 

[Btyre2013]

when the great classical composers sat down to conduct the orchestra they gave a shit about the crazy violinist who played too loud, that's why mixing is important, creating order out of chaos e.t.c. unless of course you are ornette coleman or sun ra

 

[grimtraveller]

mix any way you want

In essence, I don't disagree with this at all. How each person mixes is down to them.
But it is worth pointing out that the way songs were mixed in the 50s and in particular the 60s and very early 70s were part of an evolutionary mix journey that was constantly shifting. Recording and in particular multitracking, were still pretty new and the appearance of 2, then 3, then 4, then 8, then 16, then 24 tracks had a huge impact on the way songs were conceived, written, recorded and mixed. Many of the so called classics were recorded and mixed in times of flux when things like bouncing were commonplace. But having 8, 16 and 24 tracks rendered bouncing obsolete and also, artists began to have more say in how their songs were mixed. Many of the things we call "modern" ways of recording and mixing were already pretty much standard by 1975. You won't find many albums recorded after that time with hard panned lead vocals or bass or drums or voices on one side and music on the other.

mixing doesn't matter

I have no problem with the way songs were mixed yesteryear. Once I like a song, I like it and the way it was mixed is irrelevant to me other than from an interest point of view. I'm no more going to be put off a song by the way it's mixed than I am going to allow my mood to be influenced by the weather.
But saying mixing doesn't matter is too simplistic.

 

[rayc]

In fact the composers/conductors moved sections and individuals around so that the sound projected was the MIX of sounds they were after.
Something that Phil Spector did to "Spectaculor" effect in his heyday.

 

[Bobbsy]

Every good recording is mixed.

However, some great ones are mixed by the musicians having great microphone technique and controlling the mix as they record.

That's talent...but it's still mixing.

 

[GONZO-X]

after listening to those wacky mixes of the best of the best most famous of all classics, they are all over the place for so many reasons yet, they are still the best music of all time, you know what i'm talking about, mix any way you want, just get over it, do it, done.

most of those songs work BECAUSE of the mixes.


not to be confused with not knowing what you are doing.


mixing is just as much a part of the creativity as the creation of the song...
but they have to go hand in hand.

for example:
you can't just arbitrarily hard pan an important part,
unless it actually works with the rest of the mix,
or it will just sound stupid.

there is usually a good reason for mixes to be 'strange' or different or 'ground breaking'


and sometimes it's a happy accident,
but more and more these days,
it is a well thought out plan.



point is,
you have to be to a point where 'you know what you are doing' before you can start throwing out the rule book.

 

[junplugged]

Great responses, that's why this place is so good. No one really flamed that outrageous statement and realized that i was examining a concept.

I think the mix does get designed in from the beginning of every project. There is an idea of how it should all combine from the recording of the first take.

Those oldies had to be a lot of organic formation of the mix as the project would come together. There was no fixing later even available as an option, so if something was buried without planning it, it stayed that way and then later someone said, " I just love how the crash kinda rolls a long in that deeper low midrangey area under the guitar..." or something like that, meanwhile it was bounced so many times, it got muddy and would be considered a mistake if the producer could have a choice in the matter, but then many years go by and people seek it out like, a guy says, "hey, give me that old timey muddy cymbal from 1947 that we 'grew to love' so much over the years that is reminiscent of post war early hits by _______ ." Does any one ever say, "give me that crazy out front tambourine like that Motown hit?"

If I'm painting and I need red, but I use blue since I ran out of red and some art critic says, I just love how he is a genius interpreting the sun, or blood, as blue rather than red, it fits the mood of that painting so well. And then you get a boat load of art students painting blue suns and blue blood for the next 20 years....

 

[Greg_L]

If I'm painting and I need red, but I use blue since I ran out of red and some art critic says, I just love how he is a genius interpreting the sun, or blood, as blue rather than red, it fits the mood of that painting so well. And then you get a boat load of art students painting blue suns and blue blood for the next 20 years....

That's because the world is monkey-see-monkey-do - even with stupid things. But then someone will have enough of that stupid blue sun and paint it yellow like it's supposed to be, and all will be right in the world.

 

[KristinaBrooke]

Mixing is the hard part of recording.

Anyone can learn how to mic properly (or almost anyone) given the proper training.

Being able to create a good mix? That is both a skill and a talent. Not everyone can do it.

It takes a strong dedication to the craft, a good instinct, and good musical ability.

Those oldies you were talking about? They didn't just "come together." Those bands practiced and didn't record until they got it down, and everything was soundchecked.

I think you are heavily undervaluing what is, after the artist's performance, the most important part of recording.

May I ask why you feel this way? I would guess you are very new to mixing, and don't understand it properly. But I really am curious how you could come to such a ridiculous conclusion.

 

[grimtraveller]

I think you are heavily undervaluing what is, after the artist's performance, the most important part of recording.

May I ask why you feel this way? I would guess you are very new to mixing, and don't understand it properly. But I really am curious how you could come to such a ridiculous conclusion.

No one really flamed that outrageous statement and realized that i was examining a concept.

I think the mix does get designed in from the beginning of every project. There is an idea of how it should all combine from the recording of the first take.

 

[dobro]

Great responses, that's why this place is so good. No one really flamed that outrageous statement and realized that i was examining a concept.

I came pretty close. I thought you were serious.

I think the mix does get designed in from the beginning of every project. There is an idea of how it should all combine from the recording of the first take.

Not all the time. Very often, people like me plan nothing. They just discover what sounds good as they go along. But the real good mixers are planning from the beginning. They *see* where the mix is going and how they can help it to get there.

Those oldies had to be a lot of organic formation of the mix as the project would come together. There was no fixing later even available as an option, so if something was buried without planning it, it stayed that way

I think one of the biggest differences between the oldies and today's computer mixers is that the oldies had to make decisions as they went along, and they had to make those decisions before they could move on to the next stage. But in DAWS with endless track counts and automation and plugins, people hedge their bets by keeping everything and putting off decisions until later. I think you're way ahead of the game if you can commit to important decisions as you go along. Maybe you'll make a mistake. If you regret it enough, you likely won't make the same mistake again. But you'll mix faster and you'll mix better.

 

[Guitargodgt]

So wait, this was just a failed troll attempt? I thought this was another "OP is a stupid noob and has decided to school us all."

 

[dobro]

That's what I was hoping for, yeah. Idiots can make you feel so much better about yourself.

 

[calimoose]

That's because the world is monkey-see-monkey-do - even with stupid things.

ESPECIALLY with stupid things. blows my mind.

So wait, this was just a failed troll attempt? I thought this was another "OP is a stupid noob and has decided to school us all."

Well obviously the thread title is as blatantly troll as it gets. But (and I could be wrong) I think the OP was just trying to say sometimes, people over-analyze to the point that they eliminate the possibility of progression before they even start. I used to be that way just with my songwriting and musical ideas. In my head, what I heard was mind-blowing, but it was so hard to realize the idea that I just wouldn't even start. Now (when I can) I try and just record any idea that comes to me, then develop it until it gets somewhere, and even if it doesn't develop in a way that I like, I will have learned from the experience and streamline the next one. That's kind of what I think the OP was saying.

Basically I think the OP is saying, in a phrase, "suck it up and learn by doing", but he used as douchey a title as possible