I'm not sure whether it would be more interesting to listen to KB's version first or the unmixed version? Either way, I think you'll get the picture of just how much of a difference the mix makes. Wow.
This was one of my favorite post mix listens I've had over the years I've been making music. Why? Because this is one of my favorite songs that I've written and I always knew it could sound better. KB was able to make it sound the way I always hoped it could. He was also able to add in things I would have never considered. For example, you may notice that the guitar solo at the end has a second guitar join in about 1/2 way through. This actually works really well and helps the build.
Also, he used my scratch vocal track from the live take in the studio as the main vox track. I think it gives it an authenticity that it didn't previously have.
Good stuff. GREAT STUFF. I love it.
Here is a link to the old version OLD VERSION LINK HERE
bgood79 -What do you think of your background vocals and guitar solo?
Tagging ghostoffuffle, T-Dog and jonaswildman because I'd like to know what you think..
Wow! Kleinbl00, I'm not sure what your day job is but you should probably quit it. Unless, of course, it has to do with sound engineering. I particularly like the double guitar at the end. I'm reminded of a Gossard/McCready guitar outtro. I think we actually tinkered around with that idea but scrapped it. Thanks for resurrecting it!
Welp, see you on gearslutz, kleinbl00! Edit: nope, you're not there. :(
For some time, at my request, thenewgreen would send me tracks of songs that he was working on, and I would send him feedback. It's difficult to describe in words what you might be able to actually do in production. One of my common criticisms of tng's tracks, was that they felt a bit overloaded. Of course, it's a matter of personal taste, however, he is an effective lyricist, and I often felt that he often gave the vocal elements too much competition. It would be libertating to be able to simply mix music to rather than to describe it. I really like this mix, kleinbl00. I'm curious, do you think an artist generally benefits from having someone else produce their music rather than themselves? I would expect that not only does the process take the music in a direction that the artist might not have considered, but it might also provide fresh perspective that could improve his/her future work.
I think it's emblematic of how far we've fallen that you can even ask the question. The Beatles were a bar band until George Martin. The Sixties don't happen without Phil Spector. Elvis is a talented kid without Sam Philips. Pink Floyd is just another acid band without Alan Parsons. The '90s don't happen without Rick Rubin. We won't even get into Dre, Don Was, and all the other names that music fans recognize but don't understand. There have been three "home studios" in the history of music, really. One of them was built by Les Paul, who basically invented multitrack, multi-take recording. He recorded everybody. Another was built by Boston, which used it on their own shit exclusively. You'll note most Boston recordings are ten pounds of shit in a five pound bag, too. The third was built by Peter Gabriel, and he created a label around it. And then Mackie happened. That's not entirely fair. Mackie happened about five years before MP3. The ADAT happened about the same time. So whereas Nirvana's Nevermind was recorded in a $250 an hour studio on a 32-track Studer through a TAC Scorpion, two years later you could build a better rig for around ten grand. And the studios started closing wholesale, and people started losing their jobs. Because, like DJ'ing, any fuckhead can layer two sounds on top of another. Make them sound good? That takes training. Or it used to, until all the amp plugins and software instruments and Apple Loops and all the rest started coming pre-EQ'd to make them fit uneasily together. So now any twit with half an hour can make a "song." You can't even buy an Apple laptop without GarageBand. I bought Dante Traktor for his iPhone on Friday for $5. By Sunday night he'd not only done the painting, he'd done the music: worthy of note, though: Dante was signed to Virgin at one point. He's produced a half-dozen bands. He's classically trained. He makes it look easy. But most anybody can muddle through and come up with some sort of song. The people who can make that "some sort of song" sound better? I know a guy. He wears a bag mixer on America's Next Top Model. He did location sound for SuperNanny. And we were mixing one of our bigger shows together a couple years back and he says "I can't believe they're still singing this song. I mixed it so long ago." The song? So yeah. Guys who know what we're doing? Completely devalued in the face of GarageBand. The funny thing is there are ten times as many "schools" where you can learn to mix as there were when I learned to mix. Their gear is orders of magnitude better, their tuition is orders of magnitude higher, and they're largely staffed by people who lost their jobs when everyone figured they could do just as good as a $150 an hour professional because, well, Apple told them they could. Do you know how to bake a cake? Sure you do. We all do. But do you know how to bake a cake? Of course not. You'd hire a professional. Yet for some reason, it's A-OK to call the existence of my profession into question, probably because 95% of us are permanently out of work. Which, hey, no great loss. After all, Reaper is only $60.I'm curious, do you think an artist generally benefits from having someone else produce their music rather than themselves?
I'll take that as a yes. But perhaps I should have posed the question a bit differently. I have no doubt that production is a talent and a skill, and thus, I do not doubt its impact and value. What I was trying to get at however, is all things being equal, (that is, assuming the musician has significant experience and production talent): Do you think it is more common than not that the artist will fall short of what would have been done given the production being placed in the hands of another? Of course, it seems like the answer to this question lies in your response, but that was the one that I was after. I would think Brian Eno serves as a good exception. I have my doubts that Music for Airports would be what it is in the hands of another producer. It's like a double chocolate cake. There's chocolate on your chocolate, and that's why it's so good. I suppose I would have been surprised if you thought differently, but being in the industry, your reasoning is just as interesting to me as your argument.
You say this, but you don't really believe it. Nobody does. People pay lip service to it when they realize that that they've denigrated the skills of another person without really understanding how or why. Here, check this out: Here are three parallel points: "I would think The Beatles serve as a good exception. I have my doubts that Sgt. Pepper would be what it is with George Best playing drums." "I would think Guns and Roses serve as a good exception. I have my doubts that Appetite for Destruction would be what it is with Tracii Guns on guitar." "I would think Metallica serve as a good exception. I have my doubts that And Justice For All would be what it is with Cliff Burton on bass." These are nonsense statements. People don't make them. They are self evident - change the lineup, change the music. The influence of a musician on the music is without question, despite the fact that session mercenaries are used all the time. Yet questioning production choices is de rigeur unless the producer is huge and the talent is tiny (Phil Spector, Dr. Dre). You're a bit of a rivethead. You've probably heard some Skinny Puppy. Most all of it was produced by Dave Ogilvie. Then he made the mistake of referring to himself as an "unofficial member" of the band and the other three got pissed and ran off and made The Process. It killed one of 'em and created the most expensive, least-selling, worst piece of shit in the discography of band. Meanwhile, Dave Ogilvie went off and mixed some Marilyn Manson, some Killing Joke, some Queensryche, some David Bowie, you know, little indie hopefuls. Skinny Puppy is back playing clubs to pay the bills and Dave Ogilvie is mixing Carly Rae Jepsen. Here's a direct parallel to your question: "Do you think multi-instrumentalists give better performances if they allow other musicians to play with them?" I can play keys semi-okay. I can play two, maybe three chords on guitar. I can keep time on drums. I've never even attempted bass. I can totally sit down and compose a song with keys, guitar, drums and bass. I'm well aware that any music I attempt will be vastly improved by involving others on guitar, drums and bass because they are neither my passion nor my expertise. And, frankly, unless the people I bring aboard are substantially worse than me, I'm better off having them around even if they're just as mediocre... because at least they can focus on the task at hand. Music for Airports is the album it is because it was intended as a deliberate exploration of the process of music as opposed to the composition of music. Brian Eno was focusing almost entirely on the effect of sound in a tense environment, not on making an album. He's much more focused on engineering than musicianship. As such, it sounds nothing like Roxy Music. You might as well ask what Flying in a Blue Dream would sound like without Joe Satriani.I have no doubt that production is a talent and a skill, and thus, I do not doubt its impact and value.
I would think Brian Eno serves as a good exception. I have my doubts that Music for Airports would be what it is in the hands of another producer.
Do you think it is more common than not that the artist will fall short of what would have been done given the production being placed in the hands of another?
Love it! I like the compression on the bass. Think it's really easy to undersell the bass in a lot of mixes, and this mix does a lot in regards to showcasing it. And after all, it's a killer bassline. The greater attention to the backup vox is really nice as well- fills out the vocal portion of the song nicely. I also like the delay on the key solo in the middle, which gives it a lot more depth and oomph, although I miss the more traditional Rhodes sound that was traded in for that brighter digital piano. The doubled guitars are nice at the end! Pushes it over the edge nicely. I am, however, a sucker for the dry, close drum dynamics of the first take. It adds a warmth to the whole song that reminds me a little bit of the drum/recording work on, say, "A Ghost is Born." Goddamn, I really gotta go back and listen to that album again. Anyways. The reverb/predelay/EQ values applied to the newer drums push them a little too high into glassy territory for my ears, but that's just preference. I'm also kind of a pushover for the original lead guitar tone, which, although it didn't punch through as much, again added warmth. Also, the new guitar treatment sounds like an amp plugin versus the old one that sounded like a real amp- Fender... twin? What did you use? Not sure. Anyhow, maybe he didn't add an amp plugin and just messed with EQ values...? There's more focus in the new one given to that guitar work at the end, which is powerful, but I do miss the B3-sounding organ, which gets a little lost. Either way, though, honestly- good goddamn song. And if I didn't have to A/B them, I would have been blown away either way. Awesome work all around!
I can hear the plug-in-ishness of the amp sound now, especially in the sustained notes. I would agree that toning that back if we moved forward would be called for. I dig the drums in the new mix though and I definitely agree regarding the bass. That's @mmachiarolo@ on bass. Not sure if he still checks Hubski but if you do ---- great work Matt, your playing, as always, was awesome. Thanks for the feedback fuffle. Also, the new guitar treatment sounds like an amp plugin versus the old one that sounded like a real amp- Fender... twin? What did you use?
If I'm not mistaken that was recorded using a VOX AC 30. bgood79 can correct me if I'm wrong.