Theoretical Mixing Question

[SouthSIDE Glen]

History will look back on this period as the death of just about every type of popular music that 99% of us care about. Rock n' roll in its many forms has been so played out and been there done that after 50 years that one either is just re-running the past or beating a dead horse when digging in that mine (how's that for mixing metaphors? ) Hip hop is on life support and going nowhere fst after it's couple of decade long run in the mainstream. Name another solid form of music that has lasted any longer than either of those in the mainstream in the past 100 years.

What they're going to be replaced by, I don't rightly know. Either it's a bit too early yet to say or I'm just too out of touch to see it (a distinct possibility, as I stopped caring a few years ago); but this is most definitely as I see it a real transition period comparable to what we saw post-WWII.

G.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Another thought that I've been pondering on for a few months ~ even the Glyn Johns and George Martins had to constantly change as technology changed and artist demands and requirements increased. A couple of years ago I read Richie Unterberger's books "Turn turn turn" and "8 miles high" about the genesis and evolution of folk~rock and it's impact on popular music. As I was reading, I pondered on how all those engineers and producers were faced with something they'd never faced before ~ namely, scaling electric guitars, bass guitars, drums, organs, mellotrons, sitars, tablas, horns, flutes, electric pianos etc and a whole slew of increasingly popular studio effects on fairly simple acoustic guitar, double bass (obviously with varying other acoustic instrumentation) music. But it was true of all genres. And as new ones sprung up and cross pollinated with others, the people capturing the sounds onto tape had to adjust, change, discard, invent, experiment, work out where to place what and which instrument worked best with whom and to a large extent, define what was there before them.
So although the 'masters of the art' would make a good job of our stuff, even if presented with not top of the range equipment, it's not some kind of effortless magic that comes tumbling out of them. It would still be work because every song is different and requires something different. Whenever I read interviews with engineers/producers, I never get the impression that it's all an easy doddle for them.

In George Martin's case, he was an orchestrator before producing pop acts. His job was specifically to flesh out a chord structure and melody with lots of strings, horns etc. Doing that to folk-rock with different instruments would have not been a big jump.

 

[CFox]

I guess, to be fair, I put it quite a bit more strongly than was needed - the guy right above me was arguing "Yes, it can be done, and the way to do it is to use sampled drums and software amp sims." I disagree with that, at least stated that categorically.

Of course, I rebutted with another categorical statement, so I'm no better.

So, what in effect are you saying with your assertion that you guarantee that George Martin and Glyn Johns wouldn't use realistic amp sims or multi velocity layered drum samples triggered by the latest multi velocity V-drums ?

Are you saying you can tell the difference between recorded mixed and mastered tracks that use that amp sims and V-drums and recorded mixed and mastered tracks that use real amps and real drums ? Can you provide instances pls ?

I think the mistake people make in assessing amp sims is that they compare the sound coming out of their monitors to the earth moving sound coming out of their own real amp cranked to 11 in their own space with its own colourization.

I think the mistake people make assessing Addictive Drums and Superior Drummer 2 is they dont understand how they are operate. They use dry, unprocessed samples recorded at many velocities ( 12 gig in the case of S2) . They then offer a mixing section where eq, compression,microphone bleed, other fx and a sound stage using convolution reverb can be applied - essentially giving anything from a garage to stage, to a highly processed, polished studio sound. Played through a decent set of V-drums and I challenge you and them to tell the difference.

 

[PDP]

Sounds impossible to answer.

 

[BLP]

When travelling the road to perfection of recording quality, we tend to miss the turn at making good music

 

[flatfinger]

I seem to remember hearing the same complaints and observations back in the 70's, then again in the 80's, then again in the 90's... There are always those who think the good old days were better. Which generation you are from will determine specifically which good old days are being talked about.

Chances are, the time period that you consider 'the golden era' was being complained about in a similar fashion by someone a generation older than you. It's the cycle of life.

"Every generation laughs at the old fashions but follows religiously the new"


-THOREAU



I'm not talking about the predisposition to hold a fondness for the music of ones own youth ; There are musical universals and values that transcend genres. As a person who aspires to compose , I am always forcing myself out of my comfort zone in an effort to avoid repetition and writing the same song again and again .

I've found music that resonates with me that has not been from inside my comfort zone ; and , It is a wonderfull thing when it happens ! But , And I'm very bummed to have to say this , There aren't enough hours in a day to sift through the tsunami wave of stuff that the new system throws out there ( an unprecedented amount of which , is simply mere "thrown against the wall to test for possible sticking " efforts .)

I'm painfully aware that there very probably is some new stuff I'm missing out on !!

It's not complicated , it just that there was a division of responsibilities , and now there are few rewards to devoting oneself to composition only. So in relationship to all the things an individual is expected to attend to , short cuts are inevitable .


All I can say , is that for myself at least ( and it isn't for lack of trying either !!! ) there just doesn't seem to be the same amount of material that is " the real deal "..........; stuff that really grabs me by the short hairs so to speak.... Stuff that communicates emotion in an undeniable way . Something that just gets under the skin and leaves you no choice but to remember it!!! ;............. I could be wrong in thinking that that used to happen more often a few decades ago , or , maybe (probably) I was a different person then ( But by that much ??)


So maybe I'm just getting to be an old fart ........ Or maybe there's more to it than that .



Anyhow , sorry to the OP for the hijack ;

( just don't forget , no matter how good the technical quality of your recordings , I'm saying to you that you need to aspire to a whole lot more ... Write some good songs ; first and foremost !!!!!!!!!!!



.

 

[kcearl]

purely a romanticized notion that what was made then was better.....Theres tonnes of stuff Ive heard since my youth that is great, superb recordings, production, songwriting, yet I can still listen to the songs that I listened to when I was a teen over and over and over again....in truth they are not any better, many are worse...they just remind me of a period in life where music was new and something to be explored

funny the stuff I ignored back then due to a snobbishness that modern music was crap (sound familiar?) is the stuff I like to hear most now....

 

[PDP]

purely a romanticized notion that what was made then was better.........

Yup, its stored in the memory as seeming bigger, with a larger impact, its just each individuals personal experience.

 

[Farview]

All I can say , is that for myself at least ( and it isn't for lack of trying either !!! ) there just doesn't seem to be the same amount of material that is " the real deal "..........; stuff that really grabs me by the short hairs so to speak.... Stuff that communicates emotion in an undeniable way . Something that just gets under the skin and leaves you no choice but to remember it!!! ;............. I could be wrong in thinking that that used to happen more often a few decades ago , or , maybe (probably) I was a different person then ( But by that much ??)

There is something to be said about the old record company system. It made sure that the staff at a company whose business it is to put out music believed in that music enough to put a ton of effort and money behind it. Fewer acts were out there, but there was a vetting process. There was also time allowed to develop acts. You would get a couple albums to get your act together and sell something before you got dropped. (That isn't the case anymore)

Now, anyone has the budget to put something out. Everyone with a website, facebook, myspace, etc... can get the word out. Anyone can get their stuff on iTunes.

There is no one making any judgements about whether or not the public should be subjected to it or not. Even though I'm sure a lot of good music didn't see the light of day under that system, it certainly weeded out a lot of the drek that simply didn't deserve to be there.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

"I believe what really happens in history is this: the old man is always wrong; and the young people are always wrong about what is wrong with him.

The practical form it takes is this: that, while the old man may stand by some stupid custom, the young man always attacks it with some theory that turns out to be equally stupid."

The whole debate of past vs. present is mostly idiotic on BOTH sides.

The one thing that's for sure; there are only so many ways that people can write and sing about wanting the girl/guy, not getting the girl/guy, loosing the girl/guy, being poor or having a job that sucks, or bitching about war, and only so many ways to apply such lyrics to some set of blues-based two- or three-chord progressions laid out in a base four bar format.

After 60 or so years of mass production and distribution of music, mostly based upon some permutation of those formulas, the well is virtually dry. Any further efforts in those respects will almost be assured to be a simple variation on something already done. Does that make one better than the other? I don't think so; it only makes the old one sufficient enough for the old timer not to need the modern re-hash and the new one to be proprietary to the young timer to rally behind as their own.

G.

 

[ermghoti]

purely a romanticized notion that what was made then was better.....

A forgivable notion. The crap that dominated the airwaves in the 50s, 60s, 70s, whatever, is never heard from again. Hank Williams Sr, Chuck Berry, The Beatles, Cream, Led Zeppelin, and AC/DC are in heavy rotation. The illusion is that the old music was better, but it is closer to the truth that only better old music tends to be heard.

 

[flatfinger]

A forgivable notion. The crap that dominated the airwaves in the 50s, 60s, 70s, whatever, is never heard from again. Hank Williams Sr, Chuck Berry, The Beatles, Cream, Led Zeppelin, and AC/DC are in heavy rotation. The illusion is that the old music was better, but it is closer to the truth that only better old music tends to be heard.

A very good observation , and , an important one ; That's why , in my original post , I questioned of how the last few decades will be judged In Fifty years .

Of course time separates the wheat from the chaff , as it should . Thats the best measure of the quality ............. So which tunes from the last twenty will still be in heavy rotation in 2060 ?????? Who are this generations Beatles, Cream, Led Zeppelin, and AC/DC???


Seriously , like I said , I want to find the best stuff for my ears , so give me the best stuff you can think of ... stuff you truly believe will stand the test of time !!!!

 

[moresound]

I'm sure if we all mix very good, all of our music will be heard in every elevator 50 years from now.

 

[mshilarious]

Name another solid form of music that has lasted any longer than either of those in the mainstream in the past 100 years.

Country and gospel both have charts and are older than R&R and hip-hop.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

Seriously , like I said , I want to find the best stuff for my ears , so give me the best stuff you can think of ... stuff you truly believe will stand the test of time !!!!

Strangely, we've been having this exact conversation over at another board I run recently. There's nothing like a consensus so far, but my vote is Dave Grohl, for the Foo Fighters plus his work with Nirvana before and Queens of the Stone Age and a whole bunch of other pretty successful projects afterwards, and Jack White, who's actually a criminally underrated guitarist, most likely by his own choosing, who brings an almost nonexistant amount of attitude to modern music both in the White Stripes (a band I REALLY wanted to hate, but couldn't) and the Racounteers.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Country and gospel both have charts and are older than R&R and hip-hop.

What passes for "country" today on the top charts is little more than pop that comes from Tenessee instead of LA or NY. What used to be called "Country & Western" and topped the C&W charts with artists like Conway Twitty and Hank Williams Sr. is no longer anywhere near mainstream and charts only for a very narrow demographic. Even the old guys that are still around don't do C&W anymore. Witness Willie Nelson and the last days of Johnny Cash.

And yeah, gospel is still around. But so is big band, jve, beebop, folk and ragtime. But none of them have sold any head turning amounts of music in years, if at all. Christian rock has gotten fairly large in the last few years, and has (I think) well overtaken gospel in public popularity, but except for maybe some geographic regions of the south, is far from a charting genre with any regularity except for an equally narrow demographic as C&W.

G.

 

[flatfinger]

I'm sure if we all mix very good, all of our music will be heard in every elevator 50 years from now.

WHAT , !!!

Jesus ! STILL WON"T HAVE ROCKET PACKS ?????? WHATS THE HOLD UP !!!!!!!



Thanks DrewPeterson7!!


Keep em comin folks !!! MAKE MY DAY !!








Glen ,
genres have an infancy , a breakout period, and a crest , and then most settle into the status of INFASTRUCTURE an mostly , never really go away .

( Sort of sounds like you BUT. I love you man )

 

[D_Vincent]

I was trying to find info on some of the effects Jimmy Page used for certain songs and came across a page about mixing...Jimmy basically said if you can get the sound you want while your recording there really isnt much to do mixing wise after that.

------------------

My opinion...

Zep's recordings arent perfect or anything...I notice a bunch of stuff in the mixes listening to the songs on the computer once I ripped the songs from CD and created a WAV file of it however overall the mixes hold up nicely and he did a great job on a lot of the mixes.

I notice a squeak (sounds like coming from kick drum) in Houses of the holy off of the physical graffiti album...never noticed it before untill recently...could just be my ears however I hear a faint squeak through out the song.

 

[mshilarious]

What passes for "country" today on the top charts is little more than pop that comes from Tenessee instead of LA or NY. What used to be called "Country & Western" and topped the C&W charts with artists like Conway Tiitty and Hank Williams Sr. is no longer anywhere near mainstream ans charts only for a very narrow demographic. Even the old guys that are still around don't do C&W anymore. Witness Willie Nelson and the last days of Johnny Cash.

You could say the exact same thing about R&R, and you'd be right.

And yeah, gospel is still around. But so Is big band, jive, beebop and ragtime. But none of them have sold any head turning amounts of music in yearsm if at all.

You're wrong there, gospel music (by that I mean the kind black people make and listen to) sells as well as it ever has, and has penetration on FM radio in most major markets. None of that is true of the other genres you compare.

Also, there is still a huge amount of cross-pollination between R&B and gospel (and rap). But there are still distinct characteristics to many forms of gospel music that you won't hear in R&B or rap.

Here is a good example of gospel's continuing popularity:

http://www.aolradioblog.com/2010/03/24/marvin-sapps-here-i-am-highest-ranking-gospel-album/

(I'm not a huge Marvin Sapp fan, but he's OK. He is definitely gospel though and *not* R&B).

Christian rock has gotten fairly large in the last few years, and has (I think) well overtaken gospel in public popularity, but except for maybe some geographic regions of the south, is far from a charting genre with any regularity except for an equally narrow demographic as C&W.

Christian rock (by that I mean the kind white people make and listen to) sucks. Unlike gospel, its origin from mountain/old time/bluegrass, quartets, and country is largely ignored, which is a bit odd as it's almost the same group of musicians who crank out modern country. But since it sucks, no one really cares

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Glen , genres have an infancy , a breakout period, and a crest , and then most settle into the status of INFASTRUCTURE an mostly , never really go away

Absolutely; every genre of the last 100 years is still around. But that's not what we were talking about; the question was what will this time in the history of American music be remembered for. My opinion (and that's all it is) that we are in a transition period where rock and hip hop will be relegated to the same corners of historical relics as jazz and psychedelica; still around, but no longer what mainstream culture cares about.

What it will all be replaced by I don't know. It seems like there's a preponderance of what is lamely called "R&B" these days, but much of that is about as R&B and today's "Country" is C&W; both are more just flavors of pop separated more by race that by any important differences in music. I'd rather not believe that the future is in the homoginiztion of genres into one big super-pop, so there must (hopefully) be something else coming down the pike.

G.