Mix critique please

[lingyai]

Hi all. Have done a cover of Wish you Were Here (that old chestnut, but with with some original semi-twists. I've kept the track unlisted for now while I field comments about the mix/overall listening experience. So ... comments welcome. I'd be interested to know what you listened with (e.g. monitors, cans etc)

This link *should* let you listen with no sign-up or other faffing and also download the original wav file, which if you're so inclined, I'd prefer!
https://soundcloud.com/st-josephs-socia ... haring[url][/url]

If for some reason that's a problem, here is the unlisted video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9rB9HpiAiE[url][/url]

[OneWorld]

The mix seems OK, all clear and panned etc, but I would have liked some bass in it. Yes OK Pink Floyd just use acoustics for the first half but they use lower strings, gives it more presence. And OK I get the notion that a cover version does not always seek to replicate the original, but 'Wish You Were Here' is a hard act to follow. You hear it one and it is sort of fixated in your mind and I for one am just used to hearing it that way. Any straying away from the original would have to be radically different. We wouldn't have the Mona Lisa with purple hair and a few of her teeth missing, she wouldn't look right.

I want to do a remix of Ravel's Bolero, a trance version, but then my more realistic self tells me "Leave it alone, you (me that is) couldn't ever make much better than it is already"

However these are subjective, arrangement issues rather than mix critique.

The Soundcloud link demanded a sign in, YouTube was OK though. YouTube seems the best option for posting tracks these days, don't know how long that will last.

How were you able to do a copy of a tune, how do you go on with copyright issues?

[lingyai]

Thanks for listening and feeding back. In this case I chose at the outset to make it different as the original has just been done to death! I had the least inspiration for drums and bass so skipped them, but tried to have the piano doing some lower end duties.

Re doing covers: you only really know what different platforms permit at upload time. Sometimes Soundcloud says "no" but in this case I don't think their algos cuaght what it was. Youtube scanned it and reported back that it was coipyrighted but that the copyright-holder was cool with it. I figure between that and the facts that I acknowledge the authors, don't try to monetise, and get almost no listens protect me

Sorry that Soundcloud was a faff after all. Youtube's sound quality is not ideal but it seems to be the one place that anyone can follow a link to and listen. Of course that means the obligation to provide some kind of eye candy, which annoys me, but it seems to be how folks consume music today.

[lingyai]

If for some reason that's a problem, here is the unlisted video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9rB9HpiAiE[url][/url]

Ignore that link, please use this instead (unsure why I can't seem to edit my own post)

[OneWorld]

Thanks for listening and feeding back. In this case I chose at the outset to make it different as the original has just been done to death! I had the least inspiration for drums and bass so skipped them, but tried to have the piano doing some lower end duties.

Re doing covers: you only really know what different platforms permit at upload time. Sometimes Soundcloud says "no" but in this case I don't think their algos cuaght what it was. Youtube scanned it and reported back that it was coipyrighted but that the copyright-holder was cool with it. I figure between that and the facts that I acknowledge the authors, don't try to monetise, and get almost no listens protect me

Sorry that Soundcloud was a faff after all. Youtube's sound quality is not ideal but it seems to be the one place that anyone can follow a link to and listen. Of course that means the obligation to provide some kind of eye candy, which annoys me, but it seems to be how folks consume music today.

"Youtube's sound quality is not ideal"

I have read that before but I sort of figured, when I have posted music there, if it's good enough for Taylor Swift or whomsoever the flavour of the month is, then it's good enough for minions like me. I get the faff about with the eye candy issue, but a still image suffices does it not, put a pic of a cat there or a sunrise somewhere, or even a take on the original image?

Listening to the track again the sound quality seems ok to me from a leftfield sort of perspective, me not being a mixer/engineer sort of person.

[Arpangel]

Hope you don’t mind me being honest, the voice doesn’t sit well with the guitars, it sounds like a separate entity, the voice is the weakest link, it lacks confidence and doesn’t pitch well sometimes.
Technical issues can be fixed, but the whole performance, vocal in particular, needs tightening up, some overall mix compression may help it "glue" better overall.
I listened to this on my Mini-rig speaker, but that doesn’t matter, you can hear a performance on anything.

[RichardT]

I liked it and I thought the vocal was actually good!

There are a few timing issues such as around 1.40, and a few wrong notes (well, they sounded like that to me).

The acoustic guitars panned left and right have opposing rhythms so it sounds like they ping-pong from left to right and back again, which I found disturbing. But they have nice subtle features which liven up the harmony.

The voice is a little high in the mix for my taste and the vocal levels could be more even.

I think it needs more development. There's a reason the original adds full band half way through!

[Martin Walker]

I liked it and I thought the vocal was actually good!

The voice is a little high in the mix for my taste and the vocal levels could be more even.

Yep, I liked the vocals too Rich - this is after all a new version that was deliberately made different from the original, but pulling the vocal levels down a dB or two and evening out the levels (possibly with a little more 'glue' on the overall mix would pull everything together nicely.

To my ears the slide guitar from around 3:00 is also too dry and separate from the rest of the mix - it would benefit from more reverb to place it with the other instruments.

I'm still liking this version a lot though!

[Drew Stephenson]

Sorry, meant to give this a listen earlier this week but, well, stuff.
Will give a listen in the studio tomorrow.

[Arpangel]

The voice is a little high in the mix for my taste and the vocal levels could be more even.

I think it needs more development. There's a reason the original adds full band half way through!

Spot on.

[Drew Stephenson]

A few thoughts:
I like the super-wide stereo effect of the guitars in the intro, but I think they could have a bit more bottom end.
I like the main vocal performance but it is a bit high in the mix. I'd be inclined to bring up the backing vocal as well.
Couple of interesting guitar note choices.
Vocal does feel a bit over-processed to me, back off the de-esser a touch.
Nice guitar solo.
There's very little happening in the lower register - the piano doesn't have any oomph and I'd be inclined to bring in a bass part earlier in the song.
But as always, I refer you to the disclaimer in my signature.

[RichardT]

A few thoughts:
I like the super-wide stereo effect of the guitars in the intro, but I think they could have a bit more bottom end.
I like the main vocal performance but it is a bit high in the mix. I'd be inclined to bring up the backing vocal as well.
Couple of interesting guitar note choices.
Vocal does feel a bit over-processed to me, back off the de-esser a touch.
Nice guitar solo.
There's very little happening in the lower register - the piano doesn't have any oomph and I'd be inclined to bring in a bass part earlier in the song.
But as always, I refer you to the disclaimer in my signature.

Good point on the EQ of the acoustic guitars!

Lingyai, if you want to add some bottom end to them during the opening of the song, you could still leave the existing EQ on later in the song. If you change the EQ settings when there is a significant texture change, such as adding a new instrument, it’s surprising how hard it is to notice even quite a big EQ change.

[WilliamAshley]

Just out of the gates the panomatic pan is really distracting.

The word tell is a little hard.

IMO the performance is pretty weak so its hard to be super critical about the mix.

I don't really like this version of it so I'd be pretty biased on it.
There isn't much entrainment on it for me as every few seconds there is something that is out of place on it.

Fairly nice aural qualities. I think overall things like equing is nice. Overall sonic profile is quite nice, but the structure and stereo is all over the place. Its really hard to outdo a classic track imo Pink Floyds version is just so tatooed you got to offer something more than it offers. While the guitar is nice in quality, the pan is super distracting on headphones.

Some of the choice of instrumentation and vocal qualities of the singers take away from Pink Floyds version which actually is quite harmonious. This version has very strange tonal qualities going on, that for a classic track might be considered botching the original or a cover unless it presents from a totally new angle.

So in summary, overall good sonic quality but the actual presentation of this cover make it difficult to listen to and do not provide the same enjoyment as the original does.

This is just my opinion. Its very hard for me to detach this from the hit as it just sounds wrong because it feels like it butchers the original.