TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Mixing while arranging
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Mixing while arranging

Hi everyone.

I remember reading an article that suggested one should not attempt to mix (EQ, panning) a song while arranging it. Instead, arranging and mixing should be two separate steps of production - first you arrange/write a song, then once that's finished you move on to the mixing stage.

Does anyone know the article I'm refering to? And what do you think about this advice?

Thanks in advance!

Doesn't make any sense to me.

I think they both need to be done at the same time, because you need to hear/feel what it is going to be like in the end, to really get into your track and to 'feel' what comes next.

I think you get more inspiration when you do both at the same time.

But that's just me, it's all about your personal preference

Wouldn't that make it harder to finish a track? Surely mixing whilst arranging is better, easier and more pro-active?

Doesn't make much sense to me either. I find the mixdown process(levels, panning, etc) should be done in conjunction with your arrangement and composing. You should never do eqing while mixing because then you're viable to eq too much instead of just the right amount. Then fx and automations I save for last because as long as you have your ideas in your head, you can always put them in place in the sequencer later. It's just going to make your cpu usage be higher anyways. Same with adding all your effects.

I also read that. Don't really see the point.

Do what suits you best.

of course there is no rule, but definately better making mix whilist arranging the song.

^ For you.

Sorry Guys I hate to do this but I strongly disagree.

Writing and structuring is very much a "Right brain" process. Mixing is very much more of a "Left Brain" process. That alone is enough to tie me up in knots if I try and do both at the same time.

There is a long history of music where there is a writing phase, a demo phase, a recording phase, a mixing phase and finally a mastering phase.

Each of these can be collapsed into one, but when working in a regular recording studio at least the final three steps are distinct. Quite often undertaken by different people too.

Part of the reason everyone gets all bent out of shape not finishing tracks is because you're trying to complete the whole process in one jump. This is incredably hard even if you are very experienced and on top of your game. If you're still learning (and we all are, even the "Pros") it's a lot easier breaking things down into stages.

1. A couple of sessions screwing with sounds

2. A couple of sessions seeing how thos sounds fit together, and maybe screwing with some loop ideas.

Rinse and repeast 1 & 2 until you have a solid amount of material for a track (or possibly even a couple)

3. Arrange and get a rough mix going.

4. Really concentrate on the mix and mix alone

For me there are some very clear breaks in my production process, folowing the above model:-

1. Play with synths and samples and sounds.

2. Fire up Cubase and screww with loops and concepts.

Stage 2 I can easily sit at for several sessions honing my raw material as tightly as possible.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm plaing with sounds and EQ and basic FX at this point, but more as an artistic pencil sketch than with a veiw of a finished product. I'm trying to get ideas out (Right brain) rather than have the most technically perfect mix.

3. Arrange.

During this phase again I'll use levels, EQ and basic effects (and even some filter automation etc to get my sketch to the next level complete with colors.

4. Mix Time.

This is a big watershed. To mix I track evrything into ProTools as audio and start from scratch. All new FX, EQ and such. At this point the structure is mostly set, and my goal is to make it sound as best as possible. I refer back to my original "Demo" mixes frequently to make sure I am on the same vibe, but just bigger and more solid.

Now as soon as I mentioned ProTools peoples eyes glaze oer, but consider this. It doesn't have o be protools, it can be any multitrack recorder with a decent environment (Audition, Deck, what have you also will do).

So here's a suggestion for the FL / Reason crew that takes some effort but will probabbly stun you with the results:-

A. Bounce out each track of your "Finished" mix without EQ, Compression or FX.

B. Import all these tracks into a multi-track editor armed with some decent plugins.

C. Spend 8 hours just MIXING.

D. Compare to your original mix and be prepared to be amazed.

5. Mastering

I get someone else to do this in a different room. You can't easily hear the flaws in your mix in the same space you mixed it.

quote:

B. Import all these tracks into a multi-track editor armed with some decent plugins.

I still need such a program. Which is good/the best?

I'm a pro Tools slut, but I hear Adobe Audition is prety good, as is Bias Peak. Make sure you don't use the buiilt in EQs and compressors though.

quote:

Originally posted by Diginerd To mix I track evrything into ProTools as audio and start from scratch. All new FX, EQ and such.

I have often done this, but everytime I feel something needs to be changed or added. So it's switching back and forth with the original project file and mixing file. Which is very annoying and time consuming.

quote:

Originally posted by Diginerd I'm a pro Tools slut, but I hear Adobe Audition is prety good, as is Bias Peak. Make sure you don't use the buiilt in EQs and compressors though.

you can just start a new project again in cubase with the audio files.

or just deactivate the midi parts within the same project and add audio tracks with the audio tracks, and that way if you want to make a somekinda change, you just reactivate your midi part (vsT) and change it a bounce it down to audio, at least thats how i do it.

I have a couple of buses setup for different eq settings fx etc. Everything is basically already finished from get go in a template that I have created for my gear, so basically I start the music idea, route the different elements to different buses, then when Im finished with the arrangement I do the last eq tweaks and fx tweaks so that it all mixes well.

Basically, it's worth setting up a template for your kind of sound, so you can concentrate on the arrangement instead of worrying on drums sounding fat enough. Also, decide which drums you are going to use, don't change between different tracks. Then save those drums with your template with a couple of midi tracks setup for them. That way you have percussion ready too. Try getting the tedious parts done in a template so that you can get going faster, that way you don't loose any creativity

quote:

Originally posted by Chronosis I have often done this, but everytime I feel something needs to be changed or added. So it's switching back and forth with the original project file and mixing file. Which is very annoying and time consuming.

Yeah i do this too. I'm normally changing bits of my track right down to the final bounce.

Saying that, I do like this idea of bouncing everything dry and mixing it from scratch, I'm going to def give it a go (but will probably get annoyed i cant change anything!)

I think this "tranditional" method of writing first and then mixing/mastering later can't really be applied so directly to trance/EDM. Yeah it works fine for band music ect. but when producing EDM it seems far too restricting. Unless of course you can write an amazing tune in one fell swoop......

quote:

Originally posted by Diginerd 1. A couple of sessions screwing with sounds 2. A couple of sessions seeing how thos sounds fit together, and maybe screwing with some loop ideas. Rinse and repeast 1 & 2 until you have a solid amount of material for a track (or possibly even a couple) 3. Arrange and get a rough mix going. 4. Really concentrate on the mix and mix alone 5. Mastering

I just happened to use this process on my last song and I must say it worked quite well for me. I'm notorious for not finishing songs and I think breaking the process down into discrete phases like this really gave me a sense of progress as I moved from stage to stage. I think the most important part (for me anyway) was to keep at the "rinse and repeat" stage until I had plenty of material I was happy with. Sometimes it's tempting to settle for sounds that don't work quite as well as originally anticipated, and having an abundance of alternative material can be a real lifesaver once an idea has exhausted its potential. I would recommend at least trying it to see how the process feels for you.

I'm glad other people share my opinion in this regard - I was beginning to think that I was the only one finding this approach logical.

Every time I sit down to work on a project I get easily sidetracked and spend HOURS trying to mix (mostly EQing) existing elements instead of focusing on the creative aspect of the production and finishing the arrangement. Thus, I end up with a ton of unfinished projects simply because I stalled my inspiration and creative thought process by engaging my mind in something as technical as mixing.
Every book and article about mixing I've read said that before you proceed to mix a project it should "work" on its own. If you've spent time designing the right sounds, programming melodic parts that compliment each other and creating a cohesive arrangement, your project will pretty much mix itself; all you will have to do is make some final adjustments and add polishing touches. I strongly believe that if I heard any of the well produced tracks completely un-mixed they would still sound great due to excellent arrangement.
I'm not saying this approach will work for everyone, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that it will most likely work for me. I believe breaking up the production process in these two separate phases and focusing on one at a time will speed things up for me considerably.

Thank you for all your feedback!

quote:

Originally posted by Thois I think they both need to be done at the same time, because you need to hear/feel what it is going to be like in the end, to really get into your track and to 'feel' what comes next. I think you get more inspiration when you do both at the same time. But that's just me, it's all about your personal preference

+1

Perhaps the suggestion to mix after arranging was given by someone in a different era?

In 2006, if you buy a new PC, you can even MASTER while arranging!

quote:

Originally posted by Diginerd Sorry Guys I hate to do this but I strongly disagree. Writing and structuring is very much a "Right brain" process. Mixing is very much more of a "Left Brain" process. That alone is enough to tie me up in knots if I try and do both at the same time.

This sounds very logical... it's a good hypothesis for my many periods of unfinished loop-projects.

It would seem that I spend alot more time at a piano thinking of my ideas anymore. If that works, I'll try to incorperate my melodies and moods onto synths, but often I'll end up focusing on the wrong tasks.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby +1 Perhaps the suggestion to mix after arranging was given by someone in a different era? In 2006, if you buy a new PC, you can even MASTER while arranging!

It's an old (if you count old as around 60 years) philosophy, but still very valid. Think how many people used to be involved in the production of a record. Now it's usually just one person when producing "Electronica"...

I hate that term by the way, but it does cover an entire spectrum of music, not just trance.

There are two main approaches to working in this area.

Since you're a one man band, do you act like this:-



And try and do averything at once...

Badly.

Or do you plan ahead, use some real talent and focus on each part / task separately and deliver a solid performance.



yes, he played everything himself recorded and mixed most of his output too accross multiple albums. Many without a computer, but when sequencing became viable he embraced it.

He didn't master any of it though..

If you want to hear what a serious musician does, listen to Tubular Bells, (Recorded on a 4 track, in the seventies, when he was 17), then to hear what impact a producer can make listen to Tubular Bells 2. Trevor Horn's sonic signature is all over it, even if you don't like what he does you have to admire it technically.

Finally Tubular Bells 2003 is a rerecording of the original Seventies record, again solo, but this time with state of the art technology.

That said, we will not speak of Tubular Bells 3, as it is heretic and should be burned from everyone's mind..

Anyway..

Same artist, essentially the same piece of music, 30 year span.

Finally, if one more person tells me you can master when you're mixing I think I'm going to puke. If you really understand what mastering is then you wouldn't dream of saying things like that...

Sorry, a little flamey but really understand what you are saying before shooting your mouth off about Super Duper 2006 PC technology being better than the last 40-50 years of recording wisdom, and certainly the last 30 years of how to successfully put together multi-million selling records on your own.

Engage Brain before opening mouth (Our typing merrilly)

Just to clarify, what got my goat was the mastering comment..

Either aproach can work, it's just the logical planned method has a far better track record..

quote:

Originally posted by Diginerd Finally, if one more person tells me you can master when you're mixing I think I'm going to puke. If you really understand what mastering is then you wouldn't dream of saying things like that...

Yes.

You CAN'T actually master while you do your track; it's generally understood that mastering plugins use huge amounts of processing power, and I was just making an analogy to that to point out that if you prefer to mix as you go along, it's no strain these days.

Sorry if I raised your blood pressure with my non-specifics.

PS: I prefer to mix as I go, and at the end before mastering; there's a lot of dynamics going on that constitute making all the busy-ness of modern music fit snugly into the limited spectrum we have to work with, and for me, personally, if I don't notch certain frequencies and set up my initial instrument parameters from the word go, then it often becomes a veeeeeery daunting and unmanageable sea of confusion to patch up at the last minute.

All that matters is the product, so if the product sounds good, who give a flying fck what you did or how you did it or what you did it with.

Just my 0.02

Pce,
DJS

You're right it doesn't mater how it's done. But there is a world of difference between "Good" for you and your mates, and "Excellent, proven floor filler".

The key though is getting it sounding right, and ultimately shifting a lot of product (yes, despite how you may feel it's the music BUSINESS).

To those who are looking to tear up the book and do it all in one step I wish them good luck. There are just too many variables, which leads to many unfinished productions.

The process I described is one that has been reached over many years by thousands of people. They all can't be wrong.

Consider it "Production theory", in the same manner as "Music Theory" All music theory does is document how people in the past have written music, with a view that by having that foundation you can build forwards.

As for mastering it's not about CPU resources. It's about having a second set of well trained ears in a serious listening environment put a final polish on things. See mastering discussion threads for more detail.

Ultimately it comes to breaking your project up into identifiable stages. There has been some deadline discussion in abnother thread.

Do you put the roof on a house before the foundation is laid? there is an overall framework that leads to the speedy and complet construction of a house. You can visualize things first, but when it comes down to actually constructing there is most certainly an optimal path.

Some people may be able to everything at once, but I bet dollars to donuts that if they were to break the writing and arranging from the mixing the net result would be better.

I'm not the only one with this viewpoint..


http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Oct...les/bedrock.asp

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.