| Page: 1 2 | Rating: Unrated [0] |
The Science Of Mixing
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» PitaGore replied on Thu Apr 8, 2004 @ 2:09pm |
 Coolness: 472495 | Its all about feelin' the funk
then the word kills the feeling .. u can say i can't mix if i can't put it into words .. go on whatever .. its still all about feelin the funk |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Thu Apr 8, 2004 @ 2:38pm |
 Coolness: 686280 | Yeah, there's just too much to doing a good mix to really give every diffrent possible technique.
If it feels good, do it! Hell, last week at a house party I went from Dark Side of the Moon - On The Run, into Unholy Grail to start a DnB set. :b |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Thu Apr 8, 2004 @ 7:34pm |
 Coolness: 145890 | we have to start from first principles. if we are going to explain it properly.
The first principle is that music has rythm and that we as individuals can at least in some limited sense understand that rythm (ie the world has a stucture which is rational and we as agents in the world can exercise our reason to understand that structure) given that, we can conceptualize a track (a song?) as having the particular structure of a segmented (ie divided) yet infinite line on a graph, if this can be excepted then we can move on to the more serious matters concerning the nature of beat matching itself. If we follow this avenue of reasoning to it's natural conclusion we will have to admit that when two tracks are played one on top of the other, that like two lines on graph they can only really do one of two things with each other, either an itersection at some shared point on the graph (horrible trainwreck) or they can do something else which is run parallel to one another (beautiful beatmatch). The truth of what i have just said is undenniable, what else can two lines do to each other, either cross or run side by side to infinity. beats aren't really anything more then abstract lines and should therefore behave exactly like two lines. When the lines have the same slope (ie bpm) they will be parallel when different they will cross. i have deliberatly omited all considerations of cueing and the proper time to drop the beats right on top of one another(ie. put them into sequence with each other,) this was done for the purpose of clarity and not because i think they are not important. this is just my take, and maybe I'm over intelectualizing it but this is the way I see it. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» beercrack replied on Thu Apr 8, 2004 @ 10:21pm |
 Coolness: 72125 | that makes sense yo.
you make broken beats just by mixing two basically kick clap kick clap tunes what do folks think of breaking up the bar countoccasionally - i like to switch it up abit by beatmatching records but not necessarily in the same bar count. for exampel to mix the third beat of a bar of one record on to the second beat of bar on another record. i beleive doing this breaks the monotony of feeling like i`ve been listenign to the same track for the last 15 minutes just cuz its the same bar counts. as long as it sounds ok? whaddayoothink |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Thu Apr 8, 2004 @ 10:40pm |
| Coolness: 145890 | i'm so the worst person to ask about that type of thing...
for me on of the biggest problems is getting it to sequence properly (ie more then beat matching, actually getting the transitions and big changes within the tracks to line up with each other on the thirty two and sixty four beat intervals) i have to force myself to mix the first beat of the track (which is only half the battle) and learn how to drop it at the right time (the other half the battle. My problem is that i'm never actually counting (beyond 4 beats) so i never know where i am in the track consequently i never know when i want to drop something. If you don't line up the big changes, the tracks tend to peak at different times which can sound good sometimes but mostly just sounds weird and constipated... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» clown replied on Thu Apr 8, 2004 @ 10:41pm |
 Coolness: 222455 | c'mon man.. toltech said all there was to say about mixing..
beatmatch your songs, NEVER FADE anything.. let your tracks flow together, while you EQ it so the volume doesn't sound all fucked up.. OBviously, try not to mix songs that sound completly different. (ex: Pure techno with hardtrance), cuase you will lose its musical atmosphere (unless done with extream presision).. Keep your faders up, never cut your bass completly durring a mix, unless you intend to bring it back up. (and by cutting bass i mean swaping bass at the same time.. cut one, bring in other.. it just sounds like crap). and about the question of being a "good" dj.. well, it seems its all about how many people you can bring to the party.. or how long/tight you beatmatch for.. good luck.. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» beercrack replied on Thu Apr 8, 2004 @ 10:46pm |
| Coolness: 72125 | i love it how sometimes by pure chance you pull random records out of crates and they seem to just flow tight.. its sometype of cosmic intuitive synchronicity.. or maybe thats just the mareehuana tho :) |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Toltech replied on Fri Apr 9, 2004 @ 5:11am |
 Coolness: 146110 | Originally posted by BASDINI...
beats aren't really anything more then abstract lines I would never go as far as saying that....they are not abstract at all......most of all in sequenced electronic music.....they have been assigned a specific spot in the time signature.....someone put it there and that's where it is expected to be and it will be trigered then and there.....I'm not falling into this over intellectualizing train myself but merely expressing myself in this fashion for the sake of this conversation.....yeah I guess I'm an artist but this is superfluous....or maybe it's just my opinion but I really think that you could go way more apeshit on a tangent when it comes to reviewing a track or productions themselves......the basics of mixing, which is what you're previous post was about, could be resumed in a much more effective way....which is also shorter.....I'm really not doing this to be a buzzkill but I'm really not feeling the point here....sorry. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Fri Apr 9, 2004 @ 2:12pm |
| Coolness: 145890 | abstract but not arbitrary... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mikelaicervera replied on Sat Apr 24, 2004 @ 5:26pm |
 Coolness: 42285 | What an educative thread.
Can I over intellectualize too? I did a lot of thinking recently about the things I worry about when I mix tracks. I can’t say I’m really a DJ, but if I intend become one, I have to find something like a systematic way to mix. Still, as mixing closes to art, the creativity must not be overtaken by the search of structure. While dancing, I had a small conversation with a DJ. I was telling him about the question « How do you make a good mix? », wich I was wondering about and he told that he similarily asks himself the question « why do people react to a ‘bomb’? ». That reminded me of an author I read last year (Fodor or Sperber, anyway, a guy). The guy says that music is something we react to according to a brain part, wich, originally, was used for survival (for ex : you hear a bump or craking sound, you jump). Over the time that brain part became useless on a survival perspective, but still, it continued to process some stimulus. That is because, past a certain stage of our history, we discovered technology and began changing our environment too fast for the law of natural selection. So that natural predator our brain was made to protect us from, trough the reaction explained above, had disapeared. We still use the part of our brain that was desingned for it, except, the field of stimulus to wich it reacts to has widened trough time too. That was for the « why » question. I cannot say that the world has a structure in itself, wich human being discovers, without blushing. I’d rather say that we project our own structure of knowledge on the world. So, for that « how » question, I’d say that it’s trough a good manipulation of the ambiance. But what is an ambiance exactly? There’s a german genius who taugh me that an ambiance is always present to pre-understand the world. Face it, knowledge is not only a rational thing, wich has to be spoken to be understood. When I take my remote control, I’m not telling myself what I’m going to use it for, but I know it. In the music’s case, the data we get from it trough perception is mostly psychological feelings. So, to me, ambiance is the key. Up till now, I see 3 dimensions related to ambiance : Rythm, Tonality, Effects. Rythm : I agree to all that is said about beatmatching. I may add that I just discovered Steve Reich. Could we qualify his music of rythmatic trainwreck? I’m wondering if there’s something to do with trainwrecks on a musical perspective… Tonality : Ambiance is highly sensitive to harmony. It’s possible to not beatmatch two songs for the sake of harmony (for example, if you mix classical or acoustic stuff with electronic). I think this is the aspect that should determine a great deal of the musical selection. Effects : Eqs, Filters, Distortions, Echoes, Pan… They make people flip when they’re well used. Sorry for the length. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Thu Apr 29, 2004 @ 9:39pm |
| Coolness: 145890 | an excellent survey of the nature of mixing... |
The Science Of Mixing
| Page: 1 2 |
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
