Bruce Swedien, your "philosophy" behind a mix?

[rasputin1963]

I once read a book on mixing which said that the mixer's job is to create a "quintessence" of each song on an album.

 

In other words, each song on an album should represent to the listener the DEFINITIVE version of that song. ie., "it can't get better and it can't get worse".

 

Bruce, what's your over-arching philosophy when you first approach a recording of freshly recorded, rough tracks.

 

Where does your mind go? Who are you aiming to please? What priorities are paramount in your mind? Are you utterly unselfish? Or do you have a desire to stamp each recording you work on with your own thumbprints?

 

I know this sounds vague, but really, I think I and others could learn from many of the "unspoken" assumptions you have when you FIRST begin to approach a rough mix.

 

 

Thanks, ras

[Bruce Swedien]

Originally posted by rasputin1963 I once read a book on mixing which said that the mixer's job is to create a "quintessence" of each song on an album. In other words, each song on an album should represent to the listener the DEFINITIVE version of that song. ie., "it can't get better and it can't get worse". Bruce, what's your over-arching philosophy when you first approach a recording of freshly recorded, rough tracks. Where does your mind go? Who are you aiming to please? What priorities are paramount in your mind? Are you utterly unselfish? Or do you have a desire to stamp each recording you work on with your own thumbprints? I know this sounds vague, but really, I think I and others could learn from many of the "unspoken" assumptions you have when you FIRST begin to approach a rough mix. Thanks, ras

 

rasputin1963.....

 

WOW.... Someone asked me a "Real" question. And ras..... It's not vague at all.... I love it!

 

Thanks... ras.... I really appreciate this... Not one thing about what Microphone, what this, what that.... No numbers at all... Now we're getting somewhere...

 

First, I try to think of the "Stereo Space" as a piece of musical reality. Got that?

 

Once we have acquired that concept, we can conversely, also think of the "Stereo Space" as a piece of musical fantasy. Whether or not it could exist in nature, or in a natural acoustical environment, is IRRELEVANT AND INSIGNIFICANT!!!

 

Most of the "Stereo Spaces" in my recordings, began their life in my imagination...

 

I think of my stereo sound-field as a sonic sculpture...

 

I always try to make my stereo sound-field far more than merely two-channel mono. In other words, I always try to make my stereo sound-field multi-dimensional, not merely left, center and right. For me to be satisfied with a sound-field, it must have the proportions of left, center, right and depth.

 

Since the middle 1960

[Bruce Swedien]

rasputin1963

 

Where does your mind go?

 

Anywhere it wants. Let the music tell it where to go....

 

 

Who are you aiming to please?

 

Who do you think I am aiming to please????

 

 

What priorities are paramount in your mind?

 

That's easy - MUSIC FIRST!!!

 

 

Are you utterly unselfish?

 

Absolutly and utterly selfish in all ways...

 

 

Or do you have a desire to stamp each recording you work on with your own thumbprints?

 

That happens whether I want it to or not....

 

Great stuff ... You have a good mind...

 

Bruce

 

[dahkter]

Hi Bruce

Question for you...

You talk about depth in the stereo field. I understand how you can create this effect with mic placement and selection when recording voice and instrument. However, when you're working with a direct signal (such as a synth or drum machine), how do you go about creating a sense of depth?

Thanks,

el dahktori

[Super 8]

 

Originally posted by dahkter However, when you're working with a direct signal (such as a synth or drum machine), how do you go about creating a sense of depth?

 

 

I don't think Bruce does it direct. I think he runs them through speakers and records them that way to get some room ambience. I'd imagine that creates a certain sense of space and depth.

[TheLuxLife]

 

Originally posted by Super 8 I don't think Bruce does it direct. I think he runs them through speakers and records them that way to get some room ambience. I'd imagine that creates a certain sense of space and depth.

 

 

 

Yes, I believe he wrote that here before. He records synths as if they're acoustic instruments.

 

 

-J.P. LUX

[Antman261]

This is a great thread. Kudos to rasputin for thinking to ask these questions.

 

I have a much simpler question. How do you know when to stop? It's a pretty crucial part of any artform...

 

I mean, I always feel like I can just keep going, forever, with a mix, maybe this is because I'm still a novice, but I imagine it plagues everyone that's ever worked on a mix, pro or novice.

 

Or do you infact just hit a wall, where there really is nothing more you can possibly conceive of doing?

[plughead]

Hello all - I'M new to this particular forum, but not to Bruce's discography!

 

First of all: it's great to see someone of your knowledge participating in open dialog/discussion - I personally thank you...

 

Now - I have a Q or 2 for you:

 

You've mentioned "stereo space" as something that can be unrealistic, not pertaining to 'reality' and is wide open for interpretation from an engineering/AE'ing standpoint:

 

Do you do most all tracking in stereo? Or are you a believer in placing strong mono signals within the stereo field?

 

After a decade of trying various ways to convey musical imagery through mixing, I've found a good mono instrument/source, can often be placed easier into a mix using creative panning. Too many times I've found that an abundance of stereo, or pseudo-stereo tracks (piano, synths, acoustic guitar, FX, etc) can push too far on the outer edges of "stereo" - things often tend to get 'washy' or non-descript when panned to the edges. Sources captured in mono often sit better in the mix, esp. when panned in creative ways (i.e. trumpet @ 4 o'clock, mandolin at 8 o'clock, with individual strings panned 9/11/1/3 o'clock etc) they carve their own space within the mix, and when collapsed into mono sum, sound perfect.

 

Another Q - do you ever mix in mono? Or at least ref. mixing in mono from time to time?

 

(To me, ref. in mono makes sure nothing is horribly out of whack. Mono ref. quickly reveals mixing problems that slide by in stereo...)

 

Lastly re: tracking - are you consciously (or sub-consciously!) thinking of the instruments being printed for both rec. levels and/or sonics? Do you track the appropriate part (i.e. string section) at an input level that reflects where you intend to mix them? I only ask this as I've learned to NOT print backing tracks too hot - if something is intended to be a 'pad' or BG part, why record it @ -6 dB when its going to be mixed down 60 dB?!? This also allows for more variance/choices with recording the source (distant micing/off-axis/room sounds/etc.,) and spending more time focussing on the end result - the music.

 

I guess I'm rambling a bit - I always wonder what the pro's think when it comes to these Q's - sometimes I think I'm alone in seeking answers to some of these Q's...

 

Thanks for your time Bruce - BTW - I am first a pro-musician, and the MUSIC always comes first!!!

 

Jay

[Bruce Swedien]

Originally posted by plughead Hello all - I'M new to this particular forum, but not to Bruce's discography! First of all: it's great to see someone of your knowledge participating in open dialog/discussion - I personally thank you... Now - I have a Q or 2 for you: You've mentioned "stereo space" as something that can be unrealistic, not pertaining to 'reality' and is wide open for interpretation from an engineering/AE'ing standpoint: Do you do most all tracking in stereo? Or are you a believer in placing strong mono signals within the stereo field? After a decade of trying various ways to convey musical imagery through mixing, I've found a good mono instrument/source, can often be placed easier into a mix using creative panning. Too many times I've found that an abundance of stereo, or pseudo-stereo tracks (piano, synths, acoustic guitar, FX, etc) can push too far on the outer edges of "stereo" - things often tend to get 'washy' or non-descript when panned to the edges. Sources captured in mono often sit better in the mix, esp. when panned in creative ways (i.e. trumpet @ 4 o'clock, mandolin at 8 o'clock, with individual strings panned 9/11/1/3 o'clock etc) they carve their own space within the mix, and when collapsed into mono sum, sound perfect. Another Q - do you ever mix in mono? Or at least ref. mixing in mono from time to time? (To me, ref. in mono makes sure nothing is horribly out of whack. Mono ref. quickly reveals mixing problems that slide by in stereo...) Lastly re: tracking - are you consciously (or sub-consciously!) thinking of the instruments being printed for both rec. levels and/or sonics? Do you track the appropriate part (i.e. string section) at an input level that reflects where you intend to mix them? I only ask this as I've learned to NOT print backing tracks too hot - if something is intended to be a 'pad' or BG part, why record it @ -6 dB when its going to be mixed down 60 dB?!? This also allows for more variance/choices with recording the source (distant micing/off-axis/room sounds/etc.,) and spending more time focussing on the end result - the music. I guess I'm rambling a bit - I always wonder what the pro's think when it comes to these Q's - sometimes I think I'm alone in seeking answers to some of these Q's... Thanks for your time Bruce - BTW - I am first a pro-musician, and the MUSIC always comes first!!!

 

Plughead..... (What's your name, please?)

 

Great thoughts... Consider this...

 

Here

[The Byre]

 

Originally posted by Bruce Swedien I

[PBBPaul]

 

Originally posted by Bruce Swedien rasputin1963.....   WOW.... Someone asked me a "Real" question. And ras..... It's not vague at all.... I love it!   Thanks... ras.... I really appreciate this... Not one thing about what Microphone, what this, what that.... No numbers at all... Now we're getting somewhere...   First, I try to think of the "Stereo Space" as a piece of musical reality. Got that?   Once we have acquired that concept, we can conversely, also think of the "Stereo Space" as a piece of musical fantasy. Whether or not it could exist in nature, or in a natural acoustical environment, is IRRELEVANT AND INSIGNIFICANT!!!   Most of the "Stereo Spaces" in my recordings, began their life in my imagination...   I think of my stereo sound-field as a sonic sculpture...   I always try to make my stereo sound-field far more than merely two-channel mono. In other words, I always try to make my stereo sound-field multi-dimensional, not merely left, center and right. For me to be satisfied with a sound-field, it must have the proportions of left, center, right and depth.   Since the middle 1960

[mobobog]

And Bruce... when you start tracking do you have already in mind the acoustic space you are going to create? or do you build it as you track each instrument?

[Bruce Swedien]

 

Originally posted by mobobog And Bruce... when you start tracking do you have already in mind the acoustic space you are going to create? or do you build it as you track each instrument?

 

 

Mobobog......

 

No not very often. I can think of one huge exception though.....

 

When I recorded Michael Jackson's "Smile" and "Have You Seen My Childhood?".

 

Sit down in a very comfortable chair. This will take me a minute....

 

Jeremy Lubbock gave me my part for the arrangement. I saw those notes and that rhythm arrangement and I heard the final mix in my Mind's Ear!!!!

 

Charlie Chaplin

[mobobog]

This sounds amazing interesting...

 

But when you are building one of those spaces that only exist in your mind... what is the process of building them? how do you make your decisions?

[Bruce Swedien]

Originally posted by Antman261 This is a great thread. Kudos to rasputin for thinking to ask these questions. I have a much simpler question. How do you know when to stop? It's a pretty crucial part of any artform... I mean, I always feel like I can just keep going, forever, with a mix, maybe this is because I'm still a novice, but I imagine it plagues everyone that's ever worked on a mix, pro or novice. Or do you infact just hit a wall, where there really is nothing more you can possibly conceive of doing?

 

Antski......

 

I really don't know when to stop!!! I have never hit that wall either!

 

Usually what happens is that the budget folks just come in and take the tapes away!!! Then I have to stop!!!

 

Bruce Swedien

[Bruce Swedien]

Originally posted by mobobog This sounds amazing interesting... But when you are building one of those spaces that only exist in your mind... what is the process of building them? how do you make your decisions?

 

mobobog......

 

You made me think of something that I haven't talked about here yet. And it's a very important topic.....

 

Light levels in the mixing space.....

 

Low light is a very important part of the mixing process.

 

Anybody interested????

 

Bruce

[boosh]

Put your lights down low,...........

 

I close my eyes and visualize the colors of the music,....I paint with sound.

 

If I watch paintings(Went with Kendrix to the van Gogh Museum last year) I hear music in my head when I watch the paintings,.....

[TheLuxLife]

Originally posted by Bruce Swedien mobobog...... You made me think of something that I haven't talked about here yet. And it's a very important topic..... Light levels in the mixing space..... Low light is a very important part of the mixing process. Anybody interested???? Bruce

 

 

C'mon Bruce!!!

 

 

STOP TEASING US!

[mobobog]

Originally posted by Bruce Swedien mobobog...... You made me think of something that I haven't talked about here yet. And it's a very important topic..... Light levels in the mixing space..... Low light is a very important part of the mixing process. Anybody interested???? Bruce

 

seriously? I want to know...

[UstadKhanAli]

Originally posted by Bruce Swedien Antski...... I really don't know when to stop!!! I have never hit that wall either! Usually what happens is that the budget folks just come in and take the tapes away!!! Then I have to stop!!! Bruce Swedien

 

Mixes are never finished, only abandoned.

[Kendrix]

Bruce,

Many of us are recording in "small spaces".

We may also track and mix in the same small space.

 

What is the minimum size of room that is capable of generating useful acoustic support?

 

In my small space, for mixing I have positioned a number of absorbers to deal with the reflections. That improves things tremendously. (A DIY tube trap scenario). For tracking and to capture the ER based acoustic support I assume I'd want to change the treatment accordingly. What works for mixing isnt what you want for tracking. Do you see any way around this?

 

Thanks a million for the insights.

[John Sayers]

Originally posted by Angelo Clematide Some Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine of Hippo, Hegel, Kant and when he smiles some Nietzsche, and when he is over with it, it grooves like Neanderthal !!!!

 

Yes - he is a true legend. He took recording from three mikes and spill through to "in your face and all over the place"

[joel Oporto]

Brucie, a little question....

 

when recording the orchestra with a Decca tree, does that also work for an orchestra with wind sections and a rythm section composed of drums, elec. bass, electric guitars and keyboards too.

 

In the case of spot micing the soloist, do you mute or ride the fader of the the spot mic when that instrument is not doing the solo?

In the case of recording say a live orchestra performance of the above instrumentation, where in different songs there are different soloist in different parts, would you still choose a decca tree and spot configuration or would you spot mic all the acoustic instruments and use the tree to augment the sound?

 

Okay, I'll spill the beans...

 

I recently arranged a song that is now a finalist in a liturgical song competition about the little child Jesus(Sto. Nino) here in our place. They are currently practicing for the final competition today and I saw that their orchestra setup is, Octet strings( 2 V1, 2 V2, 2 violas, 1 cello, 1 upright), 1 each of trombone, trumpet, french, flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon. Rythm section is drums, elec. bass, electric guitars, 2 keyboards. Congas, timpani and other percussion are being played by the keyboards. I think the sound provider and sound engineer are actually in over their heads in this one, but at least they are spot miking all the acoustic instruments.

 

 

BTW, It might be an interesting thread if I sent you an mp3 of our original entry, and you can tell me how I might improve my midi orchestral recording to create a unique stereo space even if its just midi.

 

thanx,

Joel