Mixing multiple songs

  • Thread starter Thread starter NashBackslash
  • Start date Start date
NashBackslash

NashBackslash

New member
Hi guys, this is sort of a follow-up to the question I posted in the other "mixing with clients" thread. Instead of hijacking that thread, I'll just post a new thread.

I was wondering, how do pros normally approach mixing bands with several songs?

My approach:

I would first create a "template" file for Sonar for the band. I would add the appropriate amount of tracks, set their inputs correctly, name them, etc.

Then do the tracking, overdubs, etc.

Once they are done with the song, I save, then re-open the empty template I created and repeat the process for the next song.

I would then take the time to carefully mix, EQ carve, add plugins, etc for the first song.

Now, for the OTHER songs, as far as fader, panning, EQ and compression goes - I will attempt to duplicate what I did for the first song. That means several flipping back and forth between windows from the two files. Sometimes saving presets might work too.

Once the faders, EQ and everything are exactly like how the first song was - then I start concentrating on the smaller details.

This aproach if for a typical rock band setup.

There was one time where I had to be lazy, and record all 3 songs of a certain band in the SAME FILE. The length of the file made it hell to edit and mix. o_O

I'm interested in hearing how everyone here manages the mixing of multiple songs.
 
NashBackslash said:
Now, for the OTHER songs, as far as fader, panning, EQ and compression goes - I will attempt to duplicate what I did for the first song.
Click to expand...
You had me all the way up until that point, but there I gotta throw up an index finger (*index*, not middle ;) )

The band may be the same, hence the blank templates. Though other instruments can come into play even if the players remain the same, it makes sense to have a basic template to start from.

But though the band is the same, the songs are not. Unless all the songs are arranged the exact same way, play the same instruments, play them at the same loudness, and through the same signal chains, are all identical tempo ballads or anthems or whatever, have the same theme, convey the same emotion, etc. - and even then - why would you want to duplicate all those parameters?

Yes, you have to keep an eye on continuity to a degree - you don't (usually) want a disjointed collection. But if all the songs are recorded in the same studio by the same musicians and the same engineers, there should already be a natural amount of continuity built-in for those reasons. Just don't be blatent in the production and you'll be OK, IMHO.

For me, every song needs to be treated seperately, however. "Mix to the music." Make no assumptions of what to do with song #3 just because of what you did with songs #1 and #2. Otherwise it's too easy to wind up with a collection of songs which when taken as a whole can sound monochromatic and a bit fatiguing.

LSMFT etc...

G.
 
I never copy mix settings between songs. By recreating the settings I want for each individual song, it assures me that I am thinking about THAT song. Often times things may end up very similar, or I might go back and copy a bass guitar setting or something, but never until I have given it some thought and attention first. I believe that mixes can be very different, but the band and engineers sonic footprint can still be there.
 
i can't really add much more to what's been said (so perhaps it's silly for me to respond) . . . but my thoughts are . . .

let the process determine continuity and consistency

let the content determine the mixing treatment

each song should be considered as an entity in its own right, and mixed to maximise the potential inherent in it. each song demands its own treatment.

if you have recorded each part using a consistent method, and you have minimised unwanted variability in the process, then there will be a broad base of consistency across all the songs.
 
If there's a big rush, the songs are all pretty similar, etc...I'll definitely import plugins/reverbs/whatever. Doesn't mean I keep them the exact same, but it's a starting point. Especially with things like gates on the drums. That can be a huge time saver.
 
I have to say that this is where using outboard mixers and gear really speeds the process. With hardware, once you have that first mix done, all you have to do is send the tracks in the other songs to the same channels and the mix is already up. You can then tweak from there.

However, I've rarely found it to be that easy. If the tempos are different the delay times are going to be off, and then of course the reverb times will be off. If you are going from a fast loud song to a slower ballad then settings like for compressors will likely be off as well, since the band will be hitting their instruments differently.

So in reality, unless the songs are very similar most of the mix will need to change to a greater or lesser extent.

That said, there will be certain things that can carry from one song to the next. Like if you find a good eq and compressor settings for the vocals. Or if you have to solve problems with various instruments or tweaking for good tone, that can carry over from song to song. But the overall mix settings, I think less of that carries over.

In doing film scores, a very common way to do them is to mix similar cues together. So all the cues that use the same basic themes and orchestrations are mixed one after the next. Then on to the next grouping of similar cues. This does speed the process enormously, since most any film has a number of cues that are similar in theme and orchestration.

For album work though, there tend to be greater variations between the songs.

Hope some of this helps.
 
Using "template" sessions and what not are a good way to save a lot of time and speed up the process when you're dealing with a band that's either flat broke or doesn't view the project as being serious enough to warrant the extra mixing time.

Like if all you're looking to do is a demo of cover songs or something to hand out to bar owners, then I think it's a great method. If the effects and/or processing chain works "well enough" on one of the songs, then it should at least be moderately acceptable for the rest of the tunes.
 
sometimes (sometimes)

i'll group things (say guitars) and run comp on the group.
somewhat you mix the group, but mostly you use the individual volumes to send to the compressor on the group, determining the amount of compression (assuming you don't want things like attack time to change)
and use the group fader to determine final volume.

so the individual faders end up being input controls for the compressor.
o'course, the groups can't be very diverse.
and it's just not what's needed sometimes.
 
The thing that always bothers me about the template route is that after mixing one of the tunes, I don't want to copy all the settings into other song. I just want to be able to do what I can do in hardware, which is just run the tracks for the second song through the settings for the first song.

This would be relatively easy to do in software if the track layout stays the same between songs. Then you could just copy and paste the tracks from the second song in to the template for the already mixed song (ideally a copy of it!).

The trouble is, by the time I've finished a song I've probably added tracks as part of the mixing process. Sometimes I split tracks off into two or more tracks, or will add tracks for extra layers. So by the end of the mix the track layout doesn't match the original template.

This seems like a weakness in the process and I don't understand why programmers haven't dealt with it. I want to copy the *mix* from one sequence to another. Seems like there should be an easy way to do that, even if the track layouts have changed.
 
SonicAlbert said:
I want to copy the *mix* from one sequence to another. Seems like there should be an easy way to do that, even if the track layouts have changed.
Click to expand...
Al,

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly when you say "copy the *mix*; what are you looking to do that couldn't be done by a "Save As" on the project/session and saving it under a different name? You're then copying everything over to a new project/session.

G.
 
Thank you everyone. All the answers here have cleared a lot of stuff that has been going on in my head for quite a while now, and I'm more confident and excited in doing future mixes.

Just one thing though - what about that one file method? Instead of launching a new file, just put the cursor a few seconds away from the previous songs' tracks, and start recording from there? Any comments on this method?
 
NashBackslash said:
Instead of launching a new file, just put the cursor a few seconds away from the previous songs' tracks, and start recording from there? Any comments on this method?
Click to expand...
I have a few problems with that myself.

Again, it is assuming that the setup is going to be pretty much the same from song to song. That kind of assumption can often do little but put one in a box.

Second, it's walking a high wire safety-wise. I think someone else recently referred to it as putting your eggs in one basket. If your project/session file gets corrupted or lost and you have 5 songs in that file, you've lost the mix for all 5 songs instead of just a single song, and it'll take 5 times the work and time to recover.

Third, it can be real easy when editing an earlier song to accidentally mess up the clip alignment, envelope settings, etc. for later songs.

Fourth, you are stuck with a single trim volume at any given time for any single track. This is fine if your tracking and arrangements between songs are so identical as to need the exact same trim volumes for each song, which in reality is rarely the case.

Fifth, when I'm done with a song I'd like to be able to go back to the project when I need to and bring it up in the exact condition in which I've left it as far as things like envelope settings, activated toolsets, etc. A "snapshot" of where I left off, if you will. Such snapshots of a finished song project are not possible when the project environment is constantly changing because I'm still working on another song in the same project file.

Sixth, you're assuming identical plug-in chains and settings for each song. If you add a delay or EQ to song 2 on track 3, you'll be adding it to song 1 track 3 as well. This is the other side of the same coin referred to in the first problem.

G.
 
NashBackslash said:
Just one thing though - what about that one file method? Instead of launching a new file, just put the cursor a few seconds away from the previous songs' tracks, and start recording from there? Any comments on this method?
Click to expand...

Everything SouthSIDE said is right on. Definitely go for one file per song, you can get into real trouble the other way. The hassle is just not worth it.

SouthSIDE Glen said:
I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly when you say "copy the *mix*; what are you looking to do that couldn't be done by a "Save As" on the project/session and saving it under a different name? You're then copying everything over to a new project/session.
Click to expand...

Well, "save as" will save the same file under a different name. What I'm talking about is taking the mix data from file "A" and copying just that to file "B". Not the audio tracks themselves, just the settings.

The same thing as what I can do with my hardware basically: finish one song and then just route the tracks from the next song through the same channels on the mixer, fx sends, busses, etc. I rarely find it works unless the tracks are the same musical material (like similar cues for a soundtrack), but it can sometimes provide a good starting place for differing tracks.
 
i think i've got it by george.

track all in one session,give yourself the basic set up you want.
and then do a save as "song1"
when in "song1" remove all tracks that aren't song 1
save and reopen tracking session
save as "song2" etc....


p.s. eggs in one basket
use the save as feature,
end up with "sessionA" and "sessionB" but the info is exactly the same in both sessions.
if an audio file coruppts, you're screwed on that particular audio file no matter how you save.
but the odds of ending up with 2 corrupt session files (i've thankfully, never even seen one) is huge.
and you can always do 3.
 
SonicAlbert said:
Well, "save as" will save the same file under a different name. What I'm talking about is taking the mix data from file "A" and copying just that to file "B". Not the audio tracks themselves, just the settings.
Click to expand...
Ah, OK, I understand what you mean. Yeah, you're right, that is not an option I've seen. You could do the "Save as" and then go in and mass delete the clips in session "B", but that's still not very automatic.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
You could do the "Save as" and then go in and mass delete the clips in session "B", but that's still not very automatic.

G.
Click to expand...

yea, but compaired to the tempelate method, you would save a bunch of time. volume/compression/and eq seting would already be the same, no putting back inserts on individual channels, and then importing settings.

and o'course anything can be removed, changed, or added to.

and i would love to see the feature alberts talking about.
 
I eventually figured out working on rock stuff that it was just easier to track drums, mix the drums into a stereo pair, apply the same template to all the drums and then track everything normally setting levels in comparison to the drums.

So for example, if you're checking input levels for distortion guitars, the moment the clarity of the drums is compromised, you know you've gone too far. So I'll use the kick as a base for checking my other sounds. You tend to "Feel it out" different for each song, anyway.

Gives your pretty consistent results.


Lee Rosario
 
Part of the reason that i never use "templates" for a mixdown is that rarely are my final versions of each song laid out the same. When this happens, templates start to mix up settings between channels. Personally, I have that with a 24 track mix it only takes me about 10 minutes to setup a mix from scratch and get to about the same place as I was in the previous mix. My theory is that you should spend at least that 10 minutes putting the stuff on the tracks yourself or else you just shouldn't be mixing it. Actually, if you can't put 10 minutes into a song, then you really aren't mixing anyhow. With things like reverbs, I store presets in the preset menu. I never store EQ's or compressor settings because those are so specifically track dependant. I do however use templates for a band when laying down the first tracks. That way I don't have to manually open up 16+ new audio tracks and name them all, and set all of their input mapping manually etc....
 
What happened to pushing up the faders and listening to the song? Then taking the mix from there? My board and hardwear settings can look very different from song to song.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top