Good CD's to Reference, Study, or Obsess for mixing...

[NeglectedFred]

I know this might end up getting relocated, but I figured referencing CD's for mixing is more of appreciating an engineer's technique than appreciating someone's music - so I went with recording techniques.

Alright.. Mixing sucks.. Sometimes I spend days stuck on one song, trying to mix and master, then remix, the remaster, and so-on..

For the last while I've been referencing Maroon 5's Songs about Jane.. Opinions of the music aside, I really like the fullness of the mix. As I study it and try to emulate the mixing style, I'm finding the spectral management is really tight. Everything as an indivindual is pretty thin and unatural, but as a whole the mix just kicks me in the balls, punches me in the chest, and slaps me in the face.

Here's the problem, with my music I think I can get a similar fulness by drastically narrowing the bandwidth and assigning a frequency range to each instrument or track, but when I listen I can't stand it. Is this because I'm the musician and I know how it should've sounded?

It sounds acceptable when Maroon 5's hats pierce my ears, guitars are nothing but raunchy mid, vocals are molded to fit right between them - almost no body to them, but the whole mix has body... Then there's that punchy kick that fills the 100Hz range almost on it's own while the bass shakes the earth.

Would I have the same complaints with Maroon 5's mix if I were in the band? Does it only sound acceptable because I've never heard it any other way, or have I just not mastered the art of keeping relative perspective of everything?

What insipres you guys to mix, and gives you good results?

[vvv]

Well, one thing I'm not doing in my bedio is "drastically narrowing the bandwidth and assigning a frequency range to each instrument or track", me.

I s'pose that's an approach, and it is certainly sometimes an unintended result, but I wouldn't start that way.

Rather, I look to make every instrument speak as much as it needs to within the mixdown, which typically means I cut lots of stuff, but seldom drastically.

As far as "a sound", yeah, I sometimes have a final production style in mind, but that has to be consistent with the material, which I try to record to that end from the beginning.

As far as reference CD's, I guess, in context of your question, I could say I have two types. The first would be those that I use to clear my ears, and reference stuff generally (Steely Dan, Tool, Annie Lennox, etc., are often cited for these purposes). The other type would be more specific to, you guessed it, the material.

I mean, mebbe it "sounds acceptable when Maroon 5's hats pierce my ears" because it's Maroon 5. (I don't know their stuff, incidentally, but that description makes me think I wouldn't like 'em.)

That said, for what it's worth, I mix like I write, sing and play. I feel it's great to be influenced, but I try to make the result only influenced, not cloned.

[nopenopenope]

Roxy Music - Roxy Music (early 70's)
John Cale - Walking on Locusts (early 90's pop rock)
Lou Reed - The Blue Mask ("clean" rock)
David Bowie - Reality (mid 2000's rock)
LCD Soundsystem - [pretty much anything]
Stooges - Stooges [2005 remaster] (LOUD proto-punk)
T Bone Burnett - Tooth of Crime (dunno what to call this)
David Byrne - Grown Backwards (organic pop)
Elvis Costello's cover of (What's So Funny 'Bout) Peace, Love & Understanding
Nick Cave & Bad Seeds - Dig!!! Lazarus Dig!!! (recent rock)

hopefully this helps. all of these aren't necessarily the best mixes I've ever heard, but they make me think more when mixing and I feel like they help me get a better end result.

[akg414]

Steely Dan (Gaucho) for that warm, analog, pretty-dry & polished late-70's sound.

Porcupine Tree (In Absentia) for good-quality 2000's sound.

[GarryJ]

It depends on what type of music I'm working on, but for pop music I have a rather unhealthy obsession with referencing John Vanderslice's work, particularly the Pixel Revolt album. The recording diary on his website (not all that detailed technically, but a good read) gives a few interesting insights.

[SonicReducer]

My new fav-
Sharon Jones and The Dap Kings - Naturally


My other go-to records would generally be,

The Clash- London Calling
Toots & The Maytals- Funky Kingston
Television- Marquee Moon
Ani DiFranco Records (for modern indie type stuff)
Bruce Springsteen- Born to Run
Elvis Costello & The Attractions- This Year's Model
The Jam- In The City
Radiohead- OK Computer

After Reviewing this I guess I'd say that I mostly reference for the particular style I am recording, ie, I always reference Toots for Reggae stuff. Maybe I should be a little less limited.

[trevord]

bob marley - rastaman vibration
big clean bottom and clean highs
listen to crazy baldhead - you can hear the "wood" in the percussion
big bottom never overpowers the mids


for rock
alice cooper - the ezrin albums


i got to listen to some of these on this post- i dont like most albums since the crazy 90's - too much "smiley face" eq and digital harshness

[mjau]

"Viva Last Blues" by Palace Music is a great reference for me. I think Albini recorded it, but I might be wrong. Either/or - sounds like a band playing together in a room.
When a mix starts becoming overly difficult, I know I can listen to that album and re-learn the very important lesson of bringing up the (in my case, virtual) faders and letting everything just be.

[drumsound]

A well mixed record is a record that speaks to the listener. Different music and different mixers and mixes speak differently.

I don't really reference when I'm mixing because it just confuses the living shit out of me. Everything about whatever record I might use for a reference will be totally different from whatever it is I am mixing. I know this because it was not tracked in my room, on my gear or with my esthetic. Does that mean I cannot learn from studying mixes? Of course not, but I'm not going to do that WHILE I'm mixing. I do really like to sit and pick apart mixes. I get quite a bit out of sitting and listening to different music on my monitors. There are often more elements to the tracking and mixes that one does not get without an active listen (or 3). I can then apply the concept I may have picked up from my 'mix study' while I'm working on whatever is the task at hand. It rarely sounds like the song in my mind, but hopefully it works for the song at hand.

The OP mentions the Maroon 5 record. You might consider some other records mixed by that person. Then ask around and see whom people think is the opposite mixer from and check out some of their work. I'd be curious to know who mixed it, because there are definitely records in my collection that seem very much like that. The Gray's 'RoShamBo' produced and mixed by Jack Joseph Puig is very much like that. It's interesting and one can really cram a lot into a mix that way, but I don't care for it on a musical level.

[Nick Sevilla]

I know this might end up getting relocated, but I figured referencing CD's for mixing is more of appreciating an engineer's technique than appreciating someone's music - so I went with recording techniques.

Alright.. Mixing sucks.. Sometimes I spend days stuck on one song, trying to mix and master, then remix, the remaster, and so-on..

For the last while I've been referencing Maroon 5's Songs about Jane.. Opinions of the music aside, I really like the fullness of the mix. As I study it and try to emulate the mixing style, I'm finding the spectral management is really tight. Everything as an indivindual is pretty thin and unatural, but as a whole the mix just kicks me in the balls, punches me in the chest, and slaps me in the face.

Here's the problem, with my music I think I can get a similar fulness by drastically narrowing the bandwidth and assigning a frequency range to each instrument or track, but when I listen I can't stand it. Is this because I'm the musician and I know how it should've sounded?

It sounds acceptable when Maroon 5's hats pierce my ears, guitars are nothing but raunchy mid, vocals are molded to fit right between them - almost no body to them, but the whole mix has body... Then there's that punchy kick that fills the 100Hz range almost on it's own while the bass shakes the earth.

Would I have the same complaints with Maroon 5's mix if I were in the band? Does it only sound acceptable because I've never heard it any other way, or have I just not mastered the art of keeping relative perspective of everything?

What insipres you guys to mix, and gives you good results?

1.- Try referencing your mixes. No one knows them better than you.

2.- What the heck are you doing referencing a mastered, oversquashed mix? You cannot match that unless you overuse limiters and compressors. Believe me that is not the way to go.

3.- Make your own music / mixes YOUR OWN. This means stop trying to emulate others, especially Maroon5.

Cheers

[NeglectedFred]

I know this might end up getting relocated, but I figured referencing CD's for mixing is more of appreciating an engineer's technique than appreciating someone's music - so I went with recording techniques.

Alright.. Mixing sucks.. Sometimes I spend days stuck on one song, trying to mix and master, then remix, the remaster, and so-on..

For the last while I've been referencing Maroon 5's Songs about Jane.. Opinions of the music aside, I really like the fullness of the mix. As I study it and try to emulate the mixing style, I'm finding the spectral management is really tight. Everything as an indivindual is pretty thin and unatural, but as a whole the mix just kicks me in the balls, punches me in the chest, and slaps me in the face.

Here's the problem, with my music I think I can get a similar fulness by drastically narrowing the bandwidth and assigning a frequency range to each instrument or track, but when I listen I can't stand it. Is this because I'm the musician and I know how it should've sounded?

It sounds acceptable when Maroon 5's hats pierce my ears, guitars are nothing but raunchy mid, vocals are molded to fit right between them - almost no body to them, but the whole mix has body... Then there's that punchy kick that fills the 100Hz range almost on it's own while the bass shakes the earth.

Would I have the same complaints with Maroon 5's mix if I were in the band? Does it only sound acceptable because I've never heard it any other way, or have I just not mastered the art of keeping relative perspective of everything?

What insipres you guys to mix, and gives you good results?

1.- Try referencing your mixes. No one knows them better than you.

2.- What the heck are you doing referencing a mastered, oversquashed mix? You cannot match that unless you overuse limiters and compressors. Believe me that is not the way to go.

3.- Make your own music / mixes YOUR OWN. This means stop trying to emulate others, especially Maroon5.

Cheers

What's up with this? Really?

I mix my music just fine to my own liking, but every now and then I hear a production and think "Wow!! I'd never think of doing that like that!" and it inspires me to achieve that sound, along the way I figure out something new that works.. Sometimes - in this case, I figure out something that doesn't, and it bring's me to this question:

What makes good engineers inspired to mix differently, what gives them new ideas - who are they're mixing infuences?

..And now I'm an unoriginal, uncreative copycat.. You're right, I should be more set in my ways like the people who offer such valuable advice as 'What the heck are you doing trying to emulate some overproduced chunk of crap that sold millions of records?'

Sorry for bothering you, I'll be over here crying under the stairs if you need me.

[GoatKnuckles]

i'm constantly fascinated by the mixes on the following records, its an odd thing for me as i'm a singer/songwriter first and engineer second but I always feel as though i'm trying to blow my songs out of the park when I get into the real studio, so I've really been studying the records I love to try and get somewhere in the ball park, I do all by demos on a tascam DR1 and sometimes they turn out better than the shit I spend days mixing in the studio.....anyway here are my records

Ryan Adams "Gold"

I don't know who mixed this exactly but I know Ethan Johns produced it, all the sounds are vibrant and have standout qualities about them all while pretty much occupying pretty seperate areas of sonic real estate, i'm also fascinated by this because the record doesn't neccesarily have an overall sound, some songs the acoustic is stereo, other times its not, some songs are smaller some songs have lush string arrangements and so on...every note on this record sits right where it feels like it should. When I hear a song I try to put myself in the position of the engineer/mixer/whatever and think about if I would have made the same decisions, There are a lot of things done on this album mix wise that I probably would never have tried otherwise (i.e keys really really low in the mix, non cohesive acoustic guitar sounds, etc.) but it definetly taught me a lot about mixing, most importantly keeping a nice round and not overbearing low end. And also if I ever get a major deal, get Ethan Johns.

Bright Eyes "I'm Wide Awake Its Morning" and "Cassadaga"

I think these records are just mixed and recorded beautifully, I think Mike Mogis is an absolute master of sound and Wide Awake has some of the best acoustic guitar tones I have ever heard. I guess more of what I like about these records would have to do with the recording process than the mixing but I honestly find it somewhat hard to differentiate between the two when my ears hear something they like, however I will say, in the same way I learned about keeping a nice balanced low end this record taught me that a nice sounding acoustic guitar in a decent room will sound pretty good with a mic in the right place and it doesn't need to be smashed to hell with compression or 8k'd to death. Same goes for the vocals which sound very rich, balanced and not overly compressed (speaking of which has anyone heard the Kate Nash record? ridiculous).

Neil Young "Harvest"

I think everything on this record sits perfectly in nice dark sort of way, nothing really has a major stand out quality, it mostly sounds like a bunch of dudes who know their shit just killing it in a room together, aside from the odd stereo imaging on the drums (i.e snare basically only on the left) I feel like a record like this probably pretty much mixes itself aside from all the ridiculous string arangements.


I don't know if this is what the thread was asking for exactly but as I said, its hard for me to seperate good recording from good mixing but you rarely hear anyone talk about a bad recording thats been mixed well.

[Grubb]

Neil Young "Harvest", absolutely my favorite record of 2008. I'm a little behind the curve. I finally think I figured out why some of the tunes on that record sound so good is because they were in one room with Neil's vocals screaming through a PA while they were tracking. You can even hear some 8k-ish feedback in the first chorus of Alabama. I love that sh!t.

Personally, "A Ghost is Born" by Wilco sounds pretty amazing to me. Very spacious, but full, also a great example of a non-participant in The Loudness Wars. May not be germain if Maroon 5 is the reference, but hey...

I also like "Plans" by Death Cab for the same reason. Some of the tunes on there are great examples of how leaving stuff out makes the stuff that stays in so much more effective. And then when you do bring that stuff in, it takes the song (and the mix) to another level. Love the drum sounds on that record, too.

[JohnDavisNYC]

i keep a playlist of songs i like from albums i like in itunes, and can pop it on at any point if i want to hear something against what i am doing... sometimes it is for me, sometimes for the client... if the client thinks there is too much low end, fire up 'Ambulance', the first track off of Blur's 'Think Tank'... that song has the low end of a dub step record... or maybe someone thinks there is too much delay on the vocals, put on 'Let's Dance'... too much reverb on the piano for a jazz trio record, Brad Mehldau's Vol. 3, 'songs', has SO much verb on the piano and snare drum, but it sounds AMAZING....

i don't try to match mixes, just make sure i am in the general ballpark of things that i like in certain genres.

thankfully my taste is really broad, so i don't have to listen to tool on a jazz session to hear what 'good quality' is...

john

[RefD]

Neil Finn - Try Whistling This
AC/DC - Back In Black
Pink Floyd - The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn (mono version)
Bic Runga - Drive
Bossa Nova Brasil (a comp on Verve)

there's a few others, but i'm a bit distracted by a roofing project right now.