why should people listen to our music?

There are millions of very competent musicians and engineers in the world.

Many of them have staggering technical skills.

And many of the songs these technical wizards create aren't worth listening to, apart from being used as technical references. For lovers of music, these songs offer nothing compelling.

Much like all the "shred guitarists" who can play thousands of meaningless notes per minute, if we as producers try to distinguish ourselves by way of technical prowess we are heading down a dead end. Perhaps we can get work as an engineer or teacher, but it's unlikely our songs will resonate with the average listener.

On an individual level it's not ideal that we're now competing with a million other producers rather than a few thousand. It means, on average, more is required from us to separate our music from the millions of other songs which are created each year. In the end, the artists who have something meaningful to impart will find it easier to connect with listeners.

Production is important, but I believe that songwriting is more important than ever. (I'm trying to help out on the technical/production side with insidemixes - hopefully this will shortcut the path to great sound for a number of people, allowing them to focus their attention on their unique voice).

We are not average listeners, and we would do well to remember this. Average listeners like catchy melodies, lyrics, grooves, hooks. If we want to connect with them, we should spend much more time working on these skills relative to our engineering skills.

If you think you can't write catchy melodies, spend some time listening to catchy melodies. Hum along to them to get a feel for the note placements and intervals. Then spend some time coming up with new melodies - start with an empty head (heh) and let the notes come. Maybe it'll be simple, maybe it'll be complex. Happy, sad or some other mood. Maybe the melody will have some large intervals. Maybe some note bending. Whatever, get it happening in your head until it's ready to put into your sequencer in a rough form. Plenty of time to tidy it up later on.

Get ten melodies down. If you haven't written many melodies before, most of them will be fairly average and aren't worth pursuing. But perhaps one or two will have a bit more merit. It's much easier to gauge this the day after writing the melody down - it'll be much easier to sort good ideas from bad ones, and come up with improvements to the good ones.

Do this process often, learn what works and what doesn't, and you'll get to a point where you're writing very catchy melodies.

Of course, I don't mean to discount other learning aids - videos, lessons, books (such as "how music works"). These can be helpful for many of us.

The same process applies to writing great lyrics and to coming up with danceable grooves and memorable hooks.

At this point, where we have so many excellent tools at our disposal, where we have access to so much quality information relating to our art, we should be giving the world a larger selection of fantastic music than at any time in the past.

So let's keep at it!
Fabian

Learning from Great Songs

Whenever we listen to music we learn from it. This happens whether we're consciously aware of it or not. Some pieces of music won't appeal to us and (subconsciously) we'll have an awareness of why they don't appeal. Likewise with songs which we love as well as the many songs we neither openly love nor detest. We're always learning what works and what doesn't, from our perspective.

We may open up our sequencer and start with a blank slate, but our minds aren't blank slates. When it comes to crafting a pleasing mix, we'll be guided by the music we've listened to. If our guitars don't sound chunky enough, we only know that because we've heard nice chunky guitars. If our kick drum doesn't have enough impact, we recognize it because we've heard satisfying kick drums in songs we like the sound of.

Given that we're always learning, I'd recommend doing it consciously. If we hear a beautiful lush pad in a song, we shouldn't rely on serendipity to bring it forth in a year's time, when a similar pad may fit perfectly into our current song. Focus on the pad and try to describe it as fully as possible - how wide is it? Is it only represented in the mid range, or does it have decent low and/or high end as well? Is there any modulation - panning, filters, delay effects? How does it interact with the other sounds - are there particular other sounds which help to frame the pad and make it sound the way it does? The more detail we can use to describe what we're hearing, the better we'll be able to recreate and incorporate the sound into our own sonic palette.

This leads me to the main topic of this post. It's great to describe a sound in detail, but in my experience the next step is more important - actually attempting to recreate the sound. I've addressed the issue in some of my posts already regarding the "copying vs originality" aspect of this. In short, as I've already said, we're learning all the time whether we're doing so consciously or not. Recreating sounds won't lead to any less original music than starting with a blank slate. It will however give us more techniques to use when we're making music.

Here's how I go about recreating songs.

I like to build songs up from the foundation - the kick and bass. The first thing I do is look for sections in the song/ album where these are as exposed as possible. When I find a song which is a good candidate, I'll import it into my sequencer and adjust the project's tempo to the tempo of the song. Some sequencers (such as Ableton Live) do this automatically, but mine doesn't, so I just loop a four bar section and adjust the tempo until the section loops cleanly.

Then I set the loop markers so a two bar section with a decently exposed kick drum is looping. The first bar plays the original audio, the second bar is silent (either via volume automation or simply cutting the original audio and moving the section after the first bar out of range of the loop). Then I go through my kick samples, in whichever sample library is closest to the style of sample I'm looking for. I'll hear four of the original kick, then four of the kick I'm previewing. I make note of kicks which sound close to the attack transient, kicks which sound close to the body and kicks which sound close overall. It's great when I find a kick which is close on its own (even better when I find the exact kick the original artist used!), but I have no problems splicing together a great sounding kick using the attack portion of one and the body of another. The thing to keep in mind when cutting out the parts of each kick that aren't required is to enable the "snap to zero crossing" option. Otherwise the audio will pop every time it plays the uncleanly spliced kick. Over the course of a song that's a heap of pops! Once I've gone through my kick library I may have noted down 20 kicks. I'll go through these again and keep narrowing it down until I find the closest one(s).

Once I have a kick which is pretty close I compare it to the original by running a frequency analyzer over both channels and seeing what differences that shows up. Obviously if the original version has other sounds playing I make allowances for these. I'll make a few EQ adjustments to get my kick even closer to the original.

Now that I have a decent version of the original kick it will be easier to hear and audition the other sounds relative to it. Ideally every sound would be isolated at some point during the song/album. When that doesn't happen it's helpful to have a very similar kick sound and listen to where the other sounds are sitting relative to it - level-wise, frequency-wise, their stereo width, panning and so on. Sometimes I'll look at a frequency analyzer, in which case it's definitely handy having a similar kick so I can focus on what the other sound is adding, rather than trying to judge which frequencies belong to the kick and which to the other sounds.

Kicks are often dry, mono and in the middle, whereas other sounds are more likely to be further processed. I note the reverb and delay that have been added to sounds, as well as any other treatment and do my best to replicate these.

After the kick I'll either proceed to the hihat and snare, or the bass. It depends on which element is most exposed. In this example I'll do the bass first.

I have a number of samplers and synthesizers I'm reasonably familiar with, so I'll generally know which one to turn to for a sound similar to the original bass sound. As before, I loop a section where the bass is exposed (if available), or where it's predominantly the kick and bass playing. I'll work out the notes the bass is playing and create a MIDI version to send to my sound source. Then I repeat the sound selection process - going through bass sounds, making notes of the sounds which are closest to the original, modifying parameters to push the sound closer to the original. Again, I may have noted down 10 to 20 sounds, which I'll progressively narrow down to the one I'll use.

The hihat and snare/clap are generally quite straightforward. Sometimes I'll adjust the pitch or length of a sample but generally I'll be content with something which fulfills the same role as the original sample rather than seeking an exact match.

I find a lot of mid/ higher bass sounds in trance very difficult to recreate. They often have filter modulation, phasers, delays or a myriad of other effects applied to them. Often this will be where I have to concede defeat for the time being. On a few occasions I've inserted a different mid bass sound which essentially fulfills the same function, which resulted in a very solid foundation to build pad and lead sounds onto for my future original productions.

I won't go into detail for the other sounds, since the same principles apply. I have a number of guitar amp emulators when I'm trying to match heavy guitar sounds in metal songs. I look for a similar sounding preset and work from there. For high percussive loops I choose a similar style of loop rather than trying to match it perfectly. For pad and lead sounds I listen to the relationship between them and the solid foundation I've already created. Essentially, the more songs I recreate, the better I'm able to hear small differences in sounds. Over time, when selecting sounds, I'm eliminating more of them before I note them down as candidates. Hopefully one day I'll reach a point where I can just go through and choose the best sound without making any notes. More experience with my sample libraries will help, as would an enhanced knowledge of synthesis.

To sum up, our music libraries are the best learning resource we have. If we take the time to study them and to experience their creation directly (to the best of our ability), we'll make tremendous progress. Each song is a new experience, which will stretch us and make us grow. Great masters of classical music transcribed music of the composers they admired in order to achieve this direct experience with the music they loved. I heartily encourage the practice.

I hope you've found this useful, keep making great music!

Fabian

Seeing the Big Picture

Often we get caught up in the little details. Which is okay, since all the little details make a large difference to the final song.

Now and then, however, we need to step back and see where we're headed. If we finish one song and dive straight into the next and rarely take the time to reflect on our long-term goals and direction, we may lead ourselves into a creative rut. We may compose, produce and mix our songs in habitual ways, not growing as much as we could. We may get bored and disillusioned with the music we make, feeling that our last five songs were just minor variations on the same theme.

We may have lost touch with musical trends; we shouldn't follow trends for the sake of trying to be successful - if the trend doesn't naturally excite us then we're not going to be able to create exciting music in that trend. Being aware of trends can be helpful even if they don't excite us overall. Perhaps among the new sounds we don't like there's also a trend towards a drier sound (that is, less reverb), which we may see as appealing.

Seeing the big picture with regard to which of our songs are strong enough to warrant taking them through to completion involves leaving some time between the original composition and the subsequent production. I've read interviews with people who have worked on classic albums, where each of the eight to twelve songs are very strong. The artists/ bands would have up to 80 songs to choose from when they started recording the album. Not every song was developed past an initial draft. We can learn from this - if we want to create one or two very strong songs, we should compose ten to twenty rough ideas before deciding which ones to take through to the next step. This saves an incredible amount of time compared with taking every single idea through to completion.

Seeing the big picture with regard to learning about and working on aspects of our art - songwriting, production, engineering - means we may not finish any songs for a while. However, it also means that every single song from then on will sound better (well, if we have learned and practiced effectively). If we're struggling to make our bass sound good in our mixes it will make a big difference to put aside our current song and spend a week or two focusing purely on bass sounds.

I've done this a number of times and improved a lot as a result. I once put together around 100 combinations of kick drum and bass sounds. I went through all my synthesizers and samplers and found appealing bass sounds, then matched them with kick sounds which complemented them. A large number of the 100 attempts were rubbish. But 20 sounded quite good and five sounded fantastic, providing me with solid foundations to build five of my next songs onto. I may not have created any songs for a couple of weeks, but I had a lot more experience with my sound sources and putting these sounds together. Vastly preferable to working on and finishing a song with a kick and bass combination which may have fallen around position 30 of the 100 and despairing that the song doesn't sound great overall!

This approach can be applied to any aspect we wish to improve - writing melodies, creating chord progressions, improving our arrangements and song flow, finding better ways to group sounds, finding ways to make better use of our send effects and a thousand other things. If we listen to enough great music we'll have a good feeling for where we need to improve.

Touching again on sound sources - seeing the big picture means getting to fully understand and appreciate the sounds each of our instruments, samplers, drum machines, synthesizers and so on can give us. Each instrument has a range of sounds it can produce - there is no synthesizer which can produce the sound of every other instrument. As in the previous paragraph, this happens largely through working with the instrument, using it in a large number of productions/ practice sessions, experiencing how the sounds fit together with the other sound sources at our disposal. It takes time to understand and get the most out of an instrument. New sound sources can be inspiring and very useful, but if we constantly look to the new to provide us with "amazing sounds" we will struggle with achieving solid, well-produced songs.

As always, I hope some of you have found this useful. It's very satisfying to take a step back and appreciate how far we've come and how much potential we have to create even better music in the future!

Fabian

Musically Obsolete

I recently read an article about the death of rock music. Sure, many people may have said that over the years, but the numbers quoted in the article seemed pretty compelling - rock music is rapidly disappearing from the charts. Maybe there's only so many new ways you can use a drum kit, a bass, one or two guitars and a vocalist. After hearing a thousand songs, there aren't many fundamentally different chord progressions or rhythms or drum sounds.

The same would be true for most genres. After the pioneers have come in and created a fresh sound, and the second wave of artists have pushed the boundaries and made the style as popular as it's ever going to be (I'm simplifying and generalizing here), there isn't that much further for the style to go. Every style eventually makes way for the next.

How we approach change is for each of us to decide. If we've built up a lot of experience in a particular style, we may be loath to move on to something new (though hopefully most of our experience can be readily adapted to the new sounds we're working with). A lot of people will say that we should make the music we love, and not worry about genre definitions. There is some truth to that, and hopefully most of the time we're working on music we enjoy. But, as in other areas of life, it's good to be flexible about the genres we work in. How much we want to specialize and excel in one particular style is up to each of us. Maybe the audience size is of little importance to us. In any case, the internet makes it easier to reach a widely scattered niche audience. Or maybe audience size is very important, and we'd like to have a lot of people enjoying our work, meaning we invest a lot of time in listening to what's popular and seek inspiration there. This isn't necessarily selling out - at any point in time there are several popular genres, and it'd be unfortunate if none of them appealed to us.

It can be disheartening to realize that we're working in a style which is on the way down (if not yet out). One way to combat this, even if there's not much room to push the genre on a production level, is to write great songs. A really catchy melody or hook over a strong, effective chord progression will connect with people (and may lead to the song being covered in more popular styles in the decades to come). A great melody doesn't seem to go out of style. So, a good question for those of us working in more marginal styles would be "is this a really good song I'm working on? If I strip away all the production and it was played by someone on a piano or a guitar or some other instrument, is it a really good song?" If not, maybe we're creating fantastically produced filler, destined to sink without a trace.

Keep making great music!
Fabian

Getting Your Work Flowing

Today I'm focusing on work flow – the things I've learned and incorporated over the years to make the process of creating and finishing songs as efficient as possible.

The main difference between what I do now and what I used to do lies in my mindset. I used to open up my sequencer with a “let's be creative”, or “let's see what happens” mindset. It was quite enjoyable, experimenting and playing around with different sounds, and no doubt built experience in what works and what doesn't (though this learning process probably isn't optimal, in terms of the time spent). I don't do that any more. Now I have a clear goal when I'm in the studio. I know what I want to get out of the session – whether it be composing a melody, building up a mix, adding finishing touches or experimenting and playing around with different bass sounds (yes, I still do it, but now I'm aware that's what I'll be doing when I start the session!)

Something I have made extensive use of during the years are production templates. These are constantly changing – if I find I'm using a certain limiter more and more, at some point I'll modify my template so the limiter is ready to use without me needing to load it in.

Some people are against using templates, claiming they will lead to “cookie cutter songs” - every song which uses the template will sound pretty much the same. To a degree, they're correct, though it depends on how broadly you interpret the expression “pretty much”. I think “pretty much” could well apply to songs by people who don't use templates, unless they change all their tools and learn a new style of mixing between each song. However, if we are using a template and there are certain settings applied when it is loaded up, and we don't look at these settings during our current song to make sure that these settings are meaningful, we do run the risk of coloring our sound in a particular way, which the song may not require. And if we're using a template where actual sounds are loaded in – say, a kick drum – then this will lead extremely quickly to “cookie cutter” territory. This could be okay when working on an album, where a consistent foundation is desired, but could otherwise lead to stagnation. It will not provide experience in mixing a broad range of sounds.

Templates are useful when they contain tools and routings which we will use 95 times out of 100 anyway. Manually setting these up and loading these in those 95 times is quite likely to slow us down and kill our flow when we'd rather just be getting on with making music!

There are many effective ways to configure templates. As with music, there's no “one size fits all”. I'll go through my current template, maybe you'll pick up on some things to try.

I have a number of audio channels set up, ready for instruments which will invariably find their way into a trance song – a kick drum, a hihat, a clap/snare, a crash, a “special fx” channel, low and high basses, a couple of leads and a couple of pads. I have EQs on a number of individual channels, which are initially turned off. A couple of other processors are on some of the channels – processors which color or thicken up sounds. Once again, these start in the “off” position. It's handy to be able to simply turn them on and start tweaking if I feel a given sound will benefit from the treatment. The instrument levels are set at nominal starting positions, rather than leaving all the faders at 0 dB. The faders won't stay in these positions (I'm not a believer in “my kick drum must be at -8 dB” - it totally depends on the sound of the kick drum and the other instruments around it). The nominal level settings simply ensure that sounds come into the mix at ridiculous levels when I put them in.

I also have a number of groups set up, which the various instruments are routed into. The groups I currently use are: Kick/Bass, Synths, Drums, Loops and Pads. Some of these have highpass filters set up at nominal frequencies – a decent starting point which I can refine when the sounds come into the mix. There are various EQs and compressors which are ready to be turned on, including sidechained compressors – I have a MIDI triggered sidechain input channel set up, ready to push other sounds out of the way of the kick drum. Using groups makes it easy to make broad adjustments to levels and EQ, rather than individually adjusting a number of channels.

I have four send channels ready to go – two delays (one shorter, one longer) and two reverbs (a small room and a large hall). Send channels make it easy to add some sonic interest to sounds, and sending a few sounds through the same send channel at various points in a song gives the song greater cohesion. Sending a number of sounds into the same main reverb ensures they all sound like they're playing in the same space. I have to admit, I rarely change the delay times on my short and long delays – this is one area where my template is leading into “cookie cutter-ness”.

These groups and sends are then routed into a master channel, which contains a number of processors: a compressor with very restrained settings, an EQ (initially turned off) and finally a limiter (which starts off producing zero gain).

Well, that's my template. It allows me to get into the process of making music incredibly quickly. I'll now move onto my broad method of creating a trance song, from start to finish. The actual process will always differ in some ways (it's hard to fully predict the creative process), but this method works for me currently.

A song starts with the song – I generally have separate composition sessions where I come up with melodies, chords and basslines. Most often the sounds I use are sounds which get my creative juices flowing, and don't end up in the final version of the song. So, I have the main melodic elements ready to go when I start building up a production. From here, I'll start with either the melody, finding a sound which brings it to life, then build a suitable drum and bass foundation to go with it, or I'll start with the drum and bass foundation. Around half the time I'll build up the foundation from nothing, the other half I'll dip into my treasure trove of kick and bass foundations, usually opting for a setup I haven't used before. These kick and bass foundations usually arise out of sessions where I try to recreate other people's songs. Even when I don't get that close to the original, I'll still often end up with a great set of sounds to use in a future production.

I get the main elements in place – it is essential that the kick and bass lock together seamlessly. A strong foundation makes the rest of the mixing process much easier – it practically all falls into place, having a solid reference point to build on. If I start with the lead, then the kick is chosen while the lead is playing, then the bass (and bass pattern) is chosen while both the kick and lead are playing. After the first sound, none of the sounds are auditioned in isolation. Sounds in isolation have no meaning.

At this point, if I didn't start with the lead, I'll add it now. I'll generally have a feel for the type of sound I'm looking for, and reach into one of my synthesizers or samplers. Once I find and tweak my main sound I'll generally layer it with another sound – if my main sound is direct and centered, maybe I'll layer it with a wider, more washed out sound to lushen things up. Or I'll layer a fuller sound with a thinner sound.

Then I'll add the other drum sounds – clap/snare, hihat, crash, loops. I'll take my time going through my sample libraries. I'm looking for sounds which:

sound different to what I've used before

come through clearly when all the other sounds are playing

sound like they belong with the kick (and bass), during the intro and outro of the song.

I'll often apply a stereo enhancer to loops, and have them out wide while the main drum elements are in the centre.

After that I'll add a pad – lately I've been using just the one. Again, I'm looking for something which sits nicely in the mix, but also sounds quite nice on it's own, if it happens to be isolated at some point in the song.

I'll perform some preliminary processing to get things sounding decent – adjusting highpass filters on sounds and groups, to leave the low end open for the kick and bass. I'll often add a doubler/ unison effect to a lead sound to thicken it up.

At this point I like to get the mix sounding as “finished” as possible. I turn on the speakers and check out where the bass is sitting (I do the vast majority of my mixing in headphones). Then I export the main sequence as it currently stands, and run it through a frequency analyzer, which I then export and bring into a program I've set up where I can compare my song to a ballpark of other great sounding songs in my style. This tells me where my overall level is at, and where my frequency balance is at, relative to the ballpark. This lets me know if any levels are unbalanced, or there are resonant frequencies in some instruments. I make level adjustments and repeat the process three or four times, after which the mix usually sounds “finished”. Quite often I end the session at this point, to get some distance from the mix. The next day I'll be able to listen and evaluate it more objectively before deciding to turn the main sequence into a complete song. Some songs get shelved for a while at this point, if I don't think they're strong enough in their present form.

When I've decided to turn the main sequence into a full trance song, I get away from the computer and imagine the overall journey, the flow of the song. What will happen during the intro? When will instruments come in, how will they come in? How will the main melody be introduced? Suddenly, all at once, or gradually evolving from a pared back version? I write down how I imagine the journey to go. Then I go back to my sequencer and write in a guide track (I currently use Cubase. Not every sequencer may have this, a text track where you can specify the various sections of a song). I write in where instruments come in or drop out, where levels or filters should be automated, and so on. This is very handy for keeping the overall song in mind when working on sections.

Then I record all the instruments. I use a number of hardware synths for a lot of my sounds, so here is where I write in all the notes and MIDI automation to control the various synth parameters (resonant lowpass filters feature heavily in trance). Once I'm happy with all the notes and automation I record the incoming audio, then that track is "locked in". I proceed in this way through all the sounds I'm bringing in from external sound sources. I really enjoy committing to sounds and finishing songs. In my early years of mixing I was using only software synths and I'd leave my sound choices wide open right up until a song was finished - I'd find myself still agonizing over whether my lead sound was good enough, well after choosing the original sound. I have a better selection of sound choices these days (this is for me personally - I don't buy into "better" and "worse" sound sources per se), and I find it so much easier to commit to sounds early and get on with the process of finishing the song.

Once all the sounds have been recorded I get my drum programming in place - where they have fills or drops leading into transitions, where levels, filters or other parameters can be automated to heighten the effect of certain sections. Often I extend this to other instruments as well - maybe a few bass notes can be cut out heading into a transition as well. I don't feel I need to stick with exactly what has been recorded if a bit of creative editing at transition points will work well. I also automate send effects - for example, the feedback control on a delay, or maybe the overall volume of a reverb (rising up, or even having the reverb cut out briefly for effect). I'm aiming to get as much of the flow in place from the main sounds before adding any other effects.

Then, when I do get around to placing the special effects sounds, they're the icing on the cake rather than trying to carry a lot of the flow by themselves. I look for a good selection of uplifters, downlifters, crashes and other effects as desired. I look for a decent range, and see if I can use them two or three times - more than this and they can sound very overused (especially if they're quite distinctive), less than this and it can take away from the overall integrity of the song - it sounds like I've pulled out all my special effects and dropped them in all over the place.

Then the song is done. I'll export it as a WAV file and listen to it now and then over the next few days, making notes for adjustments. After a few days I'll try out all the adjustments I've noted and re-export the song. Then I like to let some time pass before hearing it again, to come back to it with fresh ears. Usually at this point I don't pick up anything which can be further improved (maybe after another 6 to 12 months of experience I'd be able to improve it).

I hope you've enjoyed reading about my work flow - feel free to ask me some questions!

Keep making great music!

Fabian

Listening Techniques

Listening is the most important skill we use when working on music. Being able to hear what's happening to all of the instruments and sounds in our mixes, as well as being able to hear the mix in it's entirety, is essential in order to create songs which sound excellent. Good technology will help (high quality speakers, headphones, a high quality sound card), but the most important element is experience – with practice, your ears will develop and you'll be able to make many more fine distinctions than you were able to when you started out. Through experience, you'll sense when a bass or pad is boomy, when a hihat needs to have it's high end pulled back slightly with a shelving EQ, when the kick drum needs to be pulled down just a fraction to sit better in the mix.

There are good listening programs around. I've seen a few book/CD combinations, which take you through a variety of exercises, training you to recognize certain frequency bands, types of distortion and so on. These can be very helpful for some people. I went through one and perhaps I got something out of it – it's hard to separate all the different lessons I've learned through the years and quantify how much each contributed to my understanding. However, my feeling is that the many years of actually mixing audio is by far the biggest factor in my improved sound. I've mixed an enormous number of kick drums in my time, in a wide variety of contexts, and have made an enormous number of mistakes. By now I know a lot about what not to do! These days, experience saves me a lot of time, because I don't stumble down as many dark alleys as I used to.

Having established that the best way to get better at listening is through a lot of experience, how do I make this article at all useful to newcomers to mixing? Well, there are a number of ways you can catch imbalances or bad sound combinations in your songs via creative listening techniques.

A really good technique is listening very quietly, in mono. I use a stereo imager plugin on the master channel for this. It allows me to set a stereo width of zero, so the signal is straight up the centre, and also has a level control, which I turn way down. Most of the time this plugin is bypassed, but it's very easy to do a quick mix check by turning it on. This combination is helpful for two reasons – in well mixed songs, the sounds come through clearly even at very low levels. When you're working at high levels, it's easy to think the bass is prominent enough. But often the bass can disappear entirely at low levels, since it doesn't have enough midrange content. The same is true for other instruments – a mix that is well balanced at low levels will sound even better when you turn the volume up. So turn it right down, listen and take notes – do any instruments get lost in the mix? Then listen out for instruments which seem to be sticking out more than they should – maybe you'll notice a bright hihat that's cutting through rather harshly, that will still come through fine if you drop it a couple of dBs. The other reason the quiet mono combination is helpful is that by listening in mono you'll firstly be able to tell whether any instruments disappear or drop considerably in volume due to phase cancellation (because inappropriate stereo treatments have been applied to the instruments) and secondly you'll get a better feel for the relative volumes, without the distraction of having some sounds out at the sides, some in the centre, some narrow, some wide. A lot of venues play music in mono, so it's good to have some idea how your song will play under these conditions (unless you're adamant your music will never be played in venues).

Another technique which is along the lines of the “listening quietly” technique is to use high and low pass filters to cut out low and high frequencies, leaving just the midrange. The midrange is the key to a great sounding mix. Some systems won't reproduce a range as wide as you're working with. The reason this technique is similar to listening quietly is that both techniques bring the midrange to greater prominence. Human hearing isn't linear, certain frequencies are perceived as louder than others when played at the same volume (the human ear can hear very well at the frequencies associated with human speech). At low levels, the low and high end of the frequency spectrum drop off considerably. The louder the volume is pushed up, the more linear our response to sounds becomes.

A technique I've found useful is the “morning after” listening test. I usually combine this with listening quietly (though not necessarily in mono). This just involves playing the song after not having heard it for a good chunk of time, and noting which instruments are the most noticeable. I've often pulled a few faders back a touch the next morning after this listening test, or removed some frequency content from a sound which was sticking out where it shouldn't.

A technique I used to use more often a while back is listening to a song in a variety of spaces – in the car, on the hi-fi, at friend's houses, at venues when I got the chance. Each time I made mental notes of things that sounded odd and tackled these when I got back to my studio. In time, though, I got to know my listening environment in my studio and these days I rarely get surprised by anything when I hear one of my songs in an unfamiliar environment. For me, the “listening in a variety of places” technique served to teach me more about the sound of my studio – once I could hear the imbalance in my studio, I could hear it the next time it occurred, and fix it before I played the track elsewhere. Techniques such as stepping out of the studio and listening from various places outside the room are similar to this – again, I find myself doing this less and less because I don't seem to get surprised any more.

Having said that, I do check my songs both on my headphones and speakers. I do the vast majority of my mixing through headphones at low levels, but I do send the sound out through my speakers, primarily to check out the low end. Through headphones, it may sound like my low end is very decent, but sending it out to the speakers can sometimes disappoint! In trance, the bass has to hit me in the chest in a certain way. There's no way to hit my chest through headphones. I have a certain spot in the corner of my room where I stand and feel the chest-thumpiness of my song. I'll play a variety of reference songs interspersed with my song so I can tell if it's hitting my chest in a satisfying way.

Speaking of reference songs, these are absolutely vital. If you don't yet have a collection of great sounding songs in the style you're producing/ mixing, I can't recommend enough that you build one up. I have a whole bunch of short snippets from the middles of great sounding trance songs, so I can quickly flip from one to the next, then to my song, and compare like with like. This will quickly let you know if there are any areas that are lacking or overly prominent.

Well, there are some brief thoughts about listening. You'll be amazed at how much more you're able to hear as you build mixing experience. You'll be able to tell much more quickly if a kick drum/ bass combination just isn't working, if a lead is too washed out, if percussive elements have particularly shrill high end frequencies. At this point I'll briefly mention frequency analyzers – as with some of the other techniques detailed above, analyzers can help you to train your ears to hear problem areas in your mix. By comparing a frequency chart of your song to frequency charts of reference songs you may see that your song has a big dip at 300 Hz compared to all the other songs. You may correct this area in your next few songs, based on the frequency analyzer, until you eventually start hearing and fixing it before you need to reach for the analyzer. Analyzers can be dangerous if used incorrectly (such as indiscriminately pushing up 300 Hz with an equalizer rather than looking first to correct the level of the bass), but as stated, can also be great learning aids.

Keep making great music!

Fabian

Giving and Getting Good Feedback

To varying degrees, many of us are holed up in our studios for significant amounts of time. We can achieve a lot by ourselves – developing our mixing and listening skills, maybe playing a few instruments, creating great sounding music.

At times, though, we're too close to our music and can lose objectivity. After we've set the room reverb for our drums and have listened to the mix a number of times while we're working on other areas, the reverb can simply become part of the way the song sounds – it's easy to not reflect on it further if it's not really pushing for attention. This is where a fresh set of ears can come in handy – another person may comment that the reverb is too bright, may provide a perspective we hadn't considered. Of course, they may not comment on the drum reverb, which could well mean it sounds fine (depending on who the feedback is coming from).

As with many things, clarity is important. Which aspects of your song(s) do you want input on? Who is going to provide this input? The ideal person to provide feedback on your mix is:

A very experienced producer/ mix engineer

Someone who is very familiar with your specific sub-genre

Someone who cares more about great sounding music than tending your ego

Someone who, in addition to criticizing, will suggest specific techniques to improve the mix

Friends and family, even if they're “easily accessible”, are often not the best sources for self-improvement, since many times they don't fulfill many of the above criteria. There's not much you can do with comments like “Wow, it sounds like real music” or “that's a cool guitar sound!”

Music Forums can be a good source of feedback, though there are drawbacks. Sometimes nobody may bother to provide feedback. Sometimes the only feedback you'll get is of the “friends and family” variety. Some forums are too broad – it's rare to find a forum dedicated solely to a single sub-genre. This means that you may be aiming for a particular type of, say, Death Metal, but get feedback from people who are into a different type of Death Metal. This can make it hard to work out whether their feedback is relevant to your song, or whether it reflects their personal biases. It would be great if every “feedbacker” provided examples of their own work so this could be taken into account. This would certainly help to find out which people are only just beginning to create and mix their own music, who have a lot of development ahead of them before they begin to make halfway listenable music. Frequently these people have no qualms about providing a lot of feedback about many aspects of your mix, as well as suggestions as to how things could be improved. Taken at face value, this feedback can be downright dangerous and actually set us back in our progress. In the end, it's up to each of us to decide what to do with the feedback we receive. If a consistent pattern of feedback emerges, it's more likely there's an issue there (though not necessarily, some people will only comment on something when someone else has already mentioned it). If only one person singles out an aspect, potentially it's not so serious (though again, not necessarily – maybe this one person just took more time to listen to your song in detail).

As important as the person providing us with feedback is the way we ask for this information. Sometimes it may be fine to say “Here's my new song – any comments?” People may reply along the lines of “Cool Hendrix wah on that guitar, dude” or “wtf is up with those lyrics, lolz”. Those comments may well be helpful (and may well stop us from writing lyrics for a while if we were already a bit insecure about them) but if we actually wanted to find out whether our bass sounds okay, since we're a bit unsure about it, then we should be more specific. We could either ask directly about the bass, or (if we feel that shining a spotlight on it before people actually hear the song may lead to skewed opinions) ask if there are any instruments which don't fit quite right and see if the bass gets mentioned. Maybe we'll find out our bass is fine, and it's just our dreadful kick drum which is making it sound like that.

In terms of getting specific, there are a few main areas we could be seeking feedback on:

Engineering (how the mix sounds – relative instrument levels, panning, EQ)

Arrangement (whether the song is too cluttered, or too bare)

Structure (the flow of the song, how it transitions from one section to the next)

Production (Instrument selection/ sound design, automation, special effects)

Composition (Melodies, chord progressions)

Playing technique (where relevant)

Maybe we want feedback on all of these, in which case a broad request for feedback may well suffice. But it pays to think about which aspects of our song we're most unsure about and direct our feedbacker's limited attention there.

Hopefully the above information is also helpful when it comes to providing feedback. All the same concepts apply, just from the other side of the equation. We should be aware of our own biases, the kinds of sounds we prefer. We should refrain from providing extensive feedback in sub-genres with which we're unfamiliar. When we are unfamiliar, we should admit this, to give our feedback some perspective. The same goes for when we have limited experience in mixing a particular genre, or we're aware that our own music has serious limitations. When we criticize a song, we should be able to offer suggestions as to how the song could be improved. This is much more helpful than simply criticizing. It should rarely happen that we say something like “those background vocals just sound odd, but I can't really think how to improve them, or what they could be replaced with”.

I hope that in time a number of skilled producers and engineers offer feedback services on www.InsideMixes.com. This should alleviate some of the drawbacks of anonymous, free forum feedback. We will be able to specify exactly who we want our feedback from (after listening to examples of their work), within what time frame, what they should focus on, and to what level of detail. In short, ideal feedback!

Keep making great music!

Fabian

There are no Secrets

I like looking for certain words on magazine covers. The word “Sex” features often on the covers of both women's and men's magazines. It obviously occupies a lot of our thoughts. Almost as common is the word “Secret”. “Angelina Aniston's amazing secret diet”, “Secret Sex lives of the Stars” (that one guarantees maximum readership). The music production magazines are no better. “Secrets of mixing pros”, “Mastering secrets revealed”, “ten secrets to a killer guitar sound”. Almost without fail the word will appear on the front cover, enticing readers to buy the issue and “get in on the secret”.

It makes sense for the magazine publishers to do this. It's basic human psychology. We're all wired to find the easiest, quickest way to get the results we want. And yes, often these magazines will provide us with a lot of fantastic information - “Jennifer Jolie is sleeping with whose chauffeur? Wow!” Or the magazine may indeed help us towards a better sounding guitar. The issue I have with this method of selling magazines is that there are no secrets! Whenever I've looked, I haven't managed to uncover any secrets. Hmm, this diet and exercise combination expends more energy than it takes in. Kinda makes sense why it leads to weight loss. Hmm, this section on mixing describes a number of really useful techniques, such as cutting out the low end from sounds which don't require it. I'll try it, and find out that this technique does make sense, it does clean up my low end a bit.

I realize the word “Secret” will sell many more magazines than the word “Technique”. Secret implies easiness. It implies “I can eat all the chocolate cake I want, then I just need to, once a month, apply the secret technique of standing on one foot and clapping my hands three times while saying 'fat begone from my temple' and I'll have the body of a supermodel”. The music magazines' “secrets” aren't quite so bad – it's easier to break the habit of excessively boosting bass frequencies when you can see the benefits for the mix, as opposed to replacing chocolate cake with celery when you can see the benefits for your health. The music magazines probably end up being more helpful.

There are many advanced mixing techniques, effective combinations of audio processors arrived at through years of experience (or a lot of trial and error, or “happy accidents”). The tools are rarely custom made or exclusive. With experience we generally get better at uncovering the techniques behind these sounds (though it doesn't hurt to ask the source directly). If you have a number of “secrets” of your own, ask yourself whether it's possible that no other engineer has tried that combination of audio processors. I think very few of us will take any secrets to the grave.

Keep making great music!

Fabian