movement

[lefthanddoes]

Hi gang,

I'd like to hear about what common techniques people usually turn to when mixing to create a sense of movement and excitement. Feel free to be as specific or vague as you like.

I'm mixing an indie rock group's album and most of the songs have bass, drums, two or three electric guitars, acoustic guitar, violin, at least two vocal tracks, percussion, etc. going throughout the entire song.

Obviously a good way to create movement is to bring these things in/out, up/down.

I'm looking for more things like, do you usually find that you need to move at least two things (or whatever) to really feel it? do you find that changing a sound on a particular instrument will have more of an effect, i.e. changing the sound of the vocals? different reverb spaces for different sections of the song?

I'm mostly looking for things you do pretty often, but also any crazy thing that you did just one time would be cool.

Thanks TOMB!

[Nick Sevilla]

Hi,

Sometimes, I pretend they're on a stage, and when the soloist moves into the center position to take his / her solo, I pan them into and out of center position, trying to imagine them doing it on the stage "Live"... you know, walking to center stage, then off to their usual position.

Other things, might be panning things with an autopanner, or moving things with the pan randomly throughout the song, especially background things like synths, or even smaller instruments like a mandolin, as if the musician was moving around the stage.

Also, moving background singers closer to the lead vocalist when an important vocal line comes in, creates a sense that the singers are moving into the same mic as the lead. I sometimes even record backing vocals like that, when possible.

Cheers

[sessionsatstudiom]

It is all about where things fit. But I generally have things like shakers on the opposite side of my Hat if playing at the same time or the other side of the ride etc..

As for moving things I just try and make things find their own space. Nick approaches things with the same vibe in mind. But if there are instruments playing little licks I will bring those up a bit when not happening at the same time as the vocal.

I also ride the vocal the entire time. I may accent a line of a word or two by around a db just for impact.

A few things I do.

Mike

Good luck on the mix.

[A.David.MacKinnon]

I'll often use very aggressive parallel compression on the overheads/drum room mics and then bring those in and out when I need some extra energy. It's amazing how a loud hi hat can be way more rock and roll than a thousand distorted guitars.

An acoustic guitar buried in with the drums can drive a song like nothing else. Think of it as a percussion track.

Also try doing several very different mixes of a song and then edit them together, verse from one, chorus from another, etc, etc.

[drumsound]

Definitely muting things and bringing them back can do a lot. This can be especially true with a song that wasn't played very dynamically. Less instruments can make the mix softer, bringing them back louder. Effects can add excitement, width and/or depth to the mix.

[jgimbel]

This is such a great idea for a thread, I'm really looking forward to seeing responses on here.

Two albums that I listen to a lot that I really feel like have a lot of movement are Tegan and Sara's "The Con", and Menomena's "Friend and Foe" (which I listened to today, actually). Both of these albums are good examples, or sounds like it to me, of what A.David.MacKinnon mentioned, different mixes in different sections. In one of the Menomena songs when it first came on I was reeling at how fat and heavy the kick drum was, and then in another part I noticed that the kick was barely there. Their drum sounds are always pretty roomy, but my guess is that they just switched to room mics only in the latter mentioned section of the song. I think that's something I wouldn't necessarily think to do, and would probably think it might make things too unbalanced, but it totally works in a great way in this case. Then again, it's definitely something I'd do in my own music, but I haven't had many clients at all that would be up for something more creative like that - most of my clients just want to sound pretty straight forward (which is fine and good, but doesn't necessarily do a lot for movement).

[Gregg Juke]

>>>>Sometimes, I pretend they're on a stage, and when the soloist moves into the center position to take his / her solo, I pan them into and out of center position, trying to imagine them doing it on the stage "Live"... you know, walking to center stage, then off to their usual position.<<<<

That is great advice. I almost _always_ put the lead/solo instrument (when there is no lead vocal at the same time) center, regardless of where they are in the panning for the rest of the song.

GJ

[MoreSpaceEcho]

I'm mixing an indie rock group's album and most of the songs have bass, drums, two or three electric guitars, acoustic guitar, violin, at least two vocal tracks, percussion, etc. going throughout the entire song.

that is a lot of stuff. how much liberty do you have in mixing? i.e. is the band expecting to hear all that stuff all the time? or do you have some room to craft the arrangements a bit?

assuming you do, i think the best thing you can do is just be RUTHLESS with the mute button. take as much out as you can, and bring it in when it really counts. save the tambourine for the last chorus (bring it in half a measure early).

in this sort of situation i would focus more on bringing stuff in and out and riding the faders like crazy, and less on changing sounds from section to section. but sure, closer drums on the verses, roomier on the choruses, stuff like that works great.

just try and always decide what the focal point is at any given moment. usually the vocals. then decide what's supporting that and what's distracting from it, and there you go.

pet theory: one reason drums/bass/2 guitars/vocals became the sort of default rock band lineup is because most people's ears/brains aren't really inclined to process much more than that at once. 5 things in the foreground is plenty, have the rest of the team play outfield. or ride the bench.

assorted other thoughts:

instead of bringing an instrument in at full volume at the start of a section, fade it up over the length of the section.

some tasteful autopan on certain background things can be nice. just please don't get all eddie kramer and go bananas with that stuff.

i'm a big fan of the dramatic mono to stereo switch.

one thing i like to do is record a few tracks of ambient guitar loops and bury those way way way in the back. serves the part of a synth pad, but there's a lot more motion happening. for this record you have plenty to deal with already though.

[fuzz]

Maybe...

Toms and SNR via Aux send to key input on stereo or mono gate triggering rm mic(s)

Delay on GTR panned hard to opposite side (so strums move accross the center)

Vox bussed to two comps panned hard R and L with slightly different attack and release times (using a C Vox or more in parrallel)

A send on the VOX triggering a key duck the GTR (GTR bumps up a tiny bit)

Automation

Automation into comps (to push back and get a slight tone/color change from the comp acting)

[vvv]

I like to drop rhythm guitars a cuppla dBu under the verses, and ride 'em up higher at the chorus.

I love autopan on subtle percussion, ex., tambos; consider slow and shallow under the verses, fast and deep under the chorus.

A simple thing like a basic tambo 1/4 building to a frenzy can work.

Adding cowbell only at a high point can take it higher.

I like to automate delays on lead vocals and/or lead guitars or even percussion (the latter especially at stops) such that the delay comes in heavy at the end of phrases, to emphasize certain words, etc.

I like full stops in arrangements, with a build-up coming back in.

I like a smashed drum room track coming up in parallel at high points, ex., under the chorus, or mebbe the second chorus of 2 inna row.

I like to increase the number of backing vocals, and mebbe the harmony lines, as the song progresses.

A buried whisper vocal doubling the lead vocal can be good.

I like to drop to a dry vocal in the bridge (but try to avoid the distorto cliche).

Sometimes a simple strategically-placed shout (watched Santana Live By Request 2nite - they do it well, ), like James Brown's "huh!" or even a pattern, as in Gary Glitter's "Rock-n-roll, HEY!"

A "barely there" feedback or ebow part can be brought up and down nicely.

Doubling the number of rhythm guitars, say under the chorus, can often be done easily by just cut-n-paste of, say, chorus 1's guitars with chorus 2's.

If there's a melodic lead, you can use the melody in the B-parts, but don't resolve it until, say, the solo.

[lefthanddoes]

Yeah, this thread is starting to get a little too awesome. Keep it coming.

[I'm Painting Again]

"Exaggerate the essential, leave the obvious vague & autopan the tom toms"
? Vincent van Gogh

[Dan Rosato]

A few simple and random techniques:

- I like to record guitars with two different sounding mics, say a 57 and an r 121, then I can change the tone of the guitars simply by changing the balance of the mics. Doing this for different sections of a tune is a subtle way to add some excitement and keep things changing.

- different kinds of aux percussion can work wonders for making subtle, as well as extreme changes throughout a mix. think hand claps and tambourine, but also shakers, bells, snaps, cardboard boxes, etc.

- A weird one: My band once demoed a tune in a hotel room, with one stereo mic, an acoustic gtr, many vocals and people beating on different surfaces in the hotel. We then tracked the full song in the studio but when it came time to mix we were missing a bit of the vibe from the original demo, so for the last verse, I did a slowish crossfade from the studio tracks into the demo. They were pretty different speeds so the time was all over the place, but once the fade was complete it was like being in a whole new world with the song and made the tune really come alive. Kind of like stitching together different mixes to the extreme....

[jgimbel]

I'm mixing an indie rock group's album and most of the songs have bass, drums, two or three electric guitars, acoustic guitar, violin, at least two vocal tracks, percussion, etc. going throughout the entire song.

I don't know if it'll help as a reference (it may), but one of my all-time favorite albums is Dust Of Retreat by Margot and the Nuclear So and Sos. They (usually) have all of that going on, plus piano, cello, and trumpet. Maybe it's just one or two electric guitar parts, but still, they've got a large group of band members. Their recordings are totally clear and uncompromised. Obviously the music might not be exactly like what you're recording but it's a great example of having a million things going at once and making it work.

[lefthanddoes]

Oh, I'll definitely check that out.

I thought of one the other day that I thought I'd share with y'all, on the OFF CHANCE that many other people besides me are getting a lot out of this thread.

The other day I was listening to Tina Turner's "Better Be Good To Me." Yup, 1984. There's something that happens in the choruses that I never noticed til now. There's an organ in the background, standard rock'n'roll background organ playing two chords, and the chorus just keeps building in intensity, and after listening to the song for years I couldn't figure out why, but it's just because they keep turning up the organ every chord change. It just keeps getting louder and louder and by the end of the chorus it's louder than everything else. No other volume changes are happening during that part, and somehow it never really obscures the lead guitar, it just builds the intensity. I feel like there are certain instruments which no matter how loud they are they will still be perceived as backing. I'm going to try something like that with some of the stuff I'm mixing.