Members Thelonius Posted October 3, 2005 Members Share Posted October 3, 2005 I always hear the arguments from you guys that actually know what you're talking about (unlike me) that complain about the volume and overlimiting and oversquashed mixes and all. I'm not here to say it's untrue, I'm just not necessarily in a position of knowledge to comment. One thing for me when I listen to the records from the period I thought was the best in terms of the sounds of records (not necessarily songs or bands in general) I tend to miss the "space" that often came from arrangements, not necessarily the engineering or mastering of the records. Sparse arrangements are a thing of the past. It's weird because in one sense I like very dense arrangements. ELO is one of my favorite groups. But even then it was matched with a lot of silent and soft spots. Beatles of course...Tons of stuff going on sometimes..other times not so much. Listen to the Cars "Let the Good Times Roll" The first track of the debut album. It doesn't come out and slap you in the head...it leaks out like light coming through a set of black curtains being opened very slowly. Think about AC/DC's "Highway to Hell" DADADAT!! (silence.......) DADADAT!! (silence.......) Now how many hard rock guitarists do you know personally that allow stuff to breathe that much? "I'll Take You There" The entire record of "What's Going On" Most of it sounds like vocals and bass. Everything else is just sprinkled sugar. The vibrato in the electric piano of "Just the Way You Are" Space and silence.. Maybe I'm arguing the same thing though. Maybe you guys are saying today they take all of the things and push them up so there is no silence. I don't mean to harp on old albums, because I think there's lots of great albums that explore that these days as well (Buckley's Grace, Wilco's Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, Radiohead's OK Computer, etc. ) but then again, those aren't exactly a radio station or MTV's dream records are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 When we were working on Julie Day's debut album, one of our favorite studio expressions was "explore the space". Great arrangements make a great song even better. They can't rescue a truely LAME song, but even a good song can be hampered by a poor arrangement. "Too much stuff" all at once is a recipe for a cluttered and less than satisfying mix. Going "full tilt" all the time takes away impact. If you don't have something soft, the "heavy stuff" has nothing to reference it to, no point of contrast. And if you start with a dense, "busy" mix and then add overcompressed mastering... IMO, things REALLY get ugly. Good post Thelonius! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jackcheez Posted October 3, 2005 Members Share Posted October 3, 2005 I tend to miss the "space" that often came from arrangements, not necessarily the engineering or mastering of the records. I know what you mean there. I used to say a great mix was not just when you could hear all the instruments, but when you could hear the space between them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Will Chen Posted October 3, 2005 Members Share Posted October 3, 2005 It's kinda 2 separate topics (over compression/limiting vs dynamic arrangements), but I'm right with you. In addition to the "mechanics" of killing dynamics, few commercial artists care about dynamic arrangement anymore. I think they are actually symtoms of the same disease and that is overstimulation. We live in an increasingly complex world and as our options grow, so does the need of a product to stand out. Trying to create the loudest disc, playing at 100% from bar 1 to the (less than 3 minute) end of the song, girls dressing skimpier and singing breathier, guys bowing up and acting "harder"...all marketing to try and capture the attention of an attention deficit order world. However, take all the gimmics, videos, and top 40 radio out of the equation and there is still a ton of great music being made. Come to think of it, that's pretty much always been the case... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted October 4, 2005 Members Share Posted October 4, 2005 I think they're two separate topics as well. Overcompression vs. arrangements. But I agree with your assessment of arrangements. Sometimes, still, though, I hear some clever arrangements in pop, dance, etc. so it's not dead. When I am asked to help mix a busy song, one of the first things I start doing is pulling down the volume of some of the instruments. Sometimes, just simply doing that, and then suddenly bringing it up halfway through the verse or during the chorus or during the bridge or...maybe not at all...is extremely effective. One of the things I like about NIN, Metallica, The Police, some of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs newer stuff, or whatever are the change in dynamics or sparse passages followed by passages that are brutal and busy and have every possible frequency completely saturated with sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members geek_usa Posted October 4, 2005 Members Share Posted October 4, 2005 Silence really has nothing to do with it. Silence is silence. The major gripe is by overcompressing you eliminate much of the dynamics (which is the difference between soft and loud) because as you (should) know, 0dB is the ceiling and the highest level you can reach; and if the loud parts are being pushed above 0dB (clipping), it cuts them off at 0dB (since theoretically it cannot exceed 0dB since it is the ceiling), therefore making the soft parts louder, and the loud parts smashed at 0dB (imagine being on top of an elevator shaft that is going up and you're approaching the ceilng slowly, and you get cramped and it starts to corner you in and crush you) so the loud parts really don't get any louder, just more smashed. I'm really tired right now so if this doesn't make any sense... but techincally, when you over compress, your loud parts remain at the same level, and your soft parts get louder... therfore it reduces the dynamic range between the soft parts and the loud parts, and pretty soon, you can't tell what's soft and what's loud because they're pretty much almost the same level by now. Get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Silence really has nothing to do with it. Silence is silence. It depends on what you're talking about. If we're talking about overcompression, I agree with you... it's about dynamics, or the lack thereof... But if we're talking about arrangements, silence is a BIG part of it. Sometimes it's not just the notes you play, but the rests in between them. And I think Thelonius is talking a bit about both, but more about the arrangement aspect. I don't think that overcompression by itself can remove the silences, but it does bring the quiet sections up and the loud sections down, thus reducing dynamic impact... and dynamics are an important element of arranging. Couple the overcompression with a "busy" mix and you get "no space, no silence", but it would certainly be possible to overcompress a stripped down mix of a less busy arrangement and still have "spaces" insofar as what was played.... But it's gonna sound like crap - even with the spaces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Daniel Smart Posted October 4, 2005 Members Share Posted October 4, 2005 Silence is golden..... The saddest thing is that I like music, but more and more stuff makes me just want to turn it all off and enjoy the peace and quiet I think maybe CDs are too long these days as well. Used to be quite nice to have a break when going for A to B - and that was also when the music didn't wear your ears down so much. Sometimes I can get about 5 songs in these days and I'm either tired of the noise or bored. -Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted October 4, 2005 Members Share Posted October 4, 2005 Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe Silence really has nothing to do with it. Silence is silence. It depends on what you're talking about. If we're talking about overcompression, I agree with you... it's about dynamics, or the lack thereof... But if we're talking about arrangements, silence is a BIG part of it. Sometimes it's not just the notes you play, but the rests in between them. And I think Thelonius is talking a bit about both, but more about the arrangement aspect. I don't think that overcompression by itself can remove the silences, but it does bring the quiet sections up and the loud sections down, thus reducing dynamic impact... and dynamics are an important element of arranging. Couple the overcompression with a "busy" mix and you get "no space, no silence", but it would certainly be possible to overcompress a stripped down mix of a less busy arrangement and still have "spaces" insofar as what was played.... But it's gonna sound like crap - even with the spaces. Right on, Yoda. If you build some dynamics into the arrangement and then the mastering process brings up the subtle elements to a level competitive with the fuller sections, it kills the dynamic. Go see some live music and marvel at the subtlety and range of a drum kit with no microphones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TBush Posted October 4, 2005 Members Share Posted October 4, 2005 I remember reading a Guitar Player article back in the 70's with Ronnie Montrose- and one of his points to guitarists was, in essence, to "try to keep silence vs. sound in mind when playing". Or something to that effect... That stuck with me all these years, and of course not just in the context of a guitar solo. Phil's on the right track about arrangements being key to the overall performance and production of a song- it's tempting to overblow everything- play all your cards at once- and that leaves nowhere to go dynamically. The 80's were fun, sure, but with the layers of keys and the perfection of the Linndrum (sp?) it ends up (like wbcsound said earlier "all marketing to try and capture the attention of an attention deficit order world." I had a session yesterday with a really heavy band (what else?) and the singer brought in the new Clutch CD. Interesting mix and approach- and they added a B3 player- kinda harkens back to a 70's era, but with more 3-D guitar sound- the whole thing's still a bit squashed, but hey- I'm suddenly off-topic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Will Chen Posted October 4, 2005 Members Share Posted October 4, 2005 Originally posted by TBush ...I had a session yesterday with a really heavy band (what else?) and the singer brought in the new Clutch CD. Interesting mix and approach- and they added a B3 player- kinda harkens back to a 70's era, but with more 3-D guitar sound- the whole thing's still a bit squashed, but hey- I'm suddenly off-topic! The songs on the new Clutch album are great, the level sounds a little hot to me. Great use of doubling as an effect on the vocals. As much as I like pretty much every song on the album, I can't make it through the whole thing in 1 sitting. My first ear fatigue experience! Also OT, isn't it strange that as technology increases in the world of video and high definition TV that the excitement is surrounding the increased resolution and contrast ratio. Basically, you will be able to see with an image with less light. It has already influenced production as last week's Lost shot scenes that actually looked like a dark room rather than the blue lighting and filters normally used to compensate for the horrible video contrast ratio. Video seems to be striving towards realism while audio surrealism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted October 4, 2005 Moderators Share Posted October 4, 2005 Originally posted by Thelonius Sparse arrangements are a thing of the past. ELO is one of my favorite groups. But even then it was matched with a lot of silent and soft spots. Beatles of course...Tons of stuff going on sometimes..other times not so much. The Cars "Let the Good Times Roll" It doesn't come out and slap you in the head...it leaks out like light coming through a set of black curtains being opened very slowly. AC/DC's "Highway to Hell" DADADAT!! (silence.......)DADADAT!! (silence.......)"I'll Take You There" The entire record of "What's Going On" Most of it sounds like vocals and bass. Everything else is just sprinkled sugar. The vibrato in the electric piano of "Just the Way You Are" Space and silence.. Wow. You've really hit on something here. Every example you've listed above really conveys what you're talking about. I spread out your quote a little to highlight each example. Really GOOD examples. What really hit me was when you finished with the "vibrato on the electric piano". That sound would have been lost in a modern arrangement. Then they would have attempted to recover it through track eq, compression, and volume automation at mix time... on and on. I think a big contributing factor to the problem is the ability to arrange in the studio while recording with doubling or stacking. And through editing and automation. All of these modern tricks are great but... ...they also contribute to a situation where the art of arrangement has been taken from the rehearsal hall and instead into the studio. Just like we have volume wars in mastering, we have volume wars in arranging too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members geek_usa Posted October 4, 2005 Members Share Posted October 4, 2005 Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe Silence really has nothing to do with it. Silence is silence. It depends on what you're talking about. If we're talking about overcompression, I agree with you... it's about dynamics, or the lack thereof... But if we're talking about arrangements, silence is a BIG part of it. Sometimes it's not just the notes you play, but the rests in between them. And I think Thelonius is talking a bit about both, but more about the arrangement aspect. I don't think that overcompression by itself can remove the silences, but it does bring the quiet sections up and the loud sections down, thus reducing dynamic impact... and dynamics are an important element of arranging. Couple the overcompression with a "busy" mix and you get "no space, no silence", but it would certainly be possible to overcompress a stripped down mix of a less busy arrangement and still have "spaces" insofar as what was played.... But it's gonna sound like crap - even with the spaces. What I was talking about was, complete and total silence is about -120dB. You have bits that are entirely out of the human ear range but still reach -75dB or even -60dB. We can't really hear them so you could call them silence if you like, but the kind of silence i was referring to is when the bars don't move at all (i.e. below -120dB). That kind of silence has no movement on the bars, therefore cannot produce any dynamic alteration whatsoever. I get what you're saying but I also should have made my point more clear. ~Jared Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Richard Farrell Posted October 4, 2005 Members Share Posted October 4, 2005 I hear ya. I think some of the missing space has to do with mic placement, specifically the loss of gradual dynamics as a result of close mic'ing. Also, room sound, especially around drums, and horns seems to be missing these days. I too miss the good old days. My favorite years for recording and mixing were 1974 to 1984. I now often find myseld rediscovering older commercial recordings. Not so much for the music, but for the recording, mixing and mastering, the overall sound. In fact, I think my 3 favorite "sounding" albums are Zep's In through the out door, Heart's album with Barracuda, and Yes's 90125. The only new recording I can think of with awsome "space" is a recent harry allen recording http://www.audiophilia.com/software/sd2.htm Anyway, if you get the chance, take a listen to the album the above link talks about. It sounds way cool for its space. Take care, Rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wishfulsinful909 Posted October 4, 2005 Members Share Posted October 4, 2005 As far as playing dynamics, something changed STYLISTICALLY between the "good ol' days" of Led Zep/E.L.O./The Beatles and the days of...well...anything today. If we're strictly talking about "rock" music, just the whole way of playing guitar as changed! Whereas, say, any Pre-HEROES David Bowie record, for example, you'd have a song where the guitar player would hit some tastefully and rhtyhmically strummed chords, with a solo here or there, you have songs today where it's power chords ALL the way, you know the sound I'm talking about, it's GUGH GUGH GUHG UGH GUGH GUH, followed by CHE CHEN CHEN CHEN CHEN CHEN on the change, completely boring. I blame punk rock. Much as I love it. People JUST DON'T learn guitar the way they used to. And then with all that white noise, the snare drum is cutting a hole though space time with your ear. Even most modern electronica has got more movement, more 'silence" than contemporary rock. And yeah, it is TOTALLY about the Attention Deficit Disorder epidemic that is more CULTURAL than Biological. I'm so convinced of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TBush Posted October 5, 2005 Members Share Posted October 5, 2005 Originally posted by wbcsound The songs on the new Clutch album are great, the level sounds a little hot to me. Great use of doubling as an effect on the vocals. As much as I like pretty much every song on the album, I can't make it through the whole thing in 1 sitting. My first ear fatigue experience! Haha! My son had an "emo" CD by some national band- I'll tell ya, it was squashed beyong any reasonable attempt at relative loudness- just bizarre- and not cool. Dr Hibbert wouldn't even chuckle afterwards... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jcn37203 Posted October 5, 2005 Members Share Posted October 5, 2005 Originally posted by Thelonius it leaks out like light coming through a set of black curtains being opened very slowly. *snaps fingers* Thats poetry man, poetry. *lights clove cigarette. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thelonius Posted October 6, 2005 Author Members Share Posted October 6, 2005 Originally posted by jcn37203 *snaps fingers* Thats poetry man, poetry. *lights clove cigarette. uh....umm..heh..uh ...hi there. wow what are you doing here? Um..yeah, I just stumbled in here, I don't even know what this place is. Recording or something...some dude named Phil...pshh.. I don't know what all these dorks are on about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jcn37203 Posted October 6, 2005 Members Share Posted October 6, 2005 Originally posted by Thelonius uh....umm..heh..uh ...hi there. wow what are you doing here? Um..yeah, I just stumbled in here, I don't even know what this place is. Recording or something...some dude named Phil...pshh.. I don't know what all these dorks are on about. Sort of like bumping in to your coworker at the porn store, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Spankmeyer Posted October 6, 2005 Members Share Posted October 6, 2005 You want silence? http://www.sonicfinger.com/DeadQuietenator.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zooey Posted October 9, 2005 Members Share Posted October 9, 2005 Originally posted by TBush Haha! My son had an "emo" CD by some national band- I'll tell ya, it was squashed beyong any reasonable attempt at relative loudness- just bizarre- and not cool. Dr Hibbert wouldn't even chuckle afterwards... I'm noticing more albums lately that seem to be mixed to facilitate maximum squashed-ness. Mainly, the fundamental frequencies of the kick and bass seem to be transposed up an octave. There are bass instruments--they just don't have any bass in them. I guess if we all listen on our iPods and multimedia speakers, we'll never notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members geek_usa Posted October 9, 2005 Members Share Posted October 9, 2005 The concept of compression is incredibly difficult. At least for me. Last night a buddy of mine tried to really explain how to set compressors and what everything means...because frankly, I know jack {censored} about actually OPERATING a compressor. I know what one does; I know why you use it; but as far as operating the ratios, attack times, release times, and delays I really don't know. Anyways it turned into a big algebra problem last night and my head almost burst. It's complicated stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members geek_usa Posted October 9, 2005 Members Share Posted October 9, 2005 Originally posted by Zooey I'm noticing more albums lately that seem to be mixed to facilitate maximum squashed-ness. Mainly, the fundamental frequencies of the kick and bass seem to be transposed up an octave. There are bass instruments--they just don't have any bass in them. I guess if we all listen on our iPods and multimedia speakers, we'll never notice. Well it takes knowledge to actually destroy a recording like that. It's almost like what some dude told me awhile ago - you have to know the rules to break them. So it's not like these guys are just rookies that want to make everything louder. They know how to scientifically alter the mix so they can fit more dB in there. What I don't get is why not use all of that scientific knowledge to increase the sound QUALITY of the recording instead of destroying it with extra loudness that no one will ever use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.