I’m amazed when I compare Glyn Johns’s early mixes of Let It Be with Phil Spector’s final release. The music and performances are the same, but the mixes couldn’t sound more different. Shouldn’t these men, both professionals practicing a time-honoured craft, have created similar mixes with the same material?
Of course, no two listeners hear music the same way – a truism easily proven by arguing with Linkin Park fans about what constitutes good rock – and mixing engineers themselves must contend with this subjectivity in our senses. But it often appears that music production lacks any rules; that mixing engineers essentially just follow their whims behind the console.
No “rules,” just “rule”
Indeed, most so-called “rules of mixing” are no more than guidelines. For example, “boost EQ in wide bands,” and “use a slower attack when compressing drums.” Both are great tips, but hardly true in all situations.
However, one overarching principle does apply in every mix, to every song, and to every mixing engineer. I think of it as the Rule of Mixing:
Though it may at first appear trite, this rule simply and powerfully covers the fundamental practices of mixing. A good mix supports the song, presents only what the listener needs to hear, and leaves out unnecessary distractions. Good mixing, in turn, requires keeping the rule in mind at all times to accomplish these goals.
Implications
Some of the rule’s most important implications:
Have a plan
How can you reliably judge which effects and fader moves to keep? In short, by knowing before you start mixing what you want to achieve. Mix with a clear plan in mind for the song, and every change that doesn’t get you closer to this goal is simply not needed.
Don’t use effects “just because”
If you routinely, automatically high-pass guitar tracks, or compress the kick drum and bass guitar, you’re probably violating the Rule of Mixing. Decide before adding one of these effects whether it’s really needed this time. Worded another way: Just because something worked on your last 5 mixes doesn’t mean it’s right for this song.
“Improved” can mean many things
Note that the rule doesn’t say “only do that which improves the sound” (with emphasis on sound.) Sometimes, in order to improve the end result, you need to destroy the sound, for example by adding distortion, or creating a lo-fi mix. This is perfectly OK, if that’s what the song requires.
Mixing starts long before you move the first fader
Taken to its logical extreme, the Rule of Mixing implies that in a perfect world, a mix would require no changes. Just bring the faders up, and you’re done. While that’s obviously impractical, it’s still a great thought to keep in mind when recording. The closer a recorded sound comes to the required final result, the easier it will be to adhere to the Rule of Mixing. This suggests, and not by accident, that you should form your mixing plan even before you start recording!
Favour simplicity
An important corollary to the Rule of Mixing holds that the simpler of two identical-sounding signal chains is always preferable. If you add a plugin but don’t hear a difference, the plugin doesn’t belong in your mix. Whether the effect was too subtle to detect, or your ears simply can’t hear any change, the end result is the same: If you can’t confirm that the change is an improvement, then it’s not needed.
It’s easy to bloat a track with plugins designed to add character or warmth or depth – stereo enhancers, tube and tape simulators, harmonic distorters. But while these tools serve a purpose, their use should always be secondary to your main goal: Improving the song.
Be honest with yourself
More than anything, the Rule of Mixing keeps mixing engineers honest with ourselves. Music is subjective, for listeners and creators alike. But with the constant awareness that every change we make must improve the end result, we force ourselves to think of the mix as a bigger picture.
Phil Spector and Glyn Johns got different end results because they approached their respective mixes with different plans. But both mixes sound great, and emphasize The Beatles’ songwriting, a sure sign that both engineers followed the Rule of Mixing.
See Also: lots more mixing tips!
Subscribe to the Hometracked feed, or receive email updates, for more home recording tips.
Tags: compression, EQ, mixing, professional-engineers, tracking
30 comments
Trackback URI Comments feed for this article
Excellent article. I would have added the word “intensity” about 200 times, but that’s just my “writing about mixing” style.
Great job, dude.
I’m curious about “the plan” section. I’ve never really thought about it, but I don’t think I have a plan when I mix. I think I just jump and in and go where ever my mood and the song take me. This would explain why I end up with wildly different mixes of the same song in the same weekend.
Brandon Drury
My recording experience is limited to monitoring my own guitar playing progress. I use a Line 6 PODxt into a Lite version of Ableton Live and record rhythm and lead tracks and mix them so I can compare them over time and gauge where I’ve improved and where I need to concentrate my efforts. Since the recording won’t lie I view this as predictable approach to progress measurement.
I have done this since I picked up the guitar two years ago and while my playing has steadily improved, the quality of the recordings sounds vastly different from a commercial recording, even adjusting for my skill level.
This post peaked my interest in trying out more of the features in Live beyond the record button. Thanks!
Thanks Brandon. (I’ve got an article half-written about the planning part, too. Hopefully that’ll shed some more light on where I’m coming from.)
.
.
> the quality of the recordings sounds vastly different from a commercial
> recording, even adjusting for my skill level.
Well FWIW Pete, that’s something we all contend with. Even the Specter and Johns mixes of Let it Be, for that matter, differ in ways that makes one or the other (depending on tastes) more commercial.
But ya, your approach is spot on: Keep playing and recording. It will come!
I am a lifelong music fan and I picked up the guitar as a hobby because I wanted to do more than just listen. Prior to learning how to play music, I viewed all the recordings I have listened to over the years as I view a loaf of bread at the grocery store; it tastes good and comes from the grocery store. I am learning there is more to it than the Beatles sat down and recorded an album one day; especially for their later albums when they began using the capabilities of the studio environment as part of their creative process.
Very interesting. Your point about mixing starting long before hitting the desk is true it seems, as my wife is recording her album in London right now with Mick Glossop (Van Morrison, Frank Zappa etc), and Mick is a fair way into the mixing stage, but this is what he said to her the other day (taken from her blog):
“Mick told me that that when we were all rehearsing, from that point he was already thinking about the mix. All of these sounds had been recorded raw with their essence and then Mick injects each of them with the right kind of sound”.
The whole post is here: http://www.mandyleigh.com/blog/?p=94
What were they thinking?! That’s what I want to know. I’m still astonished that “I Me Mine” and “Across the Universe” were not included on the original album mix. Those two (plus Dig a Pony) are my absolute favorites from that album.
Anyone know who produced the “Let It Be (naked)” version? I would guess it was Phil Spector.
> Anyone know who produced the “Let It Be (naked)” version? I would guess it was Phil Spector.
Actually, it was explicitly NOT Spector. McCartney never felt the final release reflected the Beatles’ artistic vision for the album, mostly because of Spector’s approach.
George Martin gets production credit for Naked version. But really, Allan Rouse, Paul Hicks, and Guy Massey did the work:
http://mixonline.com/recording/interviews/audio_naked_truth_beatles/
Ah, fantastic, des. I will say one thing. I listened to both the original Phil Spector “Let It Be” album and the “Let It Be (naked)” back to back and they sounded so similar! Very surprised it wasn’t Spector.
Oh man, I love hearing different people’s mixes of the same material. I had the opportunity to do some work on K-Tel’s (http://www.ktel.com/) old, old multitracks that were archived on shedding 2″ tape. K-Tel would have bands rerecord their hits and attempt to recreate the mixes so that the band would have a marketable version of their song’s master that wasn’t owned by their label.
Our job was to dump the 2″ to Pro Tools in HD and then recreate the masters as closely as possible in the digital medium. We’re talking hearing the original multitracks, recorded by the original bands of songs like Louie Louie, Drift Away, Wipeout and Magic Carpet Ride. It was a crazy experience to hear these classics’ raw tracks. Some of those tapes only had one play left in them before they lost shedded beyond recovery.
By the way – I found your blog while searching for other music production blogs like mine – The Stereo Bus (http://thestereobus.com). You’ve got some solid articles here. Let me know if you’re interested in exchanging links.
Thank you for posting this. I often do not obey these simple rules, so most of my records are not even close to perfect, but I’ll try to do as much as possible in my next little experiment
“Make only those changes which improve the song.”
I might actually pin that up on my wall! (I have a bad habit of overdoing everything). :P
This blog is brilliant.
Sorry to post this as a comment, I can’t find an email address on your site.
Do you fancy a link swap?
Chris
Dan wins.
No, seriously, that’s an interesting fact I did not know. I just assumed all those K-Tel compilations from back in the day were the same tracks as the singles. It makes sense, but there must be some songs on there that were the same masters as the single/album versions of those songs, right? I mean, weren’t there ABBA songs on some of those? As much as I love the thought of ABBA recreating their singles again in the studio I can’t really see it happening. I’m going to look at K-Tel comps in a whole new light. But I bet it was cool listening to those.
and by simplicity do you mean one-note songs like we heard from Soulja Boy? I could’ve come up with “YOUUUUUUUUUU!” and a few synth beeps…all i need is those cheap toy keyboard and I’m on my way to Billboard :P
I think you meant to say “Make only those changes which OTHER PEOPLE THINK improve the song.”.
music is art and art is about expression … whether you choose to “overdo” effects or have “flat, lifeless” mix… that is up to you. Maybe you let your friends choose what you wear but I like knowing I’m not another lifeless robot that just follows those around him/her. :/
Great advice here. Bravo!! I have a little blog on my website that has some great tricks and tips. I would love for you your followers to contribute.
http://www.mtstudios.biz
Thanks,
MT
Once you live in a place of continuous surrender, you come to be a channel for a larger purpose from the location of greater goal. You could possibly call this your larger Self, God, the Universe, Consciousness, or Divine Intelligence. Whatever you call it, it is beyond this globe, past this realm of duality.
Make only those changes which improve the song, this make as the golden rule I guess. Some of us don’t think that way as long as the mixed music was cool and it has a lot of effects but I realize it was wrong because before I used to change the song totally like totally from beats and all but I noticed that I’m not improving it I’m making it something unrecognizable to everyone. This article is a must read to everyone to know the pros and cons when mixing.
More Comments: 1 · 2 · Next ›