Really nice song Lynn! I like the thick harmonies that come towards the end. It would be nice to copy and paste them towards the beginning in the some of the chorus sections too.
 
Some type of melody on the opposite pan to counter the sax line might balance the sax a bit more.
 
Having the sax cut out in quieter sections and come in again is also an option.
 
Reminds me of Steely Dan and Pink Floyd. Great work! :)

Tim, thanks for giving this a listen and taking the time to make a detailed response.  Actually, it's one sax sample all the way through.  It's the tenor sax in Dimension Pro.  As for the drums, you're right about the snare.  I didn't want the drums to step on the sax or vocal, but there's probably a little leeway on the EQ.  Lately, I've been thinking that the vocal compressor could be lighter, so I'll deal with that on the next revision.  Good idea about the strings, too.  This is very helpful advice.

Great singing and really like the melodies

markno999
Lynn,
 
The vocals are sitting better in this updated mix.   I would actually push them a little more forward or maybe pull back the reverb slightly... In spots it is difficult to understand the words.   Very cool song, it all fits together very nicely.

Regards

Mark, I'll take this in consideration on the next mix.  As always, thanks for your time and observations!

Cool song, Lynn....   I really like how the overall ambiance ties into the vibe.   Vocals sound really good.  
 
I do agree with the sax comments though...   or at least when it's the featured instrument I'd prefer to hear it more centered and maybe panned when used for fills.  Some of the lines are really nice too, the "guitaristic" phrasing carries over to MIDI really well!   Oh... and that trailing line at the end was a nice touch, just needs a little delay/reverb to drift off into the distance.
 

Nice job Lynn - the mix sounds good to my ears.  Your voice makes me think of Peter Gabriel - very cool.

Doug, thanks  for taking the time to  listen and respond.  The Peter Gabriel mention is very flattering.  I've spent hours and hours listening to him over the years.  Something might have rubbed off.
 
Daryl, thanks for a second listen.  Again, you're PG reference is very complimentary.

Mike, thanks for listening.  Thanks to all the good advice I've received here, this is becoming one of my favorites, too.  When I get time, I'll have a listen you your tunes.  Stay prolific.

Freddy, thanks for your kind words!  After listening to your latest song, you may be interested in MidiGuitar 2, if you want to get some different sounds into your songs.  That's how I got to this point, myself.  I just found out that flute sounds good through MG2, so now I'm going to have to  redo "Nights In White Satin" ;)  lol

like the tv guy says pitchee
good mix - maybe speed up a bit?
 

My first "Lynn" song...
Nice!  Enjoyed it a lot.
Didn't get to hear the first version, but overall feel of this song really tells the story.
Good stuff!

Hi Lynn, sounds like you're hitting all the right midrange frequencies because this sounds full and very decent on laptop speakers. What's your secret my friend?

Ok so it sounds like you have plenty of bases covered. It's working for you. Do you eq the stereo bus? And if so, do you find yourself boosting in the 200-500/ 1000 range a tad? Or are you aware of the dangers in scooping too much of that range out of individual tracks when mixing in the first place?  

Well I'm a bit like you...recently I've been noticing that scooping too much on individual tracks, like you say, takes too much body out...and that body is really needed on small range earbuds, speakers and listening environments of that kind. And as you said...that's where people listen. To make matters worse, I was operating under the theory that getting rid of 'mud' around 200-500 is key...and I was doing it not only on individual tracks but on the stereo bus too. So that's a double dose in error. I changed policy after being underwhelmed by the reproduction as heard on laptop speakers, earbuds, phones etc...all highs and lows...but worse than that...lows that are weak and highs that are shrill. I think the error is in there being a lack of midrange...with midrange back in the picture those highs don't seem so 'out there' on their own, and the lows get the help of that lower mid boost.
 
So anyway, I've been going over my last 9 songs or so and mixing the midrange back in. The real test will be on the next song where I track with a view to that mid range and when I start the mix with that well in mind...as opposed to it being an after thought. I think when it's well in mind right from the start the end result will be improved. 
 
It's funny...in theory, I've heard it a thousand times...'the midrange is key'. But actually internalizing it and doing it only comes with practice and getting your hands dirty. Your mix sounds well balanced and it must have very decent midrange content because it sounds good in my Beyerdynamic dt880s, my Yamaha hs8's and my laptop speakers. 
 
Another thing, while I think of it, that I think is overrated is going overboard with eq...searching with a sharp Q for trouble frequencies in your guitar track or vocal track etc. With a sharp Q, sometimes you can chase all kinds of rogue frequencies and cut, cut, cut. But I'm not sure this is a good policy. It's kind of satisfying in a way...because in solo and with that sharp Q it really feels like you're a surgeon doing some good. But I think it might be detrimental. Back in the day...I'm not sure they had such surgical eq. It's ok to get rid of something blatantly troublesome...but it's easy to go a bit crazy and notch the heck out of things. I think it's better to leave things. What are your thoughts on that?

Q2