I've been thinking a lot recently about the focus of my tracks and what matters... Often we get feedback where the person giving their advice comes from a different perspective, so it might not really be relevant to what we're trying to achieve... So if someone typically makes Dance Music, the Groove will be important to them, but this might actually drag focus away from what matters if it becomes too prominent...

So this got me thinking about the different focuses of tracks and opening up a conversation about various focuses of tracks. I'd love to hear what I've missed here but the ones that I can see are:

• Vocalist
• Vocals (lyrics)
  
• Song (general balance - teamwork)
  
• Groove
• Melody / Hooklines
  
• Engineering
• Production
• Energy
• Attitude

As I'm shifting my focus and thinking more about what I'm trying to achieve, what matters in the balance of the mix, I'm drawn towards the 'Song'. I'm a bit conflicted because Hooklines are import to me as well as the Lyrics and the Attitude and Energy also matter...

What I've figured about my own productions is that Engineering doesn't matter and although the flow of the track and the Production elements matter, they're probably less important. Its difficult to figure out at times what I'm aiming for exactly

Often the Vocalist or the Guitarist will be what matters, them showing off their talent for example and that just isn't me. So this kind of thinking is starting to help with perspective, getting a better mix balance to my own taste, so that what matters to me most, mainly the 'Song' is what should shine through and that doesn't mean amazing Engineering

When I think about the Engineering and what it brings to a track, often too much of this could mean that the raw Energy and Attitude that I captured at first gets lost as I over-produce and over Engineer it... So this has brought me back to this focus and to ask myself what matters in my tracks, to me. What is it that I want out of my productions, not what other people would typically expect

Any thoughts? Do you ever think about these aspects in your own productions? Do you think that focusing on too many aspects can kill your tracks? Do you think its possible to have a few outstanding focuses before a track loses something?

 

I always tell a story, without story my music, doesn't exist

 

in nowadays hasty world, what matters is attention - getting attention of the audience, earn their interest,

you're trying to find objective rules in art, makes no sense:
some awesome music has no vocals, can be done by individual, no need for complex arrangements, no need for fancy hooks if it vibes on its own ambience, engineering remains very important when people expect something they already know such as good drum sound, energy isn't mandatory either...

when you ask for feedback, don't tell it's your work, you get more honest opinions as people won't hesitate to criticize things in your face

 

It's a little hard to answer you as you're explaining definitions that we might not exactly share. But Recoil is right, whenever things get overwhelming, remember the story you are trying to tell in the first place. Whether it be a beat or a song (with lyrical content), the story or feeling you want to evoke in whoever listens to your track is the most important thing. Also, I've always believed that technology has made it so easy for us to bounce between different disciplines that we forget that mixing/production/songwriting/mastering are all separate disciplines in the first place. Approach everything one step at a time if you really want to do it all, but there's a reason why I send my music out for mixing/mastering by someone else. Collaboration is also important, giving you an alternate perspective and a fresh set of ears to finish your music. It's easy to become accustomed to how your own production sounds it's important to take a step back most of the time.

A simple way of viewing it is like wearing hats. One day, I wear my producer hat and I solely focus on the music, the backbone, and whatever sections I'm trying to create. Now, I do some quick EQs just to remain inspired and work towards an end "sound". When I've "said" what I could, I can move on to committing to the sounds I've chosen and mixing them together, or if it's lyrical content that I need, I bounce out the instrumental and do a scratch session. It only gets overwhelming if you're not committing to decisions you've made prior. As with energy/attitude, I don't quite understand your definition but you have to know that there have to be some sacrifices for elements to sound together. A raw vocal is gonna have a lot of information in 200Hz for example but why do we remove that? Or you're pushing your entire track into a limiter and sacrificing your dynamics just to be a little louder. All of these technical decisions require a sacrifice, and it may not be how you thought you initially wanted it to sound when producing. Again, these are very simplistic examples, but I don't view this as the track losing anything though, it is just part of the process of gelling everything together and ending up with a satisfying story.

 

Yeah totally. I'm curious about other people's perspective on definitions etc and what matters. Reading your reply it sounds like you think a lot like I've been doing for a while, changing hats

I've been thinking recently that for me this might take something away, because when I become the Engineer I start to lose perspective on the initial attitude of a track. I guess that includes emotions if you make a ballad for example. If your singer is just singing the words then maybe they aren't performing it so much and it lack the emotions, attitude etc... But then if they put in a great performance and the engineering suddenly outshines the Vocalist performance, does it take something away? It feels like a fine line to me when they're pushing at the very top

We see so many tracks have been released that sound really shit when you scrutinise the engineering etc, but the attitude is enough to make it a hit. Punk for example, there's probably some energy as well

When I start thinking deep like this and focus on what matters in my own tracks, I'm realising that as I push for a better overall sound I end up losing something in every mix and often the first version is just better... You get the same with Vocal performances often, where they just can't repeat that raw energy and getting it perfect takes something away. Even the mistakes add character sometimes

Sometimes in some genres there really is no story, like Techno for example, the story is 'dance' really, so that must be the focus. I think if you try to turn Techno into a story you've lost the plot and mixed up perspectives and what you're trying to achieve. Do you want people to just dance all night or is there a message in there? If there's a message then maybe it can never work

I'm sure we all have millions of different variations of perspective in what we're looking for but I doubt that most of us ever know what that is really... I've been realising this about myself recently, so it has me thinking about that and what matters in my tracks. In the end its about whether I like it. That's all that matters to me. But its necessary to understand the many aspects like the Engineering side to get the sound that I'm after - But its just as important not to fall down a rabbit hole of learning to be an Engineer when its not the most important aspect of my tracks

 

I think of music in a very technical way and can't (and frankly don't wanna) help myself about it. Every "feel" we get from music is born out of something. And whenever I work with a client's song, I first try to understand what makes the song into what it is. What's the song about. This includes conversations with the artist, of course. Then I map it to technicalities ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Then when I did that, I emphasise the core of the song to the best of my ability and then build the rest of the track around it in a way that won't obstruct the core feeling the song carries, but won't fall apart on its own either, supporting it instead.If I can't find the core, then I just do the technicalities of my job, balance it in the way the client wants and let the song be a polished turd in my mind.

With my own production it's a bit different. Everything begins with an idea. It can be a musical one, a mathematical one or a narrative one. So at first I try to emphasize this initial idea as the core, but it often evolves or outright changes during production. So I go with it. The rest is the same. Every "feel" comes from a source. My job as an artis and as an engineer is to be able to find the source in any given case.

 

Last edited: Nov 17, 2022

I think you are mixing up topics that need totally different mindsets:

As a composer, what matters is the vibe that gets you started. If you make dance music and the groove is your focus, that's great. If you make it beyond an 8-bar loop, so much better. As a composer, there's no rule that can tell you what to focus on, at least to get started. I believe arrangement is on the other hand a more formulaic process. Your preferred musical genre has a set of conventions on how to structure a song. Those concepts even change over time. For instance, in pop music, intros are shorter than before, there are no middle-eight sections in a lot of hit songs, instrumentals have gone AWOL, etc. On the other hand, rock music will almost inevitably have an instrumental section, though virtuosity for those instrumentals has changed too.

On the other hand, from a mixing perspective, focus on each section is actually a thing to observe, that's when these aspects you break down matter. This is what I observe before I mix a song that I haven't composed. Writing a song and mixing it is always a bigger challenge:

• Vocalist: intonation, pocket with the groove of the song, dynamics in their singing, the right attitude and technique for the message of the song, that other parts of the arrangement don't clash with the frequencies of the vocal track.

• Vocals (lyrics): I usually don't even pay attention to them unless they affect the arrangement.

• Song (general balance - teamwork): I listen to the raw mix (if provided) to see what the artist has intended originally. I check that all instruments/parts are in tune and that the chords aren't clashing among instruments. I check to see how catchy the song is and if there's anything in the mix that might help highlight the hooks or the interesting parts. I check for redundant arrangement (i.e. keyboards and guitars in the same frequency range, extra percussion that might blurry the interest of the song, etc).

• Groove: I check for pocket and quantization to a BPM if the genre requires so. I also try to find that contrast between an instrument "locked to the grid" to another that has a more loose vibe. That's important to make the groove breathe, even in contemporary pop.

• Melody / Hooklines: I try to identify them to see how I can make them stand out.

• Engineering: I check for quality of recording or rendering of the tracks, if there are pops and clicks in the tracks, if the fades are well performed, if there's mechanical noise in tracks recorded with a mic. I usually avoid comping tracks, and as much as possible, I ask people to send me tracks that go from start to finish, even if they include silence in between. I also see how I can simplify the track count by seeing which tracks might become a stereo pair. I try to do that before I mix.

• Production: I try to see that I get paid, with the necessary advance money.

• Energy: Once again, contrast. Not everything can be soft and mellow. Likewise, not all tracks can be pushing forward. I try to see where I can find that contrast. If not there, I see how I can create it.

• Attitude: That will affect the mix as a whole, and that aspect is better to be discussed with the artist.

I hope my rather long two cents help.

 

I never tell them it's my music, but I always bring a baseball bat. I tell them it's from my little slugger.

 

In my experience, the more you're able to put definitions and able to generally describe the process, the less you actually know.

Here's why: a simple eq move is usually the result of a domino of dozens of decisions (current context, what I'm trying to achieve, whats the optimal tool, what are the optimal settings for the minimum amount of processing or eq moves etc)

The amount of necesaary explanation just for a single song is enough to write a book and then it's contents could be useless for a different song

Engineering and production are not killing the energy of the song, they actually enhance it. However, tasteless engineering and production do kill the innitial captured vibe of a song.

You don't need more (micro)definitions and/or discussion, you need more practice.

With more definitions and talk you will indeed find the answer to all "why it sounds like it does?" kind of questions. But only more practice will get you the answers to "how to make it how I envision it?" kind of questions

 

Its interesting for sure... Thanks for your thoughts

 

I think it is the fine line between art and junk. in either direction. I think over compression is where all of these problems start. Also, since I think you may have mentioned this once before, I still think this goes back to the DAW. The reason why any effects are typically made with floating point 8bits longer word length than the DAW session bitrate, is an attempt at not degrading your files as they get bounced.

Over and Over if you are printing directly to your tracks. Someone can get out a null test, but I do not buy it. This degrades your files and is much less desirable than re-printing any sorts of material. One time, at the end. But incorrect compression can be the hardest for someone to fix. You make this sound easy but it's probably because you are using nearly crystal clear effects via UAD hardware DSP based plugins; and therefor you do not try to do these things to yourself. The individual tracks begin to lose Clarity. I think you can absolutely over-produce a track.

Then the amount of content you believe a listener can handle in your piece.

 

"It's all about the song, stupid".

When it was originally released, I first listened to The Beatles Hey Jude on a mono, 1/2 inch speaker pocket sized Japanese made AM radio and was immediately blown away.

 

I'm the king of overproducing. I've been focused on so many aspects for far too long and lost perspective, trying to make my songs into dance tracks, which doesn't really work... I think they both need separate perspectives, so that a Dance Producer takes the 'song' aspects into their world and produces the track with the focus more on the dance elements and those kind of carry the vocals and hooks etc

This is what I'm getting at with the different perspectives... So with most of Hans Zimmer's stuff its probably about sound design and engineering, maybe the emotion since its carrying the visuals in film. If he started trying to make his stuff pump for the dancefloor he's probably lost the focus/perspective

With Hey Jude its a song and if they polished that up with modern synths and brilliant engineering it would probably destroy the emotions and I think it might change the focus entirely. We'd be sat listening to those amazing sounds flying around the mix and stop listening to the basics of what makes it a really catchy track

Over the years I've found myself getting lost in what matters and trying to focus on everything (trying to build catchy song ideas into dance tracks), and for me that seems to bring focus away from what should matter the most, which is more the Vocals than the Vocalist, more the Hooklines than the Synth etc... Some of those epic Synth Tracks that I've loved probably have shit Synths but the Hook is so powerful that it doesn't matter so much