Key differences between my music, and professional music

I think I just worked it out. I believe I have finally got that step closer to working out exactly what is wrong with my mixes. It's all too easy to say "it sounds great, but just doesn't sound as amazing as the professional mixes" without giving the WHY. For much time I could not work out WHY. But I have come up with a few things that I think I can work on to get me to that next level. My weak points:

 - Composition. Not so much the song writing, even crap songs can sound professional, but the arrangement of instruments and selection of instruments. Pop songs tend to have a massivly vast array of tracks in a song, the majority of them go unnoticed by the casual listener. Just lots of different sounds, mostly there to fill in the gaps in the frequency and panorama domain. By themselves they would sound stupid. If they stood out in the song they would sound stupid. If they were a key component of the song they would sound stupid. If you removed one of them, you probably wouldn't really notice, but remove them ALL, and the song feels empty. They almost seem to not be very important in WHAT they are, just as long as they fill that missing gap. Just any random sound that fills the space and is not really noticed can do the job. Amazing it seems, but I think it's easier said than done. Pick the wrong 'random' sound and it will just stand out too much and not blend in.

 - Stereo recording. I used to record a guitar part, pan it off to the left, and then record another guitar, pan it to the right. Sounds nice. But what about the gap just to the left of that first guitar. And the gap just to the right. The instrument is positioned in an EXACT space. It fills only one TEENY gap. If you have it at 40L, what about 50L, 60L, 30L, 20L?? They feel empty. Now, record a part in stereo, acoustic guitar for example, pan one to 100L, and the other to 20L. It sounds like it's coming from about 50L or so, but it fills all those other gaps. Recording a mono instrument like an electric guitar? Use two different mics, maybe a condensor and a dynamic, and do the same thing. Put the one that tends to mask the vox the most to the extremity and you save the vox, but have this huge guitar. I know there are many mixing tricks and techniques that we can use to fill these gaps, but I think it's best to try and do it before the mixing stage, if that's the sound you want. We can also do a similar thing when layering guitars.

 - Quality gear. For years I used a Behringer B1 through a Tascam US122. I have now upgraded to a pair of Rode K2's through an Edirol UA-25EX. I know it's not top of the range, but it just makes a world of difference. I know it's also about selecting the right tool for the job, but that behringer was just terrible in every way possible. There is no right job for that mic. Most important thing here is don't get gear that sounds crap. You can get away with gear that doesn't necessarily sound amazing, but it just doesn't sound crap. Middle and upwards should do it.

 - High end clarity. I imagine a lot of this would come from the gear, but mixing can still play its part here.

 - No masking. Listen to a song. Most of the time, you can focus on every instrument so well if you listen properly. Some bands though use masking to gel everything together, I believe that Coldplay does this in their 200-1000Hz range, in many songs. This creates a feeling rather than a 'sound'.

 - Compression. If you want that pop sound, it's all about the compression. The entire vocal sound is compression and pitch correction. If you want that sound, that's all it is to get you 90% there (once you have a good recording from your nice room and mic).


Those are the main differences that I can tell between my stuff and pro stuff - listed in order of my lacking of them in my songs. I tend to use a lot of vocal compression and pitch correction already and I think my masking troubles are low, so these two are more just little things I think I do well (for the sound I want) but that I should keep an eye on.



Would love to hear what you guys think your key differences are.

I aggree that much of current pop and rock music is filled with sounds.  Every hole in the sound spectrum is filled.  But not through the whole song. Most often the "color" of the whole sound changes during as the song continues.  Instruments are shifted in and out to give variations.

What do you mean by "masking" ?

Interesting.

One of the common mistakes I see and hear so many people making is to try to put too many instruments in the mix. This makes the mix busy and boring in many cases.  In what I consider to be a normal band (country flavored) there are many different instruments that can and are used. I have to be careful not to over do it.

I tried something a while back that really seemed (to me) to be a big improvement in the mix. I have tried ever since to mix in this manner. It simply involved hard enveloping of the instruments. Taking them out totally when not needed.

Bass and drums are essential and are almost never enveloped. Acoustic guitar is generally also in this category.... for country. But it sets so low in the mix that it's almost not there.
 The hard enveloping is done on piano, guitar, fiddle, steel, etc.... they come up when they need to and they disappear totally from the sound canvas when they are not needed.

What I was seeing in my mixes and quite often hear in the mixes of others is the piano plays all the way through, the guitar plays all the way through, and the result was a mess of music & noise that resulted in the song loosing any definition. The mix sounded like a beginner band where everybody just plays.

When you envelope the garbage out... the song opens up and then you can place the piano licks and the guitar licks so that they are relevant to the song and actually create interest in the listener.


Panning... I simply attempt to balance the mix.... if the piano is on the R25% I will have the guitar L25% having similar frequency instruments in balance.  Bass, drums, lead vox are centered.  I try not to pan really hard with a few exceptions. I will pan twin leads opposite at about 80%.  I always try to remember that anything panned hard R or L will not sound good on a mono player.

Quality gear.... very important but a good mic might actually make your vocals sound " not quite so good" because it's giving you the truth and not coloring it.  Same with ref speakers.  But yeah...always go with the best gear possible.

EQ and stuff.... I try to get an open airy sound where you can clearly hear each instrument in the mix. I try not to  compress to a sound brick for the sake of loudness.  Keeping the sparkle in the highs, the bottom and kick in the low end and keeping the mids clean is paramount to a good mix.

 If there's one thing I have learned is that in today's music world, the days of "demo quality" are gone. With all the tools and everyone having access to the same digital quality as the pro's.... the bar has been raised considerably on the quality that is expected. So it's encumbent upon us to learn the things needed to produce broadcast quality music from our home studio's. It is a never ending process.

It sounds like you are on the right path.



edit: Black Velvet  listen to this song.... the audio is not good quality, but listen to the instruments.... bass & drums carry this song... in the spaces, the guitar hits a lick.... in the chorus the guitars come in.... but listen to the drastic enveloping of the levels. That's what I was referring to above.

+100 (Matt ... and Lance) ... as Bit observes ...

I love to read these posts.  I'll add:

Many rules are violated with pop before the 'picture' is made:

Yes, vox-volumes oft do fluctuate sporadically and incoherently ... like stray brush marks in a painting. 

Coolness has too do with strong vox emotives (however they're polished ... this is a consistent pop-trait (to my ears).

Time, who's got time to produce? Unles it IS your job. I just get down a couple guitar tracks and a couple vocal tracks, and then call it finished. But I don't aspire for so called "pop" or commercial, radio sounds. In fact, I aspire for the opposite. Signals are so clean these days, even with the cheapy consumer recording gear. That, I have to find ways, to purposely make stuff sound "crappy" or low-fi. For example, Superior Drummer 2.0, hate it. The sounds are too good. I put a free distortion plug-in on the output, and it's much better to my ears.

I agree that you have to have an analytical approach to what you do. Everything can't just be thrown together until is sounds good. But, you still have to think out of the box, and not just mix/record the same way every track. For instance, just because recording guitars with a certain method worked for one track, you may need a different technique for another. But that takes a lot of experience and vision from a producer to know that stuff. Me, I still just slap a 57 off-axis, right on the grill, for my electric sounds.

I like to read interviews and watch youtube videos of producers talking about how they recorded tracks. Sometimes I'm like, wow, they recorded six guitar tracks, with different amps, just for the same rythmn part.

  I think about the OPs idea of categorizing in a since
in order to find what is common between all good
pop or just good music in general.

  "Rarity" comes to mind. If anybody can do it then
it's probably just another song, band, or mix etc.

  There are thousands of very good and talented
musicians out there (but) they are just another
(good) musician, or song or band. What is "common"
between (what I consider) the best ( or to use the
term) pro stuff is "rarity".

   I think "passion" plays a large roll in a person
becoming a cut above the rest. There is the term
"often emulated but never duplicated" Some
people just have the gift.

  I think where many of us fall short in (music)
for example is we tend to think with our mind.
Do it like everyone else, follow the beaten path
play by the rules and on and on.

  Or in other words search (out there) for answers
when the answers are in our own hearts. I
can only speak for myself here but in my case
I am can be extremely critical of myself
when it comes to my music.

  Sometimes I can listen to my works and
go "man that sucks real bad". It gets sometimes
to the point that I don't even try to do a new
song or production. If It's going to be (just
another thing) then why bother?

  Good aint good enough. It's all because
I want my musical persona to be (insert
description here............... because I'm
not sure what to call it) but I do know
it's passion.

  Different people have different ways of being
pro. I am (can be) extremely analytical but
it's a means to an end (the quest is for it
to actually become very simple).

  "Distracting" is another word that comes
to mind and or the "Do I listen?" subject.
If something in a song/mix distracts me
I'm not interested in listening to the song
anymore.

  So? If I were to ask the question of
the difference in my music and professional
music I would say "performance" would be
high on the list. There is something about
the "performance" of pro music (and mixes
productions) that make them (rare).

  And what may seem simple such as
an acoustic guitar part isn't so simple
to do because (that player) has a certain
feel and expression etc.

  As "Bitflipper" says it's not just one thing.
Sometimes it isn't what one does but what
one doesn't do that makes for a pro sound.
Such as the silence between the notes
is what "makes the music"

  And it's the same thing in a great mix.
Many times the great sound and quality
in a great mix is because of what isn't there.

 
    
 

The only pro-level thing in my music is the lyrics. Some melodies are quite good, but the rest is garbage.
 
World is full of great instrumentalists and the average production quality of all published music is soooo good. What makes the difference is personality and a new, fresh aproach to old things.

jimmyman

.......
 
So? If I were to ask the question of
the difference in my music and professional
music I would say "performance" would be
high on the list. There is something about
the "performance" of pro music (and mixes
productions) that make them (rare).

And what may seem simple such as
an acoustic guitar part isn't so simple
to do because (that player) has a certain
feel and expression etc.

Sometimes it isn't what one does but what
one doesn't do that makes for a pro sound.
Such as the silence between the notes
is what "makes the music"

And it's the same thing in a great mix.
Many times the great sound and quality
in a great mix is because of what isn't there.


   

There ya go..... well said.

Guitarhacker

jimmyman

.......

So? If I were to ask the question of
the difference in my music and professional
music I would say "performance" would be
high on the list. There is something about
the "performance" of pro music (and mixes
productions) that make them (rare).

And what may seem simple such as
an acoustic guitar part isn't so simple
to do because (that player) has a certain
feel and expression etc.

Sometimes it isn't what one does but what
one doesn't do that makes for a pro sound.
Such as the silence between the notes
is what "makes the music"

And it's the same thing in a great mix.
Many times the great sound and quality
in a great mix is because of what isn't there.


 

There ya go..... well said.

Yes, Jimmyman, well said.  I think there are a lot of folk that just don't, and won't get that. They see an artist or band play a song, and think "that's easy, I can play that note for note". But it's the way it's played, that makes it pro. It's especially tough for a vocalist, but for everyone. Like, they can hit every note just spot on, and complete a track with technical perfection. But if doesn't have the right emotion, the track just doesn't fly.

Jclynadms,

Exceeding welcome to the forums.

Guys/girls let me add this!:
A pop song is oft a good cheerful fight!  Never quit fighting to make your turd polished!

I think a big difference between home recordings and pro stuff is that lots of home recordists can't sing...like me

Bob Dylan couldn't sing. Johnny Cash was pretty warbly, too. Still, those guys did all right.

Nowadays, of course, they'd be autotuned to perfection and quadruple-tracked until they sounded like Sheryl Crow.

bitflipper


Bob Dylan couldn't sing. Johnny Cash was pretty warbly, too. Still, those guys did all right.

Nowadays, of course, they'd be autotuned to perfection and quadruple-tracked until they sounded like Sheryl Crow.

I don't normally watch American Idol - not that it's a bad show, or that I have anything against it, but it's just not something that I'm motivated to watch.  But I was at my sister in laws Tuesday night and they were watching it.  they had Jamie Foxx was a guest "mentor" on the show Tuesday night because of his success in the movie and recording industries.  hmmm...ok.  I can agree with his success in the movie industry - but they billed him as a big success in the R&B recording industry as well.  and they played one of his songs as they were introducing him.
 
gag me with a spoon!  it was all autotuned and robotic.  I thought this was just the most ironic and completely inappropriate mentor they could have chosen for a show built on talent who had to be judged on their NAKED vocals!  If I had been one of the contestants on that show, I would have told Mr. Foxx that I did not respect his authority as a mentor because his songs do not have natural, un-edited vocals on them.
 
yes, I know the industry autotunes everything to perfection even songs WITHOUT the robotic sound.  and I can live with that (even tho I don't really agree with it).  I even touch my vox up with v-vocal or melodyne occassionally too.  but my point is:  how can anyone respect a mentor who has never walked in their shoes? 

  I often times do the (in my mind) question of, How
my music compares to popular artist and or "hits"?
(My final completed, mixed, produced and all that stuff).
For me to be the (only) person doing it (all) I do a very
good job as others here do too.

  It's sort of like in drag racing where the fastest car
has to let the slower car take off first, (spotting)
(call it even the odds).

  So. If an artist had to (do it all) such as write,play
record,mix,sing,produce and so many other things
there would be far less (big timers) out there.
Considering the amount of hard work, time and
effort (and years) that some of us have in
our music endeavors that would make us
pretty remarkable at what we do.

  It's sort of like comparing apples to oranges
for me to compare my stuff to the hits out there
for the reasons mentioned above. However
the "world out there" only knows what they see
and hear. In other words I don't get "points" for
doing it all.

  That female out there who thinks Bon Jovi
is the "thing" couldn't tell you who was
involved in the making of that image.
(the unknowns). The tube preamps. The
hardware and on and on.

  American Idol and shows like that are a joke
to me. (pardon me, that's just how (I) feel about it)
It's a "soap Opra".

  I listen to Pop and crossover music on the radio.
And there are (some) very impressive performances
mixes etc. Those are the ones where I ask myself
is mine as good as that? The answer is no.
(compared to the best ones).

  That leaves me with one of two choices, give up
or keep trying. As I listen to the radio I think
the trend may be coming back to more "talent"
and less "tricks".

  Robots might be entertaining for a while but
they loose "appeal" after so long. Another way to
look at it is people get discovered. One can't
use some of the trickery playing live. Even the
general public to some degree can see that
when an artist does a "live show" the real
talent or lack of becomes known.

  I think "comparing" is very healthy. I do that
with my stuff to both radio songs and the
songs forum. It isn't a point of whether I'm
"not as good" or "better", it's a point of
reference.