Does clarity matter to you if arrangment establishes instruments are there?

[crimsonhawk47]

Just wanted everyone's thoughts. Like, when you have a big track going on, but you build it up in such a way that the instruments have space when introduced, but when they come together they are less clear but still felt. Does that imply clarity? Maybe if you popped in the middle of the song you couldnt pick out everything they want you to, but you could if you listen from the start?

I was just thinking about this cause someone was telling me how if a sound is earlier in the song, but more elements come in, you can turn that sounds down and Stoll have the same impact from in generally speaking.

 

[rhythmgj]

Of course. And, no. It all depends...

One way to think about it-- tracks seem to get "bigger" the more you add, until you hit the wall and get to the point of diminishing returns. Once you add too much, the track just starts sounding smaller and smaller. Arrangement and orchestration are extremely important; a piece can almost "mix itself" if it's been written and arranged right from the Jump...

GJ

 

[crimsonhawk47]

I'm not asking whether or not arrangement and orchestration is important, I'm wondering If arrangement can make up for a lack of clarity in your eyes. Can a section that's a bit too dense be alleviated by, instead of removing instruments, introducing those instruments early on.

Like, if I have a section with a ridiculous amount of instruments, and I still think it sounds good, but it's just hard to pick some things out. And not just the stuff that isn't supposed to be heard, not the subtle layers. Maybe a note from a guitar that is otherwise supposed to be heard. I understand an arrangement can remove some of these instruments, so I'm talking keeping them all in that section and playing with the sections before it.

 

[mikechi]

its all a matter of how well each instrument works with one another. clarity in a song comes from each instrument sitting within its own specific frequency range. when you have instruments fighting with each other, clarity goes out the window. each instrument in a song should serve a purpose. adding instruments for the sole purpose of making things sound "big" could in fact do the complete opposite. Back to the question though! i dont personally think arrangement can make up for a lack of clarity, if you have instruments that dont sound clear then it wont be clear.

 

[bradleytw]

If an arrangement has a dense amount of instruments, I think they should be spread out and mixed to have their own frequency range so nothing is "pressed down" when an instrument in the same range is introduced.

 

[KonKossKang]

Sometimes there's moments where I absolutely do not want to remove fills or rolls.
It gets harder to mix the more gets added to the track.

I've also noticed that sometimes there is a "ceiling" of sound where even at like 30spl "if that's what they call sound level" it still feels likea ceiling's been reached and taking away sounds opens it up again.

 

[bandcoach]

I'm not asking whether or not arrangement and orchestration is important, I'm wondering If arrangement can make up for a lack of clarity in your eyes. Can a section that's a bit too dense be alleviated by, instead of removing instruments, introducing those instruments early on.

Like, if I have a section with a ridiculous amount of instruments, and I still think it sounds good, but it's just hard to pick some things out. And not just the stuff that isn't supposed to be heard, not the subtle layers. Maybe a note from a guitar that is otherwise supposed to be heard. I understand an arrangement can remove some of these instruments, so I'm talking keeping them all in that section and playing with the sections before it.

given your example the answer is an emphatic no

why?

because if you played that note on the guitar and kept it in the final mix then you want it heard - end of story

you can achieve clarity several ways

- remove other instruments that are not contributing to the section
- adjust levels,
- pan,
- then maybe eq and compress

to give each part its own "space" within the stereo field

your initial question read like an aesthetics question with a touch of zen (if a tree falls in the forest and there is no-one there to hear it does it make a sound?)

your second question clarified that one and there was no zen about it (ok, maybe a little, like "if I see a guitar being played but can hear no guitar did it actually make a sound?") - I want to keep this guitar part in but I don't think it can be heard - can I force the listener to hear it by introducing earlier with less masking instruments around it? - for which the answer is completely variable, as there is no way to understand what different people will hear at any given point whether or not they have prior stimuli to assist them in identifying the tone of the required instrument when it is later in heard in a context of orchestrational "mud"

 

[crimsonhawk47]

given your example the answer is an emphatic no

why?

because if you played that note on the guitar and kept it in the final mix then you want it heard - end of story

you can achieve clarity several ways

- remove other instruments that are not contributing to the section
- adjust levels,
- pan,
- then maybe eq and compress

to give each part its own "space" within the stereo field

your initial question read like an aesthetics question with a touch of zen (if a tree falls in the forest and there is no-one there to hear it does it make a sound?)

your second question clarified that one and there was no zen about it (ok, maybe a little, like "if I see a guitar being played but can hear no guitar did it actually make a sound?") - I want to keep this guitar part in but I don't think it can be heard - can I force the listener to hear it by introducing earlier with less masking instruments around it? - for which the answer is completely variable, as there is no way to understand what different people will hear at any given point whether or not they have prior stimuli to assist them in identifying the tone of the required instrument when it is later in heard in a context of orchestrational "mud"

You're right. Those two are contradictory. I was really tired last night for some reason.

Maybe I answered my own question, since I mean a part is hard to hear but you can still hear it? I guess I'm saying how far can one take that concept I cited from the article I read (that's an ambiguous sentence, but I can't find the article right now). Furthermore, my idea of hard to hear is probably different from others as I'm ridiculously harsh on my own mixes lately.