Mix Sounds Like Crap - Give It A Listen & Help Me Find Out Why!

[dannydawiz]

Specifically the part at 0:30 but if you guys hear anything weird before that then I would appreciate your help with that to.


Why does my mix sound like crap? I'm aiming for a specific type of sound that I hear a lot in most commercal EDM. If you guys need any examples of what that sound is then I can post those to. For now though here's the link to the track.

 

[bandcoach]

your string parts are pretty much all in the same stereo location with minor variations - real orchestras are spread so that each part occupies a different part of the sound stage

two usual layouts are

1) Violin 1 - Violin 2 - Viola - Cello - Basses behind Celli
2) Violin 1 - Viola - Cello - Violin 2 - Basses behind Celli and Violas (celli is the plural of cello)

add to that that they are too loud for the surrounding instruments and you begin to get some real problems with definition and space for everything

at 30 seconds what I hear is the exact same keyboard part in both the left and right channels so not true stereo - modify the sound so that it has some subtle chorusing or flanging applied to each channel that is not tempo synched - this may mess with the cohesion of the stereo image at the phase level but it will make the mix pop like it doesn't now.

I'd also suggest that you take the limiter off so the sounds can breathe dynamically - if no limiter then modify your midi velocities in each track so that there is more than just on or off to your levels - use the secret sauce and randomise values to =/- 5 either side of a central dynamic levl e.g. really loud (ff in music terms) = ca 110 so your values should be randomised between 105 and 115

 

[dannydawiz]

your string parts are pretty much all in the same stereo location with minor variations - real orchestras are spread so that each part occupies a different part of the sound stage

two usual layouts are

1) Violin 1 - Violin 2 - Viola - Cello - Basses behind Celli
2) Violin 1 - Viola - Cello - Violin 2 - Basses behind Celli and Violas (celli is the plural of cello)

add to that that they are too loud for the surrounding instruments and you begin to get some real problems with definition and space for everything

at 30 seconds what I hear is the exact same keyboard part in both the left and right channels so not true stereo - modify the sound so that it has some subtle chorusing or flanging applied to each channel that is not tempo synched - this may mess with the cohesion of the stereo image at the phase level but it will make the mix pop like it doesn't now.

I'd also suggest that you take the limiter off so the sounds can breathe dynamically - if no limiter then modify your midi velocities in each track so that there is more than just on or off to your levels - use the secret sauce and randomise values to =/- 5 either side of a central dynamic levl e.g. really loud (ff in music terms) = ca 110 so your values should be randomised between 105 and 115

Thanks for giving the track a listen.

When you say this "real orchestras are spread so that each part occupies a different part of the sound stage" Are you referring to the stereo image or the panning?

I appreciate the layout that you gave, but i'm a bit confused as far as how to apply that to an actual mixdown. Am I supposed to pan the individual string instruments in a particular way? Also, you were right in that they aren't in true stereo. There's an ozone stereo Imager on the strings which I used to spread out the highs a bit along with some reverb..

There was an ozone on the master as well which is most likely contributing to the lack of dynamics. As for the "keyboard" part at 30 seconds... (I'm assuming you're referring to the detuned saws) sylenth comes with a "stereo" knob which I use to basically widen up the sound. There's some reverb on it as well but I'll try out the chorus/flanging and see how it affects the sound.


I'll attend these tomorrow morning and post a new version to see what the improvements are. (It's 12:42AM over here)

 

[bandcoach]

9:53 pm here

sound stage = stereo image or left right image and is therefore about panning as much as anything else

I suggest that you revisit your strings and separate them into 4 separate tracks - I can hear Violin I, Violin II, Viola and ViolonCello parts in what you have, so you should use these and pan them with appropriate reverb sends

ignore the stereo knob on your saws and create a true stereo patch with separate L-R modulation

 

[dannydawiz]

9:53 pm here

sound stage = stereo image or left right image and is therefore about panning as much as anything else

I suggest that you revisit your strings and separate them into 4 separate tracks - I can hear Violin I, Violin II, Viola and ViolonCello parts in what you have, so you should use these and pan them with appropriate reverb sends

ignore the stereo knob on your saws and create a true stereo patch with separate L-R modulation

I apologize but I ran out of time today. Life gets in the way sometimes. I won't be able to post the updated version today. I'll do my best to finish the edits on Monday and post the edit here so you can give it a listen.

 

[dannydawiz]

9:53 pm here

sound stage = stereo image or left right image and is therefore about panning as much as anything else

I suggest that you revisit your strings and separate them into 4 separate tracks - I can hear Violin I, Violin II, Viola and ViolonCello parts in what you have, so you should use these and pan them with appropriate reverb sends

ignore the stereo knob on your saws and create a true stereo patch with separate L-R modulation

I just finished changing the strings. I did as you said and created 4 separate tracks for each string section. (Violin I, Violin II, Viola, Cello)

I kept the cello in the center while leaving it in mono since I wanted it to emphasize the bass frequencies. The Viola I panned -10 to the right. Violin 2 -15 to the right. Violin 1 -10 to the left. I also messed around a bit more with the stereo image of the section as a whole.

I can hear a difference in the tone of the entire section but I'm not necessarily sure whether this is what you were trying to get me to aim for. Would you mind give this side by side comparison a listen? The first 4 bars are the old strings while the last 4 bars are the new strings.

 

[AdmirBeats]

hmm, the kicks sounds a bit muddy, try making some more space in the freq where the kick is.

 

[bandcoach]

I just finished changing the strings. I did as you said and created 4 separate tracks for each string section. (Violin I, Violin II, Viola, Cello)

I kept the cello in the center while leaving it in mono since I wanted it to emphasize the bass frequencies. The Viola I panned -10 to the right. Violin 2 -15 to the right. Violin 1 -10 to the left. I also messed around a bit more with the stereo image of the section as a whole.

I can hear a difference in the tone of the entire section but I'm not necessarily sure whether this is what you were trying to get me to aim for. Would you mind give this side by side comparison a listen? The first 4 bars are the old strings while the last 4 bars are the new strings.

ok, swap cellos and violins II - mostly because in this a case your strings are relying on the ideas that vln I and vln II are playing together - it will make teh lines more coherent. Second, sub group the strings to a stereo buss. Use an aux send from this group to apply group related reverb rather than individual channel insert reverb.

The change in tone is exactly what you are looking to achieve - you want each line to sound like the instrument in the range where it exists not some detuned (positive or negative) string orchestra patch that doesn't distinguish well between each instrument type - most viola lines in simple productions are rendered using parts of the violin patch or the violoncello patch because of the use of a one size fits all string patch. Even some of the violoncello parts are rendered by a double bass or violin patch.

let's hear what you have done to the saw synth

note
I'm using the word patch here to mean library/sample set, not synthesiser programme

 

[dannydawiz]

ok, swap cellos and violins II - mostly because in this a case your strings are relying on the ideas that vln I and vln II are playing together - it will make teh lines more coherent. Second, sub group the strings to a stereo buss. Use an aux send from this group to apply group related reverb rather than individual channel insert reverb.

The change in tone is exactly what you are looking to achieve - you want each line to sound like the instrument in the range where it exists not some detuned (positive or negative) string orchestra patch that doesn't distinguish well between each instrument type - most viola lines in simple productions are rendered using parts of the violin patch or the violoncello patch because of the use of a one size fits all string patch. Even some of the violoncello parts are rendered by a double bass or violin patch.

let's hear what you have done to the saw synth

note
I'm using the word patch here to mean library/sample set, not synthesiser programme

Can you clarify a bit when you're talking about "swapping" the violin II and the cellos? The strings were already all linked together by a stereo bus all going through the same reverb. I'm going to work on that saw today and see what I can do with it.

If the individual characteristic of each string instrument in the track is what we're after then I can show you what the sounds like. I'm using LA scoring strings which essentially limits the range of each instrument so that it won't go past it's possible range. The reason why you might not like what you're hearing is because although I have the tracks layed out like this...

Violin 1
Violin 2
Violas
Cello

I am having the violins and violas double on the notes within their range in order to add "thickness". The only instrument that gets one note is the cello because I wanted it to emphasize the bass.

Here's what it sounds like if I were to give each instrument only "one" note.



Perhaps you find this to be more pleasing?

 

[dannydawiz]

hmm, the kicks sounds a bit muddy, try making some more space in the freq where the kick is.

I hear what you're saying. I'll be sure to go over that today.

EDIT: Okay so I finished messing around with the saws and the mix on that section and here's an updated version.



I feel like I'm getting a little bit closer to what it is that I'm trying to aim for but now I feel like there are to many highs.

My ears are totally fatigued at this point so I'm going to give it another shot tomorrow. Damn mixing for being so hard...

One thing that has been brought upon my awareness is the importance of stereo imaging when it comes to the transitioning in between sections. At one point during the mix I had lowered the stereo image of the saws and suddenly they just seemed to blend in better. Also I noticed that in the previous mix the overall "EQ" of the mix suddenly took a jump in the bass which was unpleasing to the ear. I feel like I removed it in the new mix but now there's the problem with the highs that I'll tackle soon.

 

[bandcoach]

sounding better overall - definitely more balanced. The off-accent notes in the viola/low violin line could probably be a tad louder

my concern was not so much each instrument having it's own part as each part having identifiably one instrument sound instead of sucking notes from different part of a composite string setting/library

The lines you have now are much clearer and address my concern as an arranger and producer

 

[dannydawiz]

sounding better overall - definitely more balanced. The off-accent notes in the viola/low violin line could probably be a tad louder

my concern was not so much each instrument having it's own part as each part having identifiably one instrument sound instead of sucking notes from different part of a composite string setting/library

The lines you have now are much clearer and address my concern as an arranger and producer

Thank you for you feedback. I know what you mean when you say that often people will just use sounds from one entire string library and blend it together without any attention to range or the characteristics of each string instrument.

Mixing really is just incredibly hard... at least for now. I'm gonna get to work soon and see what I can fix/discover.

 

[dvyce]

Why does my mix sound like crap? I'm aiming for a specific type of sound that I hear a lot in most commercal EDM.

Hi dannydawiz,

I don't want to sound harsh, but the "mix" is the least of your problems with this track.

Pleas take this in the spirit with which it is intended: an honest critique with constructive criticism.


A "mix" is not the sole thing that will make the difference between "good" and "bad"… in fact, the "mix" is the least important part of the process.

You need:

-good song
-good performance
-good production
-good arrangement
-good sounds


Without these elements, you have nothing to "mix".

Your sounds are not great and all sound like generic presets. The performance is wooden and the velocities are inconsistent. The string arrangement is nonexistent (sounds like you are just playing some simple three finger chords and a one finger line all on the same basic string patch). There is a basic framework of a song with no real production. The "epic orchestral drums" are too repetitive and mechanical sounding.

I know this may sound harsh, but you are looking for advice and you want to achieve a "commercial" sound and these are important things to hear.

Learning these things and becoming proficient at them takes time and a lot of work… the only way to get better is to keep doing it, listening to your music objectively and figuring out where you can improve.

But, the reality is, if you have all those other things done well - - the track should sound pretty damn good even with no mix whatsoever.

 

[dannydawiz]

Hi dannydawiz,

I don't want to sound harsh, but the "mix" is the least of your problems with this track.

Pleas take this in the spirit with which it is intended: an honest critique with constructive criticism.


A "mix" is not the sole thing that will make the difference between "good" and "bad"… in fact, the "mix" is the least important part of the process.

You need:

-good song
-good performance
-good production
-good arrangement
-good sounds


Without these elements, you have nothing to "mix".

Your sounds are not great and all sound like generic presets. The performance is wooden and the velocities are inconsistent. The string arrangement is nonexistent (sounds like you are just playing some simple three finger chords and a one finger line all on the same basic string patch). There is a basic framework of a song with no real production. The "epic orchestral drums" are too repetitive and mechanical sounding.

I know this may sound harsh, but you are looking for advice and you want to achieve a "commercial" sound and these are important things to hear.

Learning these things and becoming proficient at them takes time and a lot of work… the only way to get better is to keep doing it, listening to your music objectively and figuring out where you can improve.

But, the reality is, if you have all those other things done well - - the track should sound pretty damn good even with no mix whatsoever.

Ahhhhh. It hurts a little to read this but I appreciate your honesty. I knew that certain aspects of my producing were crap but some of them which I originally thought were at least decent you seem to have pointed out.

I usually start off with the musical content of a track on the piano. Writing an A,B, and C section depending on how many "themes" i want to have contained within the track. This track happens to be one of my least favorite musically speaking.

I struggle A LOT with arrangement. I'm still learning new things but specifically the transitioning in between two different sections is what makes things tough for me. What I try to do is think of each "section" in terms of "energy" or "high frequencies". If there are a lot of highs then usually I've noticed it's the section that has the highest energy. While if the track is very mid/bass heavy then generally I consider these to be more like verses instead of choruses.

The orchestral drums are just a 1 bar loop so I can understand how you may think they're to repetitive... I can possibly add some more to it to add in some more variation. Maybe turn it into two 4 bar loops with some variation on the second one.

The strings as I've said in a previous post are overlapping a lot on the same notes only because I thought that they added more "beef" to the sound. I believe I posted an audio recording earlier in this thread of how they sound individually with them only playing one note instead of the chord. It just sounds really "wimpy" to my taste so having them play the full chord was my solution. I did have a little bit of variation in between the velocities of the sounds by using the midi editing capabilities in logic but I didn't think that it was to much... Really it was only about a 10 velocity difference with some minor exception on the accented parts.

As far as sounds go... I originally thought that they weren't "terrible" (at least everything before the saws) so it kinda hurts' but I can see how you would think that. I'm not completely ignorant to the general techniques of a string section. I play guitar so there's a lot of similarities/overlaps. The only thing is that I never actually "learned" how to arrange something for strings. 4 part writing is something that I just never really got to. I just know that certain notes make certain chord progressions and that it's advisable for there to be as little motion as possible in the inner voices.

The line between "mixing" and "sound design" doesn't seem exist to me really... You can have a basic supersaw but EQ it differently and add a little bit of reverb/distortion and suddenly it becomes an entirely different sound. I tend to view most sounds as some sort of extension of either a saw or a square wave. Most sounds that I hear consist of these with the ocassionaly "sine wave"

With that being said... would you mind shedding a little bit of producer/engineer advice? I'm assuming you're better at this then me. I can usually hear when something sounds like crap such as the mix I posted above... It justs takes A LOT of time for me to figure out what the heck it is that makes things bad.

If you know what it is that's making things sound bad and understand the solution to fix them then god It would help me out SO MUCH if you could propose some solutions. Only because you only pointed out the flaws really.

 

[dvyce]

If there are a lot of highs then usually I've noticed it's the section that has the highest energy. While if the track is very mid/bass heavy then generally I consider these to be more like verses instead of choruses.

I would avoid thinking that way.

"Energy" will rarely come by virtue of the dominant frequencies.

The energy will come from the performance, arrangement, beat, etc… there may be a lot of high frequency material in an energetic section, but it will probably not be creating the energy.

You can have a tinkly high frequency piano section that is mellow… and a bass heavy section that is crazy and very energetic.


and regarding "verses" and "choruses"… that is 100% based on the song you write… not frequencies.

The orchestral drums are just a 1 bar loop so I can understand how you may think they're to repetitive... I can possibly add some more to it to add in some more variation. Maybe turn it into two 4 bar loops with some variation on the second one.

in addition to it being only one bar, it sounds 100% quantized, unnatural and the sounds are not very good.

and the flip side of the quantization issue… to be unquantized or less quantized, you need to be able to play with some feeling and rhythm… an unquantized poor performance is no better.

and it needs dynamics to give it a sense of excitement and to remain interesting to a listener.


4 bars? how about you just play the drums over the course of the song building as you go? have some loop as a base with room to play around on top.

The strings as I've said in a previous post are overlapping a lot on the same notes only because I thought that they added more "beef" to the sound. I believe I posted an audio recording earlier in this thread of how they sound individually with them only playing one note instead of the chord. It just sounds really "wimpy" to my taste so having them play the full chord was my solution. I did have a little bit of variation in between the velocities of the sounds by using the midi editing capabilities in logic but I didn't think that it was to much... Really it was only about a 10 velocity difference with some minor exception on the accented parts.

I don't say the strings should be one note.

I said it sounds like you are playing some 3 note chords and a 1 note "bass" line all with the same generic "string section" patch.

It sounds like you "happen to be playing some chords using a string sound" rather than "playing a string part".

And, it is not constructed like a string part.

As far as sounds go... I originally thought that they weren't "terrible" (at least everything before the saws) so it kinda hurts' but I can see how you would think that.

The fact is, anything less that "great" IS "terrible"… it either sounds like a "real song" or it doesn't.

It shouldn't "hurt" that I'm saying this.

You didn't build the synth… you didn't make the sounds (at least I don't think you did since they sound like generic presets)...

You just need to acquire better sound libraries.

Or really analyze the songs you like and REALLY listen to the sounds and HEAR what it is that is making those sounds "good".

You need to pick your sounds with intent.

I'm not completely ignorant to the general techniques of a string section. I play guitar so there's a lot of similarities/overlaps.

Guitar chords structure is VERY different from string chord structure.

The only thing is that I never actually "learned" how to arrange something for strings. 4 part writing is something that I just never really got to. I just know that certain notes make certain chord progressions and that it's advisable for there to be as little motion as possible in the inner voices.

"advisable for there to be…"?--- sounds like a "rule"… there are no "rules" (unless you are talking about some specific academic rule based form of music, which we are not)… just make it sound good.

The line between "mixing" and "sound design" doesn't seem exist to me really... You can have a basic supersaw but EQ it differently and add a little bit of reverb/distortion and suddenly it becomes an entirely different sound. I tend to view most sounds as some sort of extension of either a saw or a square wave. Most sounds that I hear consist of these with the ocassionaly "sine wave"

the "line between mixing and sound design" has nothing to do with this discussion...

You just need good sounds.

All "supersaws" are not the same.

All EQ's are not the same.

All reverbs are not the same.


You can have 50 synths with basic "supersaw" patches and they will all sound different.


And you can transform a "supersaw" into whatever you want… the fact is, if it doesn't sound great, then who cares? ya know?

With that being said... would you mind shedding a little bit of producer/engineer advice? I'm assuming you're better at this then me. I can usually hear when something sounds like crap such as the mix I posted above... It justs takes A LOT of time for me to figure out what the heck it is that makes things bad.

If you know what it is that's making things sound bad and understand the solution to fix them then god It would help me out SO MUCH if you could propose some solutions. Only because you only pointed out the flaws really.

There is only so much a person can tell you to help you to improve.

What I said in my previous post still holds true… you need to just keep doing it and getting better…. you need to not just "listen", but really "HEAR" the sounds and production of the artists you are trying to emulate.

I can't pick out the sounds for you or play the parts for you… you just need to figure that out and there is no way to tell you what a "good" sound is…. know what i mean?


also, there is nothing wrong with certain things being 100% quantized and robotic… but that doesn't work for everything… certain things want to sound more natural.


Don't be impatient.

This stuff takes years and years of practice.

 

[Free Spirit]

Specifically the part at 0:30 but if you guys hear anything weird before that then I would appreciate your help with that to.


Why does my mix sound like crap? I'm aiming for a specific type of sound that I hear a lot in most commercal EDM. If you guys need any examples of what that sound is then I can post those to. For now though here's the link to the track.

I haven't read the other responses but the ONLY thing I think your mix is lacking, would be the pumping between your synth track and the kick drum. Honestly the rest of the mix is fine (nicely done actually), as well as the sequencing & production.

Set up a side chain compression or side chain ducking so that every time the kick hits- the synth drops 3-6 dB. MAKE SURE THE ATTACK AND RELEASE TIMES ARE IN SYNC WITH THE BPM OF THE TRACK. DOOOOONT SKIP THAT, ITS FREAKING EVERYTHING!!!

Seriously, timing alone accounts for sooooo much of the perceived enjoyment of a song. Just have the synth track duck IN TIME!! with the kick and you have that sound you're looking for.

Best of luck!

 

[dannydawiz]

I would avoid thinking that way.

"Energy" will rarely come by virtue of the dominant frequencies.


The energy will come from the performance, arrangement, beat, etc… there may be a lot of

high frequency material in an energetic section, but it will probably not be creating the energy.


You can have a tinkly high frequency piano section that is mellow… and a bass heavy section that is crazy and very energetic.




and regarding "verses" and "choruses"… that is 100% based on the song you write… not frequencies.

Putting frequencies aside…. I think generally speaking, in most of the electronic dance music I’ve heard, certain sections have more energy than others. I like to use those as guidelines as far as where determining which section gets to be a “verse” or a “chorus”. It just so happens that In the music I listen to generally speaking there is an “increase” in highs during those sections. Also… in pretty much EVERY track I’ve “analyzed” whether it’s a rock or pop or EDM song I’ve noticed that the sections with the most “highs” have the most energy at least to my taste and the dance floors taste. (I DJ as well and have watched the reaction of the crowd to different sections”


When you say its 100% based on the song you write I just cannot agree with this. I’ve heard the exact same “notes” or “song” played with a different arrangement and the energy of the track suddenly takes a 360. This is EXTREMELY apparent especially in remixes. Even though the “song” is the same (and by song I’m speaking strictly notes) The “energy” of the track can be COMPLETELY different.

in addition to it being only one bar, it sounds 100% quantized, unnatural and the sounds are not very good.

and the flip side of the quantization issue… to be unquantized or less quantized, you need to be able to play with some feeling and rhythm… an unquantized poor performance is no better.


and it needs dynamics to give it a sense of excitement and to remain interesting to a listener.




4 bars? how about you just play the drums over the course of the song building as you go? have some loop as a base with room to play around on top.

Fair enough… I don’t remember If I hard quantized the drums. I’m going to try adding a little bit of “humanization” on to them in order to make them sound less robotic and see if makes them sound any better.

I don't say the strings should be one note.

I said it sounds like you are playing some 3 note chords and a 1 note "bass" line all with the same generic "string section" patch.


It sounds like you "happen to be playing some chords using a string sound" rather than "playing a string part".


And, it is not constructed like a string part.

That’s pretty much the same thing that band coach said. How exactly are string parts constructed then? I have the melody in the top violin, harmony on the inner voices and the root in the cello. I thought generally this how string harmonies are constructed. If there’s something that I’m just not getting then PLEASE tell me. I know you say there’s only so much you can say to help someone progress but if you don’t tell me then I’m most likely NOT going to figure it out at least for another year. This is more of a request/favor I’m asking.

The fact is, anything less that "great" IS "terrible"… it either sounds like a "real song" or it doesn't.

I STRONGLY disagree with the first part of this. I’m a perfectionist as well but there’s definitely an “in between” great and terrible. Terrible would be the music that I was making when I first started producing. Now I’m still “terrible” but to a lesser extent. There’s no jumping from 1 to 100. It’s a slow and steady increase.


I see what you’re saying though. It either sounds like a “real song” or it doesn’t. Some songs though sound CLOSER to a real song than others.

You didn't build the synth… you didn't make the sounds (at least I don't think you did since they sound like generic presets)...

Or really analyze the songs you like and REALLY listen to the sounds and HEAR what it is that is making those sounds "good".

I didn’t build the sounds no but I did program them which can have a lot to do with whether or not they sound “real/good” or not. Although… I did make the sounds. I don’t use presets at all… They make things more complicated than they need to. The majority of sounds I’ve heard are just simple variations of either a saw or a square wave. (With the minor exception of the sine wave.) It’s a very generic sound that I programmed yes. A saw in two octaves with a little bit of reverb.

Guitar chords structure is VERY different from string chord structure.

I was referring to techniques not chord structure. By technique I mean “vibrato” “staccato” “left hand fingerings” “legato”. The violin is tuned in 5th’s while the guitar is tuned in 4ths. Of course the chord structure is going to be different at least in regards to fingering.

"advisable for there to be…"?--- sounds like a "rule"… there are no "rules" (unless you are talking about some specific academic

rule based form of music, which we are not)… just make it sound good.

I would prefer “guideline” instead of “rule”. I’m sure you’re familiar with the term “voice leading”.

the "line between mixing and sound design" has nothing to do with this discussion...

It DOES have to do with this discussion. When you’re “designing” a sound you’re dealing with “EQ” “Reverb” “Delay” “Stereo” “Chorus”. ESPECIALLY when it comes to layering instruments in which the careful EQing of each sound is crucial in order to blend the sounds together.

You just need good sounds.

All "supersaws" are not the same.


All EQ's are not the same.


All reverbs are not the same.



You can have 50 synths with basic "supersaw" patches and they will all sound different.

I agree. I’ll go searching for different sounds and see what I can find.

There is only so much a person can tell you to help you to improve.

What I said in my previous post still holds true… you need to just keep doing it and getting better…. you need to not just "listen", but really "HEAR" the sounds and production of the artists you are trying to emulate.


I can't pick out the sounds for you or play the parts for you… you just need to figure that out and there is no way to tell you what a "good" sound is…. know what

i mean?

I plan to keep on doing it and to keep on getting better. It’s not a short road by any means… I’ve only been doing this not to seriously for maybe 2 years or so. I’m still learning as I go

Don't be impatient.

This stuff takes years and years of practice.

Give me a few more years and I’m sure something will click.

 

[dannydawiz]

I haven't read the other responses but the ONLY thing I think your mix is lacking, would be the pumping between your synth track and the kick drum. Honestly the rest of the mix is fine (nicely done actually), as well as the sequencing & production.

Set up a side chain compression or side chain ducking so that every time the kick hits- the synth drops 3-6 dB. MAKE SURE THE ATTACK AND RELEASE TIMES ARE IN SYNC WITH THE BPM OF THE TRACK. DOOOOONT SKIP THAT, ITS FREAKING EVERYTHING!!!

Seriously, timing alone accounts for sooooo much of the perceived enjoyment of a song. Just have the synth track duck IN TIME!! with the kick and you have that sound you're looking for.

Best of luck!

Thank you. Did you listen to the updated version of my mix or the original? I'll experiment with sidechaining as soon as I get the chance.

 

[dvyce]

Putting frequencies aside…. I think generally speaking, in most of the electronic dance music I’ve heard, certain sections have more energy than others. I like to use those as guidelines as far as where determining which section gets to be a “verse” or a “chorus”. It just so happens that In the music I listen to generally speaking there is an “increase” in highs during those sections. Also… in pretty much EVERY track I’ve “analyzed” whether it’s a rock or pop or EDM song I’ve noticed that the sections with the most “highs” have the most energy at least to my taste and the dance floors taste. (I DJ as well and have watched the reaction of the crowd to different sections”


When you say its 100% based on the song you write I just cannot agree with this. I’ve heard the exact same “notes” or “song” played with a different arrangement and the energy of the track suddenly takes a 360. This is EXTREMELY apparent especially in remixes. Even though the “song” is the same (and by song I’m speaking strictly notes) The “energy” of the track can be COMPLETELY different.

I did not say the more energetic parts you are hearing do not have more highs.

I also did not say that a "chorus" couldn't have more highs.

What I said is that it is not by virtue of more highs being present that a section becomes a "verse" or "chorus".

The writing defines the "verse" and "chorus"… a producer may choose to put more highs in a "chorus"…

…but the highs are not what makes it a chorus.

I am not saying that an energetic section can not be full of high frequencies or that a mellow section can't be all low end.

Thinking like that is severely limiting your song making.

What I am saying is that the opposite can just as easily be true.

Fair enough… I don’t remember If I hard quantized the drums. I’m going to try adding a little bit of “humanization” on to them in order to make them sound less robotic and see if makes them sound any better.


That’s pretty mch the same thing that band coach said. How exactly are string parts constructed then? I have the melody in the top violin, harmony on the inner voices and the root in the cello. I thought generally this how string harmonies are constructed. If there’s something that I’m just not getting then PLEASE tell me. I know you say there’s only so much you can say to help someone progress but if you don’t tell me then I’m most likely NOT going to figure it out at least for another year. This is more of a request/favor I’m asking.

This is not really the place to give a lesson on string arrangements and the difference between intervals that sound "right" in guitar chords vs intervals that sound "right" in string sections.

I'm sure there if you search online for lessons on orchestral arrangements, you'll find plenty of information.

(or band coach may want to elaborate)

I STRONGLY disagree with the first part of this. I’m a perfectionist as well but there’s definitely an “in between” great and terrible. Terrible would be the music that I was making when I first started producing. Now I’m still “terrible” but to a lesser extent. There’s no jumping from 1 to 100. It’s a slow and steady increase.


I see what you’re saying though. It either sounds like a “real song” or it doesn’t. Some songs though sound CLOSER to a real song than others.

What I mean is...

While there are different degrees of quality, you don't get a "letter grade" in the music biz… it is "pass/fail".

either is is of "record quality" or it is not.

If it is "very good for an amateur but not quite at the level of a commercial release", then it may as well be horrible because it isn't getting on the record… do you know what i mean?

While it is good as an indicator of your progress, it doesn't mean much in the real world outside of that.

I didn’t build the sounds no but I did program them which can have a lot to do with whether or not they sound “real/good” or not. Although… I did make the sounds. I don’t use presets at all… They make things more complicated than they need to. The majority of sounds I’ve heard are just simple variations of either a saw or a square wave. (With the minor exception of the sine wave.) It’s a very generic sound that I programmed yes. A saw in two octaves with a little bit of reverb.

If I remember correctly, there are piano, orchestral drums, strings, a bell… those are the sounds I was talking about as being not so great… Those sound like mediocre presets.



The synth chord sound at the end is fine.

I was referring to techniques not chord structure. By technique I mean “vibrato” “staccato” “left hand fingerings” “legato”. The violin is tuned in 5th’s while the guitar is tuned in 4ths. Of course the chord structure is going to be different at least in regards to fingering.




I would prefer “guideline” instead of “rule”. I’m sure you’re familiar with the term “voice leading”.

You are talking about EDM… breaking the "rules" is a good thing.

Don't get hung up on it.

But my overall point was that your string parts sounded like they were played with three fingers on a keyboard (and an added single note bas part) using one "string section" sound rather than arranging it like an actual string section.

It DOES have to do with this discussion. When you’re “designing” a sound you’re dealing with “EQ” “Reverb” “Delay” “Stereo” “Chorus”. ESPECIALLY when it comes to layering instruments in which the careful EQing of each sound is crucial in order to blend the sounds together.

It does not have anything to do with this discussion.

Just because you use the same tools that are used in "mixing" does not mean you are "mixing" when you create a sound.

You still need to mix your track… that is a completely separate issue from designing sounds.

And the "mix" is not even really your issue with your track we are discussing.


When you put ketchup on your french fries, it does not mean you are "cooking".

I agree. I’ll go searching for different sounds and see what I can find.


I plan to keep on doing it and to keep on getting better. It’s not a short road by any means… I’ve only been doing this not to seriously for maybe 2 years or so. I’m still learning as I go


Give me a few more years and I’m sure something will click.

yeah, just keep at it...

it is good that you are getting better and that you can see your progress and your flaws.

I am not saying YOU are terrible at making music… you've got something there and you just need to work on your craft.

That is normal.

It takes time to learn.

You will write a lot of songs that you just throw away as practice on your way to becoming a hit making genius!

 

[dannydawiz]

I appreciate the time that you take out of your day to write these posts dvyce.

In regards to what makes a verse a "verse" and a chorus a "chorus" what do you think it is then if not the increase energy in the chorus instead of being in the verse? I've always been somewhat indecisive about whether its the "lyrics" that make the chorus or the "music" that makes the chorus.

You say that it's the writing that makes the verse or the chorus but for people with overly analytical minds that doesn't tell me anything... writing can refer to the composition (notes) instrumentation, sound design, arrangement... Etc... Could you at least be a bit more specific?

If the opposite can just as easily be true then it would be helpful if you could show me some songs in which the chorus had less highs than the verse. I would be 100% willing to convert my stance on the subject to your own because I feel like were on to something here and like you said I can see how this could be severely limiting my song making.

I'll try to listen to more string arrangements and do midi mockups of those arrangements in order to "fine tune" the tone of the string section and really nail it and find similarities in the voicings.

I understand what you're saying in regards to there not really being a letter grade in the music business. It's either commercial quality or not yes.

In regards to the samples I'm using... Even the piano and the bell you find to be of a poor quality? Great. Now I have even more to figure out. I mean... It's a bell sound... with one note.

The string parts were made using 4 notes actually. Not that it will actually make a difference...