Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

How to keep the energy of the band when adding in the lead..

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 9:46:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I would like to create a discussion amongst us that appears
to be a popular challenge for some mixers.
How to keep the energy of the band when adding in the lead vocal?
kevin
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 10:11:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

What exactly do you mean by "keep the energy?"
What is changing when the lead vocal performs?
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 10:50:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

HUH...?

--
Steven Sena
XS Sound Recording
www.xssound.com

<kevindoylemusic@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:1108608377.109915.143030@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I would like to create a discussion amongst us that appears
> to be a popular challenge for some mixers.
> How to keep the energy of the band when adding in the lead vocal?
> kevin
>
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 12:07:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

B. Peg wrote:
> Don't vse their band...ever! Get some session mvsicians (vnion scale) with
> their own pre-mixers and mikes. Jvst keep the vocalist and his/her mike and
> hope Avto-Tvne is engaged.
>
> Bands can be a pita to get them to agree on something. The session folk are
> easier to deal with.
>
> Of covrse, ymmv.
>
> B~
>
>

Everyone's a comedian.
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 12:55:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> <kevindoylemusic@rogers.com> wrote in message news:1108608377.109915.143030@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>I would like to create a discussion amongst us that appears
>>> to be a popular challenge for some mixers.
>>> How to keep the energy of the band when adding in the lead vocal?
>>> kevin



Steven Sena wrote:
> HUH...?
>


He was listening. Now he wants to create discussions. ;) 
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 8:37:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

kevindoylemusic wrote:

> I would like to create a discussion amongst us that appears
> to be a popular challenge for some mixers.
> How to keep the energy of the band when adding in the lead vocal?
> kevin

Don't feed the band until after you have a keeper vocal. Cut everything
at once and mix it live to stereo. Top, tail, send to mastering.

Order pizza.

--
ha
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 8:40:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<kevindoylemusic@rogers.com> wrote in message news:1108608377.109915.143030@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> I would like to create a discussion amongst us that appears
> to be a popular challenge for some mixers.
> How to keep the energy of the band when adding in the lead vocal?


Hi Kevin,

Bear in mind, there may still be a few folks who aren't sure whether
or not this is really *you*. This is due to a small number of extremely
aggressive 'supporters' of your previous posts, who had never
even posted to Usenet before, but tried to tear a new arse into
everyone who had a comment to make that wasn't 100% supportive
of those initial posts. We are assuming that they were students
since a number of the posts came from the same IP address as the
college, or from Yahoo! accounts in Canada. Since you have yet to
address any of those posts or any of the requests for clarification that
you could actually see them, some of us were beginning to think that
your Google groups account might have been hacked, and that there
was someone playing the impostor in your stead.


OK...

Personally, I always make a 100% effort to track the entire ensemble
simultaneously, regardless of the size, unless it's just a total impossibility.

Even then, I'll make certain that there's some place that I can stash the
lead vocalist in order to obtain the best possible 'scratch' track. After all,
it's the quality of the performance that matters the most, and there's
always the chance that the vocalist may get a take that can actually
be used in the mix when all is said and done.

As long as the energy of the vocalist was present with the ensemble
during the initial recording process, I really don't see why he/she can't
repeat that performance if it turns out to be necessary.

We talk a lot here about groove... about tracking as much of the band
as possible at one time so that they can feed off of each other's energy.
That generally gets the best performance on tape with the best 'feel'.

This comes up a lot as a topic because so many people these days
are trying to record in a space that simply isn't condusive to getting
the job done. By that I mean that if the band or ensemble has their
act together and are well rehearsed, there's really no reason they
shouldn't be able to walk in, set up, play the song, and be done.
Fix the errors, overdub the fluff, and you're finished. Unfortunately,
you can't do this in a lot of bedrooms, compromises are made, and
in the end, it will probably show up in the final result.

There is no law in my book that says the lead vocal *must* be cut on
a $2000 dollar microphone with a pristine signal chain. Again, it's all
about the performance... which is what I suppose has led to your
question.

Your question, however, implies that it's the "band" which is lacking
energy as opposed to the part being overdubbed. I'll take it that you
are either concerned that the headphones mix will not contain the
energy of the original tracking session, or that you actually mean
that the vocalist may have a problem feeling or maintaining that energy.

If the parts have been unfortunately layered one or two at a time, there
may be little hope of maintaining or creating energy.

In either of those cases, where the vocal *must* be re-cut, the energy
that was present during the original tracking session has to be adequately
reproduced by way of the phones (or other cue mix) during overdubs.
If the singer was with the band in the original tracks, this should easily
be doable.

Keeping the mental attitude of the vocalist up to snuff is just a part of
being the 'service' business that we are. <g> Ya' have to play that one
as the cards fall during the session.

Sometimes concessions, which we know might not lead to the best quality,
have to be made in order to get the best performance. As an example,
if you're dealing with a really hard-core rock band of the 'screamer' type,
I'd suggest getting the vocalist off of the U-87 and putting a plain old Shure
SM-58 in his hand and letting him do his thing. Let him squat, jump, scream,
cup the mic, or whatever he's used to doing to get the best performance out.
Standing him up in front of a U-87, ensuring that he remain a certain distance
from the mic, yadda-yadda, is just going to make this type of person clam up
and probably give a mediocre performance.

This whole scenarion will of course vary wildly depending on the style of
music, the ability of the performer, the capability of the studio, etc., etc., etc..

Overdubs have to be made comfortable for the player or singer... unless
you're dealing with a veteran to recording who has long since become
comfortable with doing just the reverse. That is, making it easier on the
engineer to get *his* job done.

Hope this helps get something started....

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 8:44:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> <kevindoylemusic@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:1108608377.109915.143030@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I would like to create a discussion amongst us that appears
> > to be a popular challenge for some mixers.
> > How to keep the energy of the band when adding in the lead vocal?
>
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> Bear in mind, there may still be a few folks who aren't sure whether
> or not this is really *you*. This is due to a small number of
extremely
> aggressive 'supporters' of your previous posts, who had never
> even posted to Usenet before, but tried to tear a new arse into
> everyone who had a comment to make that wasn't 100% supportive
> of those initial posts. We are assuming that they were students
> since a number of the posts came from the same IP address as the
> college, or from Yahoo! accounts in Canada. Since you have yet to
> address any of those posts or any of the requests for clarification
that
> you could actually see them, some of us were beginning to think that
> your Google groups account might have been hacked, and that there
> was someone playing the impostor in your stead.
>
>
> OK...
>
> Personally, I always make a 100% effort to track the entire ensemble
> simultaneously, regardless of the size, unless it's just a total
impossibility.
>
> Even then, I'll make certain that there's some place that I can stash
the
> lead vocalist in order to obtain the best possible 'scratch' track.
After all,
> it's the quality of the performance that matters the most, and
there's
> always the chance that the vocalist may get a take that can actually
> be used in the mix when all is said and done.
>
> As long as the energy of the vocalist was present with the ensemble
> during the initial recording process, I really don't see why he/she
can't
> repeat that performance if it turns out to be necessary.
>
> We talk a lot here about groove... about tracking as much of the band
> as possible at one time so that they can feed off of each other's
energy.
> That generally gets the best performance on tape with the best
'feel'.
>
> This comes up a lot as a topic because so many people these days
> are trying to record in a space that simply isn't condusive to
getting
> the job done. By that I mean that if the band or ensemble has their
> act together and are well rehearsed, there's really no reason they
> shouldn't be able to walk in, set up, play the song, and be done.
> Fix the errors, overdub the fluff, and you're finished.
Unfortunately,
> you can't do this in a lot of bedrooms, compromises are made, and
> in the end, it will probably show up in the final result.
>
> There is no law in my book that says the lead vocal *must* be cut on
> a $2000 dollar microphone with a pristine signal chain. Again, it's
all
> about the performance... which is what I suppose has led to your
> question.
>
> Your question, however, implies that it's the "band" which is lacking
> energy as opposed to the part being overdubbed. I'll take it that
you
> are either concerned that the headphones mix will not contain the
> energy of the original tracking session, or that you actually mean
> that the vocalist may have a problem feeling or maintaining that
energy.
>
> If the parts have been unfortunately layered one or two at a time,
there
> may be little hope of maintaining or creating energy.
>
> In either of those cases, where the vocal *must* be re-cut, the
energy
> that was present during the original tracking session has to be
adequately
> reproduced by way of the phones (or other cue mix) during overdubs.
> If the singer was with the band in the original tracks, this should
easily
> be doable.
>
> Keeping the mental attitude of the vocalist up to snuff is just a
part of
> being the 'service' business that we are. <g> Ya' have to play that
one
> as the cards fall during the session.
>
> Sometimes concessions, which we know might not lead to the best
quality,
> have to be made in order to get the best performance. As an example,
> if you're dealing with a really hard-core rock band of the 'screamer'
type,
> I'd suggest getting the vocalist off of the U-87 and putting a plain
old Shure
> SM-58 in his hand and letting him do his thing. Let him squat, jump,
scream,
> cup the mic, or whatever he's used to doing to get the best
performance out.
> Standing him up in front of a U-87, ensuring that he remain a certain
distance
> from the mic, yadda-yadda, is just going to make this type of person
clam up
> and probably give a mediocre performance.
>
> This whole scenarion will of course vary wildly depending on the
style of
> music, the ability of the performer, the capability of the studio,
etc., etc., etc..
>
> Overdubs have to be made comfortable for the player or singer...
unless
> you're dealing with a veteran to recording who has long since become
> comfortable with doing just the reverse. That is, making it easier
on the
> engineer to get *his* job done.
>
> Hope this helps get something started....
>
> --
> David Morgan (MAMS)
> http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
> Morgan Audio Media Service
> Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
> _______________________________________
> http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com




Very Good Observations Dave!

These days I farm out some of my work to other engineers due to a busy
schedule.
I will get a rough mix of the band with guide vocals after they have
cut a track where it usually sounds well recorded with lots of
energy. When the vocals are finished and it comes time to mixing, I 'll
receive a mix where the energy of the bedtrack music is quite distant
from the lead vocals, and lacks the original energy of the bedtrack
date. There seems to be a somewhat chronic problem in mixing
where the band has energy where you can hear the lead vocal clearly.
Where do you think they are going wrong?
As for my out-of-control students, I have changed all my passwords.
This should put an end to their childish chattering.
kevin
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 8:55:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Joe Sensor" <crabcakes@emagic.net> wrote in message news:37ig48F5bn2l6U1@individval.net...
> B. Peg wrote:
> > Don't vse their band...ever! Get some session mvsicians (vnion scale) with
> > their own pre-mixers and mikes. Jvst keep the vocalist and his/her mike and
> > hope Avto-Tvne is engaged.
> >
> > Bands can be a pita to get them to agree on something. The session folk are
> > easier to deal with.
> >
> > Of covrse, ymmv.
> >
> > B~


> Everyone's a comedian.


For some reason I'm finding it hard to lavgh, bvt it has to be a joke.


Um........... doesn't it ?
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 9:15:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

David Morgan wrote:

> "Joe Sensor"...
> > B. Peg wrote:
> > > Don't vse their band...ever! Get some session mvsicians (vnion scale)
> > > with their own pre-mixers and mikes. Jvst keep the vocalist and
> > > his/her mike and hope Avto-Tvne is engaged.

> > > Bands can be a pita to get them to agree on something. The session
> > > folk are easier to deal with.

> > > Of covrse, ymmv.

> > Everyone's a comedian.

> For some reason I'm finding it hard to lavgh, bvt it has to be a joke.

> Um........... doesn't it ?

Maybe jvst replace the drvmmer.

--
ha
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 9:21:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message news:1gs3k40.1yxwk6bw9rc5N%walkinay@thegrid.net...
> David Morgan wrote:
>
> > "Joe Sensor"...
> > > B. Peg wrote:
> > > > Don't vse their band...ever! Get some session mvsicians (vnion scale)
> > > > with their own pre-mixers and mikes. Jvst keep the vocalist and
> > > > his/her mike and hope Avto-Tvne is engaged.
>
> > > > Bands can be a pita to get them to agree on something. The session
> > > > folk are easier to deal with.
>
> > > > Of covrse, ymmv.
>
> > > Everyone's a comedian.
>
> > For some reason I'm finding it hard to lavgh, bvt it has to be a joke.
>
> > Um........... doesn't it ?
>
> Maybe jvst replace the drvmmer.

Oh, I see.... getting back at me for the gvitar comment, eh?
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 11:42:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

David made good points to which I will add ...

I always try to get a good scratch vocal with the intention
that it usable if need be. I go for 3 good live takes in a row.
Often the 3rd take will be 'the one'.
Pay attention to circadian rhythms. If the band is used to
playing gigs at night, they will have betters sessions
recorded at night. As far as overdubbing the vocal,
the sooner after 'the one' it is done the better chance that
the same vibe and feel will remain.
Entourage: If the singer is fighting with his girlfriend or owes
the drug dealer money, the presence of these folks may be
a hinderence. On the other hand most performers feed off
of an audience so some supportive folks nearby may be
a welcome part of the vibe. Sometime a singer just needs
to be 'in the mood'. I wouldn't really encourage drinking
(or whatever) but if the singer would like something but
gets a sense that it's frowned upon, it's a mood killer.

rd
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 12:06:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<As for my out-of-control students, I have changed all my passwords.
This should put an end to their childish chattering>

Thats all you have to say? You've been hacked, your credibility is
certainly in question, made to look like a fool, and thats it?

Doesn't sound right to me.
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 12:58:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1108608377.109915.143030@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> kevindoylemusic@rogers.com writes:

> I would like to create a discussion amongst us that appears
> to be a popular challenge for some mixers.
> How to keep the energy of the band when adding in the lead vocal?

Why would the energy of the band (which I assume you mean a recording
of the band made before adding the lead vocal) change when you add the
vocal?

You record the band with the vocalist singing on a scratch track. You
pay attention to what's going on and there are places where the song
loses energy that aren't intentional, you figure out how to fix that.
Perhaps the band is playing something that's causing the singer to
hold back. Perhaps the singer is holding back and is causing the band
to hold back. Or perhaps the song's energy just should lay back at
that point and you remember that when tracking the final vocal.

But along this line, I read an interview in EQ with John Joseph Puig
in which he was saying lots of things about mixing a great vocal that
I simply didn't understand - sounded like a lot of mumbo-jumbo to me.
Not that I don't understand what an equalizer or compressor does, or
the concept of using more than one compressor, or mixing a compressed
and an uncompressed version of the same track, it's just that he
didn't seem to SAY anything.

Maybe someone who speaks the language of that sort of production can
translate it for me. Or maybe it was just a typical "you're not going
to understand what I do no matter what I say because you're not me
doing what I did at the time I did it" interview.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 5:18:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Dave Martin wrote:
> <kevindoylemusic@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:1108647888.369316.75800@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > These days I farm out some of my work to other engineers due to a
busy
> > schedule.
> > I will get a rough mix of the band with guide vocals after they
have
> > cut a track where it usually sounds well recorded with lots of
> > energy. When the vocals are finished and it comes time to mixing, I
'll
> > receive a mix where the energy of the bedtrack music is quite
distant
> > from the lead vocals, and lacks the original energy of the bedtrack
> > date. There seems to be a somewhat chronic problem in mixing
> > where the band has energy where you can hear the lead vocal
clearly.
> > Where do you think they are going wrong?
>
> I'm not sure whether you're saying that the lead vocals have less
energy
> than the band tracks, that the band tracks have less energy than the
final
> vocals, or that the rough mix that you get back (with the finished
vocals)
> lacks energy....
>
> But if the rough mixes (with guide vocals) sounded energetic, and the
lead
> vocal is energetic, the problem is in the rough mix. And that's no
problem,
> since you can re-mix from scratch. I find that over-processing
(especially
> over-compressing) is a huge problem, especially in the last 10 years.
> Remember - transients are your friends...
>
> --
> Dave Martin
> DMA, Inc
> Nashville, TN
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 5:21:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Dave Martin wrote:
> <kevindoylemusic@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:1108647888.369316.75800@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > These days I farm out some of my work to other engineers due to a
busy
> > schedule.
> > I will get a rough mix of the band with guide vocals after they
have
> > cut a track where it usually sounds well recorded with lots of
> > energy. When the vocals are finished and it comes time to mixing, I
'll
> > receive a mix where the energy of the bedtrack music is quite
distant
> > from the lead vocals, and lacks the original energy of the bedtrack
> > date. There seems to be a somewhat chronic problem in mixing
> > where the band has energy where you can hear the lead vocal
clearly.
> > Where do you think they are going wrong?
>
> I'm not sure whether you're saying that the lead vocals have less
energy
> than the band tracks, that the band tracks have less energy than the
final
> vocals, or that the rough mix that you get back (with the finished
vocals)
> lacks energy....
>
> But if the rough mixes (with guide vocals) sounded energetic, and the
lead
> vocal is energetic, the problem is in the rough mix. And that's no
problem,
> since you can re-mix from scratch. I find that over-processing
(especially
> over-compressing) is a huge problem, especially in the last 10 years.
> Remember - transients are your friends...
>
> --
> Dave Martin
> DMA, Inc
> Nashville, TN


The difficulty Dave, is that I often prefer the original mixes.
All the basic elements are the same in both the monitor and final mix,
it's
just that the monitor mix seems to kick more.
Where are they going wrong? I don't think it's with the density of the
overdubs.
kevin
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 6:08:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

kevindoylemusic@rogers.com wrote:
> These days I farm out some of my work to other engineers due to a
busy
> schedule.
> I will get a rough mix of the band with guide vocals after they have
> cut a track where it usually sounds well recorded with lots of
> energy.

With you so far.

> When the vocals are finished and it comes time to mixing, I 'll
> receive a mix where the energy of the bedtrack music is quite distant
> from the lead vocals, and lacks the original energy of the bedtrack
> date.

So the overdubs - which are also "farmed out", but you are
evaluating - lack energy? Perhaps you should record the vocal overdubs
yourself, because a guy who works for you is unlikely to compromise the
recording *quality* for a better performance, which may be what is
required. For example a singer may sing with more energy if you put a
pair of monitors in the studio for him to sing in front of, wired out
of phase with each other so they cancel out at the singer's mic
position. But that kind of decision takes executive decision making,
and the recordist may well be more concerned with delivering clean
tracks to you than anything else.

In other words, this might be *your fault*... It might also suggest
the importance of scratch vocal tracks being recorded with enough care
to use them as finals if need be.

> There seems to be a somewhat chronic problem in mixing
> where the band has energy where you can hear the lead vocal clearly.
> Where do you think they are going wrong?

You lost me in this language - you a native French speaker? <g>

I do know many singers I have played with who kicked butt singing
live totally wuss up and get all introspective with headphones on and
no live band to challenge them to put out energy. It becomes the
Producer/Engineer's job I thin, to then create an environment that
draws the best out of them, pushes them like when they sing live.
Maybe put them in a bathroom and take one headphone ear off.

> As for my out-of-control students, I have changed all my passwords.
> This should put an end to their childish chattering.
> kevin

It is easier for me to beleive you have been engaged in a publicity
stunt, trying to raise your public profile and promote your new
discussion group, than it is for me to beleive that you let your
students access all your passwords, and that that accounts for all the
flames and hyperbole surrounding your persona around here.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Staff Audio / Fox News / M-AES
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 8:37:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

> For what it's worth, I think we're talking to the real Kevin Doyle at
this
> point. I've exchanged a couple of e-mails with someone that I now
> believe *is* the Professor. He's animate about not responding to
> flames or anything off the topic, and that seems to make sense
> as he probably doesn't have the time to do so. Some of this
> could get pretty petty. If his passwords are changed, we
> should lose the nutcase flames.
>
> DM

I agree and for the most part resist the urge to get
dragged in to any of the downward spirals.
As long as the 'amigos' and others have backed off,
I'd let it go ...

rd
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 8:46:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<blckout420@aol.com> wrote:

> <As for my out-of-control students, I have changed all my passwords.
> This should put an end to their childish chattering>

> Thats all you have to say? You've been hacked, your credibility is
> certainly in question, made to look like a fool, and thats it?

> Doesn't sound right to me.

This all adds up about like some whacked version of new math...

--
ha
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 10:44:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message news:1gs4ggt.1fgo7uep9amc8N%walkinay@thegrid.net...
> <blckout420@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > <As for my out-of-control students, I have changed all my passwords.
> > This should put an end to their childish chattering>
>
> > Thats all you have to say? You've been hacked, your credibility is
> > certainly in question, made to look like a fool, and thats it?
>
> > Doesn't sound right to me.
>
> This all adds up about like some whacked version of new math...
>
> --
> ha


For what it's worth, I think we're talking to the real Kevin Doyle at this
point. I've exchanged a couple of e-mails with someone that I now
believe *is* the Professor. He's animate about not responding to
flames or anything off the topic, and that seems to make sense
as he probably doesn't have the time to do so. Some of this
could get pretty petty. If his passwords are changed, we
should lose the nutcase flames.

DM
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 12:25:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<kevindoylemusic@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:1108647888.369316.75800@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> These days I farm out some of my work to other engineers due to a busy
> schedule.
> I will get a rough mix of the band with guide vocals after they have
> cut a track where it usually sounds well recorded with lots of
> energy. When the vocals are finished and it comes time to mixing, I 'll
> receive a mix where the energy of the bedtrack music is quite distant
> from the lead vocals, and lacks the original energy of the bedtrack
> date. There seems to be a somewhat chronic problem in mixing
> where the band has energy where you can hear the lead vocal clearly.
> Where do you think they are going wrong?

I'm not sure whether you're saying that the lead vocals have less energy
than the band tracks, that the band tracks have less energy than the final
vocals, or that the rough mix that you get back (with the finished vocals)
lacks energy....

But if the rough mixes (with guide vocals) sounded energetic, and the lead
vocal is energetic, the problem is in the rough mix. And that's no problem,
since you can re-mix from scratch. I find that over-processing (especially
over-compressing) is a huge problem, especially in the last 10 years.
Remember - transients are your friends...

--
Dave Martin
DMA, Inc
Nashville, TN
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 1:54:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<kevindoylemusicwrote:

> The difficulty Dave, is that I often prefer the original mixes.
> All the basic elements are the same in both the monitor and final mix,
> it's just that the monitor mix seems to kick more.
> Where are they going wrong? I don't think it's with the density of the
> overdubs.

I suggest taking the time to examine how your assistants are using
compression while mixing. In the heat of battle while tracking and
putting up quickly managed rough mixes maybe they're not overdoing the
compression. Given time to "mix", maybe they're just mashing the life
out of the singing.

--
ha
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 6:03:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>> > Don't use their band...ever! Get some session musicians

Used to be the norm for country music, IIRC

JHH
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 10:12:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<kevindoylemusic@rogers.com> wrote in message news:1108647888.369316.75800@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> I will get a rough mix of the band with guide vocals after they have
> cut a track where it usually sounds well recorded with lots of
> energy.
>
> When the vocals are finished and it comes time to mixing, I'll
> receive a mix where the energy of the bedtrack music is quite distant
> from the lead vocals, and lacks the original energy of the bedtrack
> date.

It's pretty common to mix a 'vocal up' and a 'vocal down' version. That
alone might get you a different picture of the music bed.

> There seems to be a somewhat chronic problem in mixing
> where the band has energy where you can hear the lead vocal clearly.

If you didn't fumble on words there, this doesn't sound like a problem. ;-)
Energy plus a clear lead vocal (if that's what the style calls for) seems
like the goal.

> Where do you think they are going wrong?

If the music bed is weak, I agree with previous observations that it's
probably overused processing... more suspect are dynamics control
devices.

Then again, you could be hearing <joke> "Nashville Syndrome" <stop
joke> where most of the instruments have been carved up frequency-
wise (thinned out would be another view), in order to create a nice hole
for the lead vocal to sit in. This isn't always bad, and sometimes it's
necessary to asure that each instrument can hold a place/space in
the mix without the mix becoming muddy and congested. But, it has
often led to some weak-assed sounding instruments

Sometimes the session tapes should be guidelines for mixes. When
there's not so much time to dwell on one's impression of what the mix
'should' sound like, and you just have to get a real-world monitor mix
going and go to work, there's less tweaking and a more 'untouched'
version of the session's energy. Those can often be magic moments
from an engineering standpoint.

I wouldn't know without hearing, and thebn it would just be an opinion,
if this is something we can say someone is "doing wrong" - unless you
specifically instructed them to do otherwise... it's just a result that you
or I might not have been shooting for.

What are some things that strike you the most about the 'weak' mixes
as being "wrong" ? Could it be just an obnoxiously high vocal level?

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
www.m-a-m-s DOT com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 8:58:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<kevindoylemusic@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:1108678902.499413.136340@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> The difficulty Dave, is that I often prefer the original mixes.
> All the basic elements are the same in both the monitor and final mix,
> it's
> just that the monitor mix seems to kick more.
> Where are they going wrong? I don't think it's with the density of the
> overdubs.
> kevin
>

If these are rock tracks you're dealing with, I betcha that you've got the
vocal level too hot. If the tracks are energetic without vox, then try
putting the lead vox down in the track instead of on top of the track. I'm
ignoring some other potential issues with the lead vocal performance (which
for the moment, I'll leave as an exercise for the reader), but I've found
damn few recordings - especially in the rock field - that can't be improved
by turning down the lead vocals...

--
Dave Martin
DMA, Inc
Nashville, TN
!