|
The Producer's Deceitful Conjecture
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Beatflux |
There's something I have began to take notice of, that I see other people and myself doing quite frequently.
As music makers, taking notice of what makes other songs work and sound good is important. People take guesses as to what makes a certain song sound good to people, but this guessing is typically nothing more than conjecture. To investigate properly into what makes a certain song good, you would have to have access to the song, change the parameter to what you think makes the song special and then view the results. This isn't scientific, but it's much more precise than thinking one facet of a song is necessary for enjoyable consumption and just leave your wild guesses as the best investigation there can be.
There are producers out there that tell you exactly how they mixed a song, but is that really a secret formula? The only certain thing is that those effects and those parameters worked for that song and that is it. |
|
|
| Sonic_c |
| Your so right here, my freind makes house music and he breaks all the 'rules' does it in reason doesnt know what a compressor does but whacks them on anything he feels like uses out of key piano samples he finds on the internet has zero grasp of music theory or how to master. his songs are great? whatever formula he has it works. |
|
|
| Beatflux |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sonic_c
Your so right here, my freind makes house music and he breaks all the 'rules' does it in reason doesnt know what a compressor does but whacks them on anything he feels like uses out of key piano samples he finds on the internet has zero grasp of music theory or how to master. his songs are great? whatever formula he has it works. |
I think this brings up the point that being too focused on the technical aspects can actually hinder the creation of music. Instead of listening with musical ears, producers listen with technical ears. This is more than obvious in the track review section where besides the obligatory "I like it" or "I didn't" comments, you have nit picking of technical features of the track which may or may not matter.
I know there are people out there that are more focused on the techincal side of things(I'm not saying it's bad), but as a modern producer with many hats, we can't let things get too out of focus where creating music(and not technical marvels) is the goal.
Everyone has heard the perfectly engineered track with no life in it, and everyone has heard the groovy funky track with no sense of decent engineering. |
|
|
| RichieV |
i agree
i find it really unfortunate that most producers will first critic the mix then the song. Not sure whether they just aren't able to talk about the musical side because they can't explain it. People lack a general knowledge of music that allows them to talk about music and why it works or doesn't work. |
|
|
| Kthought |
I feel that it is all subjective to a point, i personally think that a transparent, full + wide mixdown is the most critical point to something being perfectly memorable. I have heard the grrovy funky track with no engineering sense, but i couldnt listen to it over and over. Scientific studies (correct me if im wrong) show standardized awesome mixes and awesome mastering let you focus on clean + clear ideas with music, struggle free.
let us exchange monosyllabic expressions of approval, regarding this threads intellectual content
mmm
yes
mmm
indeed
mmm
quite |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kthought
Scientific studies (correct me if im wrong) show standardized awesome mixes and awesome mastering let you focus on clean + clear ideas with music, struggle free. |
Oh, really? Please, do share. |
|
|
| Lucidity |
| ^^^^^^Some how I knew that was gonna be the next post ;-) |
|
|
| Beatflux |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Oh, really? Please, do share. |
+1
I've never heard about these studies. |
|
|
| Kthought |
If youre not having to listen to issues in the mix, (technically) then your listening to whats left.... the music. When a mix is properly done it is awarded the title "transparent" right? Meaning undetected. with flaws, the mix becomes subconsciously scrutinized or "apparent" and is invading the path of sound to eardrum. I am not saying i know all this for sure and i am not saying im right.
Tischmeyer said something about in the stienberg dvd's, cant remember which. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kthought
this is what the post is about, if youre not having to listen to issues in the mix, (technically) then your listening to whats left.... the music.
Tischmeyer said something about in the stienberg dvd's, cant remember which. |
Oh, that's very scientific indeed. Well met. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kthought
When a mix is properly done it is awarded the title "transparent" right? Meaning undetected. with flaws, the mix becomes subconsciously scrutinized or "apparent" and is invading the path of sound to eardrum. |
I am not necessarily arguing with any of this (although I propose that it applies mainly to producers and not casual listeners). I was merely questioning the "scientific studies" you alluded to. One must expect to be pressed for specifics when referencing unnamed studies or other "well-documented" facts or ideas.
To cite one obvious discrepancy, there seem to be a lot of folks who prefer the sound of vinyl over CD or MP3, when the only appreciable difference between the two is a number of artifacts and slight lack of high end on the former. And then there was the recent, well, quasi-scientific survey of students who preferred the sound of low-quality MP3s. |
|
|
| RichieV |
some of the most famous recordings have awful mixes. A large % of classical recordings are from 40 - 50's that sound horrendous but capture amazing performances. Science will only show that loud mixes are hard to listen to, not bad mixes as this is completely aesthetic and good mixes these days are loud so I think science would prove you wrong.
Furtwangler's Bruckner recordings are considered some of the best classical recordings. All done with one microphone in 1944. I'm pretty sure you can here soviet artillery at points. Alot of people consider it the best recording ever of all time in every genre. Not that I buy into that but the fact that the quality is bad, you can hear coughs , it is monophonic .... basically a bad mix but it doesn't detract from listening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54H6L6nQZ4g |
|
|
|
|
