Panning/Effects for Vocals

[miroslav]

It is NOT SOP to pan vocals down the middle.

This is the crux of the debate.
You do realize that you keep twisting my comments into some sort of "canned recipe" suggestion where someone will end up using it forever in everything that they do…but that's not what I’ve been saying.
Not sure why you keep doing that?
All I've been suggesting is that it’s a *starting point*…and not a rule. Any newbie with any imagination will understand it as such and ultimately deviate from that starting point when they get comfortable with their skill set.

There is a starting point for everything...often it is one that is tried and true and that will yield a good result without someone having to right away understand ALL the possibilities, nuances and ramifications of every possible decision they can make.
Most newbies when faced with a thousand mixing decisions are NOT able to grasp the full extent of the “let the music guide you” approach….which is why they keep coming back with more questions.
Heck, my own signature quote below is kinda the same thing you keep saying…BUT…it doesn’t quite hit home with newbies because they are full of doubts and need to first get a solid foundation before they feel comfortable enough to trust their own moves.
There’s a reason the use training wheels on bicycles for little kids…
…but I have yet to see an adult riding a bike with training wheels.

I also doubt that anyone will want to use some odd-panned L/R lead vocal as their *starting point*.
No…IMHO…you’re best off to put them dead-center until you have the mix working…and then from there you can move into deeper explorations/variations.
I dunno…maybe your starting point begins with more extreme panning positions and then you work your way back toward something more realistic…?...but I (and I think the majority) will tend to start mixing by throwing up the faders to a starting position where we know things will work without too much fuss…and THEN from THERE, move to other variations.
That’s really NOT a “canned recipe”…that is a working process that is employed by a lot of mixers…so I’m not sure why you keep debating that it’s the wrong way to learn…?
Ultimately…the endpoint is what really counts….the starting point is…well, just a starting point.

Your answer leaves them to comprehend too many things all at once. Maybe some newbies will "get it" right off...but in my experience with newbies and their questions over the last 10-15 years on forums has been that they DON'T "get it" right off, and bottom line, they are asking for and looking for a "starting point". Telling them to trust their ears and to let the music guide their decisions will not hit home with most.

There are countless skills/disciplines that people learn every day…and in every single one of them that I’ve seen, there is an initial learning phase where the instructor hands out specifics tasks/directions that are geared toward establishing basic foundations. I’ve not seen any classes (especially where there are technical processes) where the instructor from the git-go just tells the newbies to use their imaginations. Instead, the instructor will make them perform rudimentary steps that may even seem rather boring…but there is a method to that madness, and it is employed in almost every educational environment each and every day. Once the students have gained some comfort from the basic instruction and repetition…THEN the instructor leaves them to their own imaginations in small but ever growing steps until they can fly solo on their own.

Going up with a flying instructor the first few times...I seriously doubt he tells the student to just use his instincts and be one with the plane.

 

[Otterski]

There are limitations to flying a plane while there are none to music. If you fly a plane wrong, you crash and burn. If you get funky with music, well, you end up with something a little funky- and since when was that a bad thing?

Children ride bikes with training wheels because they're not yet mature enough to be able to get back up after the first few times they fall. No, you don't see adults riding bikes with training wheels, but you do see adults learning to ride a bike.

Just because the majority does something one way, or believes one thing, doesn't make it right. The world is round after all, rather than flat. The American education system is flawed in a lot of ways, hand holding and narrow minded preaching are a few of the problems. You're taught to do, rather than to think. We're not talking simply about skill sets here, we're talking about art and talent.

You could teach anyone to do anything, but only a minority learns to excel. The music industry demands excellence. Fine, you can condone mediocrity, everyone deserves a chance. However, the people unable to put forth what's required of them in whatever it is they're doing are going to eventually fall short. I don't see why that epiphany should be drawn out. If anyone is going to act as a teacher it is their responsibility to push their pupils.

Your stance implies that anyone will eventually be just as fluent in whatever it is they're doing as everyone else, as long as they're given time. This just isn't true, especially when you limit them in the earlier stages of their education.

And just as a side note, there are a plethora of both art and science courses where the instructor forces the students to take a dive. They throttle back once the students realize their limitations and then provide a supplementary education. Not everything is taught is this manner, but what should be taught is this manner often is. Think about your favorite professors, what is it that made them so distinguished?

And to end this argument:

Even if the FX and what not are panned L/R...I always like the main vocal/lead track dead center.

Though I'm sure you will agree...for a newbie, it may be best to start off with some initial "rules"...better yet, basic SOPs...that way there is less chance of screwing things up and getting lost in the whole process.

No one is putting words in your mouth. The opinion you're reflecting at the moment has strayed from your first two posts. If this is the case, then the argument is over.

 

[miroslav]

But please don't change the concept and either lie to them or mollycoddle them into thinking that the way to do it is to ignore the song and just follow some non-existent "standard" procedure..

Glen...I honestly don't see where that has been done or suggested by anyone....yet you keep pounding that same drum.

And we are talking about a standard ****starting point**** procedure...I know you DO understand what that really means, and that it doesn’t lock-in anyone and force them keep it that way right on up to the endpoint. I think it's been stated enough times here that there are NO rules and anyone can deviate from that starting point.

Anyway you cut it...we ALL have a starting point we use, and often it's one that we are familiar with.
I can bet there are countless things you do in the studio that are very repetitive in their nature...but I'm sure you would not consider them “canned recipes”.

Not sure what's wrong with that?

 

[miroslav]

There are limitations to flying a plane while there are none to music.

Actually…you are wrong, and you will find out in time. There ARE limitations with recording, and that’s what we are talking about…not musical composition.

Your stance implies that anyone will eventually be just as fluent in whatever it is they're doing as everyone else, as long as they're given time. This just isn't true, especially when you limit them in the earlier stages of their education.

And just as a side note, there are a plethora of both art and science courses where the instructor forces the students to take a dive.

Not sure where I’m “limiting” anyone…rather I’m suggesting a very familiar point for them to start from, and vocals panned dead-center IS a VERY familiar point to everyone....you can hear it all day long on just about any radio station...so while you and Glen can split hairs over this that IMHO makes it somewhat of a "standard" (not a rule though).

As far as letting the students take a dive…they are free at ANY time to deviate from the familiar…
...but most good instructors also understand that you have to learn to walk before you are expected to run.

No one is putting words in your mouth. The opinion you're reflecting at the moment has strayed from your first two posts. If this is the case, then the argument is over.

I’m really not sure what you are getting at?
What I do in my mixing is not what I would assume a newbie would/could completely grasp in its entirety…right from the git-go.
Again, we are talking about the starting points, not end points and absolutes. Open any instruction/book manual…and they always have the easy/basic stuff in the first few chapters…and then it progresses from there.

 

[Otterski]

The point I'm trying to make is that an instruction manual informs the reader on how to operate their gear. Once they know how to use the tools that they have, the rest is composition.

The OP wasn't asking how to pan, he was asking where to pan. They obviously already know how to pan, otherwise they wouldn't be asking that question. You originally said, "I always pan to the center." You didn't say, "Well, it's decided on a case to case basis, but you'll find you usually will end up center. You should pan to wherever it fits in the song." That took two sentences, and doesn't imply any SOP. You assumed that we'd just realize that we'll be deviating from that recommendation without being told. People will latch on to your words and adopt your methods simply because you are their superior, and you do a better job than a novice. You have to be sure that they understand there are exceptions and that they'll be able to identify those exceptions when they encounter them, and that's what this argument is about.

Your original comment places blinders on the novice, while Glen's original comment provided a thorough answer. I get that you're saying a novice might not be able to fully comprehend Glen's solution, but that's underselling our capacity to learn. It's not a difficult concept, it just requires us to think about the song more.

 

[miroslav]

Your original comment places blinders on the novice...

My second and third posts were very clear about NO RULES and that you can deviate from the standard starting point.

So true....no absolute rules.

Though I'm sure you will agree...for a newbie, it may be best to start off with some initial "rules"...better yet, basic SOPs...that way there is less chance of screwing things up and getting lost in the whole process.

I like to occasionally deviate from the "standard" dead-center approach if the song/music calls for it...but 9-out-of-10 times I'll still go for "basics", and then I know I can't miss when the vox/leads sit up the middle!

My point was that when you're mixing for the first time...start with the recipe that seems to work for about 90% of Pop/Rock music.
Once you understand what is going on with panning and how it can be used to set the vibe and balance of a song, then feel free to deviate from that to taste. That's not really saying "get use to following a canned recipe"....is it?

Not sure where the "blinders" are....

 

[miroslav]

Here's a couple of more opinions that use the word "standard" and "starting point"...and just like my own posts, neither of these are in any way suggesting "canned recipes":

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb05/articles/qa0205-2.htm

It does seem to be standard practice to pan lead vocals, and often the bass, centrally, and some people believe that this configuration is a must. Nevertheless, there is nothing to stop you breaking such 'rules', if you have good reason to do so.

http://emusician.com/tutorials/emusic_panning_gold/

There is no rule of thumb for creating a soundstage; as with all things musical, the only regulation is that it sounds good (or at least the way you want it to sound). Still, most engineers agree that the general goal is a clear, uncluttered, three-dimensional soundstage in which the elements can all be clearly heard and their positions can be readily identified. For the novice, that is best achieved by learning first how to create a realistic soundstage — that is, one that sounds believable, as though the band were set up and playing right in front of you. Just as Picasso mastered realism before venturing off into cubism, the mix engineer is well served by an initial apprenticeship to nature — that is, to making things sound the way they actually do. Naturally, once you've mastered the rules, you will have a much better idea of when and how to break them.

.........

However, don't hold to that (or any) plan rigidly; rather, use it as a starting point and let your ears be the judge from there.

I can gladly post more...but I think this is becoming a dead horse...so maybe we just stop here...yes?

 

[Otterski]

Glababawawgh. <.<

It's instigating the growth that allows for that understanding to materialize that's important, or providing a solution up front.

I'll end with this:

I feel undersold when I'm told, "Do this for now, you'll get what's going on later." Glen's answer, at least to me and I'd assume to most, seems more beneficial. If you don't think that's the case then eh, the sun'll still rise on my tomorrow.

 

[miroslav]

If you don't think that's the case...

No...it's not just me.
Most instruction for newbies of any type is based on the same approach I'm suggesting.
They are not absolutes or canned recipes...just starting points.

I mean...if someone telling you that you should "let the music guide you" is a real EUREKA! moment for you...that's cool, but IMO, it's just stating the obvious without stating anything specific.

Most newbies seem to thrive off of specific answers to specific questions...
...but I agree, the sun will still rise tomorrow.

I feel undersold when I'm told, "Do this for now, you'll get what's going on later."

So I guess on the first day of that freshman class you wanted the professor to jump to the last chapter in the text book.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I think there's a freetranslator.com filter sitting between us, miro, because you keep claiming that I am bending your words around, and your responses to what I say seem to have a complete misunderstanding of my point .

But you're right, it's a dead horse. I have made my position as clear as I know how, and so probably have you, and we have a fundamental disagreement which will never be reconciled no matter how many times and how many different ways we repeat our arguments.

So I'm through with this thread. I stand my my position 100%, as I'm sure you do too. Well let the readers make their own decisions. You can take solace in the fact that most will probably take your side, of that I have very little doubt, because it is by far the more popular POV, and I don't have any illusions of actually changing many folk's minds.

Luckily we live in a world where reality is not a function of public opinion .

G.

 

[miroslav]

You can take solace in the fact that most will probably take your side, of that I have very little doubt, because it is by far the more popular POV....

So then does that make it a "standard"...?



I think noisewreck said it best...we are both in agreement on the essentials.

And I agree...lets allow this thread to just fall off the page....

 

[noisewreck]

I don't buy that. Maybe they may not know *how* to do it because they haven't yet learned how their gear actually works, which is a big part of why forums like this exist. But they had damn well better know or figure out on their own *what* they want to do.

Yes, "how" is a better word than "what"... I need to stop posting when I'm half delirious from lack of sleep.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

So then does that make it a "standard"...?

Not at all. Because most people who voice opinions are not the standard bearers. Reality is not a matter of public opinion .

I think noisewreck said it best...we are both in agreement on the essentials.

On the contrary; we are a world apart on something very fundamental. What you see as the last, advanced chapter in the book I see as already being in the preface, or even as a prerequisite for the course . That has every possible effect on the course of the rest of the course.

But yeah, let's let it die. I think everyone gets the gist of each side of this debate already, even if you and I don't .

I will serve up to you later (I'm out of time for now) in a PM or e-mail though of my own version of a story this debate reminds me of. It's not a joke, but rather a real life story from Dick Feynman that I think is spot on how this debate strikes me. If you're at all familiar with his stories, it's the one about his reviewing textbooks for the California school system and the math problem dealing with star temperatures. If you're not familiar with his stuff, I'll find it later and serve it up to you in private .

G.

 

[miroslav]

Reality is not a matter of public opinion .

Oh I agree...but my point was that when a rather large majority uses the center-panned lead vocal approach...it's not opinion, it's reality.

On the contrary; we are a world apart on something very fundamental. What you see as the last, advanced chapter in the book I see as already being in the preface, or even as a prerequisite for the course .

I meant that I think we agree on most audio essentials.

You're idea that the last chapter should be used at the start, is not necessarily a bad/wrong idea...my whole point in this discussion has been that up to now, most people have followed the opposite teaching standard...and that's all I've been going with. I'm sure some folks learn better with different methods. Maybe 'cuz both my parents were teachers, I'm going with the current, tried-n-true methodology…start with basics, and then slowly ramp it up as the student gets comfortable.

Yeah...shoot me a PM if you have some interesting food for thought.
I don't mind debating...actually, as you might have noticed, I enjoy a good debate.
You seem to also!

 

[noisewreck]

I will serve up to you later (I'm out of time for now) in a PM or e-mail though of my own version of a story this debate reminds me of. It's not a joke, but rather a real life story from Dick Feynman that I think is spot on how this debate strikes me. If you're at all familiar with his stories, it's the one about his reviewing textbooks for the California school system and the math problem dealing with star temperatures. If you're not familiar with his stuff, I'll find it later and serve it up to you in private .

G.

Make it public. I wanna read it too.

You guys crack me up. Imagine how much time you would've spent making music if you weren't butting heads.

 

[miroslav]

Actually...most of the time I spend on the net is during non-studio hours.

I'm at the computer all day long because of my day gig...so it's easy to post up throughout the day.

 

[noisewreck]

Actually...most of the time I spend on the net is during non-studio hours.

I'm at the computer all day long because of my day gig...so it's easy to post up throughout the day.

Lucky you. Most of the time, I don't have the time to post here during the day. However, you could also make a staff paper for yourself in Excel, and write some music

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Make it public. I wanna read it too.

You guys crack me up. Imagine how much time you would've spent making music if you weren't butting heads.

Well, unfortunately I can't do a heck of a lot of music work again until my family responsibilities end. In the meantime, miro and I are working on a Jane Curtain/Dan Ackroyd "Point/Counterpoint" kind of skit thang. Next thread, miro promises to start his first reply post with, "Glen, you ignorant slut!"

I've decided not to go ahead with that Feynman thing because the story from him followed by my explanation as to why this topic reminds me of that would be waaaay long. Yes, even *I* think there is such a think as too long of a post .

Also, I'd really like to post that entire chapter, it's so damn good, and that *definitely* is way too long for this forum . But you can find it all in the book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" by Feynman himself. The chapter is called "Judging Books By Their Covers".

G.

 

[noisewreck]

Party pooper

Meh, you guys are both wrong!

You shouldn't compose or record music by thinking about the beginning OR the end.

Everything should start from the middle, and then grow outwards... call it the McDonald's effect.

I have created my own standard. I have been writing/recording everything starting from bar 64, and then expanding from there Pshhhhh.

 

[miroslav]

It's funny you say that...I've done a few songs that basically started in the middle, with a chorus or lead hook...and then I worked out the beginning and end.

I think many of us actually do work from the end...we just don't realize it.
I mean...when you have the song already in your head, it's really a done deal, all you are doing during the recording is laying it out...it's just natural to start the recording from the beginning of the song (and somewhat easier)...though I guess we can always flip the tape around and work it from the end with some groovy 60s vibe.

I've done that too...not just for a lead guitar or some ear candy...but where I wanted an instrument to play backwards for the entire piece, like and organ part...so I had to flip the tape and play the whole thing from the end to the beginning.
It's a bit weird doing all the chord patterns and licks backwards so that they are in tune/key when you play them forward with all the "normal" instruments/parts. It’s kinda like moon walking/playing the keyboard or guitar!

Glen
I leave up to you to come up with an interesting topic for our next skit.