What Do You Guys Think of This Mix?

[Magnawolf]

"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. 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 was only bitter because you said that the song was bad mixing. I don't care if you don't like it or not, I'm here to discuss why I disagree completely. The music would easily be way worse if the mixing and production weren't the way that it sounds. Everyone involved in the creative process of the album knows that. If the album didn't have the "wall of sound", "Lo-fi" type production, it wouldn't have been as a great of an album. If you were to ask the mixer and the songwriter themselves, they would tell you the same thing. A lot of the praise for the album has been for the way it was produced/mixed.

"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."

Art by definition cannot change/advance unless new techniques are employed in pushing the art. Yes, a song can still be good without disrupting the formula of making a song, but ultimately the artists that change the way music is made are the ones that challenge the way music is formulated. I do agree with you, that just because something is radical for the sake of being radical, then it may or may not advance the art. However, all advancements in art are due to radical ideas.

"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."

All I was saying is that if the mix was as bad as you made it out to be then it wouldn't have received universal acclaim. Yes there are a lot of factors in determining AOTY, mixing/production is one of them, and it's an important one.

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

Absolutely not. I expected the reactions that I'm getting. But I'm also here to oppose the people that say that the mix sucks by telling them that the production is not a messy unintentional chaotic blob of noise but rather a very carefully designed approach to music that challenges the listener, contrary to the vapid music that a lot of artists are making today.

 

[fat_fleet]

I think you misjudge me.

Nah, I don't think I judged you. I just made a comment about your professed dislike of this sound, and how, having heard your stuff, it doesn't surprise me that you don't like it.

Of course taste is subjective. A lot of music I like tends to be lo-fi in nature, but not because I chase that as a recording aesthetic, more because many bands I like recorded before computers made it possible for a 15 year old to mix a lavish full-blown production in his bedroom and also recorded on a shoe string budget. I'm not talking about Tame Impala anymore. I generally think marginalized people make great music. Not all the time, but someone who struggles and suffers to do it is going to write the "important sounding" song before some guy who makes a shit ton of money and craps out albums between coke binges and blow jobs from hookers. Lots of times the low production aesthetic is incidental, but I like some lavishly produced stuff too. Ultimately (for me) it's about the song and how well you can convince me you really mean what you're saying.

 

[fat_fleet]

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

I know you're just answering the earlier questions about their drums but I just gotta say- whatever magic they have is not about owning a DBX165A compressor. It's the playing and the songwriting. It's a too common misconception around here that you can replicate your favorite artist by having the right gear, and I just think that attitude is lame and should be discouraged. If the song is in you, you'll make it happen with or without the right Elecro Harmonix boxes or vintage compressors from the 80s.

It's analogous to Picasso's contemporaries disregarding his cubism work.

radical

avant-garde

radical ideas

advance art

pushed the boundaries of what was acceptable

making something that no one has made or is currently making

creative process [....] great [...] album

Art [....] change/advance [....] new techniques [...] pushing the art

radical,

all advancements in art are due to radical ideas.

... a very carefully designed approach to music that challenges the listener, contrary to the vapid music that a lot of artists are making today.[/B]

Lol, ok ok. You're making this too easy for miro and others by treating this album like the second coming of Christ. Tame Impala are freakin' HUGE. You're not talking about some dangerous underground artist making sounds outside the realm of pop acceptability.

Here's a clip of the radical progressive Tame Impala a couple years back daring to appear on the late night talk show of the dangerous subversive Jimmy Fallon while he controversially pimps the Innerspeaker LP and teenage girls dance away mindlessly (and dangerously) behind them:



Don't get me wrong, I like their stuff alright, but some perspective is in order. If you're interested, I can point you to about 50 artists that did stuff 30+ years ago that was much more edgy and experimental, who never got invited to play on the late late show. Of course they weren't as young and cute and sharply dressed either.

 

[dobro]

They could do with Thom Yorke fronting them. lol

This is the best thead ever.

But synth guitar! Damn. Now I want a Godin.

 

[miroslav]

But I'm also here to oppose the people that say that the mix sucks by telling them that the production is not a messy unintentional chaotic blob of noise but rather a very carefully designed approach to music that challenges the listener, contrary to the vapid music that a lot of artists are making today.

And that's your perspective, and from a subjective point...equally as valid as mine when I say it's a bad mix to my ears.
I listen to all kinds of music, so I'm not just focused on one style, so that's not why I don't like this mix.
To tell the truth, I never heard that song before, and had NO idea it was some name producer or band...so my perspective was not biased in any way.
I think when you know who the band is, and that the album got kudos in some magazines...your perspective becomes tainted, and you're going to have a different opinion BEFORE you even hear it...especially if it's from an artist you already like.
That's only natural.

Also...there is nothing really new/cutting edge in that production approach or mixing technique.
I just tried listening to it again...and I'll be honest....it sounds worse with every listen.
Now, maybe the band and everyone involved really felt that was the best way to do it..and it's their right, it's their art...so I have no problem with that, but I do think it could have sounded better, done a different way, and it would have done more justice...to the song.
I think they were more focused on the radical mixing SOP than the actual song....but again, that's just how I hear it.

A lot of music I like tends to be lo-fi in nature, but not because I chase that as a recording aesthetic, more because many bands I like recorded before computers made it possible for a 15 year old to mix a lavish full-blown production in his bedroom and also recorded on a shoe string budget.

I DO like "lo-fi" sparse/simplistic stuff too (I just don't like the mix of the song in this thread )....and as I said, I grew up music before the massive production SOPs came into swing, and cut my home recording teeth on 4-track tape decks with minimalist studio gear....and having been there, I don't see "lo-fi" as much of a goal/challenge for my own stuff, and instead find more involved/complex/polished productions my real challenge within the limitations of my studio.

....someone who struggles and suffers to do it is going to write the "important sounding" song before some guy who makes a shit ton of money and craps out albums between coke binges and blow jobs from hookers. Lots of times the low production aesthetic is incidental, but I like some lavishly produced stuff too. Ultimately (for me) it's about the song and how well you can convince me you really mean what you're saying.

Yes...I agree with that, though I don't think that JUST because someone struggles in a lo-fi environment, that his music is any better or more creative than someone who works hard (maybe much, much harder) to create more meticulous, polished productions, especially when you don't have access to the million-dollar studios.

Oh...the mix/song in that video is more pleasing to me than that mix/song that started this thread...so I'm not just hating on them because I don't like the band or something.....but I don't think I would enjoy listening to en album's worth of that same reverb-y/echo-y stuff....it just gets old real quick.

 

[dobro]

Miroslav, what's an example of some interesting mixing you've heard?

 

[miroslav]

Define "interesting"....

 

[dobro]

Mmm...okay. Interesting mix techniques that serve the song.

 

[Magnawolf]

I know you're just answering the earlier questions about their drums but I just gotta say- whatever magic they have is not about owning a DBX165A compressor. It's the playing and the songwriting. It's a too common misconception around here that you can replicate your favorite artist by having the right gear, and I just think that attitude is lame and should be discouraged. If the song is in you, you'll make it happen with or without the right Elecro Harmonix boxes or vintage compressors from the 80s.

I agree. The best artists make use of what they have. The drumming is great on the album because of the playing style and not just because some vintage compressor. But it definitely helps.

Lol, ok ok. You're making this too easy for miro and others by treating this album like the second coming of Christ. Tame Impala are freakin' HUGE. You're not talking about some dangerous underground artist making sounds outside the realm of pop acceptability.

Here's a clip of the radical progressive Tame Impala a couple years back daring to appear on the late night talk show of the dangerous subversive Jimmy Fallon while he controversially pimps the Innerspeaker LP and teenage girls dance away mindlessly (and dangerously) behind them:

Don't get me wrong, I like their stuff alright, but some perspective is in order. If you're interested, I can point you to about 50 artists that did stuff 30+ years ago that was much more edgy and experimental, who never got invited to play on the late late show. Of course they weren't as young and cute and sharply dressed either.

I know Tame Impala isn't that radical at all. They still make pop songs. But they take a different approach to creating them. I think I would have an easier time discussing Tame Impala's music (like we have) than talking about some obscure indie band that doesn't make anything that resembles pop music. People on these forums would think I'm even crazier.

I agree with you, that image is part of a band among other artificial things. Yes, there are tons of edgy and experimental artists that are great that have never been invited to play on TV (my iTunes is filled with them). But again, just because those 50 artists were more edgy and experimental, doesn't mean they were better (some might have been). They probably helped advance music in some way though. I still don't think there's any band, in the past or present, that sounds like Tame Impala completely.

 

[heatmiser]

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.

Thanks. Bonham playing a hip hop beat is a good description. That's the sound I want more or less. Just googled that thing and it's like $500 - $1k used. Damn.

....adding 165A to long-term wish list...

I know you're just answering the earlier questions about their drums but I just gotta say- whatever magic they have is not about owning a DBX165A compressor. It's the playing and the songwriting. It's a too common misconception around here that you can replicate your favorite artist by having the right gear, and I just think that attitude is lame and should be discouraged. If the song is in you, you'll make it happen with or without the right Elecro Harmonix boxes or vintage compressors from the 80s.

I disagree here. No amount of drum tuning or practice or songwriting is going to get my drums to have that sort of sonic quality. I'm not even so interested in the playing here (which is great and not something I'll ever try to replicate even if I could), just the sound of the drums, which is distinct and familiar to me from various alternative/indie bands. The quote supplied above suggests that the artist himself is directly attributing that exact quality of the drum sound that I like to a specific piece of gear, so I think it may be very relevant.

I understand what you're saying generally, and I'm not one who buys much gear at all, let alone to try to copy another band's sound, but this is kind of an exception.

Maybe I can find another less expensive compressor that can get me close, or maybe I just need to spend more time fiddling with the ones I have.

 

[heatmiser]

On that Youtube clip around 2:49 I'm seeing the biggest freakin' pedal board I've ever seen.

 

[miroslav]

Mmm...okay. Interesting mix techniques that serve the song.

Define "interesting mix techniques"....weird...odd...quirky...what?

Besides the song in this tread...what do YOU think are "interesting mix techniques"....?

This is kinda my point...when the focus is on just the mix techniques, is it really serving the song?
The thing about Tame Impala, is that I hear a good songs here, obscured by radical mixing choices. Now I don't disagree that it ALL goes toward the final production sound...so "ear candy" certainly has its place....but to me, the song in this thread comes off more like they just wanted to do it weird/extreme to camouflage that it was really just another Pop song.
Sometimes that works...and sometimes it doesn't. It depends on how each person hears it, but there's no genius behind what they've done....no cutting edge mixing...IMHO.

 

[dobro]

Just googled that thing and it's like $500 - $1k used. Damn.

....adding 165A to long-term wish list...

This is the first thing I came up with looking for a plugin emulation of the 165A. There must be better ones. lol

dbx 165A Compressor Emulated, de la mancha release sixtyfive VST for Windows -Sonicstate.com

Here's a review:

http://rhythminmind.net/1313/?p=1275

A review over at KVR says it's a good clone:

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5130932

The thread references another one called Stillwell's Major Tom:

http://www.stillwellaudio.com/plugi...ugins/major-tom-program-dependent-compressor/

Here's another cheapie, presumably an emulation of the hardware we're talking about:

http://reviewrevival.blogspot.ca/2013/02/sknote-c165a-review-dbx-compressor.html

Must be good. 'Brother Charles' developed it.

One reason I'm interested in these compressor plugs is that I'd like to explore that parallel compression technique where you stack up six compressors on a vocal, for instance, and dial in to taste. But I've got only three compressor plugs right now. I need three more.

 

[dobro]

Define "interesting mix techniques"....weird...odd...quirky...what?

Something so unusual it catches your attention. Something aiming at a new sound. Something aiming outside typical genre sounds.

Besides the song in this tread...what do YOU think are "interesting mix techniques"....?

Well, to tell the truth, I haven't thought about it much, and that's why I'm trawling for what other people have noticed. But I'll start to listen to stuff and see what I come up with. I think this is an interesting thread. (Not quirky, not weird, not odd...but serving the aim of mixing. )

This is kinda my point...when the focus is on just the mix techniques, is it really serving the song?
The thing about Tame Impala, is that I hear a good songs here, obscured by radical mixing choices. Now I don't disagree that it ALL goes toward the final production sound...so "ear candy" certainly has its place....but to me, the song in this thread comes off more like they just wanted to do it weird/extreme to camouflage that it was really just another Pop song.
Sometimes that works...and sometimes it doesn't. It depends on how each person hears it, but there's no genius behind what they've done....no cutting edge mixing...IMHO.

Magnawolf's idea here was 'hey this is different and cool' and your response has been 'different, yeah maybe, but not so cool, cuz it doesn't work for me'. The more I listen to the track and the more I read the debate/discussion between you and MW, the more I think the mixing engineer was aiming primarily for a very noticeable sound, and that that value took precedence over anything else ("Hey, let's get this tune NOTICED!") Fair enough. Cover yourself in lurid tatoos and piercings, take off your shirt, go for a walk down a middle class street - you get noticed. But it's a matter of personal preference whether the tats and nipple rings actually enhance your physical attractiveness. Unusualness for the sake of getting attention is a bit suspect. Experimentation for the sake of experimentation ditto. But this thread has got me wanting to notice unusual sounds in songs that were produced at the mixing stage and which actually *add* to the impact of the song.

For example, at the recording stage, I've added a bit of attitude to a song by dialing in distortion on my guitar instead of a clean sound. I compare the clean version and the distorted version, and the distorted version sounds better. On other songs, a clean sound works better. I'm talking about that sort of thing, only at the mixing stage.

 

[miroslav]

I didn't want to come off like I hate the band or the producer....etc. As I said, when I first heard the song in the OP, I had NO idea who it was or who did the mix, so my view was starting from a clean slate. Not to beat it to death, but I just don't like how the vocals/guitars are so washed out with that slathered on reverb.... and then the drums, while OK on their own, seem to just stomp all over the vocals/guitars. However, when you listen to it with the video...it has some redeaming value. The rump on the teacher, and her walking down the hallway in the video, is worth the price of admission!
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgK_Er7WZVg)

I did listen to a few other Tame Impala songs on YT, and they weren't as extreme (Elephant was cool), but I can see that they like to go for that washed out tripy reverb sound...which is OK....but it is nothing new.
You can go back to the late '60s and just about everyone was doing tripy reverb stuff...so that's really the point, that these guys are NOT "radical" or cutting edge....though if you're a teenager or in your twenties today, it may sound like that to you.
It's certainly more "interesting" than hearing yet another boring, cookie-cutter R&B tune on the radio...I will give it that!

Hey...if you want to hear some stuff that WAS at the time "radical" and different...check out Os Mutantes (The Mutants), a psychedelic flavored band from Brazil that was doing a lot of real "interesting" stuff back in the late '60s.
I have one of their albums "World Psychedelic Classics Vol 1"...which is sort of a collection of some of their better stuff. Forgetting that the vocals are mostly in Portuguese....you can see where a band like Tame Impala is just doing a shadowy imitation of stuff that's been already done a long time ago.

Again..I don't dislike Tame Impala...just saying they ain't really blowin' up my skirt with anything truly "radical", it's just Pop music that's been done in a more ear-catching way, because that's how you get some attention....and nothing wrong with that if it works.
The only potential problem with it is that it's already been done...so if you do a song or two as a "homage" to the style/sound....that's cool, but if you base your entire image on that, it WILL get old, IMHO....which is why the more "textbook" approach lives on and on, as it favors the song and not just the production style...IMO.

<EDIT>
Here's a link to a lot of "Os Mutantes" tracks on YT....there's 82 tracks (they may not all be "Os Mutantes" tracks), so you can start at the top and just let it play or pick through them. Some of it is radical, but there are also a lot of good songs too....but keep in mind, this was being done back in the late '60s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzwLo7F8C7U&list=AL94UKMTqg-9BBbtkSEKL7Yrc1Cn6pZhp1

 

[Magnawolf]

I've listen to Os Mutantes before and while I do agree that there are some cross-over sounds, they don't sound that similar to me. Tame Impala's sounds from Lonerism are based on synths invented in the 80's. Their debut album is a bit closer to Os Mutantes but still not similar enough for me to label it as an imitation. Tame Impala uses fuzzy guitar tones from the 60's, synths from the 80's, drums from the psych-era with a trip-hop flair, and vocals from the shoegaze era mixed with a John Lennon-esque tone. A lot of great influences shine through with their music, but I wouldn't fully compare their music to a single decade, a single band, and most definitely not Os Mutantes.

Again, I never said Tame Impala was that radical. But I think they make catchy pop songs while still fulfilling their artistic goals of changing the way a pop song is constructed and challenging the listener. They have and are going to have a huge influence on the future of music.

 

[fat_fleet]

I know Tame Impala isn't that radical at all. They still make pop songs. But they take a different approach to creating them. I think I would have an easier time discussing Tame Impala's music (like we have) than talking about some obscure indie band that doesn't make anything that resembles pop music. People on these forums would think I'm even crazier.

I agree with you, that image is part of a band among other artificial things. Yes, there are tons of edgy and experimental artists that are great that have never been invited to play on TV (my iTunes is filled with them). But again, just because those 50 artists were more edgy and experimental, doesn't mean they were better (some might have been). They probably helped advance music in some way though. I still don't think there's any band, in the past or present, that sounds like Tame Impala completely.

That makes sense, and they are certainly a good band to use for this discussion....kind of a halfway point, being kind of edgy but still having some pop appeal and a certain amount of accessibility.

I disagree here. No amount of drum tuning or practice or songwriting is going to get my drums to have that sort of sonic quality. I'm not even so interested in the playing here (which is great and not something I'll ever try to replicate even if I could), just the sound of the drums, which is distinct and familiar to me from various alternative/indie bands. The quote supplied above suggests that the artist himself is directly attributing that exact quality of the drum sound that I like to a specific piece of gear, so I think it may be very relevant.

I understand what you're saying generally, and I'm not one who buys much gear at all, let alone to try to copy another band's sound, but this is kind of an exception.

Maybe I can find another less expensive compressor that can get me close, or maybe I just need to spend more time fiddling with the ones I have.

Yeah, that wasn't directed at you or Magnawolf, just more of an aside but probably inappropriate for the current conversation. I'm love doing this stuff, but I'm a pretty crappy mixer, which excludes me from alot of talks with "the big boys". I place more emphasis on playing and writing, whatever. Everyone's their own best lobbyist. Plus I love to rant. Especially at 3 in the morning.

I use one compressor plug and sometimes I'm not even sure my ears are being honest with me re my settings. Do different compressors really sound that different? If so my ears sure can't hear it.

 

[miroslav]

...but I wouldn't fully compare their music to a single decade, a single band, and most definitely not Os Mutantes.

Again, I never said Tame Impala was that radical. But I think they make catchy pop songs while still fulfilling their artistic goals of changing the way a pop song is constructed and challenging the listener. They have and are going to have a huge influence on the future of music.

I only picked Os Mutantes as one example...I didn't say that Tame Impala was just imitating them alone, rather that their sound is nothing new...and while they will probably have some success as the "next thing"....I think maybe you're reaching a bit in thinking that they will have a "huge influence on the future of music".
These days every new band that comes out starts from that point...and then then next new band comes out doing something totaly different and THEY'RE the new "huge influence".
Time will tell.........but regardless, most of the new bands are simply borrowing/copying from stuff that was already done 30-40-50 years ago..."recycled styles/flavors".
So then, where is the "huge influence" actually coming from?

 

[fat_fleet]

Can you think of examples of stuff posted here where somebody's done something kinda interesting mixwise?

I hate to letcha down but I really can't right now. There have been a few new members that have wandered through with some pretty abrasive sounding mixes, which they defended.... but they pretty much never came back. I know with my own stuff I also (with different degrees of success) shoot for clarity. I've only been DAW recording for a few years now and it still blows my mind what I can do with a fairly modest setup.

 

[fat_fleet]

Os Mutantes was cool.