It is often said that the rough mix is often fresher, more alive, has more impact.
And sometimes it's fair to stop trying to beat it and just use the rough.
But I found that at times what made the rough cool are things that are "wrong".
E.g. additional parts with unusual instruments often project itself better in the rough, because main instruments are yet to be treated. But when you deal with the main parts, those fills are no longer adding contrast. Maybe a middle ground can be found sometimes, but I don't think this is always the case.
So what do you think?
Beating the rough
If you can’t beat it USE it.
But I think a lot of what tends to be different about roughs is you’ve usually done a lot LESS to it.
They tend to be more of just a balance without you trying to ‘fix’ or “improve” all the individual sounds and so are more of a representation of how you heard it while recording.
That’s often a good thing.
But I think a lot of what tends to be different about roughs is you’ve usually done a lot LESS to it.
They tend to be more of just a balance without you trying to ‘fix’ or “improve” all the individual sounds and so are more of a representation of how you heard it while recording.
That’s often a good thing.
I've found that trying to make everything as impressive as possible, usually meaning "more up front", is often not a good idea - on a related note. I guess that's obvious if you pay attention to staging/what's in the spotlight and what isn't.
Well, yeah, it's not uncommon to me to drop what I've been doing and start from the rough.
But more of what I'm talking about is incorporating something which is cool from the rough, but is also "wrong". Sometimes it's easy, e.g. if a part is out of balance in the rough but it makes for a cool vibe it's more or less easy to replicate. But what to do with something like violin overdub which added a nice contrast to the dull guitar and lost its impact when the guitar was made brighter (which works better for the rest of the song)?
But more of what I'm talking about is incorporating something which is cool from the rough, but is also "wrong". Sometimes it's easy, e.g. if a part is out of balance in the rough but it makes for a cool vibe it's more or less easy to replicate. But what to do with something like violin overdub which added a nice contrast to the dull guitar and lost its impact when the guitar was made brighter (which works better for the rest of the song)?
Firstly: We have established that you are the producer and arranger for this track. I think.meloco_go wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2018, 7:29 pm Well, yeah, it's not uncommon to me to drop what I've been doing and start from the rough.
But more of what I'm talking about is incorporating something which is cool from the rough, but is also "wrong". Sometimes it's easy, e.g. if a part is out of balance in the rough but it makes for a cool vibe it's more or less easy to replicate. But what to do with something like violin overdub which added a nice contrast to the dull guitar and lost its impact when the guitar was made brighter (which works better for the rest of the song)?
We are leaving band/musician politics out of this, I assume. There is no actual violin player in a band who is prone to violins if his/her part isn't used?
This reminds me of a situation in which I'd added mandolin arpeggios to add counterpoint to guitar strumming during an intro to a track.
After listening to it numerous times, I decided that, even though it sounded good, it was too "busy" for an intro. So I muted them.
And I had to get new strings for my mandolin, learn how to play the instrument and part (not that difficult, easy part to learn) and get a pair of good takes. A fair amount of time consumed.
You're the producer -- You have to see the big picture; what is best for the song?
All that said, is the violin playing during a certain part of the song or all the way through?
If the violin is playing during a part of the song:
Have you tried cloning the guitar track, using the original while the violin is playing, muting that guitar track while the violin isn't playing and unmuting the treated, brighter guitar? (or crossfade)
In my case, for CARP, I took quite a large amount of time rehearsing my drum bit, setting up, getting sounds, readjusting, rewriting parts, fixing a channel strip on my mixer (cry me a river), yadda yadda, and I still had to admit it sounded noticeably worse than the first time around and axed it
But yeah, the song. If it sounds cool, that's great. I can drench everything in reverb and it'll sound cool. Right for the song? If my name was Enya.
I actually like Enya
-
John Eppstein
- Posts: 344
- Joined: July 5th, 2017, 5:05 am
Who says that the EQ on the guitar part can't change during different parts of the song?meloco_go wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2018, 7:29 pm Well, yeah, it's not uncommon to me to drop what I've been doing and start from the rough.
But more of what I'm talking about is incorporating something which is cool from the rough, but is also "wrong". Sometimes it's easy, e.g. if a part is out of balance in the rough but it makes for a cool vibe it's more or less easy to replicate. But what to do with something like violin overdub which added a nice contrast to the dull guitar and lost its impact when the guitar was made brighter (which works better for the rest of the song)?
Originally Posted by Bob Ohlsson
Everything is some mixture of awesome and suck. We simply want the awesome to be highlighted sufficiently that it distracts listeners from the suck.
*Hey, if I'm Grumpy, where the hell is Snow White???? *
Everything is some mixture of awesome and suck. We simply want the awesome to be highlighted sufficiently that it distracts listeners from the suck.
*Hey, if I'm Grumpy, where the hell is Snow White???? *
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest