Focused, do better work, and waste less time.

Do you agree?

 

I hate the recent philosophical videos he's been making he sounds like what I'd imagine my mom to sound like if she was giving me mixing advice.

But he's not wrong, and in fact all 3 of his questions have to do with gain staging. Gain staging is crucial.

Also getting it in your head that everything wrong with the mix is not because of the gear and/or plugins but because of the man in front of the monitor.

Damn now I'm being philosophical..

 

I ask myself only one question: "does it sounds good"
no matter if some tracks are not audible... if it sounds good, that`s it

 

Sadly most of my tracks sound better when they are inaudible.

 

that part about 'the heart of the song' is in fact quite inspiring, i always thought a balanced mix will be a good mix but I will think twice again

 

stands to reason that we react subconsciously to different events, then why would we not react somehow to subsonic frequencies, i.e. things not necessarily heard, or barely heard....

then again there's quantum mechanics..and the collapse of the wave function..

well that's a whole other bag of worms..

 

@Herr Durr:
Well... at that level, we know shit about anything
So, everything that we think we know, is just bullshit.

...but it is fun to think about these things... it is like playing and composing music with our thoughts instead of using instruments

 

celebrity-youtube-mixer-champion -> i like

 

I respect this guy for this passion, and in the end, his mixes aren't bad, but I feel the whole necessity for creating content for content sake has people really reaching for things to talk about... and I really dislike his school of thought.. his questions are what in my book would define as a technical speak vs what an artist would ask


to illustrate.. when you sit down... let's say you have 50 tracks.. what are you going to ask yourself after you listen to the song? how do i make these tracks sound good? how do you even decide which track to make sound good first? heck no.. you try to formulate in your mind a plan.. a vision of what it should sound like... imagining it like looking at a blank canvas and picturing the finished painting even before the first brush stroke.. the clearer the vision, the more productive you will be because you will have a more defined destination .. so invest time in the vision


Also, Do I ever ask myself if something is too distracting? Hell no... I ask myself if this is serving the purpose I want it to have.. distraction, muddiness, etc... they ALL can be used as tools to create an emotional impact that serves a vision!!

as a mixing engineer, it is your job to make sounds create emotion, and "distraction" is a GREAT tool in certain places... want to be clever about something... put in the shaker so it is distracting for the first 4 measures of a breakdown, the slowly pull back on the volume a bit... that distraction and the sparseness of the breakdown could create an awesome dimmuendo effect that is more impactful BECAUSE it was distracting in the beginning...

and also, if you get lost, why the heck would you ask yourself can i hear everything? some sounds are NOT meant to be heard but rather felt... can you hear a sub that well? no.. but if you can feel it... then that it can be good enough.. or what about subtle ghost notes on snares.. you dont need to hear that.. you just need to miss it when it is gone..

for a good musical example, listen to Radiohead's National Anthem when the big breakdown at the end comes in before the coda.. you've got horns, cymbals, singing, guitar, bass, all going on at the same time

if your goal was to make everything sound clear at a section like that.. you're probably doing it wrong.. the effect which they so smartly strove for was a feeling of a mixture of sounds congealed together to form a very distinct timbre that only can be gotten from many different intruments manipulating each others' space and character and fighting for dominance -- in other words mimicing the effect of live sound.. as a mixer, trying to make everything stand out or 'be heard' in this scenario would not have achieved the vision that they wanted..instruments will fae in and out of focus..

strip away the complexity... there should only be 2 dominant questions 1) what is my vision.... 2) what tool do i use to fulfill this vision..

experience, time , and practice is what will get you good at answering #2
novice to intermediate musicians, or people who don't know any better or don't need top quality will hire you because of your ability to answer #2

but when you're dealing with pros who are used to experienced engineers who know almost everything about mixing.. you will get hired because of your ability to answer question #1

 

Yeah, but vision means also that you wouldn't necessary go up to 50 tracks. A good producer would know that the more things going on at the same time the lesser the impact will get sonically no matter how good the mixing engineer that's gonna mix it would be.
More simultaneous elements means also
more phase correlation problems.

Back to the "50 tracks" thing, that should be part of the vision too, not like waking up with 50 tracks in your project wondering how the hell did that amount build up so fast.
Most famous/good records are simply made off a vocal + a guitar + a bass, some drums and the basic transitions effects.
The more the song elements, the more the brain will have to digest at the same time, fact which risks the "catchiness" of that song and it turns it into a "listening for the sake of art" type of song which is edible mostly to the few people with a big appetite for digesting such things (myself included), but if your goal is to make something for radio/masses then you should look out and form your strategy/vision of thay production carefully.

I mentioned "production" so much because a good mix is also production-dependent, the mastering stage is dependent on the earlier stages too and even the production it's dependent to the "vision"/songwritting we're talking about.

 

in my opinion, this is bogus 100% - if one is a producer doing full pop productions with tons of harmonies and everything else that is involved in making a song, and one can't even imagine doing 50 tracks.. no offense, but this is statement against one's limited experience and knowledge more than a reflection of reality.

more simultaneous elements = phase correlation problems? Next time I go to the Philadelphia orchestra, I'm going to yell at the conductor for using too many violins, brass, and woodwind section.. absolutely ridiculous!

phase is not some sort of death sentence that mixers and tracking engineers don't know how to deal with.. that's why there's such thing as different mic setups, the phase inverse button, nudging on the DAW, etc. etc.


---
to further expand

in a simple harmony, you got vocal stacks of the 3rd and 5th interval usually.. and each is done with 3 takes.. that on top of the main lead, which is often double or triple stacked on a chorus that's already 9 tracks.. then don't foget the adlibs.. and harmonies for different sections for chorus, verse, bridge, etc.. full vocal arragenments alone can come over 50 tracks easily and often does! I think Katy Perry's Teenage Dream is composed of 200 tracks,of which a good portion is probably vocals..

for drum tracking: how many mics/tracks for drums? possibly 2 for a kick, 2 for snare, 2 for closer room, 2 for ambience, 1 hi hat, 1 cymbal, 2 toms
triple stacked guitars, DI bass mixed with Amped bass, etc. etc... and then the parallel chain, etc

furthermore, modern production, if you're not layering synths.. or you're not stacking all sorts of things, using all sorts of effects and different variations of a sound... you're just plain not doing enough.. these guys spend countless hours learning how to blend sounds to create new ones, creating some semblance of pleasing timbre through sound design and all sorts of envelope pushing..thats why it takes like 10-15 people to make one damn song nowadays.. the deception of these great talented modern producers is that they make the complex seem simple..

good complexity is the result of understanding how simplicity adds up to chaos, and then trying to make the chaos digestable..


back in the day with the existence of tape, mixers used to mix things in groups separately, like a main percussion bus, a string bus, etc. and they would mix the entire section only! they could do this because the tracking was done well.. but they would be mixing like 6-7 busses together, but each bus would contain at least 4 instruments or parts.. or more

but on the flip side... take Adele.. put her next to a piano and have 5 microphones for piano , backup singers, etc. and it would still sound beautiful..

to summarize.. yeah.. if you do minimalistic music. those sub 50 tracks make sense and is common.. but if you're already scared of 50 tracks or... or can't even imagine arranging a song with 50 tracks.. time to get an internship at a respectable recording studio for broader experiences

What are we in the 50s or something? do you think each instrument gets 1 microphone only therefore only 1 track as well?

but anyway.. i'm an old timer and that is my opinion

 

You clearly didn't get my point, by "elements" i meant by types of elements/instruments.
Tell me one single hit song that feature a piano + violins + violas + cellos + ac guiar + electric guitar + accordion + marimba + flute + sax + trumpet + tuba + horns + synth polys + synth plucks + synth lead + bass + vox + drums ALL AT THE SAME TIME (and each of these elements being made like 4-5 layers or more stacked on separate tracks) with no cohesive strategy behind the arrangements to make all these elements act as one in the mix! I've seen countless amateur producers complaining about how many instruments they add in their songs and that it sounds confusing and agglomerated, but they expected tons of punch and "awesomeness" the more they stacked.

And also that's why IT IS exists micing techniques, phase inverse buttons and etc, because the phase problem DOES exists and the risk of it (in the modern daw production) comes from the clueless stacking/layering of too many types of elements in the mix with no cohesive strategy/vision behind it.

I do layer myself multiple synths/instruments and stuff for a certain production related purpose e.g. lead, bass or chords, but i always make sure it acts as ONE single element in the mix so the listener's brain "eats" that combo as a single.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post because it doesn't correlates with my previous post's point, but i do apologize if i made myself unclear.

Even by "end up with 50 tracks" i meant about the end result, the song to end up sounding like it does plays 50 disconnected elements simultaneously in a confussing way and that producer to saddly think why his song can't compare to a serious record.

 

Last edited: Nov 23, 2015

@SharkBait O-reily ,
read the first point of this article about "kitchen sink" mistake:

https://ask.audio/articles/5-mistakes-to-avoid-when-arranging-your-next-track/p1#article

 

it has well


my original post, i talk about tracks, or 1 sound source.. then you come in with 'elements'.... and i thought you meant 'tracks' (because why would one warn me about 'elements' when I am talking and have always been talking about 'tracks' in my post ) and I reply with that thought in mind... but then in your reply.. you say that oh wait , i didnt understand you and that 'elements' means 'sections' .. not individual tracks

then you show me this article which doesn't talk about elelemts but rather tracks/or sources .. not once does it use the word elements.. it uses "TRACKS" -- and in addition not a single part talks about phase.. why did you want to show me this article for?

in addition, this article says "sometimes too many tracks can reduce clarity..." while at the same time conceding it worked for Phil Specter, someone probably muh more famous and skilled than this guy will ever be... and on top of which other modern produers DO make productions with that many tracks...TODAY, but nope this article speaks truth.../sarcasm

come on.. do you really think some click bait article is going to make anyone change their mind... heck check out Grammy awawrd winning mixing engineer Ken Lewis's free guide on his mix of a 50 cent song - Down on Me (free on youtube). that song was consolidated in the mix he received, but that still is almost close to 50 tracks...

its a real hit song.. its minimalistic as heck.. and you can see exactly how many tracks are made... and it has no phase issues and no issues with being too busy

edit: and then tip #4 on his list? don't make it too "not busy" . really, this article is not very good. There are much, much better material out there. Look out for stuff and pros vetted by expertss! The engineer handbook is old, David Gibson 3d mixing is old.. but it is actually accurate and real..!

but I do concede your point that you are making that adding more tracks or even elements can cause problems ..and yes phase can be an issue.. if your tracking engineer and mixing engineer don't know how to press the phase button or align tracks based on waveforms... but then again.. if they don't know that.. you probably shouldn't hire them...

 

Last edited: Nov 25, 2015

First of all, the way i understand "elements" might not be the same as you do, especially since i don't speak english natively.

I posted the article for the "too many tracks overpowering eachother" type of mistake which beginners tend to make, not for phase, that's why i even said "read the first point".
Doesn't matter who wrote the article or what examples did he used, his point it's still true in the real world scenario.
The way you state it will make unexperienced beginners who reads it understand that "more is more" when it's only 50% true so my point was just to make sure someone who reads your post won't get misguided by it.

Regarding "Down On Me" song, i've seen that mixing video, but the number of tracks in that song was just a matter of original producer's workflow preference. For example you can break one single instrument into multiple tracks, but together these tracks will still sound just like one instrument. That's the point i'm trying to make and also the first "1" point from that article.

e.g. are we going to hear evey detail from a piano if there's a guitar, rhodes and some other poly instruments going on at the same time hitting the exact same notes? Also, my first post in this topic was not made on that AskAudio article, i just found it randomly in the news feed on facebook and got me the idea to post it here. The "kitchen sink" problem is something often mentioned, not only there. I even faced it on my own in my beginnings. Numbers of tracks has nothing to do with the quality of a records or "the story" behind it. For example, i can technically make a complex song with under 20 tracks if i use a rompler/sampler type of instrument like Sampletank, Halion Sonic, Kontakt, Magix Engine or alike, to stack up multis and edit them internally right into the main vst track and when i'll export all the separate tracks to send it to the mixing engineer, the count will be really low.

When i said: "Most famous/good records are simply made off a vocal + a guitar + a bass, some drums and the basic transitions effects." you said "What are we in the 50s or something?" Well, the bellow examples will prove you that 50's has nothing to do with number of the tracks:

Check this "Like a G6" song which was no.1 for 3 consecutive weeks in Billboard Top100.

Now look bellow and skip to 0:46, how many tracks you see? The guys even laugh about it:

Another no.1 Billboard hit made of few elements:

The opening verse consists of Lorde singing over a kick drum and handclaps from a drum machine. The pre-chorus ("But every song's like") and chorus ("And we'll never be royyyyalllls") add hi-hats and a simple bass line to the mix. In the second verse, a light synth accent comes in and repeats the same note 32 times. That's a true commitment simplicity which still made the song a hit record without worrying the producer neither the mixing engineer about "too less tracks".

Another example (which highlights the vocals, a piano, drums an ethnic-ish lead and some background synthy guitar-ish loop, let me guess: this song is a classic from 50s for you? )

And i can go on and on with "today" examples but i think it's enough.

So in the end, my first post in this topic was not to prove you that "more tracks" is wrong. If you re-read the very first bar of it, you'll spot the decisive word (which you maybe accidentally ignored) but made you misunderstood me, i'll requote here:

Professionalism, quality, artistry, music-related success it's not defined by how complex you work on something. I know you mentioned a lot of "complex" examples, but they worked in their own scenarios, it doesn't have to apply to everything.

Take famous paintings for examples, some of them doesn't look realistic at all and doesn't feature "16 million" colours either, the artist just expressed himself the right way in his own vision, without giving a damn about how many colours he would include in that picture and that painting it's still worth millions.

P.S. my main income is based on music production and sound engineering/design since 2012. I mostly wake up and fall asleep with "music making" in between, all year round with a few minor exceptions.
You gave me an attitude like i'd be some sort of noob just because i had the courage to express my objective opinion for the sake of the youngsters to not take your statements as a rule, because there are really no rules as long as you make something sound like a record in the end.

 

Last edited: Nov 26, 2015

I think he's kinda right with 'the heart of the song'

But surely it's about listening to the demo mix,and bringing out the best in it,the demo mix got the track this far,so work with it