MIX CHALLENGE - MC097 April 2024 - Mix Round 1 in evaluation

[Clueless]

7 Automation and more automation. Get the nice short notes or a hit or two on a drum come forward to spice up the listeners experience of the song. Tips, the brass at the end.

This is definitely something to ponder on

[A Future in Noise]

NOTE: Are there another drum tracks on the "Original Mix"? Sounds quite different to me (mostly the hi hats).

Hi, sorry for late answer (and I don't know if somebody else has answered). Anyway - yes, different drums on the original track. According to the rules, It's possible to do that way. But of course, the drums included in the package is the only ones you can use.

[zed999]

7 Automation and more automation. Get the nice short notes or a hit or two on a drum come forward to spice up the listeners experience of the song. Tips, the brass at the end.

This is definitely something to ponder on

Yes it is. Like most here I'm learning - there is a lot to learn. This is the first time I gave this a proper go and looking back I could have done more and better. It also distracted me from some of the basics this time. There are so many aspects to mixing.

Getting to know your tools is a must, but involves so much critical focussed listening (which we're also learning to do), it becomes habit. At the same time we can forget to close our eyes and listen to the song/arrangement/intensions as a whole.

Automation - the artistic / emotional part of mixing, leading the listener through the arrangement. We poor humans can't take in too much at once if there's a lot happening, but if our attention is drawn to one or two things at a time (in addition to the vocals, groove), we enjoy that, usually without realising it's deliberate. For mixers this should be an advantage? If you listen to the arrangement, there are musical stories to pick out, tension to exaggerate etc. If you make a mix so that you can hear everything equally all the time, it's harder to follow he intention.

An example is the guitar solo which interplays with the keyboard, the wail, the electric guitar etc. If your mix focusses only on the lead guitar, the rest being left flat and balanced, you need to hear it well as it's all that's obviously happening? The solo becomes a loud solo on top of the other instruments. which might appear to be merely waiting until it's over... but they aren't just waiting. If you can hear this and automate the other instruments to enhance this existing interplay in the arrangement - so the lead guitar is really leading the other instruments rather than dominating - it will have more musical interest and movement - those instruments are panned already right? That's just one example of one section of the song, but if you can apply this general philosophy throughout you will also create more space and less fighting between instruments to be heard. That's good for the listeners attention and enjoyment - to be lead through rather than straining to work out the relevance of what each instrument is playing with no guidance.

Something to start playing with while you ponder. Most people would do this more or less last. You can automate literally anything but it starts with finding that clip gain on a vocal track can save your compressor(s) having to overwork... or reduce the everlasting deep ring in those toms, or tame the occasional loud kick. Endless possibilities just for that which are mostly to avoid unnecessary amounts of compression so not really artistic, more like donkey work. One thing leads to another though. I think next I started to automate faders because it I wanted something louder for a section or even a moment and it had a compressor on the track, clip gain just fed more signal into the compressor, paradoxically making it sound quieter. Want something wider in the chorus? a crescendo of reverb? Echo just on that last syllable? Lush acoustic guitar in the intro, thinned out for the rest of the song (my intro needs that attention), Automate a plugin. There's no end to it. It's been said that a static mix is a boring mix.

Volume is the main thing to automate though, and for that compressors and multiband dynamic eq to duck just selected frequencies can do some "automation" with side chains better and faster than other methods . Common examples:
Duck the bass with a side chain from the kick.
Duck a guitar/keyboards/anything with a side chain from the vocal.
Duck vocal echos and reverbs with a side chain from the vocal. Or any instrument.

Just thinking out loud.

[BenjiRage]

Automation - the artistic / emotional part of mixing, leading the listener through the arrangement. We poor humans can't take in too much at once if there's a lot happening, but if our attention is drawn to one or two things at a time (in addition to the vocals, groove), we enjoy that, usually without realising it's deliberate. For mixers this should be an advantage? If you listen to the arrangement, there are musical stories to pick out, tension to exaggerate etc. If you make a mix so that you can hear everything equally all the time, it's harder to follow he intention.

An example is the guitar solo which interplays with the keyboard, the wail, the electric guitar etc. If your mix focusses only on the lead guitar, the rest being left flat and balanced, you need to hear it well as it's all that's obviously happening? The solo becomes a loud solo on top of the other instruments. which might appear to be merely waiting until it's over... but they aren't just waiting...

With regard to some of your points here, there is a bit of a blurred line between what is typically a mix engineer's decision and what is a creative decision for the artist whose material you are mixing. I'm always careful not to overstep the bounds too far into the realms of artistic expression with my mix choices. The decision to sculpt the arrangement emotionally through automation might be in complete contrast to what the artist had originally intended, then again it might not be.

My point is, as mix engineers we should be primarily concerned with technical aspects, maintaining a largely objective view of the material, while still being aware of the musical product on a subjective level and working closely with the artist - this is what I was taught from the get go when I studied Music Production.

Regarding automation, ultimately, mixing is a balancing act for which automation can play a part. However, my advice would be don't feel like you HAVE to use it - this depends entirely on the material. It can be a useful tool, and I do use it frequently, but you shouldn't start out thinking "omg I have to start automating things or I'm no good". Many mixes I've done have no automation at all, but again it was dependent entirely on the track in question.

[zed999]

Automation - the artistic / emotional part of mixing, leading the listener through the arrangement. We poor humans can't take in too much at once if there's a lot happening, but if our attention is drawn to one or two things at a time (in addition to the vocals, groove), we enjoy that, usually without realising it's deliberate. For mixers this should be an advantage? If you listen to the arrangement, there are musical stories to pick out, tension to exaggerate etc. If you make a mix so that you can hear everything equally all the time, it's harder to follow he intention.

An example is the guitar solo which interplays with the keyboard, the wail, the electric guitar etc. If your mix focusses only on the lead guitar, the rest being left flat and balanced, you need to hear it well as it's all that's obviously happening? The solo becomes a loud solo on top of the other instruments. which might appear to be merely waiting until it's over... but they aren't just waiting...

With regard to some of your points here, there is a bit of a blurred line between what is typically a mix engineer's decision and what is a creative decision for the artist whose material you are mixing. I'm always careful not to overstep the bounds too far into the realms of artistic expression with my mix choices. The decision to sculpt the arrangement emotionally through automation might be in complete contrast to what the artist had originally intended, then again it might not be.

My point is, as mix engineers we should be primarily concerned with technical aspects, maintaining a largely objective view of the material, while still being aware of the musical product on a subjective level and working closely with the artist - this is what I was taught from the get go when I studied Music Production.

Regarding automation, ultimately, mixing is a balancing act for which automation can play a part. However, my advice would be don't feel like you HAVE to use it - this depends entirely on the material. It can be a useful tool, and I do use it frequently, but you shouldn't start out thinking "omg I have to start automating things or I'm no good". Many mixes I've done have no automation at all, but again it was dependent entirely on the track in question.

I don't disagree with any of what you say in general. I'm not talking about sculpting it into something it isn't already. Perhaps I mean making sure melodic arrangement and embellishments don't get lost in a flat busy mix. This time, the provider hoped for some variation, deliberately didn't provide references, and cited wide ranging possible influences from the Monkees, to Steely Dan and Carly Simon. He also says he would like all instruments to be fully audible in the mix but that doesn't necessarily mean equally audible throughout the mix. I hope.

[PauPeu]

NOTE: Are there another drum tracks on the "Original Mix"? Sounds quite different to me (mostly the hi hats).

Hi, sorry for late answer (and I don't know if somebody else has answered). Anyway - yes, different drums on the original track. According to the rules, It's possible to do that way. But of course, the drums included in the package is the only ones you can use.

Thank you! No problem just was curious.

[rodzroom]

--> @rodzroom - I am sorry, but Wavesfactory SnareBuzz is sample based drum replacement/enhancement)
Would have loved to get feedback on the mix. Maybe next time!

Hi rodzroom

You asked for feedback, so here's my thoughts on your mix, it's perfectly fine to disagree. I'm mainly comments on what I think you can improve:

1 Lead vocal is a bit 'woolly' in the first bars, could have been brighten by automation. It's also some lisping that could have been corrected. In the end, the lead vocal track could have more presence, try reduce around 360 Hz, medium Q and boost around 4.5 kHz, broad Q

2 There is some minor reverb overload some places, eg at 3.56, ''when will they see, how(here) we...''. If you using a reverb bus, you can see if you can get this technique to work(it works best on drum reverb): put a limiter on the reverb bus, try before and after the reverb to see whats best, 0 ms attack, quick release, just to take the bit of the reverb feed or the reverb output so you removing the reverb overload. If you're happy with the way it is now, forget it.

3 I not sure how good the vibrato on the piano and vibrato on the lead guitar works.

4 The lead vocal and some of the backing vocal are fighting for space, pan them a little bit apart.

5 The snare could be more snappy

6 T he kick could have more low end

7 Automation and more automation. Get the nice short notes or a hit or two on a drum come forward to spice up the listeners experience of the song. Tips, the brass at the end.

Thats all for now, good luck in the competition.

Steinar

Thank you for the thorough, detailed, and useful feedback. Very much appreciated!

[sthauge]

Hi

Just some words that might help to make some clarifications about automation. I think it's 3 ways to look at this:

1. Correct faults or bad sounding parts of a track. A sample could be the lead vocal track in this competition that I already have commented on in my description of my mix. The track is wooly and diffuse in the first bars of the song. This needs to be corrected to sound consistent throughout the song. This could mean to be using eg. automated EQ and transient shaping to get right. 0No, I do not mean places where it's an intentional difference. The singer also lisp in the start, but that needs to be corrected in another way than with automation.
To correct faults do not alter the arrangement or musical expression of the song.

2. Getting the small nice 'diamonds' forward to the listener. As I already have stated, this can be just some notes or a hit or two on a drum. This do not alter the arrangement or musical expression of the song either.

3. Automate the eg. the 'distorted guitar' when the chorus kicks in to get a 'heavy and spicy' expression. In general this obviously alter the arrangement of the song and must be done in cooperation with the musicians. There's no problem making some mixes with different expressions and presentation as samples that could give the musicians some ideas how the song could be.

Steinar

[Mister Fox]

A short update on the evaluation process of Mix Round 1:

I'm in touch with our Song Provider. He's still working himself through the material. However, due to technical reasons, things are sadly progressing slower than expected. This is unfortunate, but one can only do so much. We sadly can not give you a rough timeframe, but we kindly ask for your patience regarding announcements and the start of Mix Round 2.



On similar behalf:

Those of you that decided to add ones mix to a portfolio (may it be private, or public - especially on places like SoundCloud), please check the Mix Pack bundled "Off-site redistribution agreement.txt" again. Make sure that you give full and proper credit, and please also reach out to our kind Song Provider to that there is at least some communication where the "demo mixes" circulate.



Thank you for your time.

[A Future in Noise]

Hi, for those of you wondering when it will be announced which fifteen submissions will move on to round 2, I think I can promise that I will post my feedback no later than this Saturday at lunchtime. Maybe there could be another few hours of delay, but I hope it won't.