Sounds like a sure way to guarantee a life threatening case of listening fatigue, or to end up with a project that starts out sounding full and balanced, ends up like two cans and a string.

No lead guitar should last more than a minute at a time, imho.

As for vocals, I would much rather have the singer subtley work the mic to create tonal and dynamic undulations.

I've been mixing for 22 years and have never heard of this particular technique. But, I say, give it a try and let us know how it sounds.

Chris

Hiya

if anyone has cool edit go read the help section for effect called Brainwave Synchronizer

sort of the same concept but with Theta and beta wave manipulation

SI

interesting subliminal concepting,,

Man, I HATE it when guys in bands with little real recording knowledge try to get me to do retarded mixing/micing techniques that they "heard about". Waste of time; Drives me up the wall!!!!

NO I will not record your acoustic guitar with a lapel mic no matter what you heard Led Zepplin did.
NO I will not turn up the bass on the guitars.
etc.

Sorry; rant done.

BTW, Is the client "up to speed" with cash, since this will likely add an enormous amount of time to mixing? I'd ask him to see that article he's hyping........curious to know how many Grammys the author has on his mantel.

Strange....BUT whoever is going to be the Producer with credit is going to have the say.Do your best and if it sucks work out a deal beforehand to remix for a price....on your terms....also get permission to do your own set of mixes for safety copies...do these on your own time and then charge em out the yingyang later...

BTW...never heard of it...enlighten us to the source of this maddness and we'll all go pummel the author or make em listen to Yanni at +6....

[quote=tdstotler]Hello All.
That the ear will get tired of listing to it after a minute and you need to slightly change the eq somewhat to keep the listiner intrigued and not bored.[/quote]

This line stood our to me the most. If the listener is bored after a minute maybe it's not a mixing probem. I don't know how to say this any nicer and I hate to be mean. (It's not my style) But if your listener is bored after a minute of a song either end the song after a minute or rewrite the song to make it more interesting!

I've only recorded a few bands in my crappy little home study and a lot of bands expect to lay a crappy track and then me fix all the problems to make it sound good. With DAW's it's possible but time consuming. imo a song should be recorded whole. The song has to be played well and written well for it to sound good. Otherwise there's not much help that I want to do. Some of the people I worked for saw I had a computer and that you can do wonderful stuff to fix mix ups and flaws. Call me old school but I think the instruments should be making the music and not a computer. (no offense to all those who use computers to make music, if done right you get a good product. Also if done correctly your computer becomes an instrument. I'm all for this but if you come in with a guitar I expect to hear a guitar on that track.) But if you come in as a rock band I want your music to be the final product not a chopped up version of your perfomance.

Sorry for the rant hope I came across well. *steps off soap box*
Andrew

Reminds me a bit of that line in "Spinal Tap" where Nigel Tufnel is talking about really getting into his groove during the guitar solo....he says (Paraphrasing here)

"after about 13 minutes into my solo; you know, when it REALLY gets going good....."

Maybe you can find a knob that goes to 11 for him, as well.

I could see a point in panning some tracks differently in different parts to keep listener interested but eq, don´t get it. A reason to change eq for different parts could be a vocaltrack that has high/loud parts and soft/low parts in order to make them sound more the same. But that´s the other way around.

I have actually heard of this technique, but it was in a live mixing situation. I thought it was silly then and I still feel the same way. The fact is this: The subject matter or music is what is being heard. If it is of little substance, then mixing it to make it interesting is not going to fix the problem. I understand people want dynamic mixes which is something to strive for, but not at the cost of jeopardizing the integrity of the mix or the engineer. Not to say that some things should not be tried, but I think we all know the difference. Please let us know how it goes.

Rory Baker
Clearwater Studios
Norman, OK

I think anything goes

however any trick used to excess will eventualy not work and just be stupid

:(

having said that the use of auto tune in THAT way was probably rejected by many of use that had the plug for months/years before THAT song came out.

the rest is history

During LIVE gigs I have been know to do ...

some things should not be tried

and the band asked me to repeat them on the album
oops ... :shock: ...
I was just bored that night and was having some fun with the Lighting Guy.

:)
have you ever done battle with the Lighting Guy trying to push the Audience Blinders while he is trying to mess with the Reverb and Delay settings ??
or even worse mute the lead singer ...
:roll:
then again sometimes that can be a good thing !!
we just love cover bands night after night ....

Try it for God sake. If it sux then give all the credit to the man behind the idea. If it is great, then it's your idea. But it's not a good idea.

i have done completely different eq's and compressions between verse and chorus and bridge. michael wagener was saying that on a kings x thing he did they recorded 3 different drum kits for the same sone one for the veryse one for the chours and one for the bridge.

i got the diferent mixes for verse and chorus idea from an interview i read with ken scott about supertramp he said that some of the chorses were like 3dn louder than the verses