What I learned making commercial mixes

Status
Not open for further replies.
attilayavuzer

attilayavuzer

New member
I'm going to keep this brief(ish).
So arguably the biggest question producers have when they're learning is "How do I sound like ___ ?" or "How do I make my music sound professional?"
It's like the holy grail of every producer trying to make it and what I now realize was a trap I forced myself into for the last 7 or 8 years. I'm sure we can all relate to spending countless hours reading and watching tutorials only to be bummed out after realizing the track you're working on still doesn't measure up. Eventually I felt like a dog chasing my own tail, growing more and more frustrated with mixes and slowly falling out of love with why I started making music in the first place.
Basically this all leads to early this year, when I finally "broke through" sonically. I felt a huge weight lifted and became painfully aware of how misguided my efforts had been. I listen to all of the artists I obsessed over and no longer have a desire to sound like them. Perfectionism is a huge waste of time. All of the surgical eq cuts I'd do took away everything that gave my songs life. The biggest key that I've learned-and something that ALWAYS gets overlooked by producers-is this
Songwriting is everything.
Literally everything.
If the songwriting is inspired and strong, everything else always falls into place. Good songs are still good if the production sucks. When you have a good song, you don't ask "Does this need a pluck?" or "How should I fill out the percussion?" The transitions are already naturally seamless. You don't have to force an anemic intro or outro. It all just works. That one tom hit you battle over keeping in or not? Yeah, your listeners wouldn't even question if you removed the drums entirely. The "perfect" version you have in your head doesn't exist. Whatever you release, no matter what's missing, is the perfect version of that song.
In fact, now that I know how to make a pro mix, I find them increasingly boring. Loud, sloppy and over-distorted sound more genuine and desirable to me now. Music is just an emotional expression, and I've learned from my experience that it's not nice. Songwriting is a function of trying to make sense of your life and experiences through audio. Many of those experiences aren't clean; they're not fun. Life is messy. Let the emotion of the song come through. If it doesn't wind up sounding like one of the top 40 producers you look up to it has a better chance of finding an audience anyway. Get your levels right, master it and don't look back.
Now, I'm not here to denounce technique or mastery of engineering, but the truth is those skills will come in time. Understand fundamentally how each of your tools work and find your own way of using them. No truly great songwriter had success escape them because their mix wasn't good enough.
That's all I got for you.
 
I'm not an engineer or a good mixer at all, but one thing I learned is that sound selection in general will make your beat sound great without you having to do much. I just made a beat a couple days ago and I barely touched it. Just some panning, volume control, a little reverb and delay here and there....

Some of the sounds you used already come mixed, some drums already have compression and everything.
 
Good points made. I'm going to try to take it further. I do agree that the song is most important, so yes, that's really an essential piece of information you are sharing.

But, within a mix, the frequencies that each sound source produce by the sound source type, what is being played, the gear used etc., are over the course of the song playing creating an overall electromagnetic energy signature. It is this electromagnetic energy signature that has impact potential when it hits the overall electromagnetic energy signature of the listener. That is key. Therefore, this lands at these four key questions: What is an optimum electromagnetic energy signature, does a such exist? How do you achieve an optimum electromagnetic energy signature? Why is it an optimum electromagnetic energy signature? And why do we naturally try to produce towards an optimum electromagnetic energy signature?

These questions have answers that are true, that's what we are trying to discover, because when we align to that, it's a vault of great emotion and those emotions we want to gain access to!

My take on this is basically that it is the energy states present when producing - in all the gear both when the gear was produced and when it is now in use, the song, the energy state of the engineers, the producer, the artist, the band and all other known and unknown energy states present, that form the electromagnetic energy signature. Therefore, to really achieve the optimum electromagnetic energy signature, you kind of have to understand what lies behind those great energy states present when hit mixes are created. But this opens up a big world, because now all of a sudden we have to sort of understand various types of energy, what happens when those mix and so on. We definitely are just scratching on the surface, the song yes, but it's so much more than that.

This also raises a number of interesting follow up questions. For instance will listener A be impacted by song A equally when first consuming song B and C vs. listener A consuming song A when first consuming song C and B in that order. You see what I mean, it gets incredibly deep incredibly fast!
 
Last edited:
Please define (in simple, layman's language) "electromagnetic energy signature," in terms of music/audio, and in terms of one's "personal (listener's) electromagnetic energy signature."

No use trying to answer related questions, match, or achieve optimum if you don't know what it is you're working with in the first place...

GJ
 
Last edited:
rhythmgj said:
Please define (in simple, layman's language) "electromagnetic energy signature," in terms of music/audio, and in terms of one's "personal (listener's) electromagnetic energy signature."

No use trying to answer related questions, match, or achieve optimum if you don't know what it is you're working with in the first place...

GJ
Click to expand...

I understand it to work something like this: The listener has a signature frequency that is identifying it as unique in creation. It constantly vibrates at this frequency, but the power level at which it vibrates at this frequency is impacted by polarities in its context. So a great mix that has a great impact on a listener, has a certain polarity (opposite) distance that hence has a certain amplification potential of the true vibration of the listener, and hence this causes some amount of amplification of the signature frequency of the listener, this causes a great positive emotional release. I think that makes some sense to you although the terms might be confusing. The theory is basically that you want the listeners to discover more of who they truly are in creation, by consuming the song, because that then releases a great positive emotional release and hence why they want to play the song over and over, because they like it so much.

As I understand it you cannot have two identical signature frequencies of the same polarity (let's describe this as A+) in creation because then they would be precisely the same exist at the same place at the same time (they are hence now one), but it's possible when one of them is of the opposite polarity (let's describe this as A-), now they are not one, they are reflections of each other separated in creation. They can however merge, as I understand it that basically releases infinite amount of energy as the signature frequency is being amplified to infinity. You can then understand the signature frequency of a being as a particular unique color of a rainbow and the rainbow is total infinite love.
 
Last edited:
Honestly DarkRed-- It feels that your nuero-operant Chi is clouded by nano-particulate ionization within the personal sphere of relative nucleic analytics. Once again, relational spherical pneumatics seems to have caused bifurcation of the basic essences within the central nervous system of the listener as an individual, the coalescing social group, and the very multi-verse itself (selves). This effect is no more than a mere affect; constants of the Dalquest Curve state that an impact of such quasi-spatial nature must surely border on the inconsequential, yet simultaneously become the essence of the fantastical.

Sometimes it boggles the mind...

GJ
 
BTW-- Joan was quizzical, highly analytical.... But we all know what happened to her.

GJ
 
It's not only because of the song, it is more than anything about the particular emotional states involved in it all. (in this case "emotional" is used to put a human touch on it, it's "energy")
 
Last edited:
But supposing Listener A's frequency is closer to 5647677888799900004354323566, while Listener D (not taken into account in your examples) is spot-on at 899876544323213454677888.001-2234345543324. Is the differential between the two measured in Hz? mF? Terra-bytes? What of the choral angulisms caught in the network of projecting spirals? Will they factor into your example? Surely you must know that "The Song is Everything" is not a theory, it is an axiom that, while worn, has also proven to be a truism. Your electromagnetic energy signature vibratory amplification frequency argument is more of a hypothesis, at best, than a theory in the strict sense of the word. This makes it all the more important to have solid definition of terms, if you want to persuade your audience. For example, when discussing something as important (but often overlooked) as Risk Management, one might be tempted to fall into the trap of solipsism, in that the essence of the various vibratory essences can be summed-up thusly-- "When one is narrowly missing the mark, he is still as far away as one-thousand, thousand miles" (Lao Tzu). But in terms of Heisenburg's energy consumption theory (a _true_ theory, in this case), the song, the listener, the sum total of all listeners, the vibrating frequencies, the units of measure, even the very molecular, atomic, and even energy-loop basis of our very existence (whether in the physical realm, in cyber-space, or even in the realm of emotions and right-brained activity such as music consumption)... MUST be sublimated to the feelings and wants of the Id. This is a non-negotiable in that each and every individual instance of climactic energy vibration is in-and-of-itself, essentially its own tempero-spatial vortex. How do you account for that? You don't!!!! And THAT is why I'm having a hard time accepting your "theory." You have not done basic scholarly due diligence in regards to signal path, structural integrity, negative vs. positive space, any of it (none of it, actually).

It's difficult to take such an approach seriously. In fact, we've already used far too much bandwidth high-jacking the OP's actually salient and observable point. We are in danger of Maxwell's Silver Hammer insinuating itself into the situation with aplomb. Extreme caution is advised!

GJ
 
Last edited:
rhythmgj said:
But supposing Listener A's frequency is closer to 5647677888799900004354323566, while Listener D (not taken into account in your examples) is spot-on at 899876544323213454677888.001-2234345543324. Is the differential between the two measured in Hz? mF? Terra-bytes? What of the choral angulisms caught in the network of projecting spirals? Will they factor into your example? Surely you must know that "The Song is Everything" is not a theory, it is an axiom that, while worn, has also proven to be a truism. Your electromagnetic energy signature vibratory amplification frequency argument is more of a hypothesis, at best, than a theory in the strict sense of the word. This makes it all the more important to have solid definition of terms, if you want to persuade your audience. For example, when discussing something as important (but often overlooked) as Risk Management, one might be tempted to fall into the trap of solipsism, in that the essence of the various vibratory essences can be summed-up thusly-- "When one is narrowly missing the mark, he is still as far away as one-thousand, thousand miles" (Lao Tzu). But in terms of Heisenburg's energy consumption theory (a _true_ theory, in this case), the song, the listener, the sum total of all listeners, the vibrating frequencies, the units of measure, even the very molecular, atomic, and even energy-loop basis of our very existence (whether in the physical realm, in cyber-space, or even in the realm of emotions and right-brained activity such as music consumption)... MUST be sublimated to the feelings and wants of the Id. This is a non-negotiable in that each and every individual instance of climactic energy vibration is in-and-of-itself, essentially its own tempero-spatial vortex. How do you account for that? You don't!!!! And THAT is why I'm having a hard time accepting your "theory." You have not done basic scholarly due diligence in regards to signal path, structural integrity, negative vs. positive space, any of it (none of it, actually).

It's difficult to take such an approach seriously. In fact, we've already used far too much bandwidth high-jacking the OP's actually salient and observable point. We are in danger of Maxwell's Silver Hammer insinuating itself into the situation with aplomb. Extreme caution is advised!

GJ
Click to expand...

Some good points made here, I totally understand your perspective. It is difficult stuff I feel and I have to be in a "flow state" in order for this kind of information to be possible to share, therefore the sloppy terms, plus I have also limited English skills. It's one thing to know based on your perspective that it's not only the song, it's another thing to try to explain why that is based on this type of insight.

Maybe it can be simplified like this: It's not only because of the song, it is more than anything about the particular emotional states involved in it all. (in this case "emotional" is used to put a human touch on it, it's "energy")
 
Last edited:
The final question is: Can somebody readjust his/her frequency by using a vibrator plugged in? And should this be a vibrator made by human or by aliens?
 
Ah! Hai, moshikuwa, īe? Si o No? Es un situacion a la-- Muzukashī mondai.

I think, therefore there is reverb. Ich bein ein, Mellonviller. At least, that is the difference between particulate matter and pure energy hysterics. I think...

GJ
 
rhythmgj said:
Ah! Hai, moshikuwa, īe? Si o No? Es un situacion a la-- Muzukashī mondai.

I think, therefore there is reverb. Ich bein ein, Mellonviller. At least, that is the difference between particulate matter and pure energy hysterics. I think...

GJ
Click to expand...

Please read my last post.
 
Last edited:
Mad Phonetics said:
The final question is: Can somebody readjust his/her frequency by using a vibrator plugged in? And should this be a vibrator made by human or by aliens?
Click to expand...

Hehe. Well, believe it or not there are actually products out there that try to do that kind of stuff, some say it really works also. I haven't looked into that so much so I cannot comment that much.

But, theoretically in my view yes, an external electromagnetic energy field should when it has the right polarity relative to the target have the ability to amplify the signature frequency of a being. This I think can have all kinds of positive effects. But the answer to the second part of the question is probably the latter, with ET help at least the time to achieve a technology like this would be significantly faster. But that should not be an excuse, we should in my view collectively try to figure out all of this stuff, that would also take music to the next level in a major way...! Currently we are in the kinder garden mp3 land... And what I find is interesting is the fact that we are there and have been there for quite a long time now. The question is why. Why do not humans just advance beyond that in a much faster pace when it comes to music? Collectively we could achieve so much more, but there is something in the background blocking that from happening. I find that interesting.

I think that in the interaction with hardware and software during the music creation process, the tuning can actually amplify the signature frequency of the artist/producer/engineer and in that state the magic happens which then listeners feel great about.
 
Last edited:
At the risk of sounding repetitiously redundant-- "An ersatz pastiche by any other name is still Stan" (Otto Preminger). And at Stanley, we want to help you do things right (tm). So when we scream into the void trying to ascertain an answer to the seemingly eternal question "Is all of this simply meaningless drivel?," one cannot help but literally feel the vibrational frequency of time itself crawling inexorably to a grinding standstill, as we count the seconds, minutes, hours, days, and weeks spent idly discussing and dissecting minutiae that in the end has so very little to do with the topic at hand; so little, in fact, that it stretches the bounds of credulity. Behold the 21st Century, and the Triumph of the Subjective (c) & (tm) 2016, All Rights Reserved.

GJ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top