^ Multiple producers isn't bad; however, you want some kind of theme with the album. Just like you do want your songs to be different or sounds within a songs to sound different. This is where thinking about genre might help. Consequently, this doesn't mean that a different instrument may not fit; however, you want to make sure it does and if you spend lots of time trying to make it fit, odds are it doesn't.

Lots of stuff happening:

Make sure it's not constant.

Make sure it's at a reasonable volume and everything is heard.

It depends, but more importantly, write what makes you identifiable. If that's light/heavy-instrumentation, lengthy sections, big sounds, small sounds, etc ... Do take advice to heart and realize it is useful; however, don't try to be someone else. Find out who you are musically and you're bound yo come up with something.

Danny made the point about reference tracks and I agree with not using them because you get to focused on what someone else did.

Be yourself. If it's an original piece, great; if it's not, make it yours.

Also, when you say more exciting, are you doing so for yourself or others because what's exciting to you may not be to others and vice-versa.

Again, identify yourself, then you will be identifiable to others.

mattplaysguitar

Or another TP example, "Free Fallin'", when the full-spectrum chorus jumps in - just once - on the short phrase "Ventura Boulevard".

Weird choice of timing on that bit... Doesn't make sense, but adds interest! I have to say though, have not heard that song for many many years (keep in mind I'm only 25) but damn his singing is BAD... I know it was a huge song and all, but it's funny to see that the bad singing is not just around today, it's been happening all this time... Doesn't seem to stop anybody..




Drum size is a good bit to remember. Can't really get away with huge drums and a complex mix very easily. Fortunately I'm not looking for incredibly big drums so I should be able to get away with that one alright!




When I'm talking a big production, I don't necessarily mean the big stadium sound. Probably wouldn't suit my music. I just like lots of stuff happening. Some examples:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1prhCWO_518
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GMQLjzVGfw

This band (Foster the People) I think had a huge list of different producers working on different songs. Their album has variation. Not all songs have this much going on. And the songs have breaks. But there is just always something going on to add interest. It sounds great.

I think the sound I'm getting in my head is usually something synthetic. I've tried with guitars but it seems a bit too samey.

Another example would be Coldplay's newer stuff. Subtly lots going on. More subtle than Foster the People.


But anywho. I think it's starting to happen. It's just practise. I'm trying to take the following process:

- Start with my basics, drums, guitars, vocals
- Listen to each section
- Does it feel right? Is something wrong?
- Is that the sound of the instruments, or is something missing?
- If it's missing, add that little interest till it works
- Now when it builds to a prechorus or chorus, do I need to add something else? Or maybe change instrumentation

etc. You know, I'm describing typical song writing here... Haha. I'm just trying now to take the stance of "does it need something else do make it more exciting or not" rather than just adding for the sake of. That's a better summary.


The biggest problem I expect to have now is I'll come up with all these cool ideas on my first few songs, but then I don't want to just recycle those same sounds and techniques for the rest of the album. This is when it's going to get tricky... This is when it would help to have multiple producers on different songs!! But I'll get through it.. I'm in a good headspace with it at the moment. It's feeling 'right' with me so I'll just keep doing what I'm doing :)

Cheers

1.  I love Tom Petty.  His vocals rock.


2.  Music only has four parts.  Harmony, Melody, Rhythm and Tempo.  So what you do is get a pen and a piece of paper, and make a chart, and put everything you hear in the chart, and then you can see what elements are in your example..  I only listened to one example, "it sounds like a lot of stuff going on."  its not.  that is an aural illusion..  there is a lot of panning, a couple of instrument changes, and a quite a bit of delay...




Uploaded with ImageShack.us 

btw, 119, may or may not be the tempo of the track, I have no idea, that is just an example...  and no.. I've never actually picked apart a song with a piece of paper and a chart like this...  but if you are under the impression that your examples have as many instruments as say, "the london philharmonic," :p than give the chart a try, and see what it tells you...  :-) 

edit =  for example..  the track I listened too had some scratching.. so where on the chart do we put scratching?  tempo? nope, you get off easy, only one thing goes there... melody?  probably not..  rhythm?  that scratching?  you could.. but did it sound rhythmic, or more fluid?  harmony is probably where I would put it..  but once you figure out the instruments, it doesn't really matter where on the chart they fall..  than you know what to look for, and how many instruments you need for you compositions...

cheers mate

Awesome thread!  Awesome suggestions by Linear, Herb, Bit, Rus, Danny, the Op, and everyone.
 
Its impossible for me not to get sucked into this dilemma.
 
Like many of you, I love rich mixes since my time is waning short in this world and my patience bad.  A rich mix oft enlivens my complex feelings better than a predictable folk mix and that *stereotypical hype* that dulls the ears.

While most 'pop' listeners may prefer "less is more" easy-to-digest country, dance, or rock ... many artists prefer rich mixes for their own ears.
 
Some other quaint proverbs:

1) IMHO: Seek varieties of storylines, plots, phrases resolutions, closures ... related or unrelated to the primary motif ... the muse will be born from the depths of your/my life's rich experiences.
 
2) Multiple artists or a single artist with multiple personalities ... do your math.  There will be a multitude of experiments to avoid the mundane.
 
3) Feedback is required by us forum comrades ... to clear the inexpedient clutter ... and thus invigorate 'innate' richness of timbres and personalities ... undrowned by interfering elements.
 
4) A strong urgent motif: oft gains more convincing hooks than a lame causual motif, IMHO.  Then things can get real busy.
 
5) Composing with multiple and rich orchestrals requires bouncing them to clips (for me) so that chimes and glocks can be ... squeeeeezed in.
 
6) Truly a percussive lunacy can enrich a folk vibe ... but the ears crave varying dynamics.
 
7) A rich mix is oft like an enzyme.  Take out one atom and the macro-molecule fails to catalyze.  Likewise, producers I've known don't like re-developing their complex symphonies.

8) For choirs: Vocal dissonances may outshine the melodyned flatness of each singer: Choirs sound richer when some singers are emotional and dissonant, IMHO.  Again, convincing emotions rule in my layered choirs.
 
9) For us lazy-chair hotel hobbyists ... a layered mix may be the perfect hobby: even polishing turds and cleaning toilets may eventually evolve into a labor of love.
 
10) Nothing is without signification (I hope)
 
:):):)

I love this thread. Great tips by everyone here!!

I keep coming back to composition and the tonality of individual instruments/tracks as key factors in a complex mix.  Many times, I've heard that fantastic synth sound that just kills by itself, but makes the mix sound like mud.  When you take a really great mix apart, sometimes the individual tracks are amazingly thin and weak sounding, but they sound amazing all together.

I think it also depends (in part) on whether you're trying to recreate a live sound or create a unique work of art that will probably not be duplicated live.  With a "Live" sounding recording, you don't necessarily want to use sonic elements the band would not play live.  Without that limitation, however, your sonic palate can be anything you can imagine.  Sometimes, I think we limit ourselves too much (one drum part, two rhythm guitars, one keyboard, etc.) and we miss opportunities to think outside the box. 

Sure, less is more, but sometimes, more is more.  :)  When I hear some of the early industrial stuff that featured multiple drum parts, multiple rhythm guitars, massive numbers of non-repeating percussive synth tracks, sound effects, etc., I hear more possibilities in my own stuff.  Even if the genre won't let me get away with all of that, there may be little things I can borrow to enhance my sound.

Good thread!  Very enjoyable.

one thing i always do, have always done, is track dry.

if the SOURCE has effects, and is part of the sig sound of that source, i'll print it permanantly. make that decision, and move on.


but i never add FX or any kind of plug during tracking.


this forces me to focus on the best source capture, which to me, is key to everything.


even during overdubbing, i leave everything dry, no eq, no reverb, no compression, just pure dry tracks playing back.


this also helps with keeping the DAW in check with cpu usage, and cuts down on any latency issues.



only once i've completed tracking, do i consider moving to the MIX elements, which include all manners of channel and buss plugins.


point is, by this time, i've gotten to know the tracks pretty well, gotten used to the 'DRY' sound, and can better 'PRODUCE' the mix without cluttering it up........ which is also key to mixing complex arrangements.

While I don't have the expertise to really contribute on this thread technically, I wanted to add that I really appreciate those of you who have added such great notes and tips - this has been one of the best threads overall that I've seen on the forums and I've saved a lot of notes from here.

Like Philip noted, it's impossible to read these great posts and not get pulled in.  So many good tips.   I agree that we should be tracking dry and not loading up FXs, until we get the kind of quality of the composition together that we are after, and I view the tracking, the mixing, and then the mastering as all very separate functions and stages of the process.  And it's all too easy to get caught up playing with the FXs at the tracking stage just because our DAW's make it so easy to do so!    When I got bit by this bug, I didn't have any idea that learning to use a DAW was going to mean learning to HEAR all over again.  But that's basically the challenge, on top of just learning the technical mechanics of the whole operation.

This is a great thread and thanks to all who have shared their expertise.
John

Great thread, I really need to brush up on my EQ and compression with a view to instrument separation. My tunes tend to err on the side of simplicity because I'm not yet very good at keeping things from turning to mush. Here is an example of the "busy" kind of production which I strive for, but every time I try to create such textured soundscapes, it ends up sounding like crap. Not everyone's cup of tea but I like it (Udachi):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmmDmoqamio

So much to learn!

sharke


Great thread, I really need to brush up on my EQ and compression with a view to instrument separation. My tunes tend to err on the side of simplicity because I'm not yet very good at keeping things from turning to mush. Here is an example of the "busy" kind of production which I strive for, but every time I try to create such textured soundscapes, it ends up sounding like crap. Not everyone's cup of tea but I like it (Udachi):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmmDmoqamio

So much to learn!

Sharke: I want you to listen to something closely for me in that video you posted and try to place yourself in a virtual environment that isn't really there. Yeah I know "Danny, what are you smokin' dude, how do I do that?!" LOL!!! Let me explain.
 
Listen to all the sounds in that song you posted closely. If you literally had those sounds in one of your softsynths, they would come out of the box with more bass in them which would be more pleasing to your ears when you audition them. In this song, you can tell all the low end is stripped out of all those sounds. The virtual environment I'm talking about is the sound audition part.
 
When we hear these sounds in our synths, we love them and decide to use them. The problem 9 times out of 10 is, we use them the way they are with little to no tweaking because we like how the sound sounds by itself. These types of sounds have more impact due to the amount of bass that gets pushed in them. However, if you listen close to the song you posted, there is no low end to be found in these sounds at all because they were high passed.
 
This in turn allows you to have a better, clearer mix because these instruments have been taken care of. Nothing is walking on top of anything else nor are there low end frequencies mudding anything up. This is why high passing is so important. The problem with high passing is, you don't want to go too extreme or it can make a sound seem too thin and boring. so judging this is a bit tricky at first.
 
The only "bass" we hear in the entire mix is on the bass drops that come in. Everything else has been thinned out in the bass area and this is why you can hear all the different instruments without mud. The more you control sub lows and low mids, the less of a chance of over-all mud in your busier, "more instrument" mixes. Hope this helps. :)
 
-Danny

Yeah you're right, in fact I'm just getting turned on to the prolific use of the hi pass filter in my mixes, it's definitely making the low end sound clearer. In addition, does a little low pass filtering help on instruments that mainly sit in the mid range?