Okay...I have to preface my comments by saying that this style really isn't my thing, AP...

...so when I suggest that the vocals need to come forward more, or that they also need a bit of ssssibilance attenuation, or that I would look at adding some ambiance to the drum track (toms, snare, tight room), or a bit more "click" to the kick, or that the first lead guitar solo needs some "body" to it because I find it to be a little thin ( and somewhat harsh) tone-wise...

....Then please, take what I say with a grain of salt. ;)

I could, however, hear your low-end definition, I don't believe it's as bad as you think. Have you listened to this 2-mix on any other playback systems? Dynaudios are mighty nice monitors, but if your room is lying to you... well, you get the idea.

You might also want to try mono-izing the entire low end from around 125hz (or so) and down, to add more center "oomph", but that's just a suggestion and not a deal breaker, at least to to me, anyway.

Performance wise I'm not hearing any issues...the vocalist is in pitch (Halleluiah!) the rhythm section is locked nice and tight, drum fills are tasty and dead on in the pocket. (I'm a drummer... so I tend to get somewhat nit-picky about that stuff).

Oh... one final thing... I know that this genre tends to lean towards uber-limiting, but you need to be careful of how much limiting you use on this one though - this song is balls to the wall to begin with, so you don't wanna squash it too hard, or that wall of noise will turn into a wall of mush pretty quickly. ;)

All this being said, there are others who are far more in tune to this style, so everything I said above could be completely wrong. LOL

IMHO of course.

d/

:)

i heard it right away. your guitars are fighting for space in the mid/hi and hi end.
imo, one of the secrets to "walls of noise" is using eq to carve a hole in one sound and bandpassing with resonance ...or something else that can create a focused drive like a multiband distortion... to fill in that hole

difficult to say with confidence listening on this iphone.

Thanks guys. I'm holding off on making any changes until all the feedback filters in, if there will be more...I'll re-upload then.

Josh, what do you mean by "bandpassing with resonance"? I have never heard of multiband distortion before, but it makes sense - how do you do it if the raw guitar input is already heavily distorted? For that matter, how would you do it if the guitar was clean, reamping differently eq'd versions?

Donny, I remember a thread here a while back about mono-ing the low end, I will revisit that idea, and I agree, the vox could cut through better, I'll try a little selective eq instead of volume changes, I think. I won't put a limiter on anything so no worries there, the guitars are already compressed by nature, but the drums are pretty consistent, and I usually ride the virtual fader to deal with volume issues anyway. Takes more time, but I like the results better.

Thanks again!

let dave explain ;)
and ill recommend fabfilter simplon for all your resonant filtering needs.

http://www.pensadosplace.tv/2014/04/21/how-to-use-filters-when-mixing-bass-itl-100/

buy a splitter pedal. theyre 25$ and let you splice into the guitarists chain to get a clean di capture of the performance to reamp or process with your favorite plugin.
the guys im working with right now have this nice marshall amp, so im snagging a clean signal, the direct off the back of the amp, and a 57 off the cone a ways sounded nice.
imo, when dealing with heavy processing of any sort, its best to split and capture a clean signal along side, and if the singer walks in with a megaphone... youre fu**d :)

Honestly that sounds pretty good. The thing about tape is it really wasn't good at that clear modern uber defined low end. I bet that's what your hearing as the lack of clairity, I add gobs of his to the kick, specially w tape. So maybe just a bit more top on the kick and snare?

That's good though overall IMHO, and for something that old, and not likely huge budgeted, rock on, it came out good. I love the 90s lol

Much more than minor tweaks in any direction, and you might start endlessly chasing your tale, on something that's just for practice. There's only so good recordings can get.

Thanks guys, I'll do a little tweaking based on your suggestions and then repost. You're right kmetal, I don't want to chase my tail for weeks on this. I've got 8 more tracks from that session to play with anyway :)

It was all recorded in the house the band was renting and living in at the time, would have been 1992-93. The engineer was a friend who crashed on the couch in the living room for a month, they rented the recording gear they needed, converted a couple of bedrooms into pretty much untreated recording spaces and did all the tracking in the evenings after they got home from work and school. They tell me it was a blast, I wish I had been there!

Coming late to this party, I'm with Donny ( haven't read other comments below, sorry, on the run as usual and just chiming in for a sec... . )
The Vocals are buried and the mix is lacking presence. I feel like reaching for mid/or low mids. The mix makes me really hungry for more. Which is a good thing. Ya just need to find it now. You have a great sound happening.

I found this song to be rather interesting. What wasn't interesting was the engineering. Mind you, it wasn't what I would call, horrible. But it wasn't something I would generally want to listen to. No. Not that I didn't like the song or the genre. I did. But what did you do in the software to make this thing sound like a terrible traffic jam? Where's the excitement? Where is the snap? The punch? Where's the forward thrust? It sort of sounds like the sewer lines under your basement has backed up? You're playing with too much nonsense in the software. It should sound much better than this having been analog, 20 years ago. You clobbered it for some reason? Why?

Actually it sounds to me like you mixed this, monitoring too loudly. And it just lies there like a tire stuck in the mud. This could be so much more. It sounds to me like the tracks were recorded well. But you really need to rethink this mix. It appears to be nothing more than a rough concept? Though the vocals, when you can hear them, sound mighty fine. When you can hear them. If you can hear them? They're at the back of the line. They took off their shoes and are standing in a puddle with their socks on. Or at least that's how they sound.

You don't need to re-record anything. What's there is good. Turn down your monitors. Now pull your plug-ins out. Turn off your EQ. Let's try this again? Take 2. This time... no dynamics processing. Just mix it. Try that. Then if needed, put some dynamics processing on the lead vocal. I hate the sound of lookahead limiters. And it sounds like that's all you used? You need those transients to punch through. Not to be stopped at the door. And when I'm using dynamics processing, it's no lookahead and frequently slow attack times. Then it will spring back to life. Look ahead is sort of like cutting off your head before you get to the guillotine. It won't be exciting. There won't be enough blood left. So to get a head, no lookahead, slow attack time, adjust release time, to taste.

Now if you want to get really fancy and tighten things up? You'd put some compressors on the snare drum, bass drum, tom-tom's. EQ out the boxy frequencies. And then follow all of those drums with noise gates. But not the overheads. You might even want to try to invert phase on the bass drum?

The stuff about making everything mono below 125-150 Hz is a bunch of bunk. It was valid when cutting disks for vinyl. There is just no reason to do that anymore, in the digital 21st century. It doesn't fix lousy mixing and engineering. Done well, no one should need that. That's what a tight mix is all about. That's getting rid of the spaces you don't need. It's amazing what a bunch of properly tweaked gates and downward expansion can do. Not enough folks even frequently attempt that. No one wants to work at it long enough to get it good. Which really shouldn't take but a few minutes to dial in. And you don't set everything to fast. The mix does not happen automatically even with dynamics processing. You have to pull some faders or add some mix automation for a dynamic mix. Which does not necessarily have much to do with dynamic range. Everything just sits there like scum on a pond. Yet... this tune rocks. Dialed in, correctly? This would be an awesome song. Right now it sounds like a used-car you wouldn't necessarily want to purchase. And because it sounds like it needs work.

This needs as much refining as crude oil needs to become kerosene. You've already got the crude oil. You just have to cook it differently. You don't want to scorch the milk. And it's scorched.

I can tell you how I would mix it? But then... I'd have to kill ya.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Well, considering your propensity for gates on every drum... as a drummer... I'd have to kill you. ;) You're not coming anywhere near my drums with those gates, dear... and you can just put down that roll of duct tape as well while you're at it.

When you use gates, you're killing the life of the drums. Properly tuned drums in a good sounding room don't need a gate...and, we don't listen to a drum kit one drum at a time. We listen to the kit as a whole ensemble... so unless you want those drums to sound like every other run of the mill sampled drum kit out there right now, then turn the gates off, use a little compression to tame the transients, make sure the kit is a good one, and well tuned. Experiment with the sounds of different heads - instead of pin stripes, try coated ambassadors... Oh... and having a great drummer doesn't hurt, either.

But maybe you're still stuck in '78? When gates were used on every single kit piece except the OH's? Come into the 21st Century, Remy. It's really not such a bad place to be. Just leave your noise gates back in '78, when drums had the un-distinctive sound of duct taped, well-tuned, cardboard boxes. ;)

And while you are correct that there is no technical reason to mono freq's below 100 hz in this digital age, there is absolutely a reason to do so if it sounds better. This process is song-dependant. Artists like Peter Gabriel, ( along with some cool jazz fusion artists), have a lot of very cool stereo information happening in the low end. But then again, there are times with a more straight-ahead rock sound, that mono-ing the low end below a certain point results in a noticeable tighter and more defined low end. So you can say it's "bunk" all you want, and you're entitled to your opinion. But, I can personally attest to the fact that there are certain songs that benefit from this process.

With Donny once again. (y)

To add, I hate gates on drums, but would use them live only if the band I was working with was loud crap and the mics where all goofy and the room sucked or I was trying to get that goofy late 70/ early 80's wannabe modern Rock sample sound like dead ringers and the cheezy gated reverb sound. You are way better off using samples over gates. In fact, that's what I would do if you gave me a track with gated drums. I would replace the whole works with samples and a Bricasti any day of the week.

Same with compression, I use compression but not like all the API 2500 laptopper of the last decade do. In fact, its about the best way to force a live mix into small and cramped ITB sounding, just the opposite of what Remy likes/suggests. However, compressed samples work great for electronic music and why we have so much cross contamination today.

I bet if you listened to the difference between a plug-in comp active/inactive, and I pointed out what to listen to, some would hear the negative effect right away. At first you would think that's what you want, but after a bit of A/B in prospective, you would go, ooh and a light bulb would go on.
Comps mislead us into thinking they are helping audio get louder and punchier. If you find the pocket for each track, so their unique freq have their own place in the mix, (less crammed with other parts of a song), compression is actually a detriment because, the compressed track looses its punch and becomes a "more of a wall of sound", thus, needing a broader stoke to "get that pocket back" and simply put, a royal PITA trying to improve.

off topic, but why the heck would you want to gate a drum?
to control bleed?

Personally, I don't see all that much use for expanders on any instrument or track anymore in a digital recording situation. Perhaps live, but I'm not seeing them as a crucial part of the processing hierarchy in a studio environment.

Not anymore, anyway.

Very few are tracking to tape anymore, so it's not as if you're dealing with the noise floor that tape and noisy gear used to present.

With all the automated mute functions available, not to mention the programmable volume envelope adjustments and slip editing/trimming of files at your disposal with the mere touch/click of a mouse, available on most any DAW, it's pretty much become one of those bygone processors that those still using them are doing so simply out of habit, or because they were used to using them as part of their individual tracking/mixing process that they'd grown accustomed to over the years.. and, there's nothing wrong with that, we all have our own individual way of doing things, our own paths which eventually lead to the same destination.

Except these days, I'm trying to limit the amount of VST processing I use on projects. I don't need to add gates to do what I can do just as easily, and probably even more effectively, through the use of editing, automated muting and nodal volume envelope sculpting. All I would be doing is adding another potential problem, not to mention a needless taxing of the computer's processor.

Come to think of it, I can't even remember the last time I used a gate in a digital recording or mix scenario, unless it was used as part of an effect...

FWIW

d./

chain more than one distortion pedal and rawewwwrrrrr... the gate feature on the 88rs plug is pretty sweet at these times. matter of fact, the 88rs is pretty sweet all the time

Hi, here is what I heard. The mix is not wide enough..it actually sounds very narrow...hard pan those guitars...lol Filter everything below 150 or higher without affecting the essence of the sound. To do this solo each guitar track, start with a highpass filter of sorts and raise the frequency until you start to noticeably hear the gtrs getting thin, then back it down a hair. Do the same for ANY source except the kick and bass..solo these two together and try and get them to play nice with each other FIRST, by boosting and cutting frequencies so they interact like a puzzle...If you boost 100 on one, take away 100Hz from the other..you get the idea. This is what one poster mentioned about making sure frequency wise, all sources interlock. Can't place too many same frequency sources together in the sonic space...you gotta carve them out.

Raise the kick up, use the bass to generally support the low end that you are taking away from the guitars, and don't be afraid to add some mids to the bass for clarity.

Also, I'd like to mention that the use of reverbs and delays are key to creating a nice open space for all the instruments to live in. If you only have one reverb, and you are using it on everything, it will sound like a mess. However, having said that, not all tracks need reverb.

I also heard the track too dark. What I have found that works for me at times, is to place the competing sources panned center (mono), and work the EQ carving like this...if you can get some separation in mono, you will have nice separation in stereo.

Lastly, I don't detect much automation or dynamics at all from beginning to end, the mix is the same level. By the end of the mix, it should be driving a bit more, and the levels should be a bit higher..this give the sense of a live performance as a typical band would do by the end of a song.

Hope any of this helps..

well i think it just sounds ducky. i am not going to have any advice on this ...the vocals can be heard, i can understand the lyrics, i can define the guitars just fine. i can hear the bass and kick drums and i think the snare and toms are fine. i say print it and move on.

as to your concerns, some hints. for low end definition on a bass guitar look to 220 cycles. boost the bass and notch the kick. a dB or 2 on the kick at 80 will fatten a mix right up. panning is nice .. look up cardinal rules of panning.

Kurt, you and I usually don't disagree so far apart, do we? I think you are way off on this. Well, in regards to actual accuracy. I hear everything to but yikes, its pretty damn crammed and the vocals are too far back for my taste. But, the OP has got his chops down.

audiokid, post: 415279, member: 1 wrote: Kurt, you and I usually don't disagree so far apart, do we? I think you are way off on this. Well, in regards to actual accuracy. I hear everything to but yikes, its pretty damn crammed and the vocals are too far back for my taste. But, the OP has got his chops down.

is it how i would mix it? no. but it doesn't sound horrible. i can hear the vocals and unlike a lot of stuff here i can understand the lyrics. think Rolling Stones. this kind of mix the intentions are to have the guitars waaaaay up front. not my favorite sound. i like the drums and bass in front. as far as it being crammed, well that's itb mixing .... still i can define all the different elements. i can't be critical any further than that considering the source. is there enough "air"? probably not.

no one is ever going to post a song that everyone agrees on. i'm trying to put myself in the ops shoes. obviously this is what he thinks it needs to sound like. i'm sure people thought Phil was nuts with his first few records ......

Lots of great feedback and an interesting discussion. Plus Remy didn't tell me to sell everything and get a new hobby, so I'm taking that as a small victory. :)

In general, yes, it's intended to be very guitar-focused, and yet those two guitar tracks are fighting too much and not cooperating. Sure, they were angry young men at the time, but that's no excuse.

I also find it lacking presence overall and the vox aren't quite cutting though enough. I tried to do something about that. I'm afraid I may have made it worse. I added a little de-essing to the lead vox, but by the time got the s's under control, the vocal track was so dull it was terrible. So I backed it off a bit and live with the consequences.

Panned the guitars a little more, added a little more tap to the kick and more verb to the kit overall. I feel it may be too much, it's starting to sound even more crammed than it was before to me. Anyone got a spare Bricasti lying around?

Overall dynamics are also pretty limited to begin with - the original tracks may have been compressed on the way in because I've only got a little light compression on the drum submix as a whole and that's it. Nothing on the 2-bus.

At any rate, I appreciate all the comments, so thanks again. Kmetal is right: I could keep playing with it forever. It's time to either start over as Remy suggested or just move on to a new one and apply what I've learned. My friend the artist says the hardest part about painting is knowing when to stop, so I've decided that Kurt is right, it's "not horrible" lol and it's time to stop...onwards and upwards!

In the meantime, let's hear your verdict: better or worse?

[MEDIA=soundcloud]id=https%3A%2F%2Fsoundcloud.com%2Fthe-stronghold%2Fjd-v2%2Fs-Bckov;secret_token=s-Bckov;track_id=152399967
[[url=http://[/URL]="https://soundcloud…"]View: https://soundcloud…]="https://soundcloud…"]View: https://soundcloud…]

choice song but the vox is still too low. I don't care what genre anything is, Vox trumps.

Baby steps now... If I was mixing this, I would add a small room verb just on the vox so it gets wider (just until you notice it ). Then lift low mids (200 to 500) by a db ( just until you notice it) It would do wonders. Try it.

Overall dynamics are also pretty limited to begin with - the original tracks may have been compressed on the way in because I've only got a little light compression on the drum submix as a whole and that's it.

ah, the glory of tape, that natural compression is a big part of the tape sound. Gain staging on tape is a bit more of a creative art in tape, where you pick and choose what gets squashed on the way in, and by how much. And balance that w the noise floor. where as digital its more of a technical -18 or so for everything (in general)

I think it was an overall improvement to the tune, and while vocals always rule, I think there are just different requirements for how far out they should be in general based on genre. I think your in the ballpark for this kinda punky garage rock type stuff. I'm thinking sonic youth style here.

Looking forward to hearing the new stuff you guys do.

disagree with vox trumping. every song on the radio the vox are too loud. the voice is just another instrument to me.
i understand the ego requirements of pop singers but i came to this conclusion yesterday after listening to Ufomammuts - Nero vs System of Downs - Aerials.
serj's vocals were clear and present, right in my face. everything else was a round mass of mess. the guitar riff could be huge, and had zero impact when it came squeaking in. i could barely hear the kick and i sure couldmt feel it. yawn.

everything about that is wrong to me. musics emotional impact doesnt only come from a vocal.
ufomammut may not be anyone else heres cup of tea, but that song is a perfect example of using the voice as another element to be mixed INTO the song when the time comed, not the song around it from the get go. thats not living

I agree with Josh - to an extent.

To clarify, the main problem I have isn't necessarily that the vocals are too far forward in level, it's more that certain frequencies within the vocals are too far forward - more often than not it's that 1k - wide Q region - the result is that brittle/harsh sound that I've always had a problem with, be it digital or analog.

I think that vocals need to sit where lyrics can he heard and understood. Often, I mix my own vocals too far back into a mix, because I already know the lyrics, and the result is that I can understand them at attenuated levels, where new listeners may not be able to discern them as well. It's a fine line, to be sure.

I've heard forward-placed vocals that sound incredible to me - Peter Gabriel comes to mind as an example - but the tone/EQ on his voice is so smooth, warm, silky and pleasant, that I'm not bothered by it....now, whether this is because of his natural timbre, or, because his engineer(s) have found the perfect mic/pre/processing chain for him, or a marriage of both, is certainly food for thought... but when I listen to most other pop vox, most of the time, the mid range is just far too harsh for me to stand.

The knee-jerk and quick fix reaction would be to attenuate the vox back into the mix, but... IMHO... I think that if more attention was paid to the track in terms of tone, the levels could probably remain around the same RMS, or very close, for the most part.

It's that 800hz - 2k thing that always seems to get to me, and in recent years, this bandwidth has become - for whatever reason - "trendy" to push/hype.

And while it's true that clarity resides in that range, I don't think you can take every vocalist and "generalize" that this is always the freq range that all of them require.

All vocalists are different in timbre, projection, dynamics, etc. Some are inherently breathy, while others have a built-in rasp, or growl, and I don't think that an engineer can just automatically reach for, and boost this range, just because it worked on the last vocalist that they recorded with success, using this same EQ range.

And, while it's true that I am certainly an analog fan, I don't believe that just because a recording is digital in source means that it will automatically be cold, harsh or brittle... at least not anymore.

I think that there was a time when this was more likely to be the case, back in digital's infancy, when computers were far less powerful,converters were of far less quality, and standard EQ and GR plugs were pretty much all the same.

Since then, very nice preamps, converters, and processing VST's have become available, as has the whole hybrid category, using high voltage summing and OB hardware that warms things up; the end result is that the sonics of modern digital don't have to be harsh or cold or brittle anymore.

And if they are, then it's either because the wrong gear is being used, or, because the operator of the right gear isn't taking the time to use the gear correctly, or to put in the necessary time to sculpt tone on an individual basis.

Technology has made engineers lazy. Far too many rely on pre-set progs/apps and parameters within those progs. Recording and mixing has become far too carbon-copy in it's approach. I've watched engineers sculpt the vocal tones on one particular song for an artist's album, and then just plug that exact same EQ into all the other lead voc tracks on all the other songs on the album... and it pisses me off. LOL

To use this cookie-cutter type of mixing technique is not only lazy, it's detrimental, and will almost always result in overall sonics that could be far more pleasing... and the real rub is that it doesn't have to be this way.

If the engineer has the right tools, knows how to use those tools, and take the time needed to make sure that the tracks sound great, then the current problems of harsh/cold/brittle/squashed wouldn't exist, regardless of the format.

But, what do I know, right? I've certainly got no gold records hanging on my wall... so, I suppose my opinion should be taken for what it's worth. ;)

d/

:)

look at that, a guitar player talkin about tone :-)

Most of us are too quick to suck mids out to get a bigger sound. All this does is make a very washed together and weak sounding mix that doesn't stand up. Its not that you want honky music, but ya got to have presence where the source lives. The money is in the mids, not the top and bottom. The key is getting it right without everything sounding honky around it. Then, use the supporting Freq to kick it home.

We should ask the OP to share the tracks and have a few try your luck on this. Then talk about it more. Its the perfect song for a "problem based learning" study.

Josh Conley, post: 415337, member: 47953 wrote: look at that, a guitar player talkin about tone :)

LOL... actually, I'm a drummer and vocalist first. I just happen to play a little guitar. So, I guess that makes my comments even more ridonkulous. ;)

audiokid, post: 415339, member: 1 wrote: The money is in the mids, not the top and bottom. The key is getting it right without everything sounding honky around it. Then, use the supporting Freq to kick it home.

Except that you're basing your theory on mid-range processing around models like MEQ's and such. I'm referring more to the standard "go-to" settings, particularly in regard to VST EQs.

No matter how good or how bad the actual processing is, I'm still against "formula" treatment on a wide, preset, generalized scale, whether it's with EQ or other types of processing.

It's that exact mentality with gain reduction that got us into this crazy, balls to the wall, smash it up good, volume wars thing to begin with.

IMHO of course. ;)

Agree, but this sounds like everything is over eq'd resulting in the vocals sounding lost in the mix. Its all washed together. Clear, but everything is the same. Its over mixed, nothing to do with DAW bus or VST or HD analog. It can be improved a lot.

I need to clarify and apologize with my post... I wasn't referring to the OP's mix when I commented with my last post, I was more responding to Josh and you, regarding vocal balances in mixes with current EQ trends.

;)

i understand the ego requirements of pop singers but i came to this conclusion yesterday after listening to Ufomammuts - Nero vs System of Downs - Aerials.
serj's vocals were clear and present, right in my face. everything else was a round mass of mess. the guitar riff could be huge, and had zero impact when it came squeaking in. i could barely hear the kick and i sure couldmt feel it. yawn.

everything about that is wrong to me. musics emotional impact doesnt only come from a vocal.
ufomammut may not be anyone else heres cup of tea, but that song is a perfect example of using the voice as another element to be mixed INTO the song when the time comed, not the song around it from the get go. thats not living
[="http://recording.org/index.php?members/josh-conley.47953/"]Josh Conley[/]="http://recording.or…"]Josh Conley[/], [[url=http://="http://recording.or…"]Yesterday at 12:34 PM[/]="http://recording.or…"]Yesterday at 12:34 PM[/][="http://recording.org/index.php?posts/415328/report"]Report[/]="http://recording.or…"]Report[/]
[[url=http://="http://recording.or…"]#22[/]="http://recording.or…"]#22[/][="http://recording.org/index.php?posts/415328/like"]Like[/]="http://recording.or…"]Like[/][[url=http://="http://recording.or…"]+ QuoteReply[/]="http://recording.or…"]+ QuoteReply[/]

Josh Conley, post: 415328, member: 47953 wrote: disagree with vox trumping. every song on the radio
i understand the ego requirements of pop singers but i came to this conclusion yesterday after listening to Ufomammuts - Nero vs System of Downs - Aerials.
serj's vocals were clear and present, right in my face. everything else was a round mass of mess. the guitar riff could be huge, and had zero impact when it came squeaking in. i could barely hear the kick and i sure couldmt feel it. yawn.

everything about that is wrong to me. musics emotional impact doesnt only come from a vocal.
ufomammut may not be anyone else heres cup of tea, but that song is a perfect example of using the voice as another element to be mixed INTO the song when the time comed, not the song around it from the get go. thats not living

It's got nothing to do w ego, and everything to do w audience. The artists don't mix themselves, engineers do, and most vocalists I know bury theirs when they touch the fader, lol me and my buddy were in the same band and we just agreed that he wouldn't touch the vocals, I would. Lol he had free reign on everything else.

When is the last time you ever heard a 14 year old humming the guitar line, or tapping the beat of a pop song? It's the melody and lyrics in pop. The music is there tol support it, if the vocal track won't stand on its own, the song doesn't get made. It's entertainment, happy stuff, surface stuff, it's not deep, that's pop that's how it always is. It's made for kids. From the Beatles to nirvana you name it, you wanna be on the radio you put the vocals out there.

Ever been to a punk rock show and been in the pit w a bunch of sweaty kids screaming the lyrics back at the singer right in his face?

Im not saying it's my bag, but it is how it is. As the music gets heavier the vocals pushed further in, but they are the lead instrument when they are there.

Like it or not, that's what most people hear, and pay attention to, that and whatever cool little musical motif that gets beat to death.

That SOD record song your referring to just isn't that great of a mix. They mixed metal record pop style, and it sold millions. W the vocals as loud and clear as they are, there was barely room left for the piccolo snare. So that's why, they just ran out of room, they had to sacrifice, if they wanted to sell serj's voice, which is really the only thing unique about that band, not that they aren't good, but his voice is what catches ears, not the pummeling drums or guitars. It's also a great example of how cheesy some of those early 2000 PTHD mixes were.

The big mixers mix for the audience, not other engineers, or musicians. I would love to do a test where mere civilians are played songs some where the vocals are too loud, and some where they are a a little tough to hear. Then asked to make a first impression comment, guaranteed, you will get many many more comments about I can't hear the vocals, than the opposite. Ever do live sound? I could mute the whole damn band and the vocals aren't loud enough. Lol.

That's why they call it balance, I don't mind loud upfront vocals, but I don't like that detached sound, where it's similar to hip hop where it sounds like a singer, and then the "rest of the stuff". Obviously the OPs song isn't pop. But saying a pop/mainstream songs vocals are too loud is like saying a xxx stars lips are too big. Did I say lips I meant, um.

I think Adele's "21" album is a modern masterpieces of a pop record, great musicianship and arrangement a constantly moving mix/effx catchy music, and a voice to die for, albeit one that was mixed w some of that peaky thing D was talking about I don't mix much original pop, mostly top 40 cover bands if it is pop, but when I do, the vocals are king, or queen. It's a style of mixing.

Like how you said the kick was too soft on SOD, it was. It's metal that kick should sound like a muscle car redlining.

I can't think of many songs that were on mainstream, where the vocals weren't pretty far out front. I don't always agree, but who am I? If that's what people want that's what I'll give them, and I'll save my tastes for my own pet projects :)

lots of assumptions up there :) genre is important for these definitions were tossing about, sure. but you've accepted the world as it is. to me pop music is the antithesis of the art im pursuing. "most people" are stupid cows (imo) so the analogy of what most people like and do is going to fall well short of a suitable format of argument for me. move me with passion. mixing songs along a formulaic route is not art. take a chance. the money is nearly gone, so what are people still afraid of?

most of the music i listen to doesnt even *have* vocals... so yeah, im humming guitar melodys or synth lines alot. my friends who play drums tap on stuff alot.
punk rock power chords and 1/2 beats are what drive those song, not silly lyrics about cleaning ur room and stuffy parents ;)

Josh Conley, post: 415363, member: 47953 wrote:

punk rock power chords and 1/2 beats are what drive those song, not silly lyrics about cleaning ur room and stuffy parents ;)

Well, there goes my next hit. I've been working on a song called "Cleaning My Room", with a bridge where I talk about having my parents stuffed. ;)

Thanks for raining on my parade, Josh. Just when I thought I had matured lyrically... LOL

The thing is, if most of the money you made was thru music, you might have a different outlook. Now I'm not saying i make a lot, but I don't have another job (I also do some carpentry side work). Music is %80 of it. I get avant garde, and underground, and all that, but if you are making a business of it, then there are certain things that have to be done, that have already been established. There are expectations on a genre by genre basis, and most of the time, if there are vocals, they need to be heard. Necessarily loud or upfront, but they are the lead when they are there, most of the time.

If your saying that you don't want to make music that most people would like (I agree most people are a bit short on brain power) cool, that's fine, but most musicians have the hope that a lot of people will like their songs, which are usually sub par anyway. This is what a genre is, a generalization of style and characteristics.

It's the same thing w guitar solos, ask a guitarist who the best guitarists is and ask a lay person. People like satch, and via, and yngwie, are musicians guitarists. Guitarists like page, Clapton, Hendricks, well they have memorable songs, as well as chops. Formula,never hurt them. There isn't anything wrong w formula, or variations of formula, it's a thing because someone figured out that it works, and it sells.

I really respect you for not going the way of the Beiber, but I'm guessing you also don't expect or want that kind of success. And I will say that the people who somehow break the mold, yet are commercially successful, are amazing and fascinating to me. But formula hasn't hurt Rick Rubin, who did there self titled album, tracked by Sylvia's Massey. While it's more rough in quality, they Mohamed to keep the vocals clear, w out taking the sack away from the music. IMHO.

I also think it's easy for people criticize other peoples work, even if they are not capable of matching the characteristics if they were asked too. I do it all the time, I say oh I woulda done this or that, then I put in my latest mix, and often get a reality check. Until I can make a truly commercial sounding mainstream record, I'm going to always wonder how they do it, whether I care about Katy Perry's song or not, it's part of my job to know wtf they are going for, and how it should sound.

I'm gonna go be original and write a pop punk song about my girlfriend break up w me. :)

I tend to agree with Josh that vocals (for this band anyway) are supposed to be just another melodic line. But I also wanted a bit more of them too, so I did that, just a little bit using audiokid's method. Seemed to work ok, but I also boosted a dB or two IIRC. And tamed a floor tom that was driving me nuts. I said I wasn't going to keep chasing my tail, but...

[MEDIA=soundcloud]id=https%3A%2F%2Fsoundcloud.com%2Fthe-stronghold%2Fjd-v3%2Fs-JGptY;secret_token=s-JGptY;track_id=153484831
[[url=http://[/URL]="https://soundcloud…"]View: https://soundcloud…]="https://soundcloud…"]View: https://soundcloud…]

And now I'm really, really done. When I get some spare time I'll have a go at a different tune from the same session. Thanks again for all the feedback, it was very helpful.

Sounds good man, a lot more "finished" sounding than the original. Nice work!

if my memory serves me right, this is better indeed.(y)