Mixing busy arrangements - my example

[ttauri]

Here's a piece of a track relating to THIS thread in So Much Gear, So Little Time about busy arrangements.

This particular track never really got where I wanted it to go. I had trouble getting all the parts to keep the flavor I wanted from them in the mix and still work together. In particular here, I don't like the way the congas and cowbell get lost. Maybe it's just a case here of eyes being bigger than the stomach, but I wonder what you all do when you're faced with busy arrangements? Really, I'm more curious to get tips on what people do to approach busier mixes generally than getting specific help with this track (it's part of the scrap pile now), but maybe it can help define what some of my problems are. And any comments about it are welcome--I'm not thin-skinned about it.


Peece,
T. Tauri

[NeoVXR]

hi ttauri, to me, this isn't soo many tracks

it begins rather dull, and over the 3 1/2 minutes its getting better and better. around 2:50 I would say this _is_ the track, a major change makes a different song of it.

so the problem is not the tracks, but concept and morphing.
every 4-8 bars you change the thing, which is the main factor that takes a sophisticated concept to get it right.

the intro does not work for me. Either you come in with "whoa! here I am!" or you sneak in, but then it must feel very charming or funny or just SOMETHING.

the other comments I agree, i.e. if you plan to have many tracks that have all important functions, still you must decide the LEAD sounds, which may change in your example. furthermore, it is not possible to record and filter every track so it sounds full and big while listened solo, and then expect the whole thing to fit together. it's like scenes in a theatre, one after the other must have its setup, and actors change place, some being important and strong here, and weak there.

example:
the synth solo from 2:17 must give up its occupation of mid range after 2:26 and later once more. otherwise it is sitting on top, very selfish and fat and not cool at all.

you could start the song with a different, sharper natural hihat sound, that really makes the beat alone, and later decrease its HF spectrum to tame it into the ensemble. also the bass can be much louder at the beginning.
done this, the congas would be ok.
the idea might be, it begins somehow stomping, and more and more changes to relaxed dancing, and the "feel happy" thing is evolving from change to change.

after having done some of this work, you can let C4 or some kind of multiband comp do the rest, with its implicit ducking effect, working when the actors have their correct places. try it with quite a strong compression, so you see how instruments are pushing each other away. you might _want_ this happening, just that it must follow your concept and not wrestle to and fro like a chaotic rugby game (where players want to be all in the same place at once).

my 2 cents ;)

[ttauri]

Originally posted by NeoVXR
hi ttauri, to me, this isn't soo many tracks

Yeah, I think my difficulty with it was more that pretty much every part has a rhythmic component (the distortion on the piano chords is being altered on 16th notes by MIDI, the percussion, etc...). Trying to preserve the feel of that with each part is what makes it seem busy to me.

it begins rather dull, and over the 3 1/2 minutes its getting better and better. around 2:50 I would say this _is_ the track, a major change makes a different song of it.

Mostly the part I threw up is the "header" (I like to do loooong blends when I spin, so that would be mixed with whatever whatever song it was following).

the other comments I agree, i.e. if you plan to have many tracks that have all important functions, still you must decide the LEAD sounds, [...]

example:
the synth solo from 2:17 must give up its occupation of mid range after 2:26 and later once more. otherwise it is sitting on top, very selfish and fat and not cool at all.

you could start the song with a different, sharper natural hihat sound, that really makes the beat alone, and later decrease its HF spectrum to tame it into the ensemble. [...]

I like these ideas. I'll try them the next time I'm experimenting on this cut.

after having done some of this work, you can let C4 or some kind of multiband comp do the rest, with its implicit ducking effect, working when the actors have their correct places. try it with quite a strong compression, so you see how instruments are pushing each other away. you might _want_ this happening, just that it must follow your concept and not wrestle to and fro like a chaotic rugby game (where players want to be all in the same place at once).

So you're suggesting using heavy compression to test how the instruments fight for the space?

Peece,
T. Tauri

[NeoVXR]

yes, and multiband is even better, you can push the gain up and down until its roaring and see which are the survivors in the soup. is it those you want to? you can boost a track that you like and then repeat the game. which parts of the spectrum of a certain instrument survive, and is it a component that makes up its beauty, and does it block any other that is in the same area? you might change the eq or use the pan. for instance you might find out, that there are 2 or 3 freq bands being important and you can cancel all the rest so they do not disturb other instruments. to understand the principle, you might try a highpass on the hihat, then raise the cutoff and see when it becomes too thin. maybe this helps to get some percussion clearer and the hihat more defined in the whole.

later on, many people will overdrive their devices while they listen to your track and get a similar impression. radio or a DJ may choose to play with strong compression either. so be prepared for that, it will make the mix cleaner with such planning.

[thethrillfactor]

T.Tauri,

My opinions are on the mix alone not on your production(since that is what you are asking).

I think the secret to mixing busy arrangements(which i do all the time) is the panning. Interplay between parts(pan wise) is crucial and it helps open up the size of the track.

Your mix is just a little heavy on the right side(too many elements there) and not enough balance on the left.

Also just because things are in stereo doesn't mean you have to pan them that way.

On the EQ side some of the tracks(especially the drums)lack definition and strength up the middle.

The bottomn end needs to be a little bit more defined.

Effects wise you can do a lot that can give the sounds depth as well as presence.

Just my 2 cents.

[Renie]

hey thrill

got any effects concepts for depth as well as presence...?

cheers

Rene

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by Renie
hey thrill

got any effects concepts for depth as well as presence...?

cheers

Rene

Rene,

Now adays that's accomplished wih short delays or multitap delays at different times(and not just timed to the tempo something i can't stand).

You can also do this by using one side of a reverb and panning it off center. Maybe have a delay with very little feed back on one side and your mono reverb panned on the other side(it creates a sense of movement)

Another trick i like to do is feeding my own pre delay into a blooming type of reverb, all panned at different places and at different times.

A pre delay on top of a reverb with pre delay can give that split millisecond you need for your instrument to have its moment of clarity and then richness.

How about a chorus into a reverb or even cooler a reverb into a chorus.

My favorite thing though is to multi layer effects(especially with vocals).

I could go on for days.

[VotaIdiota]

Originally posted by thethrillfactor

Another trick i like to do is feeding my own pre delay into a blooming type of reverb, all panned at different places and at different times.

A pre delay on top of a reverb with pre delay can give that split millisecond you need for your instrument to have its moment of clarity and then richness.

I'm sorry, I'm a little slow sometimes. What exactly do you mean feeding a predelay on top of a reverb?

[Jens]

Classic.

I´m one of the writers of this track.
Are you doing the remix now? Wondering cos it was released almost over a year ago. Anyway, nice with some fellow house slutz here at GS.

Jens

[ttauri]

Originally posted by Jens
Classic.

I´m one of the writers of this track.
Are you doing the remix now? Wondering cos it was released almost over a year ago. Anyway, nice with some fellow house slutz here at GS.

Hi Jens.

I did a different remix with Nick Matar a little while back. In the early stages of programming that one, I put forth some ideas that Nick wasn't feeling (the distorted piano treatment and the rhythm guitar bit here). I was curious to see what I could do with them, and so whipped up this version for my own personal exploration. Anyway, the mixdown didn't gel quickly enough, and without anything at stake, I never pushed it beyond the halfway stage this mp3 is at. I occasionally open it up now as a test subject for trying out new tricks or comparing plug-ins and what not.

Peece,
T. Tauri

[Jens]

I see. I think it sounded nice. The only thing I felt was that perhaps the CHH was a bit dry and a bit much treble for my taste.

The other verision that you did, was it ever released?
I just got the original mixes from Soulfuric but saw on some site that there were others.

Keep up the good work!
Jens

[Jose Mrochek]

Hey thrill factor, could you please give us some advice on the effects layering you mentioned on vocals. I'm looking for a U2'ish Bono would use type of rich effect. thanks in advance