sexism in mix process...?

i do not, nor have i ever felt sexist in any way.

HOWEVER, i DO hold the belief that while mixing, different criteria must be met for a female vocal based song than a male vocal based song.

notice i say DIFFERENT, not better or worse.

my evidence is in my experience mixing, and also in listening to how others handle these decisions. its all over the radio - the mixes are constructed slightly differently for male and female vocals.

example: one sweeping generalization that often holds true is that when listening to a female singer based mix, the kick, guitars, and overheads are often more subdued compared to a male based vocal song. this is often necessary to fit the vocals in the mix.

OF COURSE this isnt always true much like anything else in the world.

the way i look at the issue is -

i am mixing the tune.

its my job to make it fit together in an appropriate way.

it doesnt matter if the material is female vox, male vox, trumpet or clarinet. the material is DIFFERENT, and needs to be handled in the way that is appropriate for THE MATERIAL.

this is a sore subject for me, because while i look at it with complete objectivety, i catch a lot of flack from my peers about being sexist because i will aproach female vox differently than male vox. there are no hard/fast rules, just subtle differences in technique.

my students do not seem to find this line of teaching sexist at all, at least they have not let on so.

but i stand firmly in my beleif that one must deal with male type vox differently than female type vox.

i just do not see this as a bad thing.

even in numetal this holds true. just listen.

country, you bet.

i do not seem to fit into this PC world. i call it like i see it, not sugar coated to please everyone.

am i somehow off base?

You wouldn't handle a trumpet & a trombone the same way, or a flute & a saxophone.

Case closed.

Not to mention how different could be handling Tracy Chapman and Jon Anderson...that would be the real test if you are sexist or not!

i'm unfamiliar with jon anderson, but the tracy chapman reference is GREAT, she is way out in front of her mixes - yet it all fits together nicely. like her tunes or not, the production is well done.

tracy has a special voice, very earthy and deep.

it would seem that my colleagues ARE indeed off base on this topic, the material wins regardless of gender.

last night we recorded the big-band again. we set up the mics like we did for the last show - but it wasnt working. why? the solo sax player was replaced by a solo clarinet player. different sound required different technique.

my take is that all these elements are like a puzzle, and we have to fit the peices together. if one peice of the puzzle changes signifigantly we have to adjust the rest of the components.

so why does the gender of a component strike such an issue with some people? do different kinds of performers require different techniques?

Well, acoustically gendre=formants. There is a main difference between the characterizing frequency peaks between average male and female voices. Obviously some singers have a voice that deviates considerably from the average spectra, another one that comes to mind is Cesaria Evora.

Jon Anderson is the Yes lead vocalist, more than a female voice he has a sort of pre-puberal timbre, very recognizable, although becoming somehow thicker with age.

Another interesting element to analyze is the "countertenor" male voice, it's that very high male voice that can be heard in the first polyphonic choirs of the mid age, a role that was held by singers that where evirated in young age to keep that high vocal range and that very particular timber (it's said, I don't know if contemporary countertenors that are obviously physically integer reproduce that tone)

Anyway, I imagine that all the problems grow when some elements are competing for the same range...the choice of a certain kick drum or bass sound in relation with the vocals is not mainly technical but expressive, I wouldn't have used John Bonham to produce Sade as well as Frank Sinatra....but it's evident that the very high and sometimes female-like Robert Plant screams benefit very much of such an imponent and thick drums sound, while I couldn't imagine Frank Sinatra with anithing else than a Jazz drumset...

Frank Sinatra's voice is probably very similar, formantwise, to, say. Ian Gillan's, but what would be Deep Purple without Ian Paice's high speed truck?

The matter is complex...

jon anderson from yes, i got ya. i'm familiar with him after all. i have several vinyl's of yes.

it seems we are in complete agreement that different material has different strenghts, and that women often sound different than men.

is my problem with discussing these issues localized? could it be just in my area that folks are unwilling to realize these differences and become upset?

my main issue with this topic is that i am unable to discuss it locally without catching hell, even from other peers.

If it will happen casually for me to be in your area someday, I'll let you know so, we can go out for a beer with some of these people and have some laughs on them!

Sexism in mixing....first time I hear of it!

LOL

Hmmm. There's something that strikes me about this that's just a little disingenuous, but it's hard to really pin down and I hope I don't sound adversarial giving it a shot.

None of your colleagues would argue that all material should be treated the same. I don't know anyone who would say all voice should be mixed the same. Everyone agrees: take it as it comes. And obviously, a human with a high frequency voice (i.e. many woman) would be mixed differently than a human with a low frequency voice (i.e. many men). Everyone, I am sure, would claim that material wins no matter what, which covers many things, including gender. But the way you make gender its own issue is asking for a fight.

See that's just it: everyone agrees that if one piece of the puzzle changes, we adjust the rest of the components. But you might as well have followed it by saying "so we have to mix fat people different from thin people."

I suppose, though, if you want to approach each mix initially as a female mix or male mix, and then tweak it when Tracy Chapman walks in, all the power to you. But this is my pet peeve:

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot argue a sexist point and then say you are not sexist. To divide mixes into male and female is to make a distinction based on sex. If you believe you are right, why not have the courage of your convictions and simply say: "I have a sexist theory of mixing that I believe we all know to be true."

-plb

Just a general comment (and not in any way an attack or challenge):

THAT must be extraordinary.

I can't even IMAGINE...

Wow.

__________________

With regard to the topic...

It seems to me that differing genres demand different treatment. Add that to the the issues of different vocal ranges needing different "space" in the mix...

Now the genre thing is interesting, from a socio-sexual point of view, since there is a big divide between average male and female listening habits. (And, of course, you then get into subsets, subcultures, etc.)

good point.

but i need to ask how it is sexist when niether mix method is more right or wrong than the other?

also keep in mind these are not my opinions, but an observation of what we all may hear on the radio/other methods.

there DOES seem to be a trend, a difference in technique.

i have no ill-will involved with this topic.

and yes, i DO tend to approach a mix differently based on the gender of the vocals. i tend to put female vocals a little more up front and provide a little less focus on the other elements to add space to the vox. is this sexist? i dont know. but i do not feel its a BAD thing, i like many others do it for the sake of the tune itself.

another aspect i would like to add is this - no one has ever said anything negative about the mix techniques.

let me also add this:

if you approach an irish folk tune differently than you would approach a hip-hop tune, would that make you a racist? i think we can say no.

and this 'mix approach' is my main point - approaching the tune based on the content of its components - and admitting that often times the female voice is different than the male voice.

better or worse is simply not a factor or a reality.

different is the key.

we could talk all day about mixing a trumpet vs. euphonium and no feelings get involved.

better or worse sounds? no.

different sounds? yes.

i'm not trying to start anything here with anyone, but i think it should be ok to talk about these things without feelings getting involved.

they are simply different sound sources, and by listening to widely available works its apparent there are often trends in play for each source.

when my students are doing there thing recording live shows or whatnot i often get asked "would doing this or that be better?"

and often times i have to explain that better, worse, and different are three separate things. they seem to be getting the point that changing something, anything at all - can sometimes make the sounds neither better OR worse, just different. this is a concept i am proud to plant in these people, because when i was in school things were more "right or wrong" and not as gray.

i firmly beleive we should all be free to talk about such things in a free and unbiased manner.

//quote:

Add that to the the issues of different vocal ranges needing different "space" in the mix...

end quote//

this is what i am getting at...

and to add different vocal formants to the concept.

No offense but...I think that creeping politcal correctness is getting the best of you. Why is this even a question?

In any case you try to mix to get the best sonic result.

What the hell...do we need to use the same EQ settings and mics in order not to be sexist?

Id advise watching 5 John Wayne movies, 5 episodes of "the man show", going to a seedy strip club.

Repeat as necessary until this "centers" you.

Absolutely - I hope you take my comments in the same way.

Because you are making a distinction based on sex. You are also being defensive about making that distinction - if i say that bra manufacturers should target women rather than men, I am making a sexist distinction that does not make me squirrelly.

It is sexist by definition. Don't know if it's a bad thing or not. Who knows, maybe you're on to something, although don't you think it goes against the credo of "judge each one on its own merrits"?

I'm not sure that's a good analogy because you're not dividing music into two races. If you said mix one way for white artists another way for black artists, that might ruffle some feathers.

One difference is that the variety of human voices is greater than the variety of trumpet and euphonium sounds. it is also harder to pigeonwhole a human voice; brass instruments are far more consistent within their identies; voices are all over the place. So to distinguish mixing technique by genders is not offensive in and of itself, but is it all that helpful? Style and genre probably play a larger role in mix levels than the gender of a voice I would think. Are you going to turn down Janet jackson's kick because she is a girl, or turn up Michael jackson's kick because he is a... OK. Bad example.

-plb

Some interesting points in the thread above.

I'll admit I don't think there's much of a significant social issue here (and I very definitely feel that we continue to live in a society and business environment distorted by sexist presumptions and prejudices) but it's interesting to discuss it, anyway.

I think one thing pertinent to this board is an issue that lies just beneath ther surface of this dialog:

Tracking and mixing by rote.

All of us who do the same general things over and over develop shortcuts and jumpstarts so that we don't have to "reinvent the wheel" [could someone please reinvent that cliche?] or sit there puzzling through the same basic issues every day.

But sometimes habit (and isn't prejudice a form of habitual thinking, after all?) allows us to drift out of sync with the realities that underly our processes, whether they're artistic, technical, business, or social.

Coming into this thread as it has already developed probably gives me a little more perspective than if I had been the first reply.

Hmmm.

Language is so loaded. To say "sexist" puts a pejorative cast on it, though as B-lips pointed out, "ist" or "ism" isn't necessarily a put-down, it's just a decriptive that's been loaded with societal baggage.

So, I would address the topic as "Mixing techniques for different vocal characteristics" and address not only gender differences, but the distinction between someone like Tom Waits vs. Aaron Neville and/or Sarah Vaughan vs. Ella Fitzgerald.

Interesting stuff here. At first I sort of dismissed it, and then it turned on me.

OK... so you have a band like Soundgarden for instance. A tune gets mixed by Joe Mixer. The band doesn't like the mix Joe did and sends it to Betty Mix O' Lot. She digs in to the work. She also digs Chris Cornell. She loves his voice. That voice just works on her in a very different way than say her favorite vocalist does. Her favorite is Allison Krause. Betty Mix O' Lot is heterosexual though and like I said really "digs" Cornell.

She's going to hear things differently than Joe Mixer and she's going to highlight and downplay certain characteristics of Cornell's voice.

No big deal. We all hear things differently. Our take on the material at hand is what we bring to the party.

Sexist? Sure... so what?

That's a very good point...but when the choices are specifical to a certain singer and there is an emotional involvement, that is perfect, it might make that mix a piece of art, a sound sculpture reflecting some feelings, the problem is with a generic male vs. female debate, not so much for the social aspect, that's bull{censored}, but for the impossibility to link those cathegories to fixed tonal and artistic parameters...

I guess my point is, it a NON-issue. Mixing it the way it moves you is the whole concept of this art. Isn't it? Male or female or whatever. If one treats females differently in a mix that's ok. Mix it the way you hear it, not the way the Politically Correcto Meter tells you to.

If your vision sucks... then it sucks and that'll all come out in the wash. If it has merit, that'll surface too.

A non-issue.