Yeah, thought that was an extreme case but as ChuckC said, you can just get caught up in all the plugins and mix yourself into a dull corner. Compression gone bad. There is a series of recording and mixing videos here that really focus on minimal plugins and just some great overall tips. http://www.puremix.net/video/othering.html The gearfest videos are what I am referring to but there are some other goods ones there as well. Great set of videos for someone starting out. Hey, you got all these cool plugins, you gotta experiment. But eventually you either develop your ear for what is genuinely good or you tread in the waters of excessive processing endlessly.

In my experience, glue with EQ, reduces goo. If you try it with compression, keep it on a parallel buss. Only you can prevent transient death.

Glue oft --->

Transient death
Artifact death
Timbre death
Transparency death

Which I think I may desire on some backing tracks and even some buss levels ... certainly not the master.

If an orchestrally pensive Rembrandt ... the portrait emerges from a gel'd backround to an incrementally detailed face (and hands) with necessary timbres, artifacts, and transparency in those important details.

Consideration must be given to comps ... even with exaggerated dynamics and transients in the kick, bass, and vox ... as every thin glaze of paint dulls them.

But, if an emotive Van Gogh ... the backround transients must swirl around in cacaphonic balance with the portrait itself ... I suppose the glue exists in the swirls and rhythms ... causing the eyes to merge things.

... I'm losing thoughts here, sorry.

Philip,

I think I have finally tracked down the glue  you speak of.....Cytomic's The Glue....LOL.   Saw some discussion's on the plug-in at Gear Sluts.

Yeh, a good bass line can be a huge glueing factor, as are string pads, ooh-ahh type background vocals, heavily reverbed guitar which I use a lot. If you put a reverb pedal all the way on wet, and gently strum some carefully chosen chords way in the background and wobble the whammy bar very subtly, it can create a beautiful, thick backwash behind everything.

Also a bused reverb with an appropriately long pre-delay and diffusion can create a nice backwash behind the whole thing that glues it nicely, without actually interfering at all with what's going on up front (if you aren't lucky enough to record in a nice sounding room of the right size.) Put a compressor before the reverb so that the reverb doesn't see any peaks and it works even better.
Sometimes you hear song where it seems that, at any given time, there's not many things happening at once, but it never sounds empty. I think often a nice pre-delayed and diffuse reverb (or nice real room) is at play in those types of songs. It's never calling attention to itself, but really making a difference.

Agreed Philip!  I should have put a smiley face behind my comment.  I thought it was funny that some one has actually called their compressor..."The Glue".

I also agree with Bit, Dean and Mike, a sustaining bass, pad, organ, droning guitar...touch of similar reverb, can all act as the glue.

Why not teach your students the idea that they do not have to justify anything?

Then you could tell them something like "I like to glue my stuff together like this" and they can learn how you do what you do.

Personally, I encourage my men-tees to embrace pluralism and expect that they will learn many things from different people. I expect and hope that people I help with instruction and advice will learn enough to out grow my personal scope of awareness.

Vive la Difference.

best regards,
mike

"The problem comes in at "I like to glue my stuff together like this". There is no glue for me in that respect at all."



How does that previous statement relate to this following statement?



"Other than "2-bus glue", I just don't see the need for the word. Even at that, I teach it because it exists...even though it may not be something I practice often or at all these days. I've got great mixes here with no 2 bus glue, I've got great mixes with plugin 2 bus glue, and I have good mixes using hardware comp 2 bus glue."


I am suggesting that if you choose to tell your students, for example, about your 2 bus ideas and perhaps use the word glue that there seems, to me, to be no reason for you to be concerned about what someone else might say about how you choose to explain something.



best regards,
mike

Here are some easy to find examples of some of the many ways musicians use the word "glue":


"At a recent blues-trio gig, a guitarist friend in the audience commented, “It’s the glue—the bass holds it all together.” I was flattered he noticed—that’s really how I see my job in the band. But what makes this musical glue? For me, the three main elements are time, foundation, and movement. By time, I’m referring to the beat, the groove, and the feel—it’s the pulse that keeps the music moving along."

from: http://www.premierguitar..../Jan/Its_The_Glue.aspx




"Pianist Danny Grissett functions as the harmonic glue for the at times sonic fury of a stellar rhythm section made up of bassist Matt Clohesy and drummer Tommy Crane."

from: http://www.criticaljazz.c...tles-and-hilltops.html

"Providing the musical glue to the proceedings was local hero and longtime Lowe sideman, Bill Kirchen"

from Wolf Trap: http://wolftrapinsider.bl...cal-glue-for-nick.html



Here's choral singer writing about her role as a supporting singer:

"I joke that my voice is the “glue” of the choir. I sing second alto, tenor in a pinch, and my voice is the one that blends all the other voices together. I’m not fantastic, but I make a group sound fantastic."

from: http://www.cuteculturechi...hoir-the-musical-glue/



best regards,
mike

mike_mccue



Here are some easy to find examples of some of the many ways musicians use the word "glue":


"At a recent blues-trio gig, a guitarist friend in the audience commented, “It’s the glue—the bass holds it all together.” I was flattered he noticed—that’s really how I see my job in the band. But what makes this musical glue? For me, the three main elements are time, foundation, and movement. By time, I’m referring to the beat, the groove, and the feel—it’s the pulse that keeps the music moving along."

from: http://www.premierguitar.com/Magazine/Issue/2012/Jan/Its_The_Glue.aspx




"Pianist Danny Grissett functions as the harmonic glue for the at times sonic fury of a stellar rhythm section made up of bassist Matt Clohesy and drummer Tommy Crane."

from: http://www.criticaljazz.com/2011/11/tim-collins-castles-and-hilltops.html

Again, all good stuff...but in your examples...let's take the first one. Couldn't I substitute "good bass player" or "tight bassist" or "great rhythm section"? I just don't like the word glue due to all the other things it can mean.
 
In your second example, how would you explain "harmonic glue" to a new person? Why would I want to even try and waste time teaching someone what "harmonic glue on a piano" is? To be honest, I've been doing this for over 30 years....I'm not going to sit here and lie to you...I have no freakin' clue what "harmonic glue" even means. What, the harmonies being played gel'n with the rest of the band? Again, couldn't I say "sophistocated piano lines with a good sense of melody and harmony"? Why do I have to use the word glue...to make it more simplistic like Federal Express instead of FedEx? I just don't like the word glue man. You can give me examples until the cows come home. I just do not think it is a very good word and has way too many meaning to different people. I'm not saying it's right or wrong....I'm saying it's wrong in MY realm and not a word I will ever use when teaching.
 
For example, you or someone else on this forum could probably simplify all my long novel posts with maybe half a paragragh, right? However, would they be as informative and hit just as hard being I've tried my best to include every detail I can so that no one ever loses me? See my point? I'd rather go over the edge and explain something in full over using certain words to express a lot that may leave people confused or questioning something. Make sense at all?
 
Dean: I didn't really notice who had said that stuff, so I wasn't targeting you specifically. But if you were the one that lead on to what I was talking about, then I guess it was you. Again, I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying it's not something I agree with because of that "glue" word. Sonic cohesion is a better way to put it...but again, we're talking about "organ beds" and reverbs and all this other stuff that just sort of accentuates a mix further. I'd still not call that "glue" on my end. The object of a mix in my opinion, is to make it all sound like an entity. You don't want it sounding like a set of drums, a guitar, a bass and piano all sounding like individual instruments lashing out at you. You want them to sound like "a mix" or "a blend" so to speak. When we mix, we are making all the instruments compliment one another. As an entity. This to me falls under the mix category...but if you or others choose to call it glue, so be it. It's just not something *I* feel is a good word to use regarding it.
 
-Danny

mike_mccue


The question: Have you ever studied "teaching" or did you teach yourself to teach?
I have quite a few friends with phDs in Music Education who teach music... are you one of those guys? They spend a lot of time thinking about how students learn... it's pretty fascinating to me.


best regards,
mike

As far as studying it, no....not as much as I should. I'm a college drop-out unfortunately. However, I HAVE done my own studies on people in general as well as my own personal observations of what best helped me to learn certain things. When I was in college, part of the thing that bothered me was the way things were taught. There is nothing worse than a monotone scientific voice that attempts to intimidate others. If what I'm being taught is not something that has a personality behind the science....it bores me and I lose interest. This is why as much as people praise Bob Katz' book, it's not for me. I don't think I'm a dumb person, but I like to get to the core of something and need examples. I don't care about history on certain things. I don't even think some history taught in schools today is needed. It will not help a child survive in today's times. If anything, it will upset them when they go back in time and see how much our present has changed things for the worst. LOL!
 
Also, I have been involved in many young adult type work-shops. From stuff at my church to online gaming communities where we offered a "keep the kids off the streets" program with video game competitions. Each child that signed up had to have parental consent and the parents would also communicate with us. If little Johnny got a bad report card and wasn't supposed to show up for a game because he was punished and did so anyway, we reported it to the parents. My point in that, this got me close to kids from all over the world. I'm talking closer to them than their own parents.
 
I became a big brother and someone they trusted/trust to this day. I know more about these kids than their parents. In talking to them, (even while we play games as Xbox 360 has real time voice in-game) I learn about their personal lives. They ask me questions about life...we talk about school...what they are learning, what they want to be when they grow up...how a teacher may care or not care...how things are taught to them.
 
This goes for all people and the age ranges involved in our community go from 11 years old to people well into their 50's. It's amazing how well you bond with someone when you spend a few hours of gaming with them. Especially when you are in a team lobby just talking or whatever. This really brought me close to what is going on with the world as far as our kids and our future. I know how to get through to them and what it takes for them to maintain respect for me.
 
I also have a pretty cool property where I live. A really nice basketball court, swimming pool etc. I have the kids from the neighborhood here just about every day. Anyone that lives in this development can just come into my back yard and use the court. I have all types of kids that hang out here from all different races. I have bonded with them the same way and am a favorite amongst all the kids in this neighborhood because I talk to them in a language they can understand, yet I'm still an adult and they know to respect me.
 
So from all of my experiences over the years Mike...as well as my experiences with adults and how they like to learn, this is what has created my methods of teaching. With every person I teach...whether it be in person or with a video lesson, they all have gotten exactly what they wanted from it and more. The one thing they constantly address is how I just come off as a real person. Sometimes when I'm teaching something...I make a mistake. I don't edit those out...and in a real situation, it's impossible. LOL! But, I leave those little things in because I want people to see that I'm human. I'm not this mechanical, monotone robot using science and big words to teach them something. I lay it out in black and white, show exampes, talk about pro's and cons, speak in "frequency syllable language" which is something I made up on my own as a way of conveying ways or leaning how and what to listen for....the list goes on and on.
 
So to answer your question, no...I have no formal training in anything other than the training and experience of life. I think that what I can do and HAVE done speaks for itself really and I can always back up anything I say with tried and true methods that have worked for me even if I'm the only one they have ever worked for. I have gotten the exact same results out of my students that I' too have gotten, so to me it's proof that what I'm doing has definitely made a difference.
 
I'm sure you too have read numerous posts by people on this forum who have praised me for something I may have taught them...or for something they may do differently now because of me. You should also be able to hear the differences in their work before they met me and after to show further proof that the stuff I cover, IS making a difference and it's all done in a language and in a way to where they really get something out of it....and don't need to read into hype or falacy when I can show them exactly what the deal is at all times. I'm far from perfect...but I sincerely believe in the methods as well as the forms of communication I have devloped for people of all walks of life. In the event I start to get some bad feedback, I'll alter my ways. But until that time, I believe my methods are working and people are learning. I hope this answers your question. :)
 
-Danny

You could also create a good analogy which is what I often do with my students. I try and get them to visualise something that might be relating to sound engineering. Here is one using glue.

You could start by describing  mix as being very percussive with lots of short percussive bursts of sound and some poke up like harder punches rising above an average bunch of other accents or punches.

You could say OK we will apply a layer of thick glue or what do you get when you put a thin rubber sheet over the top somewhere. The punches that were leaping out a little too hard will now still rise above the others but by a lesser extend due to the layer of glue or the rubber sheet being present. (compression ratio)

You could also say the if the glue is thicker then the punches that do get through a bit will have softer edges on them (faster attack settings) but if the glue was thinner (slower attack settings) it will still limit a punch height but maybe still keep some sharpness in the edges of the sound. (but like pouring thin cream over fruit cake as opposed to very thick cream over the same thing. In one case you will see more detail through the thin white layer of cream. In the other it will be just a broader outline of what's underneath. I prefer the rubber sheet analogy over the tops of those loud peaks compared to the glue analogy.

Glue could also describe EQ. You might have three guitars all with a very similar sound and you might EQ each one slightly differently but in some other way EQ similar. Then you send them to a buss and put some overall EQ/compression over that guitar blend. Now that is form of glue. You are really only hearing one basic guitar thing at the end of the day coming from that buss but three guitars were used to create that sound by all three being glued together in some way. The levels of those three guitars are just as important as the EQ. Two forms of glue there.

Some of my synths allow for 6 layers per note. I might construct a sound containing 6 elements but I will glue them in such a way as the end result is only one (very big)  thing and you are playing one patch. But 6 layers were glued together to make it and they stay locked in relation to each other.

But I could go in and start ungluing some of the layers and talk to individual layers differently, then I am ungluing that patch to a certain extent. eg layer 3 might start changing its gain in relation to other layers over time etc..

Mike Mccue wrote:

That was beautiful Danny, I feel like I know you a bunch better. Thanks for taking the time.

:-)

FWIW, I'd be the first to agree that you make a tangible difference with the people who you work with. I've heard the improvements time and time again.

I'm not sure how Phillip's question became a one vs the other type dialog... I missed where that got started.

This seems to have been a good thread in that it has so many different points of view represented.


Why thank you, that was very kind. :) I think the one vs. the other came pretty much from what I've been saying which *some* may find confusing. There are just so many ways people describe glue, that it's very easy to open up several topics and conversations while using that word. :) I agree this has been a great thread. Even if I might not totally agree with some of it, the facts presented from each person are excellent representations on how we could use the word "glue". I'd never dispute that. I just think it becomes so vast, it's better to sometimes explain something for what it is other than how one word can somewhat categorize it...if that makes any sense? :)

AT wrote: 

Danny,

good for you. Some of the worst English students I had were Education Students who waited until the last semester before taking a chance w/ a class they had to have to graduate and could actually fail. Those kind usually did.

Makes me think that an education about educating can be like dancing about architecture.

Kinda like the subject of musical glue. It can mean a lot of things, and usually takes longer to explain what you mean about it than just describing how you hear/ understand the phenomenon. Or warmth, or any buzzword in music or art. It is usually an imprecise term. Words, words words, as some Dane once said.


Well said as usual AT. Your last paragraph above pretty much sums it all up from my perspective. You did it in one small paragraph compared to my novel of detail. :) The whole recording realm could really be put in outline form. Each person would have a different outline as to what they would consider to be "the art of recording". Where as guys like Mike and Jeff may have a section dedicated to "glue" that would be both informative and quite useful, some of the things they would mentioned here, a guy like me would put under "the mixing stage" instead.

There is no right or wrong. I just think certain words sort of open up a can of worms that might not need to be opened just yet. Or at times they just may need to be opened in a certain light. You know...like take the word "warm" as an example. How many times have you heard someone use it...or even when the word is used in marketing...and you listen to an example, and find what THEY consider warm, to be brittle and abrasive? I can't tell you all the times I've been presented with that. Especially from some of my students in the UK. Warm to them means something different than it does to me. Brit amps are a bit more abrasive to my ears...slightly more presence, bite, cut. They call that warm, where over here, warm to ME means:
 
"A happy medium of everything in a sound that is sonically pleasing to listen to and neutral. Smooth, not favoring harsh highs, congestive mids or sub lows; yet not an over-exaggerated mid-range coloration. A softening of the highs...a good sonic medium that favors nothing.....a right down the middle, acceptable type of sound."

Ever try a plugin that claims "warm tape saturation" and it sounds all harsh? LOL! That's what I'm talking about. Or a guy that posts up a guitar tone and says "I love the warm tone I got here" yet the highs are piercing through deep down to your bile ducts! Hahahaha! Certain words....are just better left out of the recording realm in a sense because they can just have so many meanings....it's not worth the confusion in my opinion. But to each their own. :) Everything in music, recording, the sounds of mixes etc, will always be subjective. If something works and it sounds good...it is good. :)

-Danny

Hahaha, not any more than how I get on your nerves when you read the stuff I post. Then again...it depends on how much I get on your nerves....which I'd assume is probably quite a bit. ;)

-Danny