Recording - October 2012 - 49

provide a better musical context for decisions about the rest of the parts, as they’re gradually blended in around the primary rhythmic and melodic elements. As always, there will be a constant back-and-forth between optimizing the tracks in isolation and in context—context at this point also including tweaking a track against specific small groups of musically-related tracks as well as against the entire arrangement (up to that point). For example, I might want hear how some eq or effect which sounds good on an acoustic guitar in a solo passage holds up not only in the full mix, but also against just the other rhythm instruments (keyboards, other guitars) whose parts complement it in the arrangement. Sometimes, in a situation like the one described above, different settings (for level, eq, compression, and other effects) will be required when an instrument is heard both in relative isolation and blended into the full mix, at different places in the song. In these cases, the two main options would be track splitting or automation. If there’s no practical limit on tracks (as with most modern DAWs), duplicating a channel strip and splitting up the instrument between the two tracks can often be the easiest solution—the second track will feature different settings when appropriate, so the instrument always sounds its best, no matter what the context. Newbie mixers are often surprised to find out just how different settings can be when compensating for context, without a really noticeable change in the sound from section to section. The other alternative is automation, which can record dynamic changes in everything from channel level to eq to plug-in effect settings, fine-tuning the mix moment to moment. However, automation is much more of a commitment to certain subtle aspects of the mix, and might be better left till the very final stages, when most other elements of the mix are set— otherwise, even minor tweaks to other tracks may demand compensatory tweaks to the automation and become a distraction if the automation moves are introduced too early in the process. If some section-to-section changes are restricted to channel-fader levels only, a third option, now included in many workstations, is region/clip gain, which allows for nondestructive (non-permanent) level adjustments tied to particular regions/clips, without having to add tracks or automate channel faders. Keep in mind that these level tweaks will usually be pre-plug-in, and so may affect the performance of dynamic plug-ins like compressors or gates in the sections where those regions play. Every track counts? An issue that sometimes comes up in a mix relates to track usage. Can the mixer choose to omit or bury certain tracks?

When is this a mixing decision, and when might such decisions step on the toes of a producer or arranger? Pulling tracks out or burying tracks in the mix can be problematic. Ideally, the track count would have been “vetted” by the producer/artist and the mixer before the mix began, and the mixer would not be put in a position of deciding whether to 86 some musical contribution to the song on his/her own, but that often happens. Sometimes a musical part or effect may sound brilliant during the tracking sessions, but as the elements start to come together in the final mix, it seems clear to the mixer that the part just isn’t working— worse, sometimes it may seem to be a stumbling block to achieving the best mix possible. There’s always the nagging feeling on the mixer’s part that “If I can’t get this part/track/effect to work, does that mean I’ve gone in the wrong overall direction with this mix?” When situations like this come up, I often will try, if time permits, to do a version with and without the offending element(s), to cover all bases. Being a typical experienced/opinionated mixer, I’m usually convinced my take on the issue is the correct one, but that doesn’t mean I’m right. Maybe from my point of view, the mix works better without something, but to the artist(s) that part may be a clever musical reference for them (or their fans!) that I’m not privy to, and dropping or burying it, while technically better, sacrifices something more important to the song. Not to mention that that part may be a particular band member’s proud (or only!) contribution, and tossing it will open a bigger can of worms. Situations like the one above can suck you into the vortex of studio politics, and if you can avoid them, so much the better. If you feel you must address such issues, tread lightly, and be prepared to deal with any problem tracks as best you can, even if you think their inclusion is a mistake—I’ve sometimes been surprised to see that, despite my misgivings, a questionable part or effect actually worked well in the song, once I opened myself up to using it and stopped trying to “get a good mix in spite of it”. A little humility is always a good thing. And on that bit of sage (though painfully obvious) advice, I’ll bring this article to a close. Hopefully some of these observations will prove helpful, or at least get someone thinking about some aspect of mixing they hadn’t considered, or had long since forgotten. Here’s to 25 more years of good mixes. Joe Albano (albano@recordingmag.com) is an engineer/producer and educator living and working in New York City. Learn more about his various audio recording projects at www.rooftopproductions.com.
RECORDING October 2012

http://www.mojaveaudio.com http://www.mojaveaudio.com http://www.rooftopproductions.com

Recording - October 2012

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Recording - October 2012