Modern production techniques - Complex production

So much music these days has loads going on. There is just something EVERYWHERE. There might only be drums, bass, piano and vocals, but then about 20 different 'sounds' and 'things' that fill in every little gap. Well maybe 20 is exaggerating, but LOTS. How the hell do they do it?!?! I love it. Some people hate it. And that's cool too. But I love it. With contrast of course to make it more interesting - not just flat out full all the time or for every song.

It's typically done with synths I find. Just simple sounds. Not even really musical sometimes... But it just WORKS. Often also very percussive in nature and almost always set back into the mix with lots of reverb/delays.

Whenever I try anything like that I just fail... It sounds too much. I mean the producers that pull off these kind of things are big names usually. They work with so many artists. They must be busy guys making big bucks. But I refuse to believe that I can't pull it off too over time!

I'm forcing myself to just stick to a minimalist approach for now till I know I can pull it off. But I need to keep pushing the boundaries and work up to this level cause it's the kind of style I like to produce.

Any thoughts?

I love all the little dittles inbetween the music.

I actually got into this pretty heavy about 10 years ago. I mean, just really listening, studying and recreating what producers were doing. In particular a CD by Earl Klugh.  That is the best way to get a feel for it IMO. Covers.

When you say "it sounds too much", it's probably just not the right part. But, the "much" might just be the eq.
A part might sit better without too much body to the tone.  Just an idea. 

But yes, It can open up productions quite nicely. 

mattplaysguitar


So much music these days has loads going on. There is just something EVERYWHERE. There might only be drums, bass, piano and vocals, but then about 20 different 'sounds' and 'things' that fill in every little gap. Well maybe 20 is exaggerating, but LOTS. How the hell do they do it?!?! I love it. Some people hate it. And that's cool too. But I love it. With contrast of course to make it more interesting - not just flat out full all the time or for every song.

It's typically done with synths I find. Just simple sounds. Not even really musical sometimes... But it just WORKS. Often also very percussive in nature and almost always set back into the mix with lots of reverb/delays.

Whenever I try anything like that I just fail... It sounds too much. I mean the producers that pull off these kind of things are big names usually. They work with so many artists. They must be busy guys making big bucks. But I refuse to believe that I can't pull it off too over time!

I'm forcing myself to just stick to a minimalist approach for now till I know I can pull it off. But I need to keep pushing the boundaries and work up to this level cause it's the kind of style I like to produce.

Any thoughts?

Hi Matt,
 
When it sounds "too much" you're usually masking. Eq is important but so is panning as well as panning effects and using effects for depth perception. Verbs/impulses as well as use of rooms make a huge difference in how instruments work together as well as why a song sounds produced. The sound stage needs to be orchestrated. Certain things can be wider panned while others need to fill in the gaps.
 
Choosing which instruments will be the power core and which will be the "fillers" will dictate where you go next as well as how things sound. Of course then we have proper compression usage to keep everything tight and out of the way of the others. You should be able to stack a load of instruments in a mix without being too much really. Sometimes you really need to high pass something more than you think. Other times low mids can wash things out and mid MIDS can do the same thing for the other instruments in their range.
 
Another thing to consider is how big your sound sources are. Just about everyone is in search of "big sound". When you find it though, you can't over-use it because if everything sounds big, there's no where left for the sound to go unless you start to thin some things out. Know when to go big and when to thin something out.
 
For example, if you have huge guitars going on, you wouldn't want huge strings with them if the guitars were the focal point. You'd use less mids on the strings and a bit more sparkle to make them cut through allowing your guitars to command the drive. If you wanted big strings, you'd need smaller guitars...so you'd need to cut mids on them. You can go for big drums but then you have to watch out when the drums are too big because everything else will sound small and like it doesn't fit the song.
 
Stereo instruments that are used by default may have to be narrowed. Stereo effects which default to hard L/R need to be controlled so they don't go as wide. They also need to be eq'd properly. The more you take care of your instruments, effects, panning, compression and control your effects, the more space you control to add other things.
 
Cut frequencies in instruments that don't get used. You'll be amazed at how much more you hear in your material. For example, some snare drums are not going to need any low end in them at all. You may high pass up to 250 Hz or more...it depends on the snare. You're not going to need low end in hats or cymbals so kill it all until the low end ooooommm in the cymbals disappears. Kill 5 or 6k and above on basses. Watch left hand low notes on strings or piano that walk on your bass guitar notes. High pass them or don't use them at all. Stuff like this can really leave space for the other things you want to add.
 
Also, and this is important. Don't be afraid to compress heavily. There is a difference between compressing heavily to tighten something up vs. compression with artifacts like pumping and breathing. Even with a good amount of compression, with the right compressor you shouldn't hear artifacts from it if you have it set just right because you'll need this for major production type stuff with loads of instruments.
 
Don't spend too much time eqing while in solo mode. What you hear by itself is just about always a waste when you bring in the other instruments. High pass back up vocals and watch mids...they can kill you.
 
Don't use the same guitar sound more than twice in a mix. Some guys (like myself) like both sides to sound the same. I was never a fan of eqing one side differently than the other because I'm the only guitar player. But when I layer, every two guitars has a new identity.
 
Anyway, that's all I can think of for now. Good luck man....it's good you're experimenting with this stuff. :)
 
-Danny

Had a chance to finally play around a bit with a song just then. It's actually working really well! In the verse I have drums, bass, pad, electric rhythm, acoustic rhythm, xylophones fill, simple electric piano noise thing, normal piano 8th root note taps and vocals going on. I sounds like a lot but most of these parts are right back in the mix, barely audible but add so much interest. It sounds busy but not cluttered. Each part is working and serving a purpose subtly. Most are deep in the mix. The chorus is actually much more simple with only drums, bass, organ and guitars. But because of the way it hits you dynamicly and because if a change in leveling of instruments to the vocals and drums etc, it sounds bigger and more exciting and like more is going on than the verse. All through careful production and mixing. Love it!

The tricky bit is to try and not use the same 'fill-in sounds' in every song when I want this feel... I'm glad I tried this. The encouragement helped a lot. I knew this song was just missing something and I've finally found it :)

HerbClassic example I can think of to demonstrate this: Black Velvet [link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkXNEmtf9tkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkXNEmtf9tk[/link]

bass, drums and female vox in verse..... occasional fills..... B3 & guitar sparse, but so powerful.
choruses build with some background B3.....


Of course... the music is hard to focus on if you are watching the video.... but try...

 
Herb, excellent example of less is more. I do have to admit one thing though...as much as I love that song and what they didn't do to over-produce it, it almost seems too conservative to me at times. And what's really bad is, it leaves you wanting more and then she disappears from the scene after this mega hit. LOL!
 
The only thing I may have done differently in that song would have been to add in some power guitars on the pre and the chorus. Lightly dirty for the pre to bring things up just a hair, and then on the chorus more powerful guitars...but I'd still keep them low in the mix. You know...just to give it some power and "sizzle" so to speak.
 
But for sure, just as it is, this song rocks hard. I've just always felt a little more power and production would have been nice in a few spots but not all over it as that would take away the quality and the impact. But a little more impact in certain sections would have been a nice addition in my opinion. 
 
-Danny

timidi

The only thing I may have done differently in that song would have been to add in some power guitars on the pre and the chorus.

Well, of course you would.....

But just lightly and in the background, I swear Tim! LOL! Just a slight sizzle...nothing metal.
 
-Danny

I love busy mixes, and the challenge of making a busy mix clear and distinct. It's mainly a subtractive process, chopping out stuff here and there, thinning parts with EQ, inserting pauses, automating reverb and delays.

The thing is, your brain can only follow a limited number of things at once. Some say the limit is 2 things, others say 3 or 4. I know it's not greater than 4. So if you have 24 tracks of sound, they'd better be working together to make a homogeneous composite sound rather than 24 separate musical threads, and there'd better be just one overriding melody or rhythm component at a time that the listener can easily latch onto.

What I really hate is excessive repetition. While you do need to drum the main theme into your listener's head, once you've established it the challenge is to then keep it from becoming boring. The easiest thing is to add highlights that don't repeat more than once. A verse with no drums, a chorus with no cymbals. A big percussive hit before the last chorus. Dropping out the reverb on a key phrase. Ping-ponging the lead guitar. Substituting a repeating guitar lick with a synth for one bar. Putting the BGVs through a flanger during one phrase. Anything that surprises the listener without making him lose his place.

Listen to Tom Petty's "American Girl". What's the most memorable bit in that song? It's where the BGVs answer "if it takes all night". A one-off highlight. Or another TP example, "Free Fallin'", when the full-spectrum chorus jumps in - just once - on the short phrase "Ventura Boulevard". That was produced by Jeff Lynn, who's a master of the one-shot highlight (and one of the "Ventura Boulevard" chorus voices). He pioneered the technique of suddenly and briefly muting all the instruments as a dramatic surprise. 

It's also been said to mix in mono.

Two ways to do this:

1) If working with VIs, they'll mostly be stereo. What I would do is bounce these to audio, Then, do the channel split (on the same track). By doing this, you'll hear how your panning turned out. I do know about R-Mix plug in X2, but for the other apps that don't have it or something similar.

Another way, is to simply convert the stereo file to mono (you won't hear as many "artifacts" - ie: reverb or delay tails, etc.) If it sounds decent in mono, then, it'll sound decent in stereo. The idea is to get the mix right.

When I posted my first tracks here, they were in stereo, but I had too many "artifacts" (and artificial ones) at that (Too much verb, delay), but I was a little less experienced then.

Anyway, what I had done was export the current track, I'm still working on, importing back into the DAW and did the channel split method. To me, the track is mostly center, but even in stereo, I could still hear what's panned and how far.

I had watch a video about SR/BR (sample/bit rate) and I heard that some mix in 24-bit as opposed to 16. The app I use uses 32-bit audio files and thus that's what the midi tracks are when I bounce them. The audio files are 16, but I upped it to 24-bit 96k sample rate and I sound I heard was quite different. I could hear more reverb (and my card is set to default EQ and No Reverb). I also heard delay and the panning was much more distinguished than in 16bit.

Some refer to panning as the "virtual stage" and DAWs have templates to mimic this (ie: a full orchestra template); however, you probably could tell where each instrument sits moreso in 24 than 16. Having said this, they still may be stepping on each each other even in 24 (pan or frequency), but at least for me, I can make the distinction much better. This doesn't mean 24-bit is better than 16 as you still have to get the mix right no matter which you chose. Some may refer to this as "Stereo Separation" which is what panning is, but this is different than tracks that sits on top of each other. I've used this technique as well.

Which brings in this tip: Mix against your card's default. Granted, you still may need to come back to re-EQ. As the default for Graphic/Parametric EQs have the sliders in the middle (0), use this setting on your card or your mix will sound deceiving to you.

All this "minimalist approach" stuff is good...however, if the OP is after a huge prodcution with lots of various instruments, "less is more" is not the answer. It all depends on the genre as well as what you're going for.

If "less is more" is what you're after, you need big sounding instrument sources that are also clear or have a distinct quality about them. Let's rip that Black Velvet tune apart.

Drums: We have a drum sound that is big and makes a statement. Casio drums or even a real drum kit without the impact these drums have in this tune will degrade it instantly. So a big sounding kit with a good forceful kick along with a snare that has an identity like the one used is where we need to be. Don't want to go big with the drums, they must have impact. Listen to that kick drum...this sticks out instantly and gives the tune personality. Listen to the snare...same thing...impact, effects, the whole 9.

Acoustic guitar: not any guitar sound will do. Notice how metalic the acoustic guitar sounds in this. Slight string buzz as well as mic positioning that really make this acoustic stand out. Again, this particular guitar has an identity that would be hard to replace. It's not just a mic'd acoustic...it screams identity and makes the song. Though it is not "big" for what it does, it doesn't have to be.

Electric clean guitar: Really nice bell-like texture that also sound metalic. It also has a slight keyboard type texture to it. Awesome compliment to the haunting keys.

Electric dirty guitar: Any basic blues electric with a strat or tele would work here in my opinion. Nothing to see here other than the tasty licks and solo that were delivered. All that counts of course, but to me this was not a selling point to the song other than the solo and little riffs here and there. The acoustic riffs were more important in my opinion.

Bass: So far we have established an identity with the drums and the acoustic guitar with the electric providing some nice textures. From here we throw a bass in the mix, but it's not just any bass...it's a fretless. Again...another identity instrument. A fretless has a voice like no other. Though the low drone it keep for the majority of the song is the most dominant, listen close to the sound of that drone. It would sound different if that bass had frets. It's also a really nice bass sound and when it does riff, the fretless reason for the bass comes to life to add more identity to the song.

Vocals: Need I mention how incredible this girl is? She could sing with just an acoustic backing her in this song and still deliver it with as much impact. She sells it with incredible vocal control in a bluesey style that just screams that she's lived the blues.

Keys: About as important as the electric guitar in my opinion....good filler, adds dimension and texture and enough of a haunting effect that you can feel the ghosts present within the tune.

In a nutshell, the kick, snare, acoustic and vocals make the song in my opinion. However, the other instruments shine due to their identity. The song is a work of art due to the instrumentation identities that were chosen for it. Without them, it's a boring blues tune with a good singer really. The kick and snare are not even dynamic. Samples that are exactly the same through the song with 0 velocity changes. As a matter of fact, that kick and snare are common samples in quite a few drum modules. But they have impact in this song.

That acoustic is to die for as a lead instrument with those riffs. That bass tone rules and if you don't use a fretless, it changes the sound completely. This to me is a classic case of producing an all-star cast of fine instrumentation...yet all the instruments stick out like sore thumbs in a good way which is what gives the song impact.

For something with more production/instruments, you'd need to re-think your instrument strategy. You can get away with bigger and "more impact" for situations such as this. For something more sonic and rock or with a more orchestrated background of instruments or loads of back up vocals, you have to take an entirely different approach.

Another thing to keep in mind with older recorded music compared to what we have today is, they did NOT use the bass people use today in their mixes. We have way more subs going on which can totally clutter a mix if you're not careful. That's the first thing I hear when I listen to the older stuff.

It's more clear because it's not mixed to focus on all these subs we have today. So with huge productions, you also want to consider how much or how little you push your low end. In most of the 60's music, you heard and felt the bass in it. In the 70's, you started to hear more of the bass than feel it. In the 80's, you heard the bass more than you felt it. In the 90's and beyond, we started getting into those low tunings and more subs entered the picture as well as more "sonics" within mixes....especially with layered guitars all over the place with octaves of the main lines as well as chord inversions to further orchestrate the material.

So my first rule of thumb when creating projects that are going to be huge is to think about how this production will need to be delivered. Do I take the 70's stance and listen to Kansas or YES since they always had lots going on....do I check out some of the 80's pop or rock productions that also had lots going on, or do I look deeper into Trans Siberian Orchestra or some of the good pop stuff like Daughtry and go for that type of production?

You have to look deep inside yourself and figure out what you want to do with your production and then sort of search for a band that may have done something you want to add into your stuff....or at least base your starting point using this band as your template. The best way is to examine what they did and listen over and over while taking notes. If you want deeper low end with more of a sonic sound, you need to check out more current stuff. If you want the middle of the road where everything was sort of balanced, go 80's. If you want a level playing field with warmth and the ability to hear your bass as well as feel it, 70's production is where you should be.

Remember, the low end makes or breaks a project. If you have a common ground with your low end and you're not pushing mids to the point of congestion, you should be able to fit as many instruments as possible in a mix without a problem. As soon as several start to dominate a frequency area, you're capped until you fix that area.

Another important tip...just about every engineer I know goes for too much of a finished sound. What do I mean by that? If you heard what a real mix from a major label sounded like BEFORE it was mastered, you'd be quite shocked. Because most of us are one-man operations, we do it all. But the mistake lots of people make is they try to make their mixes sound like mastered material and they over-do it. The key to your mix and production should be a level playing field...then when you master, you should just be able to polish things up and add all the right stuff. Byt the time most people master, they already have too much sub low and congestive mids in the picture.

Just try some of these things I'm saying...they honestly will make a world of difference. Try to create a balanced mix that doesn't favor anything or lash out with lows. Then, when you master it, add some of the things you think the mix is missing a little at a time. Don't rely on reference material too much...you're trying to mix to something that's been mastered. Get the level playing field first, then add or subtract as necessary. It can really improve the over-all sound by leaps and bounds. :)

-Danny

So, which do you mean because in one instance, you say: "I don't mean just one track," but acknowledge disbelief when viewing the "Floating" track count.

You're right that big productions aren't necessarily "smart," but neither are small productions.

I'm sure you've heard songs that were severely condensed and while they may have sounded better, you gotta admit something was missing which was Danny's point.

Certainly a 50+ track song could see some trimming; however, one has to see how it all fits and try to make it fit before you start taking away stuff. Trim the highs to get more lows or trim the lows to get more highs. However, nothing may need to go provided you've arranged it mixed well.

Let's take out the strings section in the orchestra. The other three sections can manage, but if the strings are very important, then don't ditch them because it's too much. They aren't referred to as the "backbone" for nothing (not to mention the Principle Violin leading everybody)

So, I guess the question is: What is smart production? This can vary from person to person and while 10-15 producers can make a mess of an album (I know of one inparticular), from a composition perspective when working with just one or two - have you found yourself saying: "All these songs sound alike?"

What is "smart" composition? Variance. Dynamics, Rhythm, Part Distribution, how the Melody and Harmony are played, even if it's the exact same thing, focusing what's around them (Part Distribution) - not in an isolated manner.

Big isn't always bad if you focus on the little things that make up the big picture. An album would still be a mess if one person was all over the place as opposed to 10-15. What if those 10-15 managed something cohesive? It's not impossible. That's big, but also smart! See you can have your cake and eat it too (no pun intended)

P.S. Add in Celine Dion, Mariah Carey, Shania Twain, Richard Marx, Michael Bolton for having some pretty huge pop mixes loaded with instruments and various orchestration. I forgot to add them in my post above. :)

-Danny

I gotta disagree with ya on Biebers music....I like it and think the kid has talent for what HE does. Most people hate my style because I have a very strong 80's vibe about me...I would hope they would look past that and at least think "yeah, for what you do...it's cool, it's just not my bag". :)  

The 80s was the best!   (From a guy with a definite 80s vibe as well.)

Danny Danzi


P.S. Add in Celine Dion, Mariah Carey, Shania Twain, Richard Marx, Michael Bolton for having some pretty huge pop mixes loaded with instruments and various orchestration. I forgot to add them in my post above. :)

-Danny

I saw a Shania concert a few years back, and yeah.. there were more musicians on her stage than there are cousins at a Hillbilly wedding.  Definitely a huge production. Live version matched the studio version pretty flawlessly. 

But then again....in the case of Shania....... Mutt Lange was the man on the mixer......

To me, it does not pay to think too much. Just feel until in place!