This is a MUSIC forum. Irrelevant or disrespectful posts/topics will be removed by Admin. Please report any forum spam or inappropriate posts HERE.

All users can post to this forum on general music topics.

Moderators: bandmixmod1, jimmy990, spikedace

#179757 by PaperDog
Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:46 pm
GLENNY J wrote:Actually buddy, you have to ride the faders on that just a bit more in just a few parts.
But , now answer this truthfully,,, Did you or did you not double the vocals in no more?

It doesn't matter, If you did it gave a very realistic chorus. Very tough tough to pull off.

I know I've said this before,, your vocals are great,,, very distinctive,very YOU!

I think that is so very important. I don't fall in the category of believers that everyone should be equal.
Scary person I am, that applauds individual success, and individual difference.

We are not even talking about your songwriting. BIG KUDOS TO THAT ALSO. :)


Thanks Glenny... I did in fact, double the vocals... But The chorus effect, I think my partner splashed a little on there (Like a cheap cologne ! LOL!) from the panel. I will say, of all the songs, this one so far , i was able to parallel the tracks very closely , better than I could in other songs... it jist seemed to work out better with this one...

:)

#179759 by PaperDog
Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:47 pm
We gotta redo the lead..

1) Slightly out of tune,
2) Had the AC blasting (Should have turned off . He filtered it but stuill not as good as turning off the ac

#179761 by PaperDog
Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:48 pm
Glenny What did you mean about the faders (riding) ? Not sure I understand...

#179762 by Jahva
Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:57 pm
Nothing bonkers to me...
Maybe a different reverb... I can see adjusting the level in the final mix. I like the countering of melodies between your vocal and the lead line.
It's well written. Nice job. 8)

#179764 by PaperDog
Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:20 am
Jahva wrote:Nothing bonkers to me...
Maybe a different reverb... I can see adjusting the level in the final mix. I like the countering of melodies between your vocal and the lead line.
It's well written. Nice job. 8)

Reverb Yes!...I want to shoot for a touch of haunting tone

Much Thanks to you Jahva for listening :)

#179766 by ANGELSSHOTGUN
Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:34 am
PaperDog wrote:Glenny What did you mean about the faders (riding) ? Not sure I understand...


In the OLD DAYS Dawg,,, Long before you were born, :lol:

We would Ride the faders to get a mix. Sometimes 3 or 4 people would just push up the volumes or pull them down on the board as we mixed down to 2 tracks.
Some times it would be so slight it would be silly.

Now imagine riding the faders just to bounce a track to change the EQ on a part for 2 seconds and then flying it back into the main mix.

Now, with computers, it really comes down to great MICs and Talent and creativity. All of that is so easy. I've ruined some great analog recordings because I didn't have the time to fix them,,, You know,,, all the little things.

I hope that explains it. Now I feel really old.

:lol:

#179782 by PaperDog
Fri Jul 27, 2012 4:07 am
GLENNY J wrote:
PaperDog wrote:Glenny What did you mean about the faders (riding) ? Not sure I understand...


In the OLD DAYS Dawg,,, Long before you were born, :lol:

We would Ride the faders to get a mix. Sometimes 3 or 4 people would just push up the volumes or pull them down on the board as we mixed down to 2 tracks.
Some times it would be so slight it would be silly.

Now imagine riding the faders just to bounce a track to change the EQ on a part for 2 seconds and then flying it back into the main mix.

Now, with computers, it really comes down to great MICs and Talent and creativity. All of that is so easy. I've ruined some great analog recordings because I didn't have the time to fix them,,, You know,,, all the little things.

I hope that explains it. Now I feel really old.

:lol:


Oh I get it now ;)

I thought 'Riding the Faders' meant 'teasing old folks' Hahaha! ;)
Sorry, I could NOT resist!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

#179793 by GuitarMikeB
Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:24 pm
When using a DAW for mixing, 'riding the faders' is done with automation - it's a better way of keeping volumes at correct level than overusing a compressor.

#179941 by Lynard Dylan
Fri Jul 27, 2012 9:15 pm
Sounds good PD, you know if I was trying
to get a Mexican sound, I might add like a block
and stick percussion, lightly with the beat, or
every other beat. I've really never got a Mexican
sound tho(besides covering La Bamba) it feels like
maracas would even work at the end.

Good Job, I like the mix, I'm always for heavier on
the guitar, but there is a time and place for everything.
That song after The Muse kicks ass, sounds like it oughta
be on ZZTops Eliminator album

#179945 by PaperDog
Fri Jul 27, 2012 10:10 pm
Lynard Dylan wrote:Sounds good PD, you know if I was trying
to get a Mexican sound, I might add like a block
and stick percussion, lightly with the beat, or
every other beat. I've really never got a Mexican
sound tho(besides covering La Bamba) it feels like
maracas would even work at the end.

Good Job, I like the mix, I'm always for heavier on
the guitar, but there is a time and place for everything.
That song after The Muse kicks ass, sounds like it oughta
be on ZZTops Eliminator album


Thanks Lynard really Appreciate it. It so Happens You are dead right about the percussion (Something mild but present...) This was the first thing on my plate tomorrow at the studio.. ;)

I think I'm wearing George's patience thin... He's getting burned out and I'm kinda runnin outta gas my self... Cant wait to get this Project done and finished...

#179979 by ANGELSSHOTGUN
Sat Jul 28, 2012 1:56 pm
I have to say, Grant that does give some major credence to your vocal abilities.

Here is a little trick you can try next time.

Copy the track and just nudge a little off time. Not much. 2or3 miiliseconds.
Even better yet if you have an intonation effect that can pitch correct. Raise the second track,(the copy) by a few cents,(not much). You might be amazed at the effect. Very close to what you did.

By the way,,, There is no way I could match my vocals the way you did.
Really cool. Just thought I would mention one of the sweet tricks that computer recording allows. 8)

#179988 by PaperDog
Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:00 pm
GLENNY J wrote:I have to say, Grant that does give some major credence to your vocal abilities.

Here is a little trick you can try next time.

Copy the track and just nudge a little off time. Not much. 2or3 miiliseconds.
Even better yet if you have an intonation effect that can pitch correct. Raise the second track,(the copy) by a few cents,(not much). You might be amazed at the effect. Very close to what you did.

By the way,,, There is no way I could match my vocals the way you did.
Really cool. Just thought I would mention one of the sweet tricks that computer recording allows. 8)


Its a good trick Glenn... It would nmake sense...But,.. Here is why ist better not to..

So lets say I'm singing a Bieber Song... Well then, the engineer could bump the track a notch milliseconds but he would just be better off....grabbing his pistol and shooting me on the spot (Fer singing a Bieber song)

Consider the following melodic structure (note progression) in a vocal tracks of T1 and T2: Note that (X) are degrees of pitch/amplitude offsets (due to less than stellar vocal control) and DBFT = Distinct Force, Body and Tone, where each subsequent take differs than the last one. The engineer can de-emphaisize sections of each track as necessary

T1= A(0), A(0), A#(2) B(0), C(-1) with DFBT(-1)

T2: A(.5), A(0), A#(-1) B(0), C(1) with DFBT(2)

T1 + T2 = A(.5), A(0), A#(1), C(0). with DFBT(1)


Doing it the Cut and paste + a few cents (.5): No Deltas here, just magnified, original take:

T1= A(0), A(0), A#(2) B(0), C(-1) with DFBT(-1)

T2: A(.5), A(0), A#(2) B(0), C(-1) with DFBT(-1)

T1 + T2 = A(.5), A(0), [b]A#(4), C(-2). with DFBT(-2)[/b] : The eng then has to demphasize one track to get back to level of other track. Basically its a wash.

This illustrates two things... Practice vocals so we can sing two separate tracks , and use two seperate tracks to ensure full vocal dimension (as per each DFBT)

8)

#179990 by ANGELSSHOTGUN
Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:18 pm
It appears that you have assigned improper absolute values DOG.

As any one could tell you,,,,,, If your values are skewed, then your recording engineer has every right to shoot you for trying to sing like BIEBER.

:lol:

#179991 by lalong
Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:03 pm
Nice track PaperDog I agree with an earlier critique, vocals need to be louder. Really nice tones, almost Beatlish. 2:23 a bit short, but I saw the earlier explanation so I guess that will depend on what follows. The end fade is messed up, goes down and has a quick pop up before zero. Overall good stuff dawg. :D

#180004 by Cajundaddy
Sat Jul 28, 2012 8:38 pm
Really like the song PD. I think it is fab and some of the best work on BM. What would I change? Bring up the vocals a bit as others have suggested to get them in front. I am also hearing some possible background harmonies on the chorus. Do we need some Pips? I believe McCartney would insist.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests