How to mix with a song collection in mind

ORIGINAL: j boy

ORIGINAL: jamesg1213
- should I concern myself with getting the very best mix for each individual song, and worry about coherence at the mastering stage,

Yes. That's my vote.

Plus, the songs might not be packaged together at some point in your future. Every song needs to stand on its own two feet IMHO.

ORIGINAL: foxwolfen

One thing I have noticed as an audiophile is that good albums tend to have a coherency - unless the album changes styles a lot. Having a coherent sound that is balanced and even across all songs will not cause your listener to have to change settings or volumes during playback.

Other less coherent albums have forced me to look at EQ on a per song basis which is not something i want to do when listening. I just want to sit back and enjoy. So I guess I am voting for a "sameness" across each song on the album, with only enough coloring to fit the mood of a particular piece while not effecting the mood of the entire album.

Cheers
Shad

ORIGINAL: bilbosblues

James, quick thought, more later perhaps

have them use a variety of tempos and keys

have them perhaps perform acoustically, and otherwise

add flavors, the spice of life

good luck

ORIGINAL: rsp@odyssey.net

James, seems as though there are varying schools of thought on this subject. As far as arranging the song order, I'll throw this into the pot. Last night while doing a little practicing, I was playing along to a very popular artist's cd (name omitted on purpose), and found that it had been set in an order that I hadn't noticed before. The first 2 uptempo songs were in the same key, followed by a ballad and midtempo in the same key, but different than the first two. And this was the way the entire cd was. I've listened to this cd alot over the last year, and never picked up on this, but it has a nice "flow". Something to ponder.

ORIGINAL: mcourter

James, you already have the three most important elements: your guitar, and Tim's voice, and some terrific songs. I'll bet JamzOr will have some good advice for you.

ORIGINAL: bitflipper Song sequencing is an often-overlooked art. All the books I've read on mastering offer tips for song sequencing and consider it a very important part of the mastering process.

Do you perform these songs live? Most of the time, the order you play them onstage will be a logical album sequence, too.

When I create a set list for the stage, I'm thinking the same way as I would for sequencing tracks in an album. I want a gradual dynamic buildup for several songs, then a dynamic rest with a slow/mellow piece, and then starting a second buildup leading to a second climax. This works even if all the songs are hard or all are mellow - they'll still have a dynamic hierarchy regardless of the style or genre.

There is just one big exception to adapting set lists to album sequences: on stage, I want to open with my second-strongest song, saving the best for last. On an album, I want to always open with my strongest song, regardless of whether it's fast or slow or whatever. The only time I wouldn't follow that rule is if my strongest song was so radically different from all the rest that a new listener would be misled about what kind of album it is.

How to determine your strongest song? If you play them live, you already know which one it is. But if they haven't been performed in public, you have to find an audience to tell you which one's best. Your friends and relatives will always say they're all wonderful and you're a frickin' genius, making their advice suspect. However, if you ask them to specifically pick out their favorite song from the list, they will be remarkably consistent and reliable. That's the song you want to lead with.

Following the strongest song, order the next few tunes by dynamic content, so that each song is a buildup to the next. Then after reaching a crescendo, put in an extra second of gap and follow it with a mellow song. That extra silence lets the listener's ears relax and reset in preparation for a lighter dynamic.

It's also important to listen to the tails and intros of each song to see how they run into each other. You'll want to manually adjust the gaps between songs rather than just defaulting to the standard 2-second pause. If a song has a long fadeout, you may not need any gap at all between it and the next song. That works especially well if the following song is in the same key or starts on the same chord that the previous song ends on.

And I agree that getting a good mix on a per-song basis is more important than album cohesiveness. You'd have to work hard to mix a song that was so weird that it couldn't be successfully integrated into an album. Think about your favorite "greatest hits" CDs. I have a Fleetwood Mac Greatest Hits CD that spans three decades, including the transition from analog to digital. Songs were recorded in different studios with different engineers, equipment and producers. Imagine what a challenge it must have been to master than compilation! But somebody did manage it, and did it quite well. It might be a good exercise to just listen to a few commercial compilation CDs with an ear toward song sequencing, levels and EQ. Song sequencing is an often-overlooked art. All the books I've read on mastering offer tips for song sequencing and consider it a very important part of the mastering process.

Do you perform these songs live? Most of the time, the order you play them onstage will be a logical album sequence, too.

When I create a set list for the stage, I'm thinking the same way as I would for sequencing tracks in an album. I want a gradual dynamic buildup for several songs, then a dynamic rest with a slow/mellow piece, and then starting a second buildup leading to a second climax. This works even if all the songs are hard or all are mellow - they'll still have a dynamic hierarchy regardless of the style or genre.

There is just one big exception to adapting set lists to album sequences: on stage, I want to open with my second-strongest song, saving the best for last. On an album, I want to always open with my strongest song, regardless of whether it's fast or slow or whatever. The only time I wouldn't follow that rule is if my strongest song was so radically different from all the rest that a new listener would be misled about what kind of album it is.

How to determine your strongest song? If you play them live, you already know which one it is. But if they haven't been performed in public, you have to find an audience to tell you which one's best. Your friends and relatives will always say they're all wonderful and you're a frickin' genius, making their advice suspect. However, if you ask them to specifically pick out their favorite song from the list, they will be remarkably consistent and reliable. That's the song you want to lead with.

Following the strongest song, order the next few tunes by dynamic content, so that each song is a buildup to the next. Then after reaching a crescendo, put in an extra second of gap and follow it with a mellow song. That extra silence lets the listener's ears relax and reset in preparation for a lighter dynamic.

It's also important to listen to the tails and intros of each song to see how they run into each other. You'll want to manually adjust the gaps between songs rather than just defaulting to the standard 2-second pause. If a song has a long fadeout, you may not need any gap at all between it and the next song. That works especially well if the following song is in the same key or starts on the same chord that the previous song ends on.

And I agree that getting a good mix on a per-song basis is more important than album cohesiveness. You'd have to work hard to mix a song that was so weird that it couldn't be successfully integrated into an album. Think about your favorite "greatest hits" CDs. I have a Fleetwood Mac Greatest Hits CD that spans three decades, including the transition from analog to digital. Songs were recorded in different studios with different engineers, equipment and producers. Imagine what a challenge it must have been to master than compilation! But somebody did manage it, and did it quite well. It might be a good exercise to just listen to a few commercial compilation CDs with an ear toward song sequencing, levels and EQ.

ORIGINAL: droddey

Of course, these days, the whole thing might be of no real concern anymore, given the ADD/Singles orientation of the music market now.

ORIGINAL: ru

i'd also give some consideration to conceptual flow.
words make a difference, whether people think they're listening to them or not.

ORIGINAL: bitflipper

Song sequencing is an often-overlooked art. All the books I've read on mastering offer tips for song sequencing and consider it a very important part of the mastering process.

Do you perform these songs live? Most of the time, the order you play them onstage will be a logical album sequence, too.

When I create a set list for the stage, I'm thinking the same way as I would for sequencing tracks in an album. I want a gradual dynamic buildup for several songs, then a dynamic rest with a slow/mellow piece, and then starting a second buildup leading to a second climax. This works even if all the songs are hard or all are mellow - they'll still have a dynamic hierarchy regardless of the style or genre.

There is just one big exception to adapting set lists to album sequences: on stage, I want to open with my second-strongest song, saving the best for last. On an album, I want to always open with my strongest song, regardless of whether it's fast or slow or whatever. The only time I wouldn't follow that rule is if my strongest song was so radically different from all the rest that a new listener would be misled about what kind of album it is.

How to determine your strongest song? If you play them live, you already know which one it is. But if they haven't been performed in public, you have to find an audience to tell you which one's best. Your friends and relatives will always say they're all wonderful and you're a frickin' genius, making their advice suspect. However, if you ask them to specifically pick out their favorite song from the list, they will be remarkably consistent and reliable. That's the song you want to lead with.

Following the strongest song, order the next few tunes by dynamic content, so that each song is a buildup to the next. Then after reaching a crescendo, put in an extra second of gap and follow it with a mellow song. That extra silence lets the listener's ears relax and reset in preparation for a lighter dynamic.

It's also important to listen to the tails and intros of each song to see how they run into each other. You'll want to manually adjust the gaps between songs rather than just defaulting to the standard 2-second pause. If a song has a long fadeout, you may not need any gap at all between it and the next song. That works especially well if the following song is in the same key or starts on the same chord that the previous song ends on.

And I agree that getting a good mix on a per-song basis is more important than album cohesiveness. You'd have to work hard to mix a song that was so weird that it couldn't be successfully integrated into an album. Think about your favorite "greatest hits" CDs. I have a Fleetwood Mac Greatest Hits CD that spans three decades, including the transition from analog to digital. Songs were recorded in different studios with different engineers, equipment and producers. Imagine what a challenge it must have been to master than compilation! But somebody did manage it, and did it quite well. It might be a good exercise to just listen to a few commercial compilation CDs with an ear toward song sequencing, levels and EQ.