How to make a mix "slick"

[rbaker]

I'm mixing a record right now, and the label owner/manager of the band said it's almost there it just needs to be more "slick"

He said it's an art that the old school guys usually understand but couldn't describe it.

Any ideas or technique suggestions? I'm assuming it's a ,more wet reverb thing on the drums and vocals....?

I'm mixing on his ssl 4000 e/g

[C Heat]

What genre?

[aevan]

My guess, with no reasoning whatsoever behind it would be....less mids
and longer reverb times.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by rbaker

I'm mixing a record right now, and the label owner/manager of the band said it's almost there it just needs to be more "slick"

He said it's an art that the old school guys usually understand but couldn't describe it.

Any ideas or technique suggestions? I'm assuming it's a ,more wet reverb thing on the drums and vocals....?

I'm mixing on his ssl 4000 e/g

"SLICK" usually means "FAT","WIDE","DEEP" and with a "SHEEN".


How is it done on an SSL?


Well...first you...whoops!!!

[Crash]

Well that is a very open ended statement that could mean different things to different people. My first thought is "opposite of raw" if that means anything. I would think it would mean very produced, with loads of layered verbs, moving pans, changing EQs, etc....that sort of thing.

It could also be as simple as it is time to get it the mix to an ME so a bit of polishing and tightening can be applied to the mix.

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by rbaker

I'm mixing a record right now, and the label owner/manager of the band said it's almost there it just needs to be more "slick"

He said it's an art that the old school guys usually understand but couldn't describe it.

Any ideas or technique suggestions? I'm assuming it's a ,more wet reverb thing on the drums and vocals....?

I'm mixing on his ssl 4000 e/g

I personally I don't think it's something that can be explained or told how to do with a few tips here and there.

It's a combination of compression, eq, SFX used.
In short, mixing.

[Crash]

In short, mixing.

That was what I was trying to touch on. You nailed it.

[GearHunter]

"Slick"?

Why would you wanna do that?

Wait, I know. You get this chick that used to sing for The Jefferson Airplane and The Starship.

That's how you make a "Slick" recording!

Sorry....couldn't resist....

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by GearHunter

Sorry....couldn't resist....

Stick with the the day job bro.

[dchapp]

"slick" (polished, clean, sheen, shimmery) is mostly balance with eq and fx thrown in...enough eq to "smooth" out the sounds and the subtle use of a reverb or two and a little bit of echo....not too much, but enough that if you muted the fx returns, you would notice a difference....don't wash stuff out with too much reverb or echo. if he can suggest a few cd's of what he considers to be "slick", have a listen to them and see if you can pick up anything from them. compression will help to smooth stuff out also.

[rbaker]

It's like pop-punk/dance rock.

through the ssl I'm just taking each channel out of pt into it's own fader. All of the automation is done in pt.

I have noticed issues with the highs. When I was tracking in my room, things sounded fine---it wasn't overly bright but it definitely wasn't dark.

now going through the console I'm fighting to get the highs to come out (at all let alone evenly) The studio has been very poorly maintained---out of 48 channels, I think 9-10 of them are bad. 30-40% of the outboard gear is either weird or doesn't work...I have to wiggle the patch points of the main outputs back in or the left and right don't come in even.

Is it possible that his patchbay/console being not well maintained is killing the highs?

[rbaker]

btw, thank you everyone for taking me seriously...I was totally ready for the "well your mix is too green----we need to make it more purple" and then an endless list of other unrelated mix adjectives.

[mtstudios@charter]

Slickness can come with the tracking process too.

www.bluethumbproductions.com

[thejook]

Originally Posted by rbaker

btw, thank you everyone for taking me seriously...I was totally ready for the "well your mix is too green----we need to make it more purple" and then an endless list of other unrelated mix adjectives.

Yeah, like, "Hmmm...It's kinda, *soundsy*"

Just take any bullsh*t wine tasting adjective and apply it here...same crap.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by rbaker

It's like pop-punk/dance rock.

through the ssl I'm just taking each channel out of pt into it's own fader. All of the automation is done in pt.

I have noticed issues with the highs. When I was tracking in my room, things sounded fine---it wasn't overly bright but it definitely wasn't dark.

now going through the console I'm fighting to get the highs to come out (at all let alone evenly) The studio has been very poorly maintained---out of 48 channels, I think 9-10 of them are bad. 30-40% of the outboard gear is either weird or doesn't work...I have to wiggle the patch points of the main outputs back in or the left and right don't come in even.

Is it possible that his patchbay/console being not well maintained is killing the highs?

I would:

1) Bring the PT returns into the tape monitor inputs and mix off those instead of the line inputs.

It bypasses one stage of VCA's and its less things to go through.

Specially if you are doing all of the automation in PT.

It sounds like the channels need a good recapping.

2) Monitor your mix straight off your mixdown machine from an external monitoring unit.

The center monitoring sections of most SSL's no matter how modified still sound dodgy.

Monitoring externally opens up the sound a ton.

3) Don't be afraid to EQ.

The SSL black E EQ's can do radical EQ settings and still sound sweet.

If you choose not to EQ the tracks...

4)...and if using the SSL Quad buss comp you may need to EQ it a touch anyway.

Depending on how hard you hit it.

[Kiwiburger]

The quality of the vocal track is often the difference between slick or not slick. Hard to define - because imo many imperfections can be overlooked or even add character, but any feeling of hesitancy or weakness in a vocal kills the whole track.

Our ears quickly adjust to volume or eq changes - i don't think a brighter, deeper or more scooped mix is necessarily percieved as more slick.

Too much reverb can be worse than completely dry. There are so many examples of 'slick' records that are very dry or very wet - i don't think it's always the answer. If your reverb doesn't sound stunning, better to have less. Reverbs either have the X factor or they don't.

An inspired vocal take can redeem a lack lustre backing track.

[thenoodle]

......"Any ideas or technique suggestions? I'm assuming ...."

Assuming? That'll keep the conversation and billable hours going. For all you know, the manager just wants more cowbell...."but can't describe it".

My technique suggestion is to ask the manager to give you an example of an existing cd that he thinks is "slick". Then send your mix (and the name of the reference cd the manager gave you) to a good mastering engineer. Tell the ME that the manager says he wants your mix "slick"...like the ref cd the manager gave you.

The ME will know just what to do.

[allencollins]

upload some music so we can hear

[rbaker]

Originally Posted by thenoodle

......"Any ideas or technique suggestions? I'm assuming ...."

Assuming? That'll keep the conversation and billable hours going. For all you know, the manager just wants more cowbell...."but can't describe it".

My technique suggestion is to ask the manager to give you an example of an existing cd that he thinks is "slick". Then send your mix (and the name of the reference cd the manager gave you) to a good mastering engineer. Tell the ME that the manager says he wants your mix "slick"...like the ref cd the manager gave you.

The ME will know just what to do.

He's done some recording in the past and he owns the studio (he also discoved/managed a band with a multiplatinum record....So yeah he knows what he's looking for he just doesn't know how to do it.

I kinda thought mastering might help but I didn't want to rely on the old "fix it in the mastering"

As for the monitoring, I brought in a central station because his monitoring section is pretty bad (volume pot crackles right in the needed volume and usually doesn't change in a linear path) it also allowed me to switch between my jbls and their ns10s.

[George Necola]

hm.. I am not "highend".. but you mix like you mix..

what do you think:
if someone told Picasso: "please paint more like van Gogh" (well timehistory mixture) he would hire van gogh.. not Picasso?

or?

[natpub]

My first thought if someone was saying make it "slick" like old-time, and the project was comming outta PT, I would think he must mean make it sound like tape :-)

[SnakeCained]

When I hear slick in the context of mixing I always think Trevor Horn!

Check out some of his work and it should give you an idea of what the guy means...

[jim demetri]

slick to me means TIME AND MONEY. how much time do you have you got to mix the track . can you experiment ? the thing that really pissis me off is that while you can get a reasonable mix in a few hours its not going to be as they say slick . all these mixis you hear ie greenday, britney, ect ect dont take hours they take days if not weeks . its just doesent happen in a few houres but nowdays they expect it for a few houres mix time .

[jim demetri]

also the slick factor depends heavlly on how good the musicians, programing , tightness , and above all production is . a messy track will sound messy no matter what you do .

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by jim demetri

slick to me means TIME AND MONEY. how much time do you have you got to mix the track . can you experiment ? the thing that really pissis me off is that while you can get a reasonable mix in a few hours its not going to be as they say slick . all these mixis you hear ie greenday, britney, ect ect dont take hours they take days if not weeks . its just doesent happen in a few houres but nowdays they expect it for a few houres mix time .

Not true. I do slick mixes, becasue that's just how I mix.
The Greenday stuff etc are cookie cutter mixes by guys like Tom Lord alge etc. They have set-ups that don't change, and it actually takes them no time to spit out anothe rgeneric, FM radio mix.

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by jim demetri

also the slick factor depends heavlly on how good the musicians, programing , tightness , and above all production is . a messy track will sound messy no matter what you do .

Again, I disagree. I have taken messy stuff, and made it slicker. It does take abit more time though.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by jim demetri

you hear ie greenday,

I guess you've never seen CLA mix a song.


Days?


Try 3-4 hours.


Drop the song off in the morning, go to lunch and a massage, come back and your done.


If you have a system down and you mix every day it really shouldn't take that long.


This is just mixing not editing.

[ajcamlet]

Originally Posted by jim demetri

slick to me means TIME AND MONEY. how much time do you have you got to mix the track . can you experiment ? the thing that really pissis me off is that while you can get a reasonable mix in a few hours its not going to be as they say slick . all these mixis you hear ie greenday, britney, ect ect dont take hours they take days if not weeks . its just doesent happen in a few houres but nowdays they expect it for a few houres mix time .

Michael Brauer Kicks stuff out in a few hours....

[rbaker]

It's a full length record---10 songs. I definitely have time to play around with it (and I have been) I have another week in there. If I get it right on this song, I just have to tweak the settings and automate the other songs to match.

They're also talking about having someone else do it and have a few people doing test mixes (which I agree with---I've been working on this thing for a while and fresh set of ears would be great)

[Riad]

The SNOT plug-in across the stereo bus?