Its hard to get a final mix like this nowadays...

can any of the recording producers above explain to me how they achieve that mix and how that mix is not found in bands nowadays? Or is it that the new bands just want to sound very polished? Theres this local band called After the Sky, their album nothing but colors is probably one of my favourite local albums...That mix is raw and awesome, reminds me of a 90's band kind of mix.
 
most of the bands engage their producer to portray the way they wanna sound. unless to be influenced with society as new times kick in to cater to the young modern audience and their tinnitus problems (a.k.a one volume. loud.), if it's to sacrifice a small narrow audience who just wants them to "stay the way they are" , they'd do it. I loved how greenday used to sound in 1039SOSH/Kerplunk, then changed their stuff more modern/polished with dookie/insomniac, then eventually evolved to nimrod/warning etc till now. they're getting older, but would still attract new young fans because of the way it's marketed and the way it was recorded/mixed/mastered/produced.

wouldn't you like your band's tracks done sounding (or at least semi-)professional and have a chance to get radioplayed by mediacorpse without being skipped within first 30 seconds by 1st-time-listening-consumer? maybe not if your morals told you to stay "true to yourself". though in my opinion, music is wasted if you didn't write for others to hear.

would you still listen to after the sky if they asked their producer to give them a polished sound? if not, were you just a fan of the sound or fan of the songs? hehe.

to answer your question, it sounds like alot of room mike work. and no drumreplacements. to achieve that mix is to under-mix lesser than the polished stuff you hear these days. it's not "Raw" it's still mixed but it's not polished thats why it sounds raw in a good way. if that makes any sense.
 
would you still listen to after the sky if they asked their producer to give them a polished sound? if not, were you just a fan of the sound or fan of the songs? hehe.

.

HAHA this cracked me up...true enough man... It all comes down to preference, and how a band wants to sound.
 
here's something I'd like to share with you. as I was saying I used to be a big greenday fan as a teenager. I stopped at nimrod (warning was a downward hill from there). not because I stopped liking greenday, it's just that the whole punkrock anthem did not work for me eventually from american idiot onwards and maybe because I went into audio. but what I realised I was a fan of was the evolution of the sound coming from few of my influences jerry finn and chris lord alge for mixing and producer rob cavallo. so eventually I grew out of "greenday" from listening to music as a consumer, to listening as a mix/sound as an audio engineer.

the mixes like mineral's etc gives a very old school warm sound that makes some of us born 80s and before, transports us through time where we were alot younger. however it's not going to "sell" (realistic talk) if you record something sounding like that and put out a mix to sell to audience born 90s onwards today cos that's associated with "old". but good news is there will be a good number of young minds who embrace "vintage"/classic thanks to the saturated polished mixes out there on the radio that makes ppl get sick of eventually and start listening "backwards". so apparently my guess is with Glee / american idol and pop artistes re-recording/singing covers of old songs to "modernise" to the new market so you can re-sell music again. some examples of the last 10 years of what I just said :
glenn madeiros / george benson ? leanne rimes/trisha yearwood ? phil collins / cyndi lauper ? mariah carey / journey ? 311 / the cure ?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090531214521AAomONI shitloads more here.

so what does this tell us? it's not hard to get a final mix like this nowadays.. it's hard to write classic songs that lasts for decades like they used to!
 
Back
Top