Song fatigue

[MattNZ]

Anyone have this issue?

I can only ever get so far with a mix and then I’m so fed up with hearing the bloody song! I then file it away somewhere and never listen to it again. All the pleasure is in the process rather than in the final result, which by the time I’ve played it several hundred times, I’m never happy with.

I don’t know if it’s because I now know it so well that I can hear every little dodgy, slightly-out-of-key note. Then, I want to retrack everything but I can’t be bothered ‘cos I’m so sick of hearing the bloody song!

Has anyone ever got to the point where they are genuinely proud of what they’ve achieved?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

You're probably trying too hard to find a mix that doesn't exist. If after a couple of hours you're "not done", take the best mix you got at that point and put it aside until the next morning.

The next day, listen to what you have and fix only what jumps out at you as a real problem. If this takes more than an hour, your just chasing the phantom mix again. At the end of that hour, take you best effort, print it, and put it in the "finished" pile.

Chances are, any more work than that won't give you anything much better than what you already got.

And, yeah, you'll probably still be tired of the song when you're done. For me, anyway, the songs that I actually was not tired of - at least for a while - when I was done were few and far between. The exceptions would be any production that required so much George Martin-ing or Brian Eno-ing in post production that the final version of the song didn't actually exist until the post production was done.

Otherwise, yeah, listening to a song or parts of it a few hundred times in a couple of hours does tend to make one sick of listening to it. That's the nature of the beast for many of us.

G.

 

[witzendoz]

If I have the time and budget, which I don't always have, I will work on a mix into the night, printing mixes as I go. Mix 1 sounding good, mix 2 more vocal, mix 3 more or less bass, etc etc. Then I leave everything set up and go home with a CD. The next day I listen to the CD in the car and at home and make note of anything that bugs me, go to the studio and adjust as per my notes and print the mix. I find that the mix will be so close that any slight change to the overall sound can be done in the mastering.

Usually with multiple mix choice I will pick the last mix that I do but not always as sometimes you loose the vibe that you had with the earlier mixes by getting too caught up in something silly, like a bass note that is too loud or a snare in bar 89 that does not sound right. Of course when you listen to the song in 3 months time you have forgotten completely the problem that you were looking for because it probably was not there in the first place.

One of my clients always insisted that I keep all the quick mixes that I gave him at the end of the day (my monitoring mix) as he found that he loved the vibe of these quick mixes, and on the last album we used 2 of the quick mixes and just added a bit of eq and reverb over the mix during mastering.

I have had clients that just cannot move on, continuously coming back to adjust mixes, coz it sounded wrong on mums stereo (even though mums stereo has a graphic eq that has been made into an ocean wave coz it looks nice), and in the car stereo (out of phase with the blown speaker on the passenger side). Now I nearly always mix via an analog console using rack gear, when I get these clients I mix in software so I can keep calling up the mix, doing the change, and giving them the bill. I have a saying, at some point finish and move on, there are many more songs to come don't get stuck on one.

Cheers

Alan.

 

[Lurk_R]

Post a mix contest in the clinic. You can compare what they've done to what you have. Ask them questions: how did you get the drums to sound like that? What did you do to the vocals? It helps you break out of the mold you are in, and helps you to see how to achieve desired results in the mix.

 

[RD423]

Normally ill mix the song, eq, comp. and set my levels one night. If i'm not tired of the song then Ill do all of the editing and all that good stuff but sometimes I just do the basics and then come back to it in a day or two so I can go at it with fresh ears, especially if I just got done tracking the song. Because you can do all that above that i named and then the next day it doesn't sound good to you. If you feel yourself getting tired of the song walk away until the next day, or at least a couple of hours.

 

[Rokket]

It's never a good idea to start mixing right after you are done tracking. Especially if you have been tracking a mic'd amp or live drums. Your ears are already tired, you just don't realize it. I usually come back after a couple days and start the basics: load all the tracks, set the fader levels, edit out extraneous noises (touching the frets, clearing the throat), and give it a cursory listen. After that, I start the main mix portion a day after that. Of course, if I wasn't the one who did all the tracking, everything is usually stepped up a couple days (like in a mixing contest). If my ears are well rested (in other words, I haven't been around a lot of loud noises for a week or so), I may go through the whole process in one sitting, then come back a day or two later and check on what I did.
The key is giving yourself some rest. And if you are in the middle of a mix, don't listen to it over and over again. Get to a point that you think you are done with it, then burn it to CD and listen to it on various setups at moderate levels. And don't do that all day long. If you have listened to the same song over and over again, of course you are going to get tired of it. If you keep hearing the same mistakes over and over again and you are not sure how to fix it, post it in the clinic and hope that the responder of the thread doesn't give you "nice song, I liked it" and that's it. Point out what you think is wrong and direct the listener's attention to that spot or track that is bothering you and ask how we would fix it.

Last resort, do what Lurk_r suggested and post the tracks for a mix contest.

 

[DavidK]

I don’t know if it’s because I now know it so well that I can hear every little dodgy, slightly-out-of-key note. Then, I want to retrack everything but I can’t be bothered

You might be getting ahead of yourself. If a performance has "out of key" notes, it shouldn't make it to the mixing stage. I'm sure we are all guilty of this at times. Ive spent hours trying to "fix" something, where I could have played it again in 10 seconds. Nonetheless, when the performance is solid, the mixing will be easier.

Has anyone ever got to the point where they are genuinely proud of what they’ve achieved?

There's a big difference in being proud and being content or satisfied. I am proud every time I give 100%. I'm a hard worker and I put in the time. I am rarely content or totally satisfied, I always strive for better music.


I take months to mix a track. I have stuff from 2006 I am still mixing. If I get tired, I put it aside. I come back fresh and usually have some ideas.

 

[MattNZ]

Well, that's reassurring. I think I definitely have a tendency to rush the tracking stage a little. A lot of the time I just have these ideas that I need to get down straight away, so I rush through it to try and get it all down and then fail to go back and listen out properly for the things that niggle.

I also have a tendency to mix as I go along, panning, compressing, adding reverb etc, before tracking another part - is this an acceptable method?

 

[gecko zzed]

I also have a tendency to mix as I go along, panning, compressing, adding reverb etc, before tracking another part - is this an acceptable method?

I have a tendency to do this as well. I find it useful (for my own material at least) in that it reveals areas where attention is needed, where there are gaps, or where there is too much. In other words, I'm often arranging and mixing as I'm tracking. The advantage of doing this is that by the time you've added all the various bits and pieces, the piece has virtually mixed itself. In a way, it's like painting a landscape . . . you start with broad sweeps, then later focussing in on details here and there with dabs of colour. The final dab means that the painting is done.

 

[joeym]

I have a tendency to do this as well. I find it useful (for my own material at least) in that it reveals areas where attention is needed, where there are gaps, or where there is too much. In other words, I'm often arranging and mixing as I'm tracking. The advantage of doing this is that by the time you've added all the various bits and pieces, the piece has virtually mixed itself. In a way, it's like painting a landscape . . . you start with broad sweeps, then later focussing in on details here and there with dabs of colour. The final dab means that the painting is done.

yep, saves time too and gives you an idea of how you want things to sound in the end. And if your PC starts complaining you just say "freeze!".....
Content yes, satisfied never.....

 

[Rokket]

I also have a tendency to mix as I go along, panning, compressing, adding reverb etc, before tracking another part - is this an acceptable method?

I've never personally done that, but I can see where it would help with settings on an amp or mic method you are going to use to mic an acoustic, and save time later on because you don't have to eq and compress the hell out of a track before you get it to sound right.

But I don't track to pc, I do it via a studio in a box (used to use a Fostex MR-8, but that died). So I usually track what I can fit on the thing, send those tracks to pc, bounce down a base mix, and track some more.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I'll do some faders-up testing as I go along so I can see how the reality is straying from the plan, and so I can adjust further tracking accordingly. And I'll do some stuff like tweak the tracking desk EQ and work out the pan scheme.

But personally I don't like too much actual mixing beyond that as I go. For me, that tends to simply narrow the options as I move down the tracking list so that by the time I get to the last few tracks, I have no choices left as to how they need to sound. This tends to give the earlier tracks preferential treatment. This would be fine if I could always track the most important tracks first, but this is often not possible.

Yeah, I'll be mixing in my head as I go, getting ideas and making plans (writing them down if my brain is too foggy that day), but I'll try not to waste too much time actually modding the tracks (except for the basic stuff already mentioned) until it's time to actually put the mix together. Too often this can result in my throwing much of the "pre-mixing" away and starting over with the raw tracks because of something that isn't inspired or discovered until the last few tracks are laid down.

This is not to say that one way is better than the other; just that this is how the work flow works best for how my brain is wired. Others may be just as successful mixing on the fly. I just wanted to present and explain an alternative.

G.

 

[mikeh]

I think anyone who records/mixes songs starts to tire of the song after hearing it x times - and for those would also serve the roles of songwriter, sesision musicians, arranger, engineer, etc - we may have heard/performed the song waaaay too many times before we even start to track. So you are certainly not alone!

I've tried to disipline myself to walk away from a song for a while if I start to tire of it - however, when providing a service to a client, this is not always an option.

I tend to do general mixes as I go along whcih helps me (and the client) to hear a reasonable reflection of what the end result may be. Obviously, critical decisions on EQ and specific effects/processing is delayed until a seperate mix session - but I find it helpful to keep the big picture in mind.

I think there are three very imporatent points in the discussion so far:

1. The concept of the illusive "phantom mix" - I think we all tend to think we can somehow always make the mix "just a little better".......and learning when to say enough is enough - well, that's a disipline that can take a while to master.

2. Track it right so you don't have to try to "fix it in the mix". I think most people who do this for a while have learned that the time spent on one or two extra takes to record the best, in tune perfomance - is far better than spending time trying to fix something later. I think the phrase "fix it in the mix" is a misleading and normally unrealistic expectation.

3. Seperate the mixing process from the tracking process. Not only does that reduce the potential for fatique - but as importantly, it allows you to approach the mix with hopefully a fresh perspective.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I think there are three very imporatent points in the discussion so far:

1. The concept of the illusive "phantom mix" - I think we all tend to think we can somehow always make the mix "just a little better".......and learning when to say enough is enough - well, that's a disipline that can take a while to master.

2. Track it right so you don't have to try to "fix it in the mix". I think most people who do this for a while have learned that the time spent on one or two extra takes to record the best, in tune perfomance - is far better than spending time trying to fix something later. I think the phrase "fix it in the mix" is a misleading and normally unrealistic expectation.

3. Seperate the mixing process from the tracking process. Not only does that reduce the potential for fatique - but as importantly, it allows you to approach the mix with hopefully a fresh perspective.

Very nicely summarized! Beautiful.

I'd just like to reiterate that learning to say "enough is enough" doesn't have to be that hard of a discipline to master. All it takes is two things, and even one of those is optional.

The first is to simply put a time limit on it. if you were mixing for someone else, there most certainly would be a time limit, and that would be based upon the amount of money the client was willing to pay. They're going to expect a mix of X quality done in Y time, and aren't going to sit around dishing out $25-$60 an hour just because you can't crank out two songs a day. So you're mixing for yourself? That doesn't make it free. It's still costing the client that $25-$60 an hour. The only difference is that your the client, so you're just paying yourself. In fact, you're loosing money, because you are now LOOSING that $25-$60 an hour to a client who does not pay you a dime.

Treat yourself as you would treat a client, SET A TIME LIMIT, and get that mix out there. It's really as simple as that. (It's also a good way to force you to hone your mixing skills )

An optional, but what may help deal with the time limit idea is that one comes to understand that - again, not counting fancy or large-production post-production work - after a certain amount of time, the mix is just plain not going to get any better than what one already has. I'd be very hard-pressed to think of a situation - by me or anyone else I knew - where after six hours working on a mix that the mix actually sounded a whole lot better than it did after two or three. There's a point where you just are not going to get it any better by any worthwhile degree than it is at that point.

Once one understands that as being the natural order of things, it's easy to set a time limit or to recognize when you're simply beating your head against the wall, and that another hour's worth of work will not make a rat's ass of a difference to the final listenability of the mix.

And, finally, if those doesn't work, you can simply tell yourself that none of it matters because when you put your mastering engineer's hat on, you're just going to slam everything against the wall anyway .

G.

 

[mikeh]

Treat yourself as you would treat a client, SET A TIME LIMIT, and get that mix out there. It's really as simple as that. (It's also a good way to force you to hone your mixing skills

Very good advice!!!

 

[iqi616]

I also have a tendency to mix as I go along, panning, compressing, adding reverb etc, before tracking another part - is this an acceptable method?

Yes and no. You need to do enough fixing so that it's good enough that you get off on the sound and so you choose the right sounds for the subsequent tracks. However it is important to not get into the details. Work in mono except where a particular sound is definitely stereo such as a guitar working off a delay.

Definitely avoid fine tuning EQ and compression. If you find that parts are clashing, don't try to separate them with EQ, recognize that it's more likely a problem with the arrangement and change what you're playing to avoid the clash.

 

[DavidK]

Treat yourself as you would treat a client, SET A TIME LIMIT, and get that mix out there.

Maybe. I would suggest that to those that have trouble finishing stuff.

When hanging out in the MP3 clinic, I read posts that say "I recorded this last nite". It usually sounds like they recorded it last nite. Certainly one has to have the skills and the ability to work quickly, but there also has to be a critical level of "it's not good enough" that doesn't adhere to a time limit.

I've learned through performing that if I am not 100% sold on something, the audience won't be either. The same's true with recordings: if you reach that time limit and you're not 95% pleased, you can't expect the listener to be pleased. Stick it aside if needed and come back to it.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Maybe. I would suggest that to those that have trouble finishing stuff.

When hanging out in the MP3 clinic, I read posts that say "I recorded this last nite". It usually sounds like they recorded it last nite. Certainly one has to have the skills and the ability to work quickly, but there also has to be a critical level of "it's not good enough" that doesn't adhere to a time limit.

I've learned through performing that if I am not 100% sold on something, the audience won't be either. The same's true with recordings: if you reach that time limit and you're not 95% pleased, you can't expect the listener to be pleased. Stick it aside if needed and come back to it.

I pretty much agree with all that, David, especially the come back to it later part as I said in the first post.

Also with the recording part. I'm certainly not saying that one should rush out the tracking (you know me better than that ). But in the mixing stage of mixing a small rock combo is a bit of a different story, IME. There comes a point of diminishing returns, usually sooner than later. Often times it comes out that the first instincts are the best.

But whether the first mix attempt, the second, or the tenth, after you've been at it a few hours, you're probably a good 98% of as far as you're possibly going to get, with that last 2% usually not being with the extra effort of another few hours.

G.

 

[chazba]

what he said...

I'm in agreement w/ DavidK ....if a mix is all that difficult there's something that just ain't right in one (or more) of the tracks. With me it's pitchy vocals...rarely timing problems. get it right in the tracking phase and the mix takes care of itself. Another thing...tracking at consistent levels ( -12 dbfs or so) will even out the sound. One track recorded too hot will not sound right mixed with other tracks recorded at sane levels. It's a subtle difference but something I had to discover the hard way.

Chazba

 

[MattNZ]

Tracking at consistent levels ( -12 dbfs or so) will even out the sound. One track recorded too hot will not sound right mixed with other tracks recorded at sane levels. It's a subtle difference but something I had to discover the hard way.

Chazba

This seems like good advice and it makes good sense.

Cheers for all the advice guys!