|
Crowded sound vs. spacious sound (mixing / mastering / arrangement)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
I dunno, today I have been going through tracks of different genres, paying attention to mixing and mastering features like frequency balance and dynamics, and it is really getting me annoyed with the super bass-heavy, squashed, crowded sound of so much dance music.
This isn't necessarily about the songwriting quality, and not only about "loudness war," either, but the general claustrophobic sound of a lot of dance music. Once you turn it up there is no room to relax, just a constant assault on the ear drums. Does anyone else get sick of this? Anyone crave more space and breathing room? Am I just getting old and crotchety? |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
Space is something I strive for with my tunes but I tend to get a little lost in my own clutter with various ideas. I've been getting into having different elements move into the foreground and back-ground intermittently to kind of toy with that dynamic and I also like to have a lot of complexity in my backgrounds which I tend to keep out of my foreground.
To the more widely applied question of whether or not techno, in general, has lost its empty spaces, I would say yes, to a certain degree. This is just my own theory but there seems to be a new population of people who are producing (semi and pro) professionally and they haven't yet acquired, through their experience, a certain mixing ethos that earlier producers seemed to have. I think, however, it's getting better.
It wasn't too long ago that I would listen to a song in Windows Media Player and see this contiguous line peaking at the same height for all of the frequencies. Then the music sounded good and it seemed like these guys had really done their homework. To my error, the level lined spectrum became my own bench-mark.
Now when I'm listening to other people's material, I see that line has decreased substantially in its continuity. People are favoring elements which still deliver a robust sound but don't have to take up the whole spectrum to sound good. The music tends to sound better, or at least more nuanced, as well. |
|
|
| tehlord |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Am I just getting old and crotchety? |
Yes. You and Richard can be hate buddies.
I like my own stuff to induce nosebleeds. |
|
|
| Rodri Santos |
| i usually try to make something classic sounding but every time i end mixingdown around a -2 kick , the loudness war is on fire and i can't avoid it. |
|
|
| Beatflux |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I dunno, today I have been going through tracks of different genres, paying attention to mixing and mastering features like frequency balance and dynamics, and it is really getting me annoyed with the super bass-heavy, squashed, crowded sound of so much dance music.
This isn't necessarily about the songwriting quality, and not only about "loudness war," either, but the general claustrophobic sound of a lot of dance music. Once you turn it up there is no room to relax, just a constant assault on the ear drums. Does anyone else get sick of this? Anyone crave more space and breathing room? Am I just getting old and crotchety? |
Part of it is just getting older, but the other part is producers following the trends. People like Daft Punk and Deadmau5 have made that ultra compressed sound popular.
I've always been obsessed with what drives people to dance, and when you juxtapose popular dance music with EDM the differences can be quite baffling.
Most popular dance songs are quite open in dynamics and sound. The patterns are usually quite simple. Look at sandstorm, or Zombie nation. Very simple.
Check out this song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUftr8YAtBo
It was a short produced for the Online Booty Call Commercial. If you compared it to EDM, its dynamic range is huge. Listen to what happens when you turn it up. It's not fatiguing at all and it still sounds balanced. This is what a professional track should sound like in my opinion. When you have it turned down, it sounds small, but as you turn up the volume it gets fatter and fatter. The same thing happens with Thriller. The loudness of a track doesn't influence how good a song is.
I guess its easier to think that, "My track must suck because there isn't any mastering on it!" Or..."It isn't loud enough." I mean, future music just had a feature on mastering where they compared, amateur to professional and the result was that the professional one sounded better. Now kids are going to think, "I need professional mastering for the track to sound good!" |
|
|
| Rodri Santos |
depends on the genre too, techno has a saturated kick but there's usually space for other elements, uplifting trance on the other hand has always a pumping kick and a driving bassline that eats all the elements.
Listening to uplifting trance in a big PA system is a pain in the ass, you only hear "Boom Boom Boom " |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Beatflux
Part of it is just getting older, but the other part is producers following the trends. People like Daft Punk and Deadmau5 have made that ultra compressed sound popular.
I've always been obsessed with what drives people to dance, and when you juxtapose popular dance music with EDM the differences can be quite baffling.
Most popular dance songs are quite open in dynamics and sound. The patterns are usually quite simple. Look at sandstorm, or Zombie nation. Very simple.
|
I couldn't agree less. Both those tracks have little in terms of open dynamics and were popular because they were either catchy or could be sung while drunk at a football match. It has little to do with "open dynamics". In fact sandstorm is possibly one of the more crowded tracks in terms of content I can think of.
And daft punk - yes their sounds are compressed but from an arrangement point of view, they are incredible well made to allow space for each element and in that respect they are very open sounding.
What drives people to dance? Groove. You can try to add whatever else you want, in any way, but people will dance to a good groove, period. It's primitive reaction in it's purest form (after eat and procreate).
| quote: | Originally posted by Beatflux
Check out this song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUftr8YAtBo
It was a short produced for the Online Booty Call Commercial. If you compared it to EDM, its dynamic range is huge. Listen to what happens when you turn it up. It's not fatiguing at all and it still sounds balanced. This is what a professional track should sound like in my opinion. When you have it turned down, it sounds small, but as you turn up the volume it gets fatter and fatter. The same thing happens with Thriller. The loudness of a track doesn't influence how good a song is.
I guess its easier to think that, "My track must suck because there isn't any mastering on it!" Or..."It isn't loud enough." I mean, future music just had a feature on mastering where they compared, amateur to professional and the result was that the professional one sounded better. Now kids are going to think, "I need professional mastering for the track to sound good!" |
Thriller (alegedly) doesn't have any compression on it, but that's not why it was good - again as per the examples you posted before, they are catchy, well written songs, and in the case of Thriller, performed by someone that was incredibly talented and one of the greatest performers(MJ), and produced by someone even more talented (QJ). It' not about the loudness war or compression.
Good engineering is giving elements the space to breath and stand out as individual sounds and as composite. Good arrangement is the same but in a musically creative way. Good mixing is making the most of those two previous statement and good mastering it just accentuating those previous three things. |
|
|
| Beatflux |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
I couldn't agree less. Both those tracks have little in terms of open dynamics and were popular because they were either catchy or could be sung while drunk at a football match. It has little to do with "open dynamics". In fact sandstorm is possibly one of the more crowded tracks in terms of content I can think of.
And daft punk - yes their sounds are compressed but from an arrangement point of view, they are incredible well made to allow space for each element and in that respect they are very open sounding.
What drives people to dance? Groove. You can try to add whatever else you want, in any way, but people will dance to a good groove, period. It's primitive reaction in it's purest form (after eat and procreate).
|
You're right. I had some other 90's songs in mind at the time.
It's not just groove though. Mau5 and Punk both have their own unique sounds, but they also use melodies and harmonies as well. As funky as "Around the World" was, if it didn't have a melody it wouldn't have been a hit. People can dance to a repeating 808 machine, but all hits need a melody. |
|
|
| Richard Butler |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
but the general claustrophobic sound of a lot of dance music. Once you turn it up there is no room to relax, just a constant assault on the ear drums. |
This is a very timely thread for me.
I was thinking just before I read this that I want to go back to my original instincts which was to get away from the assualt on the ears wall of sound... sound.
I remember very distinctly saying I wanted to vreat uncluttered non wall o sound EDM a long while back, but somehow I get sidetracked.
My current track has one lead, one thin pad and one bass playing at once.
A reason I don't listen to music radio much is what I call the assualt on the ears - I'm always going on about this, so interesting thread.
The best sound in a track is space and silence between sounds. It allows for much more impact and grove. |
|
|
| Richard Butler |
| quote: | Originally posted by Beatflux
People like Daft Punk and Deadmau5 have made that ultra compressed sound popular.
|
I only know deadmaus 2007/8 stuff and I would say he is the exact opposite of the wall o sound noise menance I am fed up with. His tracks are pretty clean and don;t have oodles of synths layered up - in esscence just kick' bass and a lead synth (ok they may be layered for power but what I mean is there is little else going on). |
|
|
| Richard Butler |
| quote: | Originally posted by Rodri Santos
Listening to uplifting trance in a big PA system is a pain in the ass, you only hear "Boom Boom Boom " |
Yet people on forums have long given the advice - you need more layers and 3 different hat loops - I've never been convinced. Some 80's classic funk pop tracks have very few elements but sound well full and driving. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Three hat loops? Naw, you need at least ten. :p |
|
|
|
|
