I know, it's been a long time since I've posted anything. That's because I'm going thru one of those spells where the needs of life have torn me away from music, so there isn't much to write about. So don't expect anything too exciting.
Promotion...it comes with the territory when you play music. Unless, of course, your aspiration is to be a "great unknown". Even if, like me, you crave solitude more than fame, your music needs to be out there or it won't be available to those who will appreciate it.
The first emotion that comes into my mind?...Terror. I take on the task of promotion with a smile, albeit with teeth gritted. I wasn't designed to "stand out" which is further reinforced by being brought up not to regard myself as a "big shot".
But on we go...the first problem with promotion is the familiar analogy of pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps. Like the similar problem "you have to have money to get rich" you find that you need to be "well-known" to become famous. When the major labels find someone they think is saleable, they spare no expense at promotion. But keep in mind that "saleable" to them means someone who is going to appeal to the largest number of people. In other words, a "mass audience". They play the odds.
There is another way. By slowly making connections with folks, at first one at a time, then by interlacing circles is a sure and steady way to build a following. But this is truly a "people" method. If you don't really relate to your new friends one at a time, you will eventually be found out as a "phony" who only cares about their own success.
However, the great reward about the people method is that even if you never achieve fame you have still had a meaningful career! You need to accept from the start that only a very small percentage of those you meet will ever pay to hear you play or buy your CD.
I still feel like the odds are in your favor, however, because your fan-base is more solid than the proverbial fickle "record-buying public". The only thing stopping you really, is how much time you have to devote to your friends (I hate to call them "followers"). The only other factor I can think of that is relevant is if times change to the point where your music is no longer relatable.
So exposure is the main thing, whichever philosophy you subscribe to. You have to be on the horizon of a lot of folks consciousness' before you can connect with those who really "get" what you do.
I have had an experience lately which I have published elsewhere, that doesn't directly relate to promotion, but does illustrate the phenomenon of connecting to someone's music from the listener's point of view.
As a musician, I listen to many styles/genres of music and am able to gain an appreciation for what the artist is attempting, whether they've succeeded, and to find how it relates to my own approach & experiences. For me, this an enjoyable thing (mostly) and I'm not overly critical.
However, while the "average listener" (if there IS such a thing) also does not hold their standards terribly high, there is still a bar that must be crossed in order for a song to become a "hit" for them. It is the bar of emotional connection. Unless that bar be crossed, give up all hope of holding a permanent chamber in their heart, not to mention them seeing fit of wanting to own your CD.
The experience I speak of is one of the few times I have felt that kind of thing in many years toward a major label release. (I usually prefer to support independent artists).
Jason Aldean (of whom I am not truly a fan) has a song called "Fly Over States". In some ways it mirrors what I've been up to the last few years. As we were packing up to travel from our new Western home to go back to the East Coast, the song was sort of hovering on the edge of my mind. But as we were passing thru eastern Oklahoma, already feeling a bit homesick, that song came on the radio cementing itself firmly to me in a kind of experience that I seldom have had as a now mature musician. And I thought, "This is it. This what it's all about. When the music becomes embedded in our lives and inextricable from our emotions."
Isn't that what we all want for our artistic "children", our songs?
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
The Wild "Bunch"....
As I write, I am backing up my audio mixes (as they now stand) for my second album. As reliable as my system has been, one still never knows with technology when it might fail, leaving months worth of work stored on "data discs" useless. In an emergency, I could assemble an intermaster from this disc, although I would lose the ability to do any serious modification on them, which would be a poor situation but not nearly as disastrous as losing them altogether...
And so for the first time I am seeing these mixes in retrospect, and am reminded of the tedious process of turning a collection of individual recordings into an "album".
It is a shocking reminder, when you listen to these mixes, side by side, how differently they turn out, despite being given the best possible effort. That "great mix" you were so thrilled with, now stands next to one which turned out far superior, ruining the illusion that you knew what you were doing.
So how do you "tame" the wild bunch?
As with all things both technical and artistic, it is a step by step process. Overwhelming at first, but in time you find a starting point.
Naturally, I can't address every possible problem, but I can suggest a series of possible steps and an occasional hint as to what can be done using my own challenges as an example.
1. On first hearing I notice major differences in sonic balance. While I have adopted a fairly consistent method of recording (especially certain instruments) there are a number of things that can spoil the soup. In today's case one of them is the use of different instruments...for instance, in several tunes, it was desirable for me to use an actual bass guitar rather than keyboard samples. Combined with the idea that I want this album to have a much "darker" sound than the previous, it seems those tunes came out overly "bass heavy". Sounded fine at the time, but compared to the sonically cleaner later tunes, they are now very inconsistent....Back to the mix.
2. Anything that now sounds out of place or inconsistent next to their bedfellows will have to be addressed the same way. Same with vocal lines that are starting to bug you after listening to them 100 times, or effects choices on certain tracks...same thing: Back to the mix.
So that is your first weapon against leaving the impression of a ragtag band of hoodlums (your tunes) on your audience. Never assume this can all be fixed with mastering. The best mastering tip I can give is do your utmost to make your tunes match BEFORE you master.
At the same time, a collection that HASN'T been mastered will also be inconsistent, no matter how alike your mixes. So what to do after you've shaken out your mixes a second (3rd? 4th?) time?
1. Time to match levels. Assemble your tunes side by side on your intermaster. You may attempt to space them if you wish, it will give you a head start at finding the best result. Now LISTEN to level differences while you run them all at 0db differential. Don't obsess about numbers at this point. It is the "apparent" level we are worried about here...your listener won't be grading you on decibels! Only on how it sounds.
2. After you've identified the "rogues" (too soft or too loud) you can start thinking numbers. Do your best to get them all sounding similar (based on the loudest section of each song). When you have achieved something that "plays" well (and noted + or - dbs to get you there) you are ready for the next step......TIP: You can choose your loudest track and use that as your 0db reference, or you can choose your softest...It's the RELATIONSHIP between the tunes we are trying to adjust NOT absolute level...that's next.
3. Try transferring your tracks "as is" with the level changes applied. Do any drive your recording over digital "redline"? Then lower all the tracks the same amount (gradually) until everything transfers with no distortion.
As for master processing, that is an entire field all its own and I can't give advice about equipment I don't have, never used (and can't afford). All I can say is you should at they very least use a 3-band compressor if you aspire to smoothness and consistency across your tracks. Any other devices you may have you are on your own with...(hey man, like, read your owner's manual etc....)
I'm not going to go into the use of the 3-band too extensively, but it's not as mysterious as it may seem to a beginner...again it's mainly about "ears".
1. My trick is to run the bands separately at first. Your ears will tell you what content belongs in which band, so you can choose your "split points". You may also find, when you run the tune that an entire band may need to go up or down in level on one tune in order to be consistent with the other tunes.
2. Next use each compressor as you would any other. Listen for unevenness in the track and apply the right amount and ratio to smooth it out...If your tracks are already pretty smooth, you may opt to use it simply as a limiter (small level setting, high ratio)...Or this can be applied to entire tracks (or even the whole album) in an extra step. Your choice. In digital, lossless mode, 2 or 3 generations in your master will not likely even be noticeable.
3. Keep in mind that after all this, your apparent levels may actually change, causing you to go back to your "trail of breadcrumbs" (paperwork) and run this whole process several, even numerous times.
As with previous articles, this one is very basic. The possibilities are only limited by your imagination once again...and like you, I put in a good amount of prayer along with my effort that things will work out in the end. Let's get those "bad boys" under control!
And so for the first time I am seeing these mixes in retrospect, and am reminded of the tedious process of turning a collection of individual recordings into an "album".
It is a shocking reminder, when you listen to these mixes, side by side, how differently they turn out, despite being given the best possible effort. That "great mix" you were so thrilled with, now stands next to one which turned out far superior, ruining the illusion that you knew what you were doing.
So how do you "tame" the wild bunch?
As with all things both technical and artistic, it is a step by step process. Overwhelming at first, but in time you find a starting point.
Naturally, I can't address every possible problem, but I can suggest a series of possible steps and an occasional hint as to what can be done using my own challenges as an example.
1. On first hearing I notice major differences in sonic balance. While I have adopted a fairly consistent method of recording (especially certain instruments) there are a number of things that can spoil the soup. In today's case one of them is the use of different instruments...for instance, in several tunes, it was desirable for me to use an actual bass guitar rather than keyboard samples. Combined with the idea that I want this album to have a much "darker" sound than the previous, it seems those tunes came out overly "bass heavy". Sounded fine at the time, but compared to the sonically cleaner later tunes, they are now very inconsistent....Back to the mix.
2. Anything that now sounds out of place or inconsistent next to their bedfellows will have to be addressed the same way. Same with vocal lines that are starting to bug you after listening to them 100 times, or effects choices on certain tracks...same thing: Back to the mix.
So that is your first weapon against leaving the impression of a ragtag band of hoodlums (your tunes) on your audience. Never assume this can all be fixed with mastering. The best mastering tip I can give is do your utmost to make your tunes match BEFORE you master.
At the same time, a collection that HASN'T been mastered will also be inconsistent, no matter how alike your mixes. So what to do after you've shaken out your mixes a second (3rd? 4th?) time?
1. Time to match levels. Assemble your tunes side by side on your intermaster. You may attempt to space them if you wish, it will give you a head start at finding the best result. Now LISTEN to level differences while you run them all at 0db differential. Don't obsess about numbers at this point. It is the "apparent" level we are worried about here...your listener won't be grading you on decibels! Only on how it sounds.
2. After you've identified the "rogues" (too soft or too loud) you can start thinking numbers. Do your best to get them all sounding similar (based on the loudest section of each song). When you have achieved something that "plays" well (and noted + or - dbs to get you there) you are ready for the next step......TIP: You can choose your loudest track and use that as your 0db reference, or you can choose your softest...It's the RELATIONSHIP between the tunes we are trying to adjust NOT absolute level...that's next.
3. Try transferring your tracks "as is" with the level changes applied. Do any drive your recording over digital "redline"? Then lower all the tracks the same amount (gradually) until everything transfers with no distortion.
As for master processing, that is an entire field all its own and I can't give advice about equipment I don't have, never used (and can't afford). All I can say is you should at they very least use a 3-band compressor if you aspire to smoothness and consistency across your tracks. Any other devices you may have you are on your own with...(hey man, like, read your owner's manual etc....)
I'm not going to go into the use of the 3-band too extensively, but it's not as mysterious as it may seem to a beginner...again it's mainly about "ears".
1. My trick is to run the bands separately at first. Your ears will tell you what content belongs in which band, so you can choose your "split points". You may also find, when you run the tune that an entire band may need to go up or down in level on one tune in order to be consistent with the other tunes.
2. Next use each compressor as you would any other. Listen for unevenness in the track and apply the right amount and ratio to smooth it out...If your tracks are already pretty smooth, you may opt to use it simply as a limiter (small level setting, high ratio)...Or this can be applied to entire tracks (or even the whole album) in an extra step. Your choice. In digital, lossless mode, 2 or 3 generations in your master will not likely even be noticeable.
3. Keep in mind that after all this, your apparent levels may actually change, causing you to go back to your "trail of breadcrumbs" (paperwork) and run this whole process several, even numerous times.
As with previous articles, this one is very basic. The possibilities are only limited by your imagination once again...and like you, I put in a good amount of prayer along with my effort that things will work out in the end. Let's get those "bad boys" under control!
Saturday, March 10, 2012
ALL "MIXED" UP (#6)....
Just back from a new mix and ready for what will be my last installment on the art of mixing. To restate again, these are just some of my favorite techniques that I either use often, or solutions to rare problems that crop up. By no means is this meant to be exhaustive.
One of the hardest things for beginners to gauge, is the use of compression, so it seems. I have heard so many amateur tracks that are "overcompressed" it isn't funny, lending strange artifacts to your tune. Again it's a case of training the ear to gradually recognize small changes, and to identify what it is you are listening for...hence the tendency for the beginner to turn up the compression until they can "hear it"...which is usually WAY too much.
How much compression? I find that when I've been away from recording a long while, it's hard to recognize a change of less than 4db of level...very soon however, I get my "ears" back and 1db starts to sound like a lot...This is important, because when you gain this skill, you can listen to level fluctuations in a track, and say to yourself, "That sounds like it's about a 2db difference between the loudest and softest parts of the track" and so you can begin by setting your compressor to about -2db and see how it goes.
Now ratio is another thing, and here's where I use my 1st technique...If I have a track that needs a lot of compression (one that fluctuates level-wise, or needs good sustain) like bass, vocal, etc. I NEVER compress all at once....I will compress at a low ratio in the first stage (say, while recording) and then re-evaluate and compress again harder in succeeding stages (bounce and/or mix) possibly all the way up to 100:1 ratio.
Percussion is a different matter, and in some cases will record with high ratios right off the bat, however, depending on what kind of sound I'm after.
Another good thing to know is ways to use EQ to create an "open" mix, that is, one where instruments occupying the same frequency ranges aren't running over each other.
I'll give an example using 2 tracks: a stereo string section, and a single vocal (panned center). Now, the timbre of the strings roughly occupies the same frequencies of the human voice (say, from tenor to soprano) so they will tend to fight each other in the mix...you are faced with a dilemna; change the relationship (level difference) between them raising the voice (or lowering the strings) or vice versa.
Detail of the lower track will be lost in the process.
Here's your alternative: Each part has it's own "active" frequencies. The voice is a complex signal (same with strings) that covers a lot of frequencies. The voice will have upper frequency that gives it definition and makes the words clear & audible for instance, and lower region where the "warmth" lies, etc. There may be others as well: breathiness, resonance, etc. (These differ with voice range and whether the singer be male or female).
In the same way, the strings will have "bow sound" (for lack of a better term), and their own resonant ranges. If you are lucky, these ranges will not coincide, so that a small (never more than 2db) boost to one tracks "active" frequencies and a corresponding (if needed) cut to the other track will produce a nice blend without losing anything from either track. Or boost both tracks active freq...Or boost/cut symmetrically both tracks...the options are many, the theory the same.
Lastly, I will share a technique I seldom use but have found of value today. I always try to make my mixes work so that the things will blend nicely without a lot of fussy level changes when mixed...However, this is not always possible.
Today, I made a very complex mix that was very full with many parts, virtually every frequency range spoken for. Try as I might, I couldn't keep the nice "fullness" of the vocal, even using EQ, compression and other FX.... Lowering the midrange instruments (everything above the drums & bass) made the vocal clearer, but at the expense of the rest of the piece.
So as a Last Resort, I used a technique known as "ducking"...When the instruments were playing I allowed them to run at normal level, but whenever the vocal entered I would ease the fader(s) down 1db until the vocal ceased...and so on. Not noticeable to an untrained ear, but a world of difference as far as the clarity of the vocal and the fullness of the mix.
Well, that's enough of "fish" stories. Engineers can sit around and talk about the problems they encounter and the solutions they come up with virtually forever. But this blog is general enough that to continue I would to risk becoming a bore! So let's leave it there...
One of the hardest things for beginners to gauge, is the use of compression, so it seems. I have heard so many amateur tracks that are "overcompressed" it isn't funny, lending strange artifacts to your tune. Again it's a case of training the ear to gradually recognize small changes, and to identify what it is you are listening for...hence the tendency for the beginner to turn up the compression until they can "hear it"...which is usually WAY too much.
How much compression? I find that when I've been away from recording a long while, it's hard to recognize a change of less than 4db of level...very soon however, I get my "ears" back and 1db starts to sound like a lot...This is important, because when you gain this skill, you can listen to level fluctuations in a track, and say to yourself, "That sounds like it's about a 2db difference between the loudest and softest parts of the track" and so you can begin by setting your compressor to about -2db and see how it goes.
Now ratio is another thing, and here's where I use my 1st technique...If I have a track that needs a lot of compression (one that fluctuates level-wise, or needs good sustain) like bass, vocal, etc. I NEVER compress all at once....I will compress at a low ratio in the first stage (say, while recording) and then re-evaluate and compress again harder in succeeding stages (bounce and/or mix) possibly all the way up to 100:1 ratio.
Percussion is a different matter, and in some cases will record with high ratios right off the bat, however, depending on what kind of sound I'm after.
Another good thing to know is ways to use EQ to create an "open" mix, that is, one where instruments occupying the same frequency ranges aren't running over each other.
I'll give an example using 2 tracks: a stereo string section, and a single vocal (panned center). Now, the timbre of the strings roughly occupies the same frequencies of the human voice (say, from tenor to soprano) so they will tend to fight each other in the mix...you are faced with a dilemna; change the relationship (level difference) between them raising the voice (or lowering the strings) or vice versa.
Detail of the lower track will be lost in the process.
Here's your alternative: Each part has it's own "active" frequencies. The voice is a complex signal (same with strings) that covers a lot of frequencies. The voice will have upper frequency that gives it definition and makes the words clear & audible for instance, and lower region where the "warmth" lies, etc. There may be others as well: breathiness, resonance, etc. (These differ with voice range and whether the singer be male or female).
In the same way, the strings will have "bow sound" (for lack of a better term), and their own resonant ranges. If you are lucky, these ranges will not coincide, so that a small (never more than 2db) boost to one tracks "active" frequencies and a corresponding (if needed) cut to the other track will produce a nice blend without losing anything from either track. Or boost both tracks active freq...Or boost/cut symmetrically both tracks...the options are many, the theory the same.
Lastly, I will share a technique I seldom use but have found of value today. I always try to make my mixes work so that the things will blend nicely without a lot of fussy level changes when mixed...However, this is not always possible.
Today, I made a very complex mix that was very full with many parts, virtually every frequency range spoken for. Try as I might, I couldn't keep the nice "fullness" of the vocal, even using EQ, compression and other FX.... Lowering the midrange instruments (everything above the drums & bass) made the vocal clearer, but at the expense of the rest of the piece.
So as a Last Resort, I used a technique known as "ducking"...When the instruments were playing I allowed them to run at normal level, but whenever the vocal entered I would ease the fader(s) down 1db until the vocal ceased...and so on. Not noticeable to an untrained ear, but a world of difference as far as the clarity of the vocal and the fullness of the mix.
Well, that's enough of "fish" stories. Engineers can sit around and talk about the problems they encounter and the solutions they come up with virtually forever. But this blog is general enough that to continue I would to risk becoming a bore! So let's leave it there...
Sunday, February 26, 2012
ALL "MIXED" UP (#5)....
I'm having my doubts about fitting everything I'd like into one last article, but there's no restriction on me. So I'll just start out & see how it goes.
Before I move on to some of my favorite techniques I've picked up along the way, I realize there are a few things left that are useful to know.
First, you should think of your recorder's potential as a "pie pan"; there is only so much signal that will "fit" on one of your tracks. If you fill it all with Crust, there won't be any room left for Filling (the good stuff). So you must be judicious, removing excess or unnecessary frequencies to make room for the desirable ones. This is a matter for experience, both in learning what the different frequency ranges sound like, and in picturing how that track will fit in the "finished product".
In person, I could demonstrate it, but it can't be "taught". It largely consists in training your ear to recognize subtle changes in sound, and is as elusive a skill as meditation is to a beginner. It can only be mastered by time and persistence.
Secondly, I would like to further explain the case mentioned last time where reverb is used to send a signal "toward the back" while retaining it's audibility (apparent level). This is an odd case, because conversely, it can also be used to make a signal seem louder than it actually is.
Let's say you have a pretty decent mix going, and are trying to incorporate a lead guitar solo. In this scenario, it isn't a laid-back part that's called for, but something where you need a "rock your socks off" kind of sound to really grab your attention. The "pie pan" of the tracks you are mixing to is almost full already of the nice mix you've created...If you mix that guitar in loud it will "overfill" your tracks driving you into NASTY digital distortion.
The straightforward solution would be to lower the level of all your other tracks to make room for that solo, ruining the rest of that nice full mix....Well, here's an alternative: Assuming you've already judiciously eq'd your guitar solo for best fit of those Desired Frequencies, keep that solo within your headroom parameters so as not to overdrive your mix tracks, but add reverb. Reverb has the effect of giving the impression of a signal that's so loud that it's bouncing off the walls creating echoes, where the other instruments aren't, making it seem louder by fooling your ears.
So I guess that's my first "tip".
Which leads me neatly into my next one. This one I picked up early, back at school, and it seems natural to share it now since I already seem to be alluding to it. The tip is, for EQ: "First cut rather than boost".
The first best thing you can do for your signal is to lessen excessive or undesirable frequencies. Remember your "pie pan". Beginners tend to just keep adding what they want to hear, keeping all that Crust, but adding Filling until the signal is flowing over....just like in the kitchen you get the same thing: A nasty mess!
My next technique is related, and also an "old" one. This is special advice for bass instruments: "Cut the low end during recording, and re-boost, if needed during mixing".
Unfortunately, I can't give you hard numbers on this...it depends on so many things, including your taste and what you want the eventual result to be. Some folks like the "live band" sound where the bass is very full and actually overwhelms the low-mid's somewhat. That kind of mix also plays well on cheap systems (like computer speakers) where bass response is almost non-existent. But I ALWAYS use this technique to one extent or another.
Listen to a more recent "James Taylor" album for an example of a "full bass" sound.
If you prefer a more transparent, glass-like bass sound, cut more in recording and put it back in the mix (with compression). Reference: James Taylor's "Flag" album, or Robert Plant's "Shaken & Stirred" & "Now and Zen".
I guess that's enough to chew on for now, so I suppose I'll continue this in another article. Besides...it's time to go make some music.
Before I move on to some of my favorite techniques I've picked up along the way, I realize there are a few things left that are useful to know.
First, you should think of your recorder's potential as a "pie pan"; there is only so much signal that will "fit" on one of your tracks. If you fill it all with Crust, there won't be any room left for Filling (the good stuff). So you must be judicious, removing excess or unnecessary frequencies to make room for the desirable ones. This is a matter for experience, both in learning what the different frequency ranges sound like, and in picturing how that track will fit in the "finished product".
In person, I could demonstrate it, but it can't be "taught". It largely consists in training your ear to recognize subtle changes in sound, and is as elusive a skill as meditation is to a beginner. It can only be mastered by time and persistence.
Secondly, I would like to further explain the case mentioned last time where reverb is used to send a signal "toward the back" while retaining it's audibility (apparent level). This is an odd case, because conversely, it can also be used to make a signal seem louder than it actually is.
Let's say you have a pretty decent mix going, and are trying to incorporate a lead guitar solo. In this scenario, it isn't a laid-back part that's called for, but something where you need a "rock your socks off" kind of sound to really grab your attention. The "pie pan" of the tracks you are mixing to is almost full already of the nice mix you've created...If you mix that guitar in loud it will "overfill" your tracks driving you into NASTY digital distortion.
The straightforward solution would be to lower the level of all your other tracks to make room for that solo, ruining the rest of that nice full mix....Well, here's an alternative: Assuming you've already judiciously eq'd your guitar solo for best fit of those Desired Frequencies, keep that solo within your headroom parameters so as not to overdrive your mix tracks, but add reverb. Reverb has the effect of giving the impression of a signal that's so loud that it's bouncing off the walls creating echoes, where the other instruments aren't, making it seem louder by fooling your ears.
So I guess that's my first "tip".
Which leads me neatly into my next one. This one I picked up early, back at school, and it seems natural to share it now since I already seem to be alluding to it. The tip is, for EQ: "First cut rather than boost".
The first best thing you can do for your signal is to lessen excessive or undesirable frequencies. Remember your "pie pan". Beginners tend to just keep adding what they want to hear, keeping all that Crust, but adding Filling until the signal is flowing over....just like in the kitchen you get the same thing: A nasty mess!
My next technique is related, and also an "old" one. This is special advice for bass instruments: "Cut the low end during recording, and re-boost, if needed during mixing".
Unfortunately, I can't give you hard numbers on this...it depends on so many things, including your taste and what you want the eventual result to be. Some folks like the "live band" sound where the bass is very full and actually overwhelms the low-mid's somewhat. That kind of mix also plays well on cheap systems (like computer speakers) where bass response is almost non-existent. But I ALWAYS use this technique to one extent or another.
Listen to a more recent "James Taylor" album for an example of a "full bass" sound.
If you prefer a more transparent, glass-like bass sound, cut more in recording and put it back in the mix (with compression). Reference: James Taylor's "Flag" album, or Robert Plant's "Shaken & Stirred" & "Now and Zen".
I guess that's enough to chew on for now, so I suppose I'll continue this in another article. Besides...it's time to go make some music.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
ALL "MIXED" UP (#4)....
Before I delve into some of the favorite techniques I use during mixing, I'd like to give some general mixing theory for those of you who may never have been exposed to it. Some of this assumes your monitors are in an upright orientation, but follow your manufacturer's recommendation or whatever works for you.
Also this is assuming a stereo mix (2 speakers) and NOT a 5.1 or other mode, as that isn't in my realm and is a whole different matter.
The entirety of stereo mixing theory is based on 2 speakers being used to create the illusion of a 2 dimensional field suspended in between. With certain techniques this illusion can be enhanced to create a limited 3rd dimension in your mix as well.
I believe stereo mixing theory began merely as a way to represent music as though the players were performing in a concert hall, with a left & right dimension, which seems much more natural to the human ear than the "monophonic" recordings that preceded it. However, pioneering engineers and artists have since developed this into new & innovative ways of mixing that capture your fancy with recordings that do not simulate any known space in nature.
First the basics: Assuming your monitors (speakers) are oriented upright, since the tweeters are usually above your woofers, it's natural for your ear to interpret your high-frequency instruments to appear "above" your lower frequencies. This is not so unnatural; in live performance cymbals are above the drums, someone standing up playing a shaker e.g. is above a guitar amp sitting on the floor...for whatever reason it seems to work....That's your "up & down" in the mix.
Of course, panning controls your "left & right". That's the sole purpose of them being on your console, so that's no surprise.
What you might not realize is that you have considerable control over whether your instruments sound as though they are toward the "front" (toward you) or the "back". So thought may be given to which instruments are "up front" or further back. The vocal is a natural choice for being out in front, but not always. Sometimes you might want some supporting instruments more present and your vocal sounding as though your singer were up on the stage, the voice floating over the music from a distance.
The primary control for this is your faders. Those parts lower in level will always sound as though they aren't as close to you. But that's not the end of the story. So I would like to break this concept into "actual level" and "apparent level".
Assume you have a supporting part that must, by necessity, be lower in level, but wants some attention and not to get lost in the mix...eq is an option. A better one is compression. Adding a little delay will bring up it's "apparent level" without interfering with the balance between them much.
Reverb will tend to send a track of the same level "toward the back" compared to another track of the same level, while retaining its audibility.
You can see the possible combinations become very numerous. These are only some examples, as my purpose today is to get you thinking about this way of looking at your mix to see if one can gain another perspective on it. Your own experience is what you need to rely on, but new ideas can only help as far I have seen.
Also this is assuming a stereo mix (2 speakers) and NOT a 5.1 or other mode, as that isn't in my realm and is a whole different matter.
The entirety of stereo mixing theory is based on 2 speakers being used to create the illusion of a 2 dimensional field suspended in between. With certain techniques this illusion can be enhanced to create a limited 3rd dimension in your mix as well.
I believe stereo mixing theory began merely as a way to represent music as though the players were performing in a concert hall, with a left & right dimension, which seems much more natural to the human ear than the "monophonic" recordings that preceded it. However, pioneering engineers and artists have since developed this into new & innovative ways of mixing that capture your fancy with recordings that do not simulate any known space in nature.
First the basics: Assuming your monitors (speakers) are oriented upright, since the tweeters are usually above your woofers, it's natural for your ear to interpret your high-frequency instruments to appear "above" your lower frequencies. This is not so unnatural; in live performance cymbals are above the drums, someone standing up playing a shaker e.g. is above a guitar amp sitting on the floor...for whatever reason it seems to work....That's your "up & down" in the mix.
Of course, panning controls your "left & right". That's the sole purpose of them being on your console, so that's no surprise.
What you might not realize is that you have considerable control over whether your instruments sound as though they are toward the "front" (toward you) or the "back". So thought may be given to which instruments are "up front" or further back. The vocal is a natural choice for being out in front, but not always. Sometimes you might want some supporting instruments more present and your vocal sounding as though your singer were up on the stage, the voice floating over the music from a distance.
The primary control for this is your faders. Those parts lower in level will always sound as though they aren't as close to you. But that's not the end of the story. So I would like to break this concept into "actual level" and "apparent level".
Assume you have a supporting part that must, by necessity, be lower in level, but wants some attention and not to get lost in the mix...eq is an option. A better one is compression. Adding a little delay will bring up it's "apparent level" without interfering with the balance between them much.
Reverb will tend to send a track of the same level "toward the back" compared to another track of the same level, while retaining its audibility.
You can see the possible combinations become very numerous. These are only some examples, as my purpose today is to get you thinking about this way of looking at your mix to see if one can gain another perspective on it. Your own experience is what you need to rely on, but new ideas can only help as far I have seen.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
ALL "MIXED" UP (#3)....
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....
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....
Thursday, January 19, 2012
ALL "MIXED" UP (#2)....
This is the most difficult article that can be attempted on "the art of mixing": attempting to describe the different philosophies of blending musical recordings.
The first reason this is so tough is that I can't even know all the possible theories. Like music they can be as individual as those who create them...for instance, think of Jimi Hendrix, who used to lock the engineers out of the studio (so I have been told) to set up some of his wilder patches. Apparently he wanted to keep them secret.
But like musicians, if engineers abandon innovation in order to fit into an accepted style, then you begin to have a recognizable "philosophy".
There is an additional problem of philosophies that cut across each other but are not mutually exclusive. So to mix a metaphor, this article is a bit like touching the tip of the iceberg with a ten-foot pole.
The first round of mixing theory centers around "who is your listening audience?". But not really so much "who" but "what kind of equipment do they listen on?".
It is generally been accepted that teens and young adults are listening on cheaper (less fidelity) equipment: iPods, computers with small ear gadgets, computer speakers, etc....in the old days, it used to be "transistor radios" with itsy-bitsy speakers which weren't physically capable of reproducing many frequencies (especially lows) and sounded rather like a canary trapped in a tin can.
So music that is geared toward young people is often mixed with an eye to making listening this way palatable...The bad news? Put this mix on an "audiophile system" and it's bound to sound horrendous, leaving the listener to wonder if it was "mixed by monkeys".
Of course, at the other end of the scale are engineers who mix for those high-end systems. Often this is done for classical music, but not necessarily the case. The problem here is many subtle details are lost when played on a cheap system.
My approach lies firmly in the third category; to mix so it will sound good on the vast majority of systems. Often I will have a finished tune that sounds just great on super-flat monitor speakers. But my work isn't done until I play it on cheaper home & car systems, whose "peaky" natures often make that mix sound quite different. I don't demand that the mix sound identical to the monitor version, only that things sound good and in reasonable balance, with nothing sticking out or overwhelming. If adjustments MUST be made, I take great care that the changes are small, and the "studio version" is not adversely affected.
Next time I would like to elaborate on those aforementioned "mixing styles", just to give an example of some of the more popular.
The first reason this is so tough is that I can't even know all the possible theories. Like music they can be as individual as those who create them...for instance, think of Jimi Hendrix, who used to lock the engineers out of the studio (so I have been told) to set up some of his wilder patches. Apparently he wanted to keep them secret.
But like musicians, if engineers abandon innovation in order to fit into an accepted style, then you begin to have a recognizable "philosophy".
There is an additional problem of philosophies that cut across each other but are not mutually exclusive. So to mix a metaphor, this article is a bit like touching the tip of the iceberg with a ten-foot pole.
The first round of mixing theory centers around "who is your listening audience?". But not really so much "who" but "what kind of equipment do they listen on?".
It is generally been accepted that teens and young adults are listening on cheaper (less fidelity) equipment: iPods, computers with small ear gadgets, computer speakers, etc....in the old days, it used to be "transistor radios" with itsy-bitsy speakers which weren't physically capable of reproducing many frequencies (especially lows) and sounded rather like a canary trapped in a tin can.
So music that is geared toward young people is often mixed with an eye to making listening this way palatable...The bad news? Put this mix on an "audiophile system" and it's bound to sound horrendous, leaving the listener to wonder if it was "mixed by monkeys".
Of course, at the other end of the scale are engineers who mix for those high-end systems. Often this is done for classical music, but not necessarily the case. The problem here is many subtle details are lost when played on a cheap system.
My approach lies firmly in the third category; to mix so it will sound good on the vast majority of systems. Often I will have a finished tune that sounds just great on super-flat monitor speakers. But my work isn't done until I play it on cheaper home & car systems, whose "peaky" natures often make that mix sound quite different. I don't demand that the mix sound identical to the monitor version, only that things sound good and in reasonable balance, with nothing sticking out or overwhelming. If adjustments MUST be made, I take great care that the changes are small, and the "studio version" is not adversely affected.
Next time I would like to elaborate on those aforementioned "mixing styles", just to give an example of some of the more popular.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
ALL "MIXED" UP....
My mind these days in on a subject that all recording artists, engineers and producers must face to complete the recording process: the "MIX".
This is a huge body of knowledge but more than that, is its own art. Like music itself, there are an infinite number of ways to apply that knowledge to practically unlimited results. This makes the topic beyond exhaustion, and so daunting to write about.
But like music, it proceeds (generally) by certain basic rules, the "fundamentals" of mixing, and from there you learn to master the rules, bend the rules, and eventually to break the rules according to your own philosophy.
And that's where things get interesting. There are so many philosophies of mixing I can't even know them all. As I think this will probably be a series of articles rather than just one, later I will try to mention some of these as examples. But because of so many philosophies, advice I might give in the ways of techniques that are my personal favorites, might be useless to someone else.
However, let's start with those "fundamentals":
First, your mix doesn't even start in the studio at all! It begins with your arrangement. You can't write a chart with most or all of your instruments occupying the same frequency range or you are bound to wind up with a muddy undecipherable mix. As with every rule there are exceptions (especially in music), but usually this is something to stay away from unless you have some specific plan or sound in mind....If your vocal is in the upper midrange you could, for instance, counter it with some higher frequency "lines" or "fills" or even rhythmic percussion to complement it. Then you could support it from below with lower harmonic part(s), and of course the low end can be occupied by a bass instrument which is not going to interfere, being confined to its best range.
This is just an example, pulled out of a very black hat. Arranging is another thing entirely, and this example is like NASA telling you, after decades of moon research, that they've discovered that it is "round & bright".
Next, I believe, is the biggest mistake made by amateur recordists: recording your instruments as well as you can, and then trying to fit them all together "in the mix". I myself have been guilty of this at times, when I don't really have a vision of what the final result is supposed to be...and it causes endless trouble. After all your parts are recorded, you find that no amount of EQ or other processing will make that piano fit in...You may find after cutting all those frequency ranges to try get it to occupy a niche without running over the vocal, what you have left is a thin, nasty-sounding track!! The best option: throw out that beautiful piano part and record it again differently.
So how you record in the first place is a huge step in how your mix will sound. This can only be combated by experience: learning beforehand what the results of particular settings will be, and predicting how it will affect the mix....and that's the hardest part as there are so many settings and therefore choices to be made. That's the "sea of knowledge" one must dive into. No one "knows it all", when it comes to mixing, and like music, in some sense we are all beginners. It is a learning path.
One last bit of advice I find helpful. Generally I choose which parts are the "main body" of the piece. For instance, in a folk or singer-songwriter genre, you probably want your guitar and vocal in the forefront. Then you write your chart "around" these instruments, and build your recording around at least a "reference" of them, that way you can hear as you record, how your new track will either enhance or detract from your goal.
Hopefully, next time I will write another article (probably several) about mixing itself: the different philosophies, general techniques, and ones that I have learned and use along the way. Today, we have only "scratched the surface", something I used to avoid with vinyl records!
This is a huge body of knowledge but more than that, is its own art. Like music itself, there are an infinite number of ways to apply that knowledge to practically unlimited results. This makes the topic beyond exhaustion, and so daunting to write about.
But like music, it proceeds (generally) by certain basic rules, the "fundamentals" of mixing, and from there you learn to master the rules, bend the rules, and eventually to break the rules according to your own philosophy.
And that's where things get interesting. There are so many philosophies of mixing I can't even know them all. As I think this will probably be a series of articles rather than just one, later I will try to mention some of these as examples. But because of so many philosophies, advice I might give in the ways of techniques that are my personal favorites, might be useless to someone else.
However, let's start with those "fundamentals":
First, your mix doesn't even start in the studio at all! It begins with your arrangement. You can't write a chart with most or all of your instruments occupying the same frequency range or you are bound to wind up with a muddy undecipherable mix. As with every rule there are exceptions (especially in music), but usually this is something to stay away from unless you have some specific plan or sound in mind....If your vocal is in the upper midrange you could, for instance, counter it with some higher frequency "lines" or "fills" or even rhythmic percussion to complement it. Then you could support it from below with lower harmonic part(s), and of course the low end can be occupied by a bass instrument which is not going to interfere, being confined to its best range.
This is just an example, pulled out of a very black hat. Arranging is another thing entirely, and this example is like NASA telling you, after decades of moon research, that they've discovered that it is "round & bright".
Next, I believe, is the biggest mistake made by amateur recordists: recording your instruments as well as you can, and then trying to fit them all together "in the mix". I myself have been guilty of this at times, when I don't really have a vision of what the final result is supposed to be...and it causes endless trouble. After all your parts are recorded, you find that no amount of EQ or other processing will make that piano fit in...You may find after cutting all those frequency ranges to try get it to occupy a niche without running over the vocal, what you have left is a thin, nasty-sounding track!! The best option: throw out that beautiful piano part and record it again differently.
So how you record in the first place is a huge step in how your mix will sound. This can only be combated by experience: learning beforehand what the results of particular settings will be, and predicting how it will affect the mix....and that's the hardest part as there are so many settings and therefore choices to be made. That's the "sea of knowledge" one must dive into. No one "knows it all", when it comes to mixing, and like music, in some sense we are all beginners. It is a learning path.
One last bit of advice I find helpful. Generally I choose which parts are the "main body" of the piece. For instance, in a folk or singer-songwriter genre, you probably want your guitar and vocal in the forefront. Then you write your chart "around" these instruments, and build your recording around at least a "reference" of them, that way you can hear as you record, how your new track will either enhance or detract from your goal.
Hopefully, next time I will write another article (probably several) about mixing itself: the different philosophies, general techniques, and ones that I have learned and use along the way. Today, we have only "scratched the surface", something I used to avoid with vinyl records!
Saturday, December 31, 2011
That's an "Order"....
Well, I didn't think I had much to write about lately. When I'm not busy with normal chores I'm doing some stuff that's very boring to read about, attempting to get all the details together for tunes that haven't been done yet.
But an issue has come up which must be dealt with for those of us who still make "albums". It's very similar to what performance musicians deal with in terms of planning "sets" for performance.
What I'm talking about is the order in which the songs will be presented on the album. It's a subject that is extremely complex and almost an art in itself and worthy of an article.
I'm sure we've all heard albums that had really good tunes, but something struck us wrong about it and ended up not being that memorable as entity in itself.
The one I think of is Bob Seger's "The Distance". Maybe it's just my taste, but every song on the album (except one) I consider either excellent or Great! Yet it seems like whoever was in charge of putting them in order didn't have a clue.
This is where the "program" function (which I seldom use) on the CD player became very welcome. I was able to put them in an order that took a mediocre roster and made it downright inspiring....One should never underestimate this feature of music production!
There are certain features that are the mainstays of good programming. First, you should have a good opening and closing song...These will set the impression for the whole album and is critical.
Second, you need to take into account: 1)tempo 2)key 3)relatedness/contrast to the tunes around it. There may be other things to consider depending on your writing style, etc.
Sounds simple enough? Now try to get all these things right for every tune out of, say, 12. You have two songs that complement each other perfectly in theme, but are in the same key and similar tempo? If you can make a medley out of them you can sometimes pull it off, but often not...Scratch your plan, scratch your head and start again.
Put a tune in a slow tempo/key of A in place. Then you want to build into a somewhat faster tune. You've got the perfect candidate but...oh no! It's in the key of G! That won't have the "building" effect you are looking for. Start again.
Ok, here's a tune that fits the "tempo profile" you want and it's in the key of say B (or D)...but it's either too similar to the tune before it, or so far out it can't even be considered for a contrasting tune...rather it tends to destroy the effect created by the last tune.
HELP!
Well, I am dealing these types of issues right now, which is why it came up as a topic...So here's what I do. Be patient. As with all music, use your head but the answers come more by feel. I write down what I know for certain, carefully consider the options and gradually let it fall into place.
Also, sometimes I play the tunes on the guitar, trying the "homeless" songs in the missing slots and see how they go.
And inevitably, when I finally assemble the intermasters onto the final recording, changes demand to be made. Everything from a minor rearrangement in order, to a radical change where one tune sticks out like a sore appendage and demands to be thrown off, and some tune you've barely begun preproduction on cries to be finished and put in the missing spot....OH BOY. Save me from that last! But such is the nature of art...cut corners and you should probably be exploring other career options!
But an issue has come up which must be dealt with for those of us who still make "albums". It's very similar to what performance musicians deal with in terms of planning "sets" for performance.
What I'm talking about is the order in which the songs will be presented on the album. It's a subject that is extremely complex and almost an art in itself and worthy of an article.
I'm sure we've all heard albums that had really good tunes, but something struck us wrong about it and ended up not being that memorable as entity in itself.
The one I think of is Bob Seger's "The Distance". Maybe it's just my taste, but every song on the album (except one) I consider either excellent or Great! Yet it seems like whoever was in charge of putting them in order didn't have a clue.
This is where the "program" function (which I seldom use) on the CD player became very welcome. I was able to put them in an order that took a mediocre roster and made it downright inspiring....One should never underestimate this feature of music production!
There are certain features that are the mainstays of good programming. First, you should have a good opening and closing song...These will set the impression for the whole album and is critical.
Second, you need to take into account: 1)tempo 2)key 3)relatedness/contrast to the tunes around it. There may be other things to consider depending on your writing style, etc.
Sounds simple enough? Now try to get all these things right for every tune out of, say, 12. You have two songs that complement each other perfectly in theme, but are in the same key and similar tempo? If you can make a medley out of them you can sometimes pull it off, but often not...Scratch your plan, scratch your head and start again.
Put a tune in a slow tempo/key of A in place. Then you want to build into a somewhat faster tune. You've got the perfect candidate but...oh no! It's in the key of G! That won't have the "building" effect you are looking for. Start again.
Ok, here's a tune that fits the "tempo profile" you want and it's in the key of say B (or D)...but it's either too similar to the tune before it, or so far out it can't even be considered for a contrasting tune...rather it tends to destroy the effect created by the last tune.
HELP!
Well, I am dealing these types of issues right now, which is why it came up as a topic...So here's what I do. Be patient. As with all music, use your head but the answers come more by feel. I write down what I know for certain, carefully consider the options and gradually let it fall into place.
Also, sometimes I play the tunes on the guitar, trying the "homeless" songs in the missing slots and see how they go.
And inevitably, when I finally assemble the intermasters onto the final recording, changes demand to be made. Everything from a minor rearrangement in order, to a radical change where one tune sticks out like a sore appendage and demands to be thrown off, and some tune you've barely begun preproduction on cries to be finished and put in the missing spot....OH BOY. Save me from that last! But such is the nature of art...cut corners and you should probably be exploring other career options!
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
"Tales of the (Studio) Crypt".....
I've run into one of those odd situations you can get into in a recording project. It may be only of interest to the recording buff or the terminally curious; but here goes.
I had previously copied my old home-recorded 4 track tapes into my digital system. Before putting it on the shelf, I made a new version of "Against the Tide" by replacing most of the tracks, except the "bass". That track was actually an electric guitar, recorded with the tape machine running at double speed so it would play back an octave lower.
An that is the crux of the problem.
Suddenly, this tune spoke up and demaded a place on the album I am currently working on. I reloaded the digital data and found most of the tracks had serious sound-quality issues...I believe this was due to my inexperience with new equipment at the time, plus some other reasons.
I had written a disc of this new mix, with all new tracks...EXCEPT the original bass which I kept, but had laboriously chopped off the "string noise" that occured on nearly every note of the tune (when the string was released).
Anyway, after reloading I decided to try to save the drums, lead guitar and vocal. The bass had several sound quality problems, so during my long session of moving tracks around to a more conventional layout that I have since developed, I erased the bass, intending to replace it.
And this is when reality struck. After experimenting with a number of bass sounds, I realized I could get a cleaner track, but could not replace the unique character of my taped "bass". One of those moments! I finally decided that "character" was more important artistically than a "clean track", so I am in a position where I must erase the tune, & reload the data, and rearrange all the tracks in order to get that bass track back again! Oh the fun I have!
I had previously copied my old home-recorded 4 track tapes into my digital system. Before putting it on the shelf, I made a new version of "Against the Tide" by replacing most of the tracks, except the "bass". That track was actually an electric guitar, recorded with the tape machine running at double speed so it would play back an octave lower.
An that is the crux of the problem.
Suddenly, this tune spoke up and demaded a place on the album I am currently working on. I reloaded the digital data and found most of the tracks had serious sound-quality issues...I believe this was due to my inexperience with new equipment at the time, plus some other reasons.
I had written a disc of this new mix, with all new tracks...EXCEPT the original bass which I kept, but had laboriously chopped off the "string noise" that occured on nearly every note of the tune (when the string was released).
Anyway, after reloading I decided to try to save the drums, lead guitar and vocal. The bass had several sound quality problems, so during my long session of moving tracks around to a more conventional layout that I have since developed, I erased the bass, intending to replace it.
And this is when reality struck. After experimenting with a number of bass sounds, I realized I could get a cleaner track, but could not replace the unique character of my taped "bass". One of those moments! I finally decided that "character" was more important artistically than a "clean track", so I am in a position where I must erase the tune, & reload the data, and rearrange all the tracks in order to get that bass track back again! Oh the fun I have!
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
About "Earthwind"...
This is a re-posting of an article from "Tom Hawk Revisited", dated March 4, 2011 (original posting: MySpace, March 3, 2009:
If you read another of my articles, you know that I do not hold "copies" of another person's music or style in high regard. For this reason, I feel a detailed account of the origin of "Earthwind" is in order. Although I love the tune and am immensely grateful that it came to me, it put me in a sort of philosophical bind, as I did not ever want to be considered (or see myself as) a "copycat". I briefly even considered suppressing the tune, but I could not bear that. It had to be made, whatever the consequences....
Where this tune came from can only be regarded as a mystery and I myself have no firm conclusions on the subject. But it is no more mysterious than other "inspirations", so I will only relay the facts and you can decide for yourself...Or else like me, let it remain a mystery.
It was several months after John Denver's passing that I had a dream. In this dream, I was in a gift shop in Vermont that I have been to often. There they have a machine with previews of the music on their nature CDs, you know, like wolves howling set to a musical background, loons with classical music, thunderstorms...things like that.
Anyway, in the dream I was looking at this machine that played these sample "snippets". And on it I noticed a John Denver song that I had never heard before...which is odd, since I have followed all his work, and now he was gone. Was it from an un-released album, I wondered...?
I pushed the switch...and out drifted the short little guitar intro, and then his clear voice came out of the speaker...
"Earthwind...Older than time...."
And the dream was over. I puzzled over this. Where could a song like this go? What was it's concept? It seemed like a dead end. He had already said all that with "Windsong" hadn't he?
At the time that this occured, I was no longer a songwriter so I didn't bother to note the date, though it was somewhere between Jan. and March of 1998. But why had this come to me? I had quit writing songs and didn't know what to do with it. But it was stuck in my head, and I treasured it because if nothing else it was a sort of farewell thought of him.
Fast forward to the spring of 1999. I was suddenly & unexpectedly a songwriter again & they were coming fast & furious. I was walking my dog in the woods one morning and turning that little phrase over in my head. It didn't seem to lead anywhere. It had no central concept.
A little while later on that walk, I came over the top of a little hill, looking down into a small hollow that has been kind of a special place to me. And just as I arrived there, the sun was coming over the hill and down into that hollow.
I heard in my mind, "...the light of the sun touched our Mother that morn..." WHAT WAS THAT?! It had come out of the beyond somewhere. And a few minutes later, as I walked..."In the warmth of his fire that being was born..."
I called up my dog and hurried home to write that down.
I did that, and was stumped. I was hearing music, too, so I grabbed up a guitar to work it out. I kept playing those chords and writing them down. But the song still had no center.
As I was working out what I had, another line came and another...but it wasn't like they were coming from me. I was baffled. I'd sit there and say "what next?" and a line would come, already complete. I'd write it down and say "what next?" again.
And that's how it was written. As though someone were standing there over my shoulder, telling me what to write. When I was done I had a complete song. All I had to do was fix a couple of "fuzzy" words, and put the verses in an order that made sense.
So, the song is not an intentional copying of anyone. Nor was it written as a "tribute" song. But the arrangement is all mine and in that, the tribute is intentional, complete with Lee Holdridge-style strings.
I would also like to add that while a number of people have me figured as a John Denver clone, I don't believe that holds up when looked at closely. "Earthwind" and "Images of Maine" sort of show similarities, but by and large the writing styles and phrasings of the vast sum of my tunes are quite different.
Much of what is counted in me as Mr. Denver's influence is mis-attributed. It's actually the fact that I bear certain similarities of artistic outlook to him that caused me to follow him & his career, and not so much for me to emulate his music. The similarites are what attracted and interested me in the first place.
We were both "inspired" writers. We both felt a strong bond with nature. We both sought a universal view for mankind. We both wrote of our soaring highs and low lows.
But there the simlarity ends. We were two very different individuals. And close scrutiny of our respective "musics" would bear this out. I believe this will become more evident if & when the rest of my catalog is revealed.
P.S. Here's another odd clue...when the tune first came to me, I dreamed it in the key of E, which would have been his key. Because the top of my range is a minor third lower than his, I lowered it. I tuned the guitar to an open D tuning.
I can't remember, but I may actually have recorded it with the guitar tuned to Db, which Paul Winter said is the key in which the Earth sings...
If you read another of my articles, you know that I do not hold "copies" of another person's music or style in high regard. For this reason, I feel a detailed account of the origin of "Earthwind" is in order. Although I love the tune and am immensely grateful that it came to me, it put me in a sort of philosophical bind, as I did not ever want to be considered (or see myself as) a "copycat". I briefly even considered suppressing the tune, but I could not bear that. It had to be made, whatever the consequences....
Where this tune came from can only be regarded as a mystery and I myself have no firm conclusions on the subject. But it is no more mysterious than other "inspirations", so I will only relay the facts and you can decide for yourself...Or else like me, let it remain a mystery.
It was several months after John Denver's passing that I had a dream. In this dream, I was in a gift shop in Vermont that I have been to often. There they have a machine with previews of the music on their nature CDs, you know, like wolves howling set to a musical background, loons with classical music, thunderstorms...things like that.
Anyway, in the dream I was looking at this machine that played these sample "snippets". And on it I noticed a John Denver song that I had never heard before...which is odd, since I have followed all his work, and now he was gone. Was it from an un-released album, I wondered...?
I pushed the switch...and out drifted the short little guitar intro, and then his clear voice came out of the speaker...
"Earthwind...Older than time...."
And the dream was over. I puzzled over this. Where could a song like this go? What was it's concept? It seemed like a dead end. He had already said all that with "Windsong" hadn't he?
At the time that this occured, I was no longer a songwriter so I didn't bother to note the date, though it was somewhere between Jan. and March of 1998. But why had this come to me? I had quit writing songs and didn't know what to do with it. But it was stuck in my head, and I treasured it because if nothing else it was a sort of farewell thought of him.
Fast forward to the spring of 1999. I was suddenly & unexpectedly a songwriter again & they were coming fast & furious. I was walking my dog in the woods one morning and turning that little phrase over in my head. It didn't seem to lead anywhere. It had no central concept.
A little while later on that walk, I came over the top of a little hill, looking down into a small hollow that has been kind of a special place to me. And just as I arrived there, the sun was coming over the hill and down into that hollow.
I heard in my mind, "...the light of the sun touched our Mother that morn..." WHAT WAS THAT?! It had come out of the beyond somewhere. And a few minutes later, as I walked..."In the warmth of his fire that being was born..."
I called up my dog and hurried home to write that down.
I did that, and was stumped. I was hearing music, too, so I grabbed up a guitar to work it out. I kept playing those chords and writing them down. But the song still had no center.
As I was working out what I had, another line came and another...but it wasn't like they were coming from me. I was baffled. I'd sit there and say "what next?" and a line would come, already complete. I'd write it down and say "what next?" again.
And that's how it was written. As though someone were standing there over my shoulder, telling me what to write. When I was done I had a complete song. All I had to do was fix a couple of "fuzzy" words, and put the verses in an order that made sense.
So, the song is not an intentional copying of anyone. Nor was it written as a "tribute" song. But the arrangement is all mine and in that, the tribute is intentional, complete with Lee Holdridge-style strings.
I would also like to add that while a number of people have me figured as a John Denver clone, I don't believe that holds up when looked at closely. "Earthwind" and "Images of Maine" sort of show similarities, but by and large the writing styles and phrasings of the vast sum of my tunes are quite different.
Much of what is counted in me as Mr. Denver's influence is mis-attributed. It's actually the fact that I bear certain similarities of artistic outlook to him that caused me to follow him & his career, and not so much for me to emulate his music. The similarites are what attracted and interested me in the first place.
We were both "inspired" writers. We both felt a strong bond with nature. We both sought a universal view for mankind. We both wrote of our soaring highs and low lows.
But there the simlarity ends. We were two very different individuals. And close scrutiny of our respective "musics" would bear this out. I believe this will become more evident if & when the rest of my catalog is revealed.
P.S. Here's another odd clue...when the tune first came to me, I dreamed it in the key of E, which would have been his key. Because the top of my range is a minor third lower than his, I lowered it. I tuned the guitar to an open D tuning.
I can't remember, but I may actually have recorded it with the guitar tuned to Db, which Paul Winter said is the key in which the Earth sings...
Monday, November 7, 2011
In Praise of "Happy Accidents"...
It is amazing how when one begins to do something you've been away from a long time that many bits of knowledge seemingly forgotten come back to you. More than that, sometimes you are smarter and better than you were when you left. I don't know if anyone else experiences this phenomenon. I doubt that I'm alone in the universe.
I used to call this "zen guitar". There have been times when demands of life have taken me from my instrument for long periods to where I really felt like I forgot how to play. And during my "not playing", I actually become better! More creative, etc....The muscles become rusty, but that is usually cured in a short time. I thought at first that it was just because I was returning with a "fresh" or "beginner's mind". But I've noticed that it amounts to more than that.
It seems that as I have developed in knowledge & experience in the understanding of the nature of the universe, that it entails adding to some kind of universal skill that enhances me as a player...without studying, without practicing, etc....And it doesn't just work with guitar-playing.
But that's not what I began to write about. I wanted to write about those "happy accidents" that occur during the recording process.
No, I don't mean when you get so involved in the creative process that you forget to go to the restroom.
I mean those unintended things that happen which somehow mesh with the creative process and end up enhancing the result. And odd flourish improvised, not on the chart that sounds great. Sometimes some stray noise on an instrument generated by creative exuberance or frustration, scheduled for erasure during editing, turns out to sound pretty darn good because of its timing or whatever, so you end up leaving it in.
The Beatles knew all about this, and were open to using it to their advantage. They were great experimenters anyway, using instruments & equipment in ways far out of the norm. But they always had their ears tuned in for anything odd that might enhance a tune...sometimes this got started by a compressor or some other unit set wrong. Someone would start playing, and they'd think "Wow. What can we do with that?".
Since I've gotten back to recording again, I've had a number of happy accidents...no jokes PLEASE!...The latest & greatest of these is not completely accidental. Some of it results from educated guesses and the "zen recording" phenomenon mentioned earlier.
You must first understand that I began working on my current tune 4 YEARS AGO!...It's been one of those situations where life's demands have thrown a series of wooden shoes in my music-making. Working in widely separated spurts, it took the first 2 to make the basic tracks (rhythm section) and vocal for this tune...and then things got really interesting!
But back before I began, I had a sound in my head for the lead guitar. And in my head I began designing a patch to get that sound. So I have been carrying this around like a grain of sand in an oyster, agitating me for at least 5 years!
Finally it has come time to make that track. Yesterday I did some very basic settings on my equipment looking to produce that sound I've been aiming for. I worked on it maybe a half an hour, which in recording time, doesn't amount to much. I figured to do a lot more tweaking to get that elusive quality I was looking for...I recorded a test section to see what it might need to match my idea.
Stunningly Unbelievably it needed Nothing!!!
I used to call this "zen guitar". There have been times when demands of life have taken me from my instrument for long periods to where I really felt like I forgot how to play. And during my "not playing", I actually become better! More creative, etc....The muscles become rusty, but that is usually cured in a short time. I thought at first that it was just because I was returning with a "fresh" or "beginner's mind". But I've noticed that it amounts to more than that.
It seems that as I have developed in knowledge & experience in the understanding of the nature of the universe, that it entails adding to some kind of universal skill that enhances me as a player...without studying, without practicing, etc....And it doesn't just work with guitar-playing.
But that's not what I began to write about. I wanted to write about those "happy accidents" that occur during the recording process.
No, I don't mean when you get so involved in the creative process that you forget to go to the restroom.
I mean those unintended things that happen which somehow mesh with the creative process and end up enhancing the result. And odd flourish improvised, not on the chart that sounds great. Sometimes some stray noise on an instrument generated by creative exuberance or frustration, scheduled for erasure during editing, turns out to sound pretty darn good because of its timing or whatever, so you end up leaving it in.
The Beatles knew all about this, and were open to using it to their advantage. They were great experimenters anyway, using instruments & equipment in ways far out of the norm. But they always had their ears tuned in for anything odd that might enhance a tune...sometimes this got started by a compressor or some other unit set wrong. Someone would start playing, and they'd think "Wow. What can we do with that?".
Since I've gotten back to recording again, I've had a number of happy accidents...no jokes PLEASE!...The latest & greatest of these is not completely accidental. Some of it results from educated guesses and the "zen recording" phenomenon mentioned earlier.
You must first understand that I began working on my current tune 4 YEARS AGO!...It's been one of those situations where life's demands have thrown a series of wooden shoes in my music-making. Working in widely separated spurts, it took the first 2 to make the basic tracks (rhythm section) and vocal for this tune...and then things got really interesting!
But back before I began, I had a sound in my head for the lead guitar. And in my head I began designing a patch to get that sound. So I have been carrying this around like a grain of sand in an oyster, agitating me for at least 5 years!
Finally it has come time to make that track. Yesterday I did some very basic settings on my equipment looking to produce that sound I've been aiming for. I worked on it maybe a half an hour, which in recording time, doesn't amount to much. I figured to do a lot more tweaking to get that elusive quality I was looking for...I recorded a test section to see what it might need to match my idea.
Stunningly Unbelievably it needed Nothing!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)