Rob: Interesting post. If you prefer Exile (as I do), I'm curious what you mean by "train wreck;" this would seem to imply something bad. Although often woords like "sloppy" seem to have a negative connotation, but are in fact used in a flattering way in describing some music. When some Girls came out, it was "new Stones;" whereas Exile was the classic stuff. Hard to believe Some Girls is now 27 years old (to put that in context, 27 years BEFORE Some Girls was 1951...) ----- Original Message ----- From: rob@splitsville.com Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 1:53 pm Subject: RE: The Art of Mixing > Probably the best pair of albums by one artist to contrast the > 'music vs. vocals' styles is the Stones 'Exile On Main Street' vs. > 'Some Girls'. > > Jimmy Miller's production on Exile had Keith and Mick Taylor's > guitars up front, with Mick's vocals buried in the mix. This is > hardly surprising, as these tracks were recorded at Keith's home > in France, and he was the biggest 'driver' of these recordings. > And yes, Miguel, this album is, for the most part, an absolute > freight train. > > Mick's vocals are high in the mix in Some Girls and he's easier to > understand, because, he claimed, he 'simply liked the lyrics > better'. The more probable reason is the fact that while the > production is credited to the Glimmer Twins, Keith was coming off > the Toronto bust and Mick was more fully asserting his leadership > of the band. > > As for a preference, I prefer the former. > Rob > www.splitsville.com > > >----- ------- Original Message ------- ----- > >From: "Miguel Motta" > >To: > >Sent: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:04:54 > > > >In my personal pursuit to become a better recording > >engineer especially in the area of mixing the final > >tracks I've had some thoughts... > > > >Lately I've been listening to music, actually have > >been "studying" the music I listen to attempting to > >grasp a better understanding of how "the masters" > >mix their music (this includes lots of indies' > >recordings)... In my case my main musical influence > >goes back to, you guessed it, The Beatles... > > > >Upon carefully listening to The Fabs' mixes (read > >as George Martin's) I find that a lot of them were > >"in-your-face" bold upfront instruments especially > >during the first four or five albums (perhaps they > >set instrumentation back around the Rubber Soul > >period...and even then the instruments played a > >major role in the mix)... I hear a lot of groups > >that tend to lay back (compress) their instruments > >allowing more headroom to the vocals... On the > >other hand I've listened to mixes in which the > >vocals are hardly audible due to the instruments > >dominating the spectrum... > > > >After this long-winded preface I guess my question > >to anyone interested is what type of mix turn you > >on the most? I know this can vary from song to > >song but I'm trying to figure out what was > >partially responsbible for The Beatles' success as > >recording artists (we know that it was due to a big > >number of factors) but speaking about the mix does > >anyone think that it was due to that "in-your-face" > >instrumentation approach that I perceive? When you > >listen to songs like "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and > >"She Loves You", man the sound was like a freight > >train just rolling over you... and I honestly don't > >think (correct me if I'm wrong) that there has > >hardly been another band since that has tried that > >approach again (arguable of course becaue grunge > >rock could be classified as "in-your-face" upfront > >music)... > > > >Ok so after all this I still don't know what I mean > >to say... hopefully someone out there might... In > >any case I got this off my chest...lol > > > >Cheers, > > > >Miguel > > > >Meet "The Michaels" @ > >www.myspace.com/themichaels >