Each month, I receive an email newsletter from Audiofanzine. This article, written by U.S. Editor, Mike Levine, really captured my attention. Here is the complete article. What are some of your impressions from not only a musician's perspective, but from an audio/technical point of view?

It’s the Dynamics!

Playing dynamically is one of the most overlooked aspects of musicianship. Sure, if you’re an orchestral musician who’s reading a piece of music, you’ll be following the dynamics in the score. But if you’re playing live in a band or some other less formal scenario, or recording in the studio, it’s easy for your attention to focus mostly on playing the notes and rhythms, and not as much on the intensity and volume from one section to the next.

In theory, we all know the importance of playing dynamically. A song that stays at the same intensity level throughout is less likely to keep the listeners’ interest than one in which some parts louder or denser or more intense than others. Contrast is an important part of both arranging and mixing.

In live performance, musicians have a tendency to want to bash away, and the dynamics get lost in the energy of playing. I’ve been in many band situations where in rehearsal, someone says, “We’ve got to come down in the verses.” But then when the gig comes around, those good intentions go by the wayside, and everyone ends up playing at full throttle the whole time.

The subject of dynamics came up in my recent interview with mixing guru Andrew Scheps (part 1 of which was published this week on Audiofanzine), when I asked him about problems that he finds in the multitrack recordings sent to him to mix. One example he gave was that sometimes the verses are so big, arrangement wise and dynamically, that there’s nowhere to go on the chorus, and thus the song sounds too static.

One of the interesting ways in which he remedies such situations while mixing is to push up certain instruments, or groups of instruments on the downbeat of the chorus (or bridge), to add a little intensity and excitement to the transition that wasn’t there in the original performance.

It’s ironic, because you so often hear people complain, often legitimately so, about music being digitally processed into sterility — such as when there’s too much pitch and time correction applied. Yet what Scheps is talking about is using the power of digital audio editing (in this case volume automation) to add life to a song by changing the dynamics.

Of course, the best way to create a dynamic recording is for the musicians to play dynamically during the session. In order for that to happen, though, the dynamic aspects of the arrangements need to be ingrained during rehearsals or preproduction. In addition, if there’s a producer on the session, he or she must stay focused on them during the actual recording.

So there you have it. What have been your experiences with this subject matter?

 

Sorry my attention span is only so long; you're going to have to say it louder. Def needs more sausage.

 

It's not a secret that the human brain gets used to something very quickly. If you start you pc on a silent evening, you notice the noise it makes. But since the noise stays the same for hours, the brain quickly starts to filter out the noise from our perception. This is of interest for music. Playing the same over and over again loses the listener's attention - unless you bring in dynamics. Best example is the well known Bolero:

You don't need to listen to the whole track, just the first and the last minute. But of course, there's so much more. One thing I am interested in is applying dynamics in waves, similar to what was mentioned in the article. For example, building up volume towards the chorus, then taking it back again towards the verse. Even in smallest details, dynamics play a role. Set up 16th for a hihat and play them. Now change the velocity on each note in a notable range (no matter if following a pattern or totally random). Play it again. I think it is without question, which take we will prefer.
I would even go so far as to say there is no music without dynamics. Loudness war almost killed dynamics, but luckily people realize now that it was the wrong path and return to mixes that allow for a wider dynamics range.

 

Man, I could not have said it better. Where are the 'subtleties' and crescendos in today's music? The example you posted, illustrates the points being made perfectly. Can't wait for that day (to return).

 

When digital recording 1st became available on CD's, all that was available at first were classical recordings. One of the things that caught my ear at the start was the increased dynamic range available. On orchestral recordings, musicians could go from a whisper to heavy metal loud and capture that. Now digital recording and reproduction sounds much better, but most people waste the dynamics available to compress and limit everything to be loud. I can hear it before I even look at my meters. Something sounds like it is played softer, but the level itself is not. I find it annoying and un-musical most of the time. I remember one of the first rock CD's was Dire Straits "Brothers in Arms" and the beginning to "Money for Nothing" was something I used to demonstrate the new tech for my friends because of the dynamic intro. Now, that would probably get the life squeezed out of it. Listen to Stadium Arcadium by the Red Hot Chili Peppers and watch the meters. They don't move much. Listening to that album bothers me, though I like the band and the songs. I find a lot of modern recordings push everything right up to the brick wall. That sound has it's place, but not as a continuous diet. A listener should feel the need to lean forward to capture something subtle every once in a while.

 

Yep, over the past 10-15 years brick wall compression became the norm in everyone's quest to release the LOUDEST CD ever. This made the CD's expanded dynamic range over the LP a moot point and an entire generation grew up with no understanding of dynamics.

 

Only so much can be said and yet we fall in the over-crushed bus limiter. We've all been there: You wake up in the morning and get ready to yield your most dynamic mix, inspired by Bob Katz and all the well-meaning people who fight the loudness war. You sit at your desk, grab a gain plugin and place it in every track and before any processor. You keep the line at -18. Then you shape your tracks with your go-to compressors. You remember to subtract more than add with EQs. You shelve the highs, roll the lows, remove the rumble. You mix in mono to avoid phasing; later, you spread your tracks along the panorama, you use judiciously your reverbs to create 3D imaging. You mix away feeling the joy of a well balanced, breathy, and expressive mix. You avoid plugins on the mix bus, maybe a VCA compressor to add glue or a tape machine emulation. You are just about to hit the Close button and then you remember, "I'll compare my mix to commercial records." That's when it all goes down to crap and you go mad with all kinds of compressors, limiters, saturators, master-bus gadgets and you finally "get there."

The next morning, you wake up, listen to your mix, trash it, and get ready to yield your most dynamic mix...

 

Psycho Acoustics are a big factor in this too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletcher–Munson_curves

In psycho-acoustic tests, if you play the same audio file to a group and then increase the volume they'll tend to always prefer the quality of the louder version. Technically I guess this isn't dynamics per se.

Loudness has always been desired for most popular music. The idea that the louder it is across the radio the more likely it'd be heard. Old vinyl mastering was all about trying to fit as much volume and length onto to disc.

A quick google search will return volume range of different bit rates. Can't remember off top of my head.

Almost but not completely unrelated is the way that audio was broadcast back in the FM/AM radio days.

UK and I think EU allowed dynamics in radio broadcast. In the US however it had to be compressed/limited. As you can imagine this will have made it pretty amusing listening to classical music.

Will this have had an effect on how the music of the day was recorded/produced ?

 

Musical performances without dynamics (the kissin' cousin of phrasing) are boring, and performances crushed to hell with compression are grating.

A couple years ago, I acquired the eight-track recording stems of "I Heard It Through the Grapevine" by Marvin Gaye, and in playing them back at default levels with no EQ, the recording didn't seem to need any mixing, since the musicians and singers performed with professional skill, getting softer and louder as directed or appropriate to the arrangement.

Likewise with the stems for "Ziggy Stardust" by David Bowie, a rock performance. Not only that, but the unquantized (and, when isolated, sloppy-sounding) performances of the band (recorded essentially live, all together, in the studio) were glued together in time by the interactive phrasing and collaborative timing of the musicians: real give-and-take.

The current crop of DAW-bred "producers" should learn about phrasing and dynamics – at least by studying such stems of old recordings - if they also bother to learn about music theory. Phrasing and dynamics can even be controlled/emulated in MIDI programming; even the ritard and other "global" tempo changes can be applied.

 

I don't get it, why don't you compress how you want it before you compare it?
what is this autistic way of thinking that readouts have to be the same?

what makes you compare in the first place? should reference songs not be songs you actually like?
your post raises more questions then it answers

 

It was supposed to be a funny, sarcastic remark. I wasn't really implying any way to go about a mix. In any case it resembles my own and my own pitfalls.

 

Yes.
People should get rid of the hive mentality "he does it that way,so i must do it as well"....yes you can make it louder wthout compromising the dynamic range.

 

I am currently working in 5 bands, and dynamics are the hardest thing to teach musicians who have never played in a scenario where an ensemble is reading music and being led by a director. Most drummers I have worked with are balls to the wall, one volume. When I was a drummer, I had an assortment of different sized sticks and brushes. I knew how to use cymbals, and where to place the stick to get the desired sound and volume. Guitarists are usually just as bad. They never try to fit in a mix...........it is about crank it up, never change tone, and have a "hear me only" attitude. They also don't know when to play and when NOT to play. I am a guitarist and have never played like that. Very few bassists don't know how to play sweetly, and not every song demands a slapping sound. On the other hand most of the keyboardists I have experienced are good with dynamics and know when to play....and not. Probably because many of them are trained and listen to varied styles of music. Singers..........Whew! Either they don't know how to use their diaphragm and sing weakly, or, like drummers.....balls to the wall. It is many times like war on stage as they compete to be heard. The volume consistently increases. The songs lose all feeling. I become frustrated and lose any interest in trying to play with feeling and musicianship.........and only look forward to the end of the gig.

 

Sadly so many times it is not at all about playing to the song but rather an ego-fest where individuals keep turning it up and up until they either run out of gain or the drummer can't even hear her own kit. Dynamics is about feeling and finess and translating underlying emotions, a conveying mechanism married to melody and the glue that binds to the timeline enabling and ensuring that the parts are greater than the whole.

 

mimimi, no dynamics, mimimi, no transients. I guess at least 50% of the people complaining about that just have no clue on how to make their tracks loud and pleasant for the generation of 2016, searching for an excuse. They still believe it being just a matter of limiting. It is a lot more. A lot, to make it sounding good anyway. Dynamics is not interesting for most kind of music and the beloved TRANSIENTS are nothing more but ototoxic

 

I play music live. An experienced arranger will tell you that when playing live you have to exaggerate your dynamics to get the feeling across. If you seek fidelity, dynamics are part of that. Saying "dynamics is not interesting in most kind of music", as a player and performer, a lifelong audiophile, and sometimes an engineer, I think that statement is just an opinion, and I think it is wrong.

 

yes, sorry, my statement was not meant for live performings, just for produced tracks. You're right, in the manner of live performing i am wrong.

 

How do *you* get a mix loud and pleasant for the likes of the 2016 generation? I have nothing against loudness, and you make a good point. Please, elaborate. Educate us old chumps.

 

I am far far away from educating od chumps. BTW: Are old chumps educatable ?

 

Sarcasm aside, the question is real. I do mean for you to elaborate.