What Do You Guys Think of This Mix?

[Magnawolf]

According to who? You. Fine, I disagree, welcome to the world of personal taste. So have a lot of albums that I'm sure you wouldn't like. Is that how you validate your opinion on something? Based on what "many" others think?
Besides the fact I was only talking about this one song. Maybe I'd love the rest of the album, but this song did nothing for me as far as "creativity" is concerned. Don't take it personally, I'm not attacking you or that band.
I listened to a few of your songs. I'm going to reserve giving any opinion because I don't want this to turn itno a "your music sucks....well so does yours" type of thing. I'll just say that you're in no position to get on your high horse about how "everyone else on this board" mixes. Believe me. I'm in no position to do that either, which is why I don't.

I could say my opinion is validated to some degree if it coincides to a unanimous opinion. Doesn't validate it 100% and never will but it validates it nonetheless.

I didn't take anything you said personally. All I said was that in this case, this album is different AND better because you said that different =/= better.

I don't know why you think I'm on my high horse; I never said anything about my mixes being perfect. I wouldn't be posting here if I wasn't open to the idea of learning new things. I wouldn't have posted this mix if I wasn't open to the idea of bringing new ideas to people I've never met. We're all here to learn. I have never said anyone's mixes suck at all; find a post where I have and I will reward you. All I give on this board is constructive criticism; that's what this board is about.

The purpose of the thread was to show people that there is not a universal way to approach music. Even if I summoned that notion onto one person who has viewed this thread (which I may or may not have) then my job is done. We're here to get better, including me. My post did seem a bit condescending but I was agreeing with a user's comment, just expanding on the idea.

 

[RAMI]

I don't know why you think I'm on my high horse; ............ My post did seem a bit condescending

You answered your own question there.

I could say my opinion is validated to some degree if it coincides to a unanimous opinion

So, I guess you have the whole Menudo, Lady Gaga, and Britney Spears discography? Can't have it both ways.
Also, you might want to look up the definition of "unanimous".


I'm just sayin.........

Carry on without me, I didn't really mean to disturb the thread........

 

[Magnawolf]

For the record, I actually do think Lady Gaga is great. Her first album anyways.

 

[jaynm26]

Believe me. I'm in no position to do that either, which is why I don't.

Um Yea you are RAMI! You in perfect position to get on your high horses about "mixing" you have experience and some soild mixing and ability so yea you get on that High Ass clydesdale and ride that thang RAMI! "THIS IS SPARTAAA!!!!!!!"...."did I take it to far guys!!??

 

[dobro]

I'm with Magnawolf on this one. Most mixes I've heard on this board aim at 'respectability' mix-wise. I haven't heard anything much here that's very adventurous, really. (Point me to them if I'm wrong.) I'd love to explore a bit of mix adventure, though, but I don't know where to begin. It might be fun to analyze that mix he linked to.

And I said it and mixmkr said it - you need to know the basics before you start stretching out. But I bet there are some people on this page who could start to do that if they wanted to.

 

[heatmiser]

Damn, I really like that band. I've been hearing this tune and Elephant and a few others of theirs on the radio lately and, along with MGMT, these are newer sorts of bands that I can really appreciate.

They kind of sound like John Lennon singing lead vocals for the Flaming Lips to me. I absolutely love the drum sounds they get. Anyone know how to approach achieving that sort of sound? I hear it elsewhere (like some flaming lips) and it's a specific sound that I've never been able to come close to. Forget the kit and the player and the mics...isn't there some cheap post-processing trickery I can employ to get there....anyone?

As far as relating this mix to this clinic, I think it's kind of apples and oranges, you know? I don't know that a lot of the music I hear here would benefit from these sorts of processing techniques. I think this sound (adventurous if you want to call it that) is pretty specific to the psychedelic genres (which I like, but many do not). There's a lot of people here good at crafting classic rock or punk or electronic kind of tracks and I get the feeling that they want them to sound more or less the way that they do. I don't expect that they're secretly wishing they could sound more like tame impala. It's pretty subjective, right?

dobro makes some good points about getting the basics down first and I think that's where most hobbyists like myself are at. I would love to be able to create more lush, offbeat productions like this one, but I find that it isn't nearly so easy as simply deciding to do so. Trust me on that.

 

[jaynm26]

There is a fine line between unconventional mixing and shitty!

 

[dobro]

It's not a fine line if you know what you're doing.

 

[dobro]

I think this sound (adventurous if you want to call it that) is pretty specific to the psychedelic genres (which I like, but many do not).

I think it probably requires an interesting arrangement. I doubt that somebody who mixed like this gives a damn about genre.

There's a lot of people here good at crafting classic rock or punk or electronic kind of tracks and I get the feeling that they want them to sound more or less the way that they do. I don't expect that they're secretly wishing they could sound more like tame impala. It's pretty subjective, right?

Or maybe they just never thought about the possibility because they've been aiming at something they've already heard. 1) I don't aim at a genre sound when I write, record or mix. 2) I don't want to sound like Tame Impala. 3) I'm really impressed by their sound.

dobro makes some good points about getting the basics down first and I think that's where most hobbyists like myself are at. I would love to be able to create more lush, offbeat productions like this one, but I find that it isn't nearly so easy as simply deciding to do so. Trust me on that.

Well, if you can see patterns you can make patterns (and that doesn't necessarily mean copying patterns). So what are they actually doing in that mix?

I'll start. The opening: the drums sound more or less normal, but what's the sound on the guitars? To my ears, it sounds like a combination of radical EQ, delay, and some sort of grainy distortion. What does it sound like to you?

 

[rpm61]

I don't find this different, just different today. It's been done, a long time ago. I actually like this sound but to me it's a cop-out to reach back in time and swipe a sound that feels good today because it hasn't been heard in a while. They call it retro, but the psych sound in the 60s was created by people rackin their brains and trying new things, breaking rules and finding great new sounds. There is so much that hasn't been done and so much yet to be discovered IMO, cop the attitude and the approach, not the sound.

 

[miroslav]

I couldn't listen past the first minute....it's just annoyingly washed out and sloppy wet. The guitars and vocals fight on almost every note since they are basically in the same octave. There's also a real disconnect with the drums and the rest of the song...like they were cobbled together from two different productions.

The "originality" of doing something like that will only work for maybe one tune and will hit mainly the "novelty" button, which can be cool to do for one song. Try doing that for every song, and then you realize why more "textbook" mixing just works for the longterm, and novelty will not.

It's like building a house in a triangle shape. It might look different and even cool...but you quckly learn that it just doesn't work doing it more than once.
If you always go for "novelty"....you quickly run out of things you can do and keep doing over.

I like when people get imaginative and try the totally odd approach to a production, but sometimes folks think just 'cuz they came up with it, and it's "weird/different"...then it must also be better. Not always the case.

 

[fat_fleet]

You know, I heard stuff off Innerspeaker and never really pursued these guys, though I didn't really mind what I heard. Then I heard some songs from this one and immediately thought 'sophomore slump', but hearing it again here I think I'm coming around...especially seeing the lively discussion it's generating...one which I can't keep my fat trap out of.

I'm with Magnawolf on this one. Most mixes I've heard on this board aim at 'respectability' mix-wise. I haven't heard anything much here that's very adventurous, really. (Point me to them if I'm wrong.) I'd love to explore a bit of mix adventure, though, but I don't know where to begin. It might be fun to analyze that mix he linked to.

I agree with most of what you're saying, but to expect the level of creativity (I think) you're talking about from each and every member might be placing a burden that a public forum like this can't sustain (hopefully that doesn't offend anyone). There are a few members making really unique stuff, but I would say over 90% easy are striving to match a template. It can be a great place to get opinions on mixes, so long as you take the advice with a grain of salt and take into account who's giving the feedback- I've seen members post songs and have literally one person comment before the OP changes their mix to suit the taste of that one person.

I don't find this different, just different today. It's been done, a long time ago. I actually like this sound but to me it's a cop-out to reach back in time and swipe a sound that feels good today because it hasn't been heard in a while. They call it retro, but the psych sound in the 60s was created by people rackin their brains and trying new things, breaking rules and finding great new sounds. There is so much that hasn't been done and so much yet to be discovered IMO, cop the attitude and the approach, not the sound.

Ok, I'm a huge psych/60s fan and this does not sound to me like something that would have been made in that time period. This sounds partly influenced by older stuff, but it has a much more contemporary indie sound. Are you thinking of anything in particular? I'm kind of curious now. Also I don't know what you mean by "cop-out". Music is all about combining influences.

I couldn't listen past the first minute....it's just annoyingly washed out and sloppy wet. The guitars and vocals fight on almost every note since they are basically in the same octave. There's also a real disconnect with the drums and the rest of the song...like they were cobbled together from two different productions.

The "originality" of doing something like that will only work for maybe one tune and will hit mainly the "novelty" button, which can be cool to do for one song. Try doing that for every song, and then you realize why more "textbook" mixing just works for the longterm, and novelty will not.

It's like building a house in a triangle shape. It might look different and even cool...but you quckly learn that it just doesn't work doing it more than once.
If you always go for "novelty"....you quickly run out of things you can do and keep doing over.

I like when people get imaginative and try the totally odd approach to a production, but sometimes folks think just 'cuz they came up with it, and it's "weird/different"...then it must also be better. Not always the case.

Lol, miro, I've heard your stuff. You certainly have your ducks in a row recording-wise and I would definitely take your advice on things like mic placement and gain staging with tentative seriousness, but to be honest I'm not at all surprised that you are not digging this and use such subjective language to express that. Some listeners' ears just need more adventure. Not sure I saw anyone make a case for "'weird/different' [being] better" though...

 

[heatmiser]

I think it probably requires an interesting arrangement. I doubt that somebody who mixed like this gives a damn about genre.

Yeah, obviously a lot of this sound comes from the arrangement itself as opposed to specific production techniques. I think I read the guy that does the songwriting and most of the tracking describe their sound as psychedelic, so I think he's comfortable being placed in that camp.

Or maybe they just never thought about the possibility because they've been aiming at something they've already heard. 1) I don't aim at a genre sound when I write, record or mix. 2) I don't want to sound like Tame Impala. 3) I'm really impressed by their sound.

Yes, I think a lot of people are aiming for a kind of sound they've already heard. Probably Tame Impala is too in some way.

Maybe I didn't explain that well. I didn't mean to focus on genres so much, but I do think a lot of people are comfortable working within the parameters of certain, broad genres and that's fine. They have expectations for the overall sound as do their listeners. I think they're fully aware of many other possibilities and choose not to pursue them for their own artistic reasons or whatever.

Your music to me isn't easy to classify, and I get from this thread that you'd like to branch out and experiment more and take more risks, which is cool too. I feel the same. I too do not aim at a genre when I record, but I still get results that are often too conventional for my own tastes as a listener.

So what are they actually doing in that mix?

I'll start. The opening: the drums sound more or less normal, but what's the sound on the guitars? To my ears, it sounds like a combination of radical EQ, delay, and some sort of grainy distortion. What does it sound like to you?

You think the drums sound normal? To me, that is a very unique and heavily processed sound that I can't grasp. The cymbal wash has this long soft mid-rangey quality to it, and the overall sound is really big. Almost like it had a ton of verb and then was compressed heavier than normal? I dunno. Bulls Hit on this forum gets a similar effect with drums sometimes and I've tried to get him to spill the beans on that to no avail.

Yeah, I hear a light, grainy distortion of the guitar with a delay that seems to be in stereo.

Miro's right objectively about the vox and guitars blending together, but I like it and think it works great here. All their tunes have that same general quality to me and the "novelty" hasn't worn off yet. I don't really care so much about lyrics anyway.

 

[heatmiser]

I don't hear this as particularly retro either. It sounds pretty new to me, with varied influences.

Sure, the vox kind of sound magical mystery tour-esque, but the drum/bass combo sounds distinctly modern to me. If you took out the guitars and vox, I actually think you could fashion a decent trip hop sort of track over the rhythm track here.

 

[dobro]

They call it retro, but the psych sound in the 60s was created by people rackin their brains and trying new things, breaking rules and finding great new sounds. There is so much that hasn't been done and so much yet to be discovered IMO, cop the attitude and the approach, not the sound.

Part of this tune reminds me of the Beatles, so maybe Impala *did* copy that sound. Or maybe not. Maybe they just got to that sound by reaching for something new. Anyway, two things:

First, 'cop the attitude and the approach, not the sound'. The Beatles were arguably one of the most experimental pop groups to ever waltz through the ballroom. They did both - they copied and they experimented. However, I agree with you that the approach is more important than the copying.

Second, can you point me to some stuff that's mixed in a way that you think is original and cool?

 

[dobro]

I agree with most of what you're saying, but to expect the level of creativity (I think) you're talking about from each and every member might be placing a burden that a public forum like this can't sustain (hopefully that doesn't offend anyone). There are a few members making really unique stuff, but I would say over 90% easy are striving to match a template.

Sure, okay, let's talk about the other 10%. The reason I like Greg's stuff for instance is because he focuses on good sound and because he's imaginative. A lot of the time, his sound is in a punk genre - that's cool when the focus is on the words or an arrangement with a cool shift - the interest is maintained by what's going on, so the mix sound is less important. But he also knows how to change things up and do something daft and wonderful. 'Knows how to leave the template' is how I would describe it, although with him I think leaving the template is more about the song and the arrangement than the mix.

Another thing is that the psychology of avoidance can also generate a pretty tame mix. When I mix, I'm aiming at separation and clarity, plus there's a strong fear of of not wanting the whole thing to sound like my bum smells. 'Playing it safe' rather than 'exploring possibilities', in other words. You can't be creative when you're just trying to avoid mistakes. Can you think of examples of stuff posted here where somebody's done something kinda interesting mixwise?

 

[dobro]

You think the drums sound normal? To me, that is a very unique and heavily processed sound that I can't grasp. The cymbal wash has this long soft mid-rangey quality to it, and the overall sound is really big. Almost like it had a ton of verb and then was compressed heavier than normal? I dunno. Bulls Hit on this forum gets a similar effect with drums sometimes and I've tried to get him to spill the beans on that to no avail.

Yeah, I hear a light, grainy distortion of the guitar with a delay that seems to be in stereo.

Which just goes to show how little experience I have in mixing drums. The guitars: is it a stereo delay or double-tracking panned hard left and right?

 

[miroslav]

...but to be honest I'm not at all surprised that you are not digging this and use such subjective language to express that. Some listeners' ears just need more adventure. Not sure I saw anyone make a case for "'weird/different' [being] better" though...

I think you misjudge me.
I actually listen to and like a lot of music that is not done as a "textbook" recording production...but there is a difference in doing something unusual and having it sound good, and doing something unusual and it just sounds bad.
IMO, for the song in this thread...the way the guitars and vocals mush and try to override each other to where both are blurred and sloppy sounding....isn't really serving the song at all.
I would pull back the over-the-top reverb on them (and I like reverb)...and do something with the arrangement so that both are a little more articulate. The drums just don't sound right relative to the rest, and are disconnected from the vocals and guitars, because they have a totally different room sound.
Those things can be addressed and the song can still maintain the overall intent/vibe...so IMO, it's just bad mixing, and not a question of having to specifically follow a "textbook" process. It reminds me of crude band practice recordings done in some lousy, empty space, with poorly placed mics, with everyone trying to be louder then their bandmates.

I do notice a lot of "lo-fi" guys who think it's always ALL good, no matter what they do....but honestly, not all lo-fi sounds good. Much of it is just plain crappy...though the guys doing it always argue that you must not be "getting it".
My view is that lo-fi or odd productions should not be done just for the sake of NOT following "textbook" processes.....rather you do them only when they really serve the song.
I think too often there are people who just do them for the sake of doing them, or they don't know how to serve the song or they just don't know how to do it better...and then the song becomes the victim.

I grew up on "lo-fi" music....lots of AM radio mono stuff and early stereo that was often weird sounding, with stuff panned oddly, and a lot of it recorded crudely...and I still liked that music, but that music was done that way NOT because they were trying to be "lo-fi" and avoiding any standardized processes (OK, maybe some were) ...they just hadn't yet formulated any "textbook" techniques for modern Pop/Rock recording at that time, and it was new ground they were breaking.
Often these days when guys try too hard to sound "lo-fi"....they miss that point.

That said...I certainly will admit that I tend to go for more "textbook", polished productions (I don't always succeed).

Not to go off on a Beatles tangent, just using them as an example... back in the '60s, they did a lot of groundbreaking techniques and odd productions...and yet there WAS a certain quality and well-done feel to them, and not just a sonic mess.

 

[Magnawolf]

I think you misjudge me.
I actually listen to and like a lot of music that is not done as a "textbook" recording production...but there is a difference in doing something unusual and having it sound good, and doing something unusual and it just sounds bad.
IMO, for the song in this thread...the way the guitars and vocals mush and try to override each other to where both are blurred and sloppy sounding....isn't really serving the song at all.

Those things can be addressed and the song can still maintain the overall intent/vibe...so IMO, it's just bad mixing, and not a question of having to specifically follow a "textbook" process. It reminds me of crude band practice recordings done in some lousy, empty space, with poorly placed mics, with everyone trying to be louder then their bandmates.

I think if you're not prepared to listen to this style of mixing, it may be a bit off-putting on first listen. To say it's just "bad mixing" is a tad ridiculous. Dave Fridmann, the one who mixed the album, is one of the best producers in the indie scene. Also, I doubt an album with "bad mixing" would garner rave reviews, including album of the year by Rolling Stone, Triple J, NME, Filter Magazine, Urban Outfitters, FasterLouder and Obscure Sound's 2012 Album of the Year polls. I'm not saying it actually is the best album of the year, I'm just saying I doubt an album with bad mixing would ever be considered album of the year by many reputable music publications.

It's analogous to Picasso's contemporaries disregarding his cubism work. Yes, it was radical and avant-garde but radical ideas are the only things that advance art. All the great musicians, artists, directors, etc have been considered great because they pushed the boundaries of what was acceptable at the time in their field of work.

I don't think Tame Impala is as derivative as one may seem. Sure, it is influenced by sounds of previous decades, but they're still making something that no one has made or is currently making.

I absolutely love the drum sounds they get. Anyone know how to approach achieving that sort of sound? I hear it elsewhere (like some flaming lips) and it's a specific sound that I've never been able to come close to. Forget the kit and the player and the mics...isn't there some cheap post-processing trickery I can employ to get there....anyone?

DBX 165A COMPRESSOR
"Another gem from the 1980s. This compressor makes the drums sound like bombs going off. It’s like Led Zeppelin’s John Bonham playing a hip-hop beat. Just a monstrous sound, like you’ve stuck a microphone up the backside of a drum kit. The 165A is a sonic doomsday weapon. I don’t use it to control the volume; I set it tightly and aggressively, and that way, the drums become really urgent and immediate." - Kevin Parker of Tame Impala

Also, he has a very basic kit: snare, kick, hi-hat, hi-tom, floor tom and ride/crash. He records the kit minimally as well, using only two overheads and a snare and kick mic.

 

[miroslav]

I think if you're not prepared to listen to this style of mixing, it may be a bit off-putting on first listen. To say it's just "bad mixing" is a tad ridiculous. Dave Fridmann, the one who mixed the album, is one of the best producers in the indie scene. Also, I doubt an album with "bad mixing" would garner rave reviews, including album of the year by Rolling Stone, Triple J, NME, Filter Magazine, Urban Outfitters, FasterLouder and Obscure Sound's 2012 Album of the Year polls. I'm not saying it actually is the best album of the year, I'm just saying I doubt an album with bad mixing would ever be considered album of the year by many reputable music publications.

Look...you asked what people thought of the mix...I don't care for it at all, and that's NOT because I prefer only one kind of mix style, so it's not about being "put off" by avant-garde styles...I just don't like THIS mix, to me it sounds "bad". I even listend to it a second and third time...and it didn't sound any better, though the song is good.

I don't think it does the music justice, though maybe it does for the producer.
You can take that same song and mix it 5 different ways, and I bet the song wouldn't sound worse for it...it's not like that one mix made the song, IMHO, it was just the producer's choice to do it radically.
I also don't think that you need to be radical to push creativity. Yes, sometimes it works, but it's not always going to "advance" the art. You can still do a mix as "textbook" as possible, and it could still be very artistic and current edge, since there's much more to a song than just the mix.

AFA "album of the year" and all that...now your talking popularity, marketing, subjective tastes in music...etc...etc...etc...but that's not always going to automatically make *the mix* more likeable or better than one that doesn't get "album of the year". Music publications don't necessarily listen to just the mix to make their choices.

Did you want/expect everyone here to just say they loved it because of what it is...?