The Dominant Element

I kinda agree with your assessment that the "dominant element" idea has fallen by the wayside to a certain degree, for instance, the early seventies had the guitar bands, where a dominant personality was the lead guitar player who pretty much carried the band. Or the keyboard/piano player or the lead vocalist, there was always some one who stood out in the mix.

The music I have been mixing recently though has been less dependant on the one main feature. Maybe it is because a lot of the music these days is written, recorded, performed, mixed and mastered by one person? Even colabs are reluctant to feature one person too much, since the idea was mutual collaboration from the beginning of the composition.

Interesting thought, though. I am waiting to hear what others have to say about this.

Later
Albert

I wonder if I understand what you mean?

For example; my current mixing does go in the direction of cacophony where each instrument is more or less represented equally. I think this is the result of having access to technology and time to make a mix that is so clean, but I also think this tendency is, for me, the result of having learned so many times in the past that the bass player, drummer, or backup guitarist etc was disappointed that their contributions were buried in the mix... and so now that I can I strive to feature all the elements.

When I listen to my record collection I realize that this was rarely the case in older mixes... often times whole sections disappear into a fog of sound as some featured element floated to the forefront.

I have heard people criticize, in broad general terms, the style of mixing I am doing because it seems busy... but I like having made the journey and I like being able to hi light each player... so now I just hope the playing is wort listening too.

Because this stuff is so subjective... I imagine I'll have a whole different interest, opinion, and approach in few years. :-)

Great question Philip.

best regards,
mike

For me emotion, feel, groove and rythm (probably in that order) are the dominant elements and whatever way to mix that will enhance that is what I strive for. A lead guitar is a good lead guitar if it brings the song what it need, the song is not there to support the guitar. For things to be emotive etc some things have to stand out though and some things will have to be in the background, a good roller coaster can't be flat... I very much agree though that in too much of the music that's on the radio today there is no emotion, seem to be no thought on placements in the mix more than to make it as loud as possible and the groove/rythm has declined to some sort of bom-tic-bdich-tic metronome.

    To my ears I think of distinction. A vocalist may be
"loud enough" with just an acoustic guitar but with a
full band playing there may be no room left for vocals.
The best players know how to restrain themselves
yet the less skilled many times get busy with clutter.

   It may be just the opposite of dominate. It isn't
what (is) there but what is (not) that makes the
singer or featured instrument stand out. 

  I can now listen to my earlier days of producing
and mixing and find some really nice productions
and mixes (but) by today's standards they don't
sound very good. They sound amateur in many
ways.

  Times are different now and I am too. We may
always have the learning curve to contend with
as we do what we do.The "how to" and "how
can I" are just two of the questions that my
mind constantly endure.

  Phillip, if I understand you correctly I think you
are just tired of much of the "same old"  in
concepts etc. This makes me think of the
book "jonathon livingston segull".

  Speaking for myself I'm in a weird mindset
lately. It's like an attitude has kicked in and
it's do it well or don't do it at all. Do it the
way I think it should be done or not at all.
This has nothing to do with ego or arrogance,
it simply means I must follow my heart.

   To me (all) (everything) that (is) in the song
is important. I think what sometimes happens
is that people rely on a given person be
it singer or otherwise to carry the weight.

  For example how many times have you heard
someone say in the songs forum? Oh that vocal
sounds sweet! and the:
   Kick
   snare
   HH
   Ride
   toms
   guitar
   bass
   piano
   solo
   strings
   harmonies
   organ
   etc.

   But yes! As I think of your word dominant
to my mind it turns into "O.K" where's the
players? Lets get em on the stage and lets
PLAY, I mean PLAY, not just stand there
and make a motion.

  Lets make music not noise. (unless it's
a joyful noise). Praise the one who gave us
the gift to sing and play.

  The thing is that when we are in a tree we can
stay close to the tree and safe like some do.
Or, we can walk out on a limb. The question
then is how far can we go? and can we make
it back?

  I know I've talked about many things which
may sound vague or philosophical but even 
just something as simple as (vocals loud
enough) can become very complex. If the
vocals don't really say anything then having
them up front may work against doing so.

 If on the other hand the vocals are truly
doing/saying something a touch louder
would actually work well.

 

MakeShift


Jimmy,

I pretty much agree with everything you have written here, and I am in much the same place as you lately, in the "do it the way you think it should be done".  I have really come to the conclusion that this is our artistic taste on the peice that you are creating.

I have read in many of my mixing books that one should always listen through the song a couple of times through, before you even touch the faders.  This is to determine which elements/ tracks in the song are dominate, which elements carry the song, and which tracks should be highlighted above others.  A song may have a really good bass line or groove and it needs to be pushed forward, because it "carries" a song.  In another song, it might not be anything special and is better suited to sit back in the mix more.  I think it also goes back to how you craft a song.  For instance, if I plan on having a guitar solo, I will often create a space for it, by having some of the other instuments sit back more, or go away altogether, to create a whole, or space for that lead.

I am agreement that most modern mixes have every instrument and vocal, at the same time, very up front and present.  I think this adds to the same fatigue as the over compressed mixes that I can only listen to a couple of songs, before I am tired of the CD.

Great topic Phillip.

     Wow Mike!
         Very well said. I like the way "you" put it.

Here's an early recording where the cacophony is beginning to take a back seat as the idea of "soloist" enters the "jazz" mindset.

As I said earlier... this was part of fashioning jazz music into a product that could be distributed as a capitalist enterprise to consumers who were becoming accustomed to identifying with personalities via mass media.

King Oliver's real hey day and fame as a player took place in the early teens... 10 years before this recording was made. In it's day this recording was thought to be nostalgic.

It was a radio interview... If I recall correctly it was with Terry Gross a syndicated NPR host... it was several years back... less recent than I may have given the impression... but recent when regarding his career. It is sometimes played as a classic repeat during repeat season. I think I've heard it twice... it may be available as a pod cast as well.

best,
mike

Cacophany vs. Soloist

Symmetrical balance vs. Assymetrical balance (most artists prefer the latter)

Emotive vs. Virtuoso

Portrait vs. Landscape

(I can tell you're all working on new songs and are striving/rising for song-glories)

Our genres are transforming/changing ... for the best.  But a lot of us do have  'good verbal hooks' that demand 'extra attention' and polish in the mix.  I mean, your catchy lyrics and groaning deserve utmost personality, not just to sit timid and cozy-like in the tidal wave of guitar pomp.

Why do some of us want distortion guitar pomp only ... at the expense of a priceless vox?  These 2 dominants need to take turns (for me) ... like 2 captains giving orders.  I'm not talking about the over-forumulaic hard-rock paradigms.  Rock masters know true emotives from hypocritical-cliche performances.

That may be because words edify (and destroy) listeners to the max.

Interesting thread. For me, it's all about the genre of the song and becomes really a common sense mindset. For example, a simple acoustic guitar, bass guitar, vocal song is going to feature the vocal as the dominant element. If there is a lead section of some sort, that lead instrument will be featured. Everything else is there to accompany the dominant element. It doesn't matter if its a collaboration or solo project. To me, it shouldn't matter if the bass player, guitarist, etc thinks their part should be louder. Its about what the song calls for. Period.

Randy 

If the mix is playing the same significant role as dominant elements then the mix is important. We all know that. Dominant elements can be turned right down to form texture within a mix.

I was working on a Brain Eno ambient piece and recorded a lead guitarist playing a crazy distorted solo at full volume etc. In the mix that sound was maybe 30 db down or more, eq'ed for a very smooth sound, panned left and maybe had some reverb added. Was that guitar dominant, no. It is now texture, important, non dominant but texture. I could do some crazy drum parts and crank this guitar so that it tears your head off.  Is it dominant then, yes, very much so.

So with a mix now being as important as dominant elements, some elements can be quite low in a mix but still dominant. Now that is an interesting thought. Important things need to be heard but not too loudly. Clear is the word. Once you hear something important and dominant does it need to be any louder. If it becomes too loud then we are annoyed and it is having a negative effect. Anything too loud, dominant or not is going to be annoying. A great jazz player could be taking a very commanding solo but the volume in the mix may even be slightly low but you will always feel the dominant aspect to that solo no matter what.

Of course it is back to the music again and dominant or non dominant elements actually start there. I find the engineering part interesting and exciting as it allows you to change all that by how something is mixed. Initial non dominant parts can become very dominant later.

Brian Eno's amazing true ambient album 'On Land Ambient 4' is one of the great ambient albums of all time. (complete rhythmless music, just a hanging teaxture, I hope Bitflipper reads this as I have mentioned to Dave in the song forum this is the ultimate album to fall asleep with, although Enya is excellent, Holst The Planets Mars should be avoided at all costs! ) Now in this music there would not be one dominant element, but I suppose you could argue there is, but knowing Eno he would have been trying to do something different and think outside the square when he was doing these albums. And of course 'The Pearl and Apollo Moon Missions are also amazing. I am someone who loves crafting these things and I can tell you they are hard and require a lot of hard work. Not just holding down a chord on one synth patch. But the key to mixing them is not having dominant elements anywhere but hearing everything you have recorded instead. Eno had up to 20 people or more playing live doing those tracks (and I am sure he overdubbed a few things too) Each one doing very insignificant parts but it all adds up to something very powerful. The dominant element there now becomes the finished product or the whole thing.

I suppose:
 
Like a painter ... the dominant element can confidently 'sit-back' in the backround of cacophany

... or the cacophany (as Mike alluded) can become 'texturally' dominant (... as the producer delights).

IIRC, Paul McCartney may have become exceedingly upset with Producer, Phil Specter, for cramping his melancholic style in "The Long and Winding Road" ... with choirs and strings.  McCartney may have perceived the cacophony as evil, or something (in this particular pop-piece).

The Paul McCartney excites my curiosity.

I'm off to shop for the record.

Thanks,
mike

can you explain the concept of DOMINANT?

Don't know if I'm getting the jist of the thread but, it sort of goes with what I've been thinking about the course that "music" is taking, in that The computer is becoming the band, soloist, orchestra entity unto it's own. Distinctions of "parts" are falling to the wayside to make a wave of sound ala Phil Spector of the 21st century. But instead of Phil it's the computer becoming the artist via the engineers and producers that dictate it's voice.

Philip,

I had listened to the original version of TLAWR for several decades, so first hearing this Naked version was quite different and took some time to absorb.  It is basically, Pauls vox, his piano, very sparce drums and a well played but deliberately sparce bass foundation.  To me, McCartneys "Dominent Element" is his piano playing and his vox.  I guess I like his vox, so I want to hear it with out it being drenched within an orchestra of sound.  Interestingly enough, I think in a lot of his songs, the bass plays a dominate element, because of how technically good he is at playing bass.  I would call his bass playing a "secondary element", that is essential to his sound.