As I've stated in a new thread in the main forum, I think that stripping that forum of the valuable and educational technique-related threads makes this whole place a lot poorer. I could certainly bear it if the gear-related threads were also left there.

Sven

A pro arrangement makes a huge difference on a pro recording.

You've hit one of the major nails on the head.

Want to learn about clear mixes where everything is heard? Do a half dozen record copies and play everything exactly like the record and try to imitate the same effects and all. You'd be surprised how many big punchy tracks, have very little going on in them. Radical EQ isn't necessary because instruments aren't competing for space because the arranger fixed it before tracking begun or the mixer just threw out 6 or 7 doubled guitar tracks.

I have to respectfully disagree with you, Sven. Many of the threads in the Gear and Techniques forums apply to users of all the variations of Cakewalk software and in many cases are not software specific at all.
This particular thread highlights ideas that are of benefit to many users who might never see it, were it in the Sonar forum.
I don't see it as "stripping the main forum" of valuable information. I see it as making this information available to everybody, and in fact making "this whole place" much richer.

performance IS production

A pro arrangement makes a huge difference on a pro recording.

N Prime has said it best... it is all about the arrangement. A properly arranged song, could be mixed with just one instrument and voice and it would be perfect.

The "arrangement" to me... is not an arrangement of Instruments (as commonly misconstrued) it is rather the arrangement of notes. The economy of notes to the progression.

If songs are thought of in this manner, they can easily be played with just one instrument and a vocal...and that is all you need for the "mix".....

Tonight im working on a ballad.... trying to work the right tempo so that it flows best...and the mix will flow from there.

As an example, think "Holding Back the Years" from Simply Red.... that is an example of economy of notes to the progression, which could sound fantastic no matter who is singing it or what arrangement of instruments is behind it...

that makes the mix, imo. everyting after that is just gravy

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lbQl14tJIWM

ORIGINAL: j boy

Don't underestimate the importance of the source in the equation!...

Aye.

The most important factors to a good mix, in decending order are:

1. The musical quality of the recorded performance(s)
2. The skill and talent of the mix engineer
3. The sound quality of the recorded tracks
4. The accuracy or versatility of the acoustical environment and playback system(s) that the mix engineer is using
5. The quality/versatility of the mix engineer's processors, effects, and signal chain

3 and 4 are actually probably a tie, and somewhat genre-dependent. Pro mixes often have home mixes beat on all counts.

A pro arrangement is certainly a huge boon, as is a great song, but sometimes as engineers we are called upon to produce good mixes of lesser material, and there are a lot of tools available to a modern mix engineer to "re-arrange" songs during mixdown. In fact I think one of the prime differences between home producers and studio engineers is a willingness to leave recorded material out of the mix.

A lot of hard rock bands in particular will come into the studio and just play a solid block of two or three alternating riffs straight through the entire song, with every verse and every chorus identical to the last, i.e. no real arrangement. To simply balance all these tracks and let them roll is likely to produce a fairly, dead, boring, lifeless mix, no matter how good the balance and the gear and all that.

So let's say you take verse one and strip out everything but second guitar and the vocal, and thin it all out into a very low-fi, bandwidth limited "telephone" sound. Then maybe chorus 1, you drop out the vocal (heresy, I know) and bring the kick/snare/hi-hat with the jangly guitar 2, all still "telephoned," and then only at the start of verse 2 do you open up the filters and bring in bass and the main guitar riff. Suddenly sounds huge. As the verse 2 vocal comes in, we maybe mute the main riff and just let jangly guitar 2 come through. Chorus 2 is the first time we hear the chorus vocal and now we let all the instruments roll. Verse 3 or the bridge we take out everything but the kick, snare, and vocal, and maybe put the vocal back through the "telephone" with a huge kick/snare beat pounding away, and then bring in the bassline behind it and the rest of the drums. Chorus 3 we open everything up and add in a tiny amount of woodblock or cowbell rushing the quarter-notes to give it a little urgency and let that keep going as we go into Verse 4/outro where we let that main guitar riff finally take center stage and push back the vocals a little bit.

Now you've turned a flat, brick-like arrangement into something pretty dynamic and exciting where no two parts are the same, and didn't even break a sweat. Is it Tin Pan Alley? No, but as rock arrangements go it's maybe not half-bad, certainly a lot more interesting with a lot more textures and changes than simply alternating two riffs that all the instruments hammer on over and over for four minutes, and it's probably going to beat the pants off of a home studio demo where they just let tape roll the whole time and throw in some eq and compression presets.

Cheers.

.

i love that new movement. especially the trend toward barely audible tracks. finally, some modesty in the industry.