Perspective in Mixing

[John Suitcase]

This is my first thread here at the Womb! I like this place!

OK, this is a general question about how you approach your mixes. I go back and forth, but I tend towards what I'll call the in-your-face approach..

These are the approaches I've thought of...

1. Ideallized Stereo Perspective. This is what a recording of the band would sound like, if you were standing in front of the band in a nice space, while they played. The drums would be center mostly, with some ambience, the guitars off to the sides a bit, but not hard left or right, etc. You see what I mean, it's what a perfect stereo recording of a performance would sound like, were it possible.

2. In-Your-Face. This is the approach I end up going after quite often. In this approach, the guitars sound like they're right there, in the speaker box. The kick drum hits you in the gut, as does the snare, the toms go across the stereo spread. The vocals sound like they're coming from an invisible head between the speakers. I'm often trying to create a kinesthetic experience, to make listening physical in addition to the psychological parts.

3. Imaginary/FX world. This is where I place a lot of pop productions. They sort of exist half in each of the above worlds, along with effects like stereo ping-pong delays, keyboard pads that go around your head, etc. There's no pretense of trying to recreate an actual performance, more to create an impression of the song, as it would exist in the abstract.


Am I missing some approaches? What do you guys do? Are you imagining a space, with the band on a stage between your speakers? Are you trying to make it sound like your monitors are guitar cabinets?

Thoughts?

[otek]

There's no pretense of trying to recreate an actual performance, more to create an impression of the song, as it would exist in the abstract.

This is where I find myself most of the time.

Part of the reason may be that for a lot of the stuff I do, there really is no "actual performance" to be recreated, in the sense of a band playing and performing the song together.

Sometimes this has to do with the skill of the band, sometimes with the budget. Sometimes with the fact that the budget doesn't allow much time to hone the skills of the band.

Especially with heavier music, a lot of times you'll find that a straight live performance doesn't quite take the tune where it needs to be. Embellishments are needed. Live, you have different kinds of energies to play with - the crowd, the loud PA. In the studio, you sometimes have to conjure a sense of size and weight.

The Comte De St Germain (the poster, not the real guy) once introduced me to the wonderful term "hyper-reality". I find it adequately describes a lot of the stuff we engineers are sometimes called upon to produce.

[John Suitcase]

I agree about that 'hyper-reality' but I still wonder about the perspective thing. Like, if I listen to Shellac (Steve Albini is a great example), it sounds like being at a Shellac show (I've been to a few), but a little more perfect. I can hear everything, including the room, but nothing drowns anything else out, everything is clear and even, unlike a real show.

On the other hand, say, Taking Back Sunday. The guitars and stuff are completely separated, there's no attempt to make it sound like things are in one space. It works for their sound, I suppose, but it's such a different way to come at a mix.


I realize it's material-dependant to some degree, I'm just wondering what criteria you'd use to make the decision, if you make a decision at all...

[otek]

If anything, for me that decision is made long before the mix stage, typically in pre-production.

If I hear the band has something I feel will work when recorded largely live, I will make that decision early on and it will be the theme that inspires everything that follows.

[Jason Phair]

Dude, you forgot about the in your face bass.


And the over the top nyckelharpa.

[John Suitcase]

If anything, for me that decision is made long before the mix stage, typically in pre-production.

If I hear the band has something I feel will work when recorded largely live, I will make that decision early on and it will be the theme that inspires everything that follows.

Yeah, I suppose I should have called this thread 'perspective in production'. In my work (mostly on location, often in less than perfect circumstances), it's pretty rare to have a room that I'd want to capture. I've been thinking a lot about the idea of beginning with the end in mind, as it applies to production. I think this 'perspective' element is one part of that, along with deciding on the equipment choices, etc.

[otek]

often in less than perfect circumstances

Oh yes, I am but too familiar with this one.

I suppose if you plan to record the band in a very "natural" live setting, one of the first points on the program would be some location scouting. Doesn't have to be a studio, as long as you can find an interesting, good-sounding room, where the band feel at ease with their sound.

[Brendo]

didnt mixerman have a thing on this?

in fact im sure he did, where he talks about up down left right front back.

from the old wreck-pit.

he should repost.

[malice]

First, I think that you nailed the main categories

The thing is that a production is all about how you mix "in your face", "natural perspective", and "Fx mayhem from the eighties".

If you stick to one and only perspective, it's going to be boring to death. I mean, not for one or two songs, but for a full lenght album.

I try to shape what I believe is the best direction for the song. It's not at all a mix thing, it has to happen while you record the band.

If you need "in your face" guitar sound, you do "in your face" guitar sound. If you need to sound like the amp is in another room, you record it like that. It's rarely something I decide at the mixing stage.

Same with Fx, if I feel like there is a special treatment to do to a track, I record the Fx while tracking and build the production from there.

I try not to stick to the same tricks anyway. Some singer don't sound good with no Fx on the lead, some drummers like open sound, some like it tight. It's my job to shape a sound that will fit the artist and the songs. Wether they sound like that on stage once I recorded them is entirely up to them.

malice

[Charles Dye]

I use a combination of the 3 choices you mentioned, but my guiding principle is to never limit myself to just recreate reality. Tho I do sometimes go for certain elements of a mix to sound somewhat like they are coming from a real soundstage.

Cool thread.

[John Suitcase]

What about the use of room mics in this regard? I usually will throw up a room mic, but honestly most of the rooms I work in aren't all that special.

I feel like my mixes are sometimes too in-your-face, like I listen to a lot of other mixes, and they seem to sit back a little, whereas mine often seem to be a little too close for comfort.

I use a little reverb, delay, etc, but I almost think it's more an issue with balancing eq. I like midrange, and I think that makes things sound a little overly present...

I'm listening to Built To Spill right now, I love these Phil Eck recordings...

[airborne]

I think the 'recreating the reality' approach, where one attempts to capture the energy of a live performance is flawed because of one simple fact. The live energy, or a large part of it, comes from feelings which will never be present in any recording. The adrenaline and stage presence of a live band, along with how the compression waves affect other parts of your body as opposed to just your ears, are examples. So yeah, I'm agreeing that 'recreating reality' in a mix is not always the way forward because more often than not you can't recreate that reality in a piece of recorded music.

[Bob Olhsson]

...The live energy, or a large part of it, comes from feelings which will never be present in any recording....If there's a goal, it's to invoke the same feelings in the listener that they would experience at a live performance. An important goal of production is to eliminate distractions that would get on people's nerves when the recording is played over and over.

[John Suitcase]

If there's a goal, it's to invoke the same feelings in the listener that they would experience at a live performance. An important goal of production is to eliminate distractions that would get on people's nerves when the recording is played over and over.


That's funny, because it seems most 'hit' songs have lots of annoying things!

I think of them as psuedo-hooks. The song may be lacking in melodic power, but stick a sample of a monkey and it's a hit!:Wink:

[nobby]

I like all the basic approaches, as long as they are add, or at least don't distract from, the music. There are many straightforward, get-out-of-the-way-of-the-music mixes that I can listen to over and over again. Then there are mixes that are completely unnatural that just worked really well for the genre. And everything in between. And are things that I'll never like, such as gated reverb, which I think people bought the record in spite of (YMMV).

I think with a studio album, as opposed to live or a live album, where the interaction between the crowd and the artist(s) is creating a dynamic of it's own, it's usually a good thing to introduce some texture into the album:

If you stick to one and only perspective, it's going to be boring to death. I mean, not for one or two songs, but for a full lenght album.

[airborne]

I think with a studio album, as opposed to live or a live album, where the interaction between the crowd and the artist(s) is creating a dynamic of it's own, it's usually a good thing to introduce some texture into the album:

Agreed.