I say leave all the old mixes alone. All that music that was composed, peformed, tracked mixed and mastered came out of that era. Leave it there. It has all got a certain sound because of it. Remixing is not to change the art so much it is only going to change how it sounds.

Think new art now, new music, move forward, start with the latest music technology we have got and go from there. It's going to be a better sounding result as long as the music is still good. The thing about all the great recordings of the past is the music was great. There might be a tendancy now to be able to generate lots of average music rather than keeping it stronger and better. But if we still focus on the music then what we have now is only going to make it great.

What could be cool maybe is taking elements of mixes from the past and creating new music or material. That could lend itself to some interesting art. The only real older thing I would like to experience now is Earth Wind and Fire through a loud 2012 PA! That would be something!

Guitarhacker


Danny I see the point you made in the reply to my post. I'm glad there are people like you in this biz that can hear the subtle differences in the sound of the snare and the bass and all that makes a mix stellar as opposed to good. 

As I listen to many of the old albums and bands that were mega hits and packing the arena's of the day...I too cringe at the tone and quality that we thought was unbeatable back then. 

As a songwriter who pitches to publishers and producers, my goal is to know as much as I can to produce a mix in my studio that doesn't get thrown into the trash because the sound quality is not quite "over the high bar". My goal is broadcast/master quality (small "m") so that everything sounds good and can go direct to the producer or the artist, because no one these days takes the time to re-record a demo. I've even heard it said by songwriters in Nashville that the demo of "yesterday" is no more...... the "demo" of today must be master quality to get much of a second listen. 

I had the chance to hear the actual "demo" of a very well known #1 country hit in a seminar...and aside from subtle note differences in the parts and the lead singer's voice.... it could have easily been the same backing tracks on both... it (the "demo") was of that high of a quality.  They played both versions...the demo first and the hit song second.... back to back.  A casual listener would have thought it was the same song twice.

If I was producing for other folks, I would surely want to climb to the highest rung on the ladder possible. As a writer, my bigger concern is to have a song that is well written and with production of sufficient quality to get over the high bar of quality that is considered normal in the industry these days. 

That does not mean that I am content with my level of knowledge and skill..... by no means. I still read, study, listen, and do my best in the time I have for those endevours to improve my chops as engineer and producer. 

Oh and yeah.... on that list you put in post #71.... I pretty much agree with most of it too.

Thanks Herb, thats's kind of you brother. :) I'm a bit too anal with some of my listening though. It's both a blessing and a curse. Sometimes it stops you from enjoying something. Try as you may, when you know what to listen for as opposed to NOT knowing, you can't turn it off and on like a TV. You can TRY, but I'll never like some things due to the sounds that were used. I mean sure, I can listen and say "I love this tune, but dear lord that guitar tone is killing it" or "why did they have to sing like that and leave that annoying vocal eq".
 
As for your stuff, from what I've heard, it's safe to say you're meeting your goals. We can always count on something special from you. Other than a few drum things here and there (which you and I have discussed before) you never disappoint. Always good vocals, guitar, bass, melodies and of course a solid mix.
 
Your so spot on with the demo stuff being the master. If you got an Indy deal today, your mixes better be superb quality of they won't even look at you unless the material is just off the hook. See, most of the Indy labels have a 50/50 split deal. The 50 you get doesn't do much good if they have to spend loads of money on you.
 
For example, if you were going to release an album and the Indy label you were with hated the quality yet loved the material, they'd pay for you to go into a studio to do it right. So let's say that costs 15k. You owe them 15k now so until they recoup that 15k in sales, you don't make a dime. Once they do, you get 50% of the sales but not until. Making 15k back on an Indy album is a hard sell these days unless it's one of the better, more popular Indy labels. Most Indy artists are lucky if they sell 8,000 to 10,000 discs. The realistic number is more like 2500-4000 unless you hire a radio marketer and go for the throat. That's another cool thing about Indy's though...well, sort of cool. You usually get 100% of your publishing because they don't do any radio marketing. They can't afford $2500 per station, per play just to get to the try or die bin. I could go on and on about this...but now I'm drifting off topic. LOL! But you get the idea of where I'm going.
 
The more prepared and etched in stone your project is, the more of a chance you can do something with it immediately. If you have major label ties, totally different story of course. But yeah, people today want to take what you got and run with it so you always have to be in the best shape you can be in with a mix.
 
My list: I was actually surprised that there are more people that feel as I do. That's really great in my opinion. Just because someone is a star or a tune is a hit doesn't mean it's sacrilegious to comment negatively about it. It's like I try to tell my father who is a "by the book Catholic". Just because a priest or even the Pope says something...that doesn't mean you do it. We were talking about the whole gay marriage thing. He's totally against it because religion says he should be. I'm Catholic too...but I sincerely believe the God that I know and love wants people to be happy as long as they don't hurt anyone. I'd rather accept gay marriage than send our awesome troops overseas to fight a war that means absolutely nothing that has helped to ruin our country's economy. But that's a topic for another forum. :)
 
My point is, just because something is great, popular, "gospel" doesn't mean I have to bow down to it. Respect the art I do...but I don't have to love everything about it or feel I'd be reprimanded for mentioning things I feel just don't sit well with me. At my gig last night, there was a guy talking about B.B King being the greatest player because he helped to create the style. All well and good, appreciated, respected....but to a player in today's times, it's boring and repetitive. After 3 songs, you've heard it all. Techniques have improved. tones have changed, there is just so much more you can do on a guitar than the same 5 licks and 12 bar blues patterns. Sure, the dude is an icon and a part of history as an innovator. But so is Eddie Van Halen and we've taken things further than he has now too. :)
 
-Danny

Danny,

Your list was spot on for me as well.  I might add the Doors and Jethro Tull as never really doing anything for me.  But I can appreciate the song writing.  I better run for the door myself.

Further to that point, I think anyone who's really serious about trying to do good work will always want to try to improve on or progress from what's gone before. So listening to great records and thinking about what could be done better on them is a fairly automatic thing.

Mike: I almost added The Doors due o some of their moody, acid trip like tunes....but JM and that guitar player always got me going in the more up tempo stuff. Tull I kinda dig a times, other times...eh...take em or leave em. Then again, other than Cross Eyed Mary, Locamotive Breath and Aqualung, not much else from them impresses me on the whole. But I do dig some of the elements there. :)

John: +1000 man! If we just accepted things and never dreamed about bettering them, we'd never grow. You know what...I think I AM going to try my hand at that BR tune doing things my way. I really just want to re-record the bass, the drums and the guitars. The vocals are all stellar and Freddie just has to sing. Though I may make a cameo appearance on a verse or two just to say I sang with him! :) This is going to be my side project in my spare time.

Just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about. I've always loved Bryan Adams. You've heard the tune Run to You, right? I always thought that tune would sound super cool rocked up. A buddy of mine challenged me to do "a song in a day" with no chance to edit or fix it just to see how I'd fair. Came up with this...the whole thing took about 7 hours.

 http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4909348/RunToYouGW.mp3

It's not perfect, but it sure was fun! Actually better in higher quality which I never bothered to do because it needed to be posted on a site that only allowed for 128 bit mp3's. The only thing I hate is the freakin string squeaks in the clean intro....grrr...but the rest is pretty fair. But again...it's not better than the original, just different and a bit more modern. :)

-Danny 

See, I like this better than the original Danny.  You are one talented dude.  I love the raspy voice of Brian Adams though.  Your vocals are excellent as well. 

Ha, nice. Really big spacious sound, very three dimensional. I've never managed to record and mix on the same day without the results being... well, vastly inferior to this, for sure.

This lead playing at the end is the shizz.

Danny post number 3 was a totally courageous and enlightening post.

Anybody that cannot see you as a great asset to any music creation portal needs a schematic diagram shoved somewhere that is designed for exit only purposes.

To piddle around with pedantic detail to the point where you start to drive away those that are actual sources of inspiration and growth among the community is far more detrimental to learning than any amount of point scoring on a narrow campaign of some detail of marginal technical accuracy.

The OP here is no slouch when it comes to ability to the point where the attainment of further improvement will have to come from a more compelling source than someone just chiding away from a point of view of basic principles however sound or founded they may or may not be.

There is a certain person that likes to see 'the evidence' but when he's confronted with it cannot recognize it as being such and gets his nose bent out of shape in exactly the same way as he would riducule others for when it is put in front of him. 

That evidence of course is called the 'proof of the pudding'.

That person behaved toward you in a way I could not tolerate any longer and that put him under scrutiny and he doesn't like the same treatment meted out to him in reciprocation it for sure he gets just as defensive as he laughs at others for.  Not surprising really.

Danny I'm not even a particular fan of the music you make for no other reason that it is not my kinda thing, but one thing that isn't a matter of taste is the quality, the musicianship and expertise that shines out of all the work you do and when I see the results that you are able to transmit like you have to so many of us here I am truly in awe and I don't use that simple 3 letter word in it's normally over-used sense, I actually mean it.

I'm so glad that 'Captain Cryptic and his Know-Alls' doesn't headline this gig and that you are still around it is a tangible priviledge for all of us and hopefully you still benefit too despite some of the destructive tirades you've had aimed toward you that to my mind have been totally unwarranted and indefensible.

I must admit that I did enjoy the fact that one particular person that was so intent in trying to trash a perfectly usable and popular room eq system, and was prepared to gloat over what he percieved as your ignorance about this product with his superior knowledge, then went on to a few weeks later seeming to need a drummer to explain to him how the tuning of his guitar worked without the magic of what he was entertaining was to be provided by the idea of a fancy tuner...lol

The business of winning freinds has never been high on my priorities of a forum either, being able to state an honest and candid opinion of what I'm seeing and being able to ask a sincere question without fear of pointless ridicule though is, and that post #3 is 100% of what I like to see.

Just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about. I've always loved Bryan Adams. You've heard the tune Run to You, right? I always thought that tune would sound super cool rocked up. A buddy of mine challenged me to do "a song in a day" with no chance to edit or fix it just to see how I'd fair. Came up with this...the whole thing took about 7 hours. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4909348/RunToYouGW.mp3 It's not perfect, but it sure was fun! Actually better in higher quality which I never bothered to do because it needed to be posted on a site that only allowed for 128 bit mp3's. The only thing I hate is the freakin string squeaks in the clean intro....grrr...but the rest is pretty fair. But again...it's not better than the original, just different and a bit more modern. :)

 
Good to hear some of your work with a frame of reference.  I thought it was really good and considering it was a day project, I'd give you major props.  I like your interpretation. 
 
My first paid project was to create three sound tracks for an artist who wanted to cover some soundtracks that she was singing over in concert and couldn't get a 2 track DAT master.  I highly recommend anyone starting out to do record copies and compare them to the original.  It will develop your ears as well as teach you that good arranging technique will produce a track that is easier to mix.