On Monday 01 May 2006 10:03, BJaY was like:
> I don't think I explained it very well. The idea is to have no mastering
> (or minimal mastering - after this process) but to create a balanced mix by
> changing the arrangement.
I'm a fan of minimal mixing. Without knowledge of the specific software you
are discussing, I would say that it is always my preference to arrange and
record in such a way as the piece virtually mixes itself if possible. The
less ducking/diving/eqing the better. To my ears this gives all the
instruments a level platform. Sometimes you have to accept that a certain
phrase either needs tweaking or won't be heard, that decision has to be made
based on the musical relevance of the phrase. Learning to accept the way the
piece turned out in the moment can be very liberating. I think it probably is
a good general rule to put more energy into pre-production rather than post.
It is also an ideal of mine to go with first takes, the reality is usually the
third, beyond that I would start questioning my approach. It's a good
exercise to make a piece entirely on first takes, rough mix it minimally and
have done with it. Of course you may not consider the results releasable
unless your name is Mark Kramer. ;)
-- cheers, tim hall http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/timReceived on Wed May 3 12:15:04 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 03 2006 - 12:15:05 EEST