As I mentioned last time I would give an example of certain styles of mixing that are common or have been common at some time. But as with people, the term "style" (or "group" if you're talking about human beings) is largely an illusion. No two are alike in all respects, and the finer you split your discriminations the more the "style" (or "group") seems to disappear.
However, the illusion of a "style" emerges when various producers abandon the idea of trying to produce something original in order to appeal to known tastes. Usually production decisions are then based on what has been popular before.
This by itself should not be seen as an "evil". All music (both the artistic & technical aspects) are based on what has gone before. I myself will do whatever it takes to put a composition in the best possible light. It some cases, if it needs a "traditional" type of style to capture the mood, I will limit myself to certain instrumentation/voicings etc. to enhance that. The same goes for recording techniques.
I'm guessing that the dividing line is when one does it intentionally to grab onto a trend that proves popular (read: "MONEY!"). Then it becomes a sort of con-game run on unsuspecting listeners.
This is meant to be sampling of some recognizable production styles, and not meant to be even a chip off an exhaustive listing:
The "Pop Mix":
Firmly aimed at a younger audience with low-fidelity equipment and those who mainly get their music from radio. It is usually characterized by many layers of tracks/instruments all competing for attention, tons of compression on everything both to "bring everything out" and to give the track a "competitive level" when next to other tracks on the radio, making it sound "more exciting" than the tunes around it...Everything is hyped-up, and the resulting blend makes it hard to pick out any individual instruments, unless there's a lead guitar solo, etc..........(this is the aforementioned track that will sound as though it were "mixed by monkeys" when played on a high-end system...reference an "NSYNC" CD for a good example).
The "Wall of Sound":
Shares some similarities to the "pop mix" and may actually be it's forerunner. It's origin is generally credited to Phil Specter. What you have is no empty frequency ranges (and therefore no "space" in the recording. Multiple layers of track blending and contrasting, also making it difficult to pick out individuals.
The "Movie Mix":
Not as prevalent as it was during the 70's and mid-80's. All the parts are audible, but each one is "thinned-out" sonically, kept low in level and lots of reverb. The effect is that of sitting in the back of a HUGE concert hall. Nothing is "up front" in the mix. Reference any "James Bond" movie from that period, among others.
The "Dance Mix":
Drums and Bass are the stars of the show. Everything else is thinned or hyped to fill in the spaces. Vocals are audible in a nice way, but the ability to hear the lyrics may or may not be so important.
I think I'll quit here. If you do a lot of music listening, see if you can tune your "producer's ears" and start to pick out styles for yourself....By the way, I don't use any of the styles listed above, but am aware of the techniques, which I may use individually in certain circumstances to enhance a recording/arrangement. But my own techniques are for another article....
No comments:
Post a Comment