Dubstepforum.com

IMHO:
Great tune + clean mixdown = "this sounds awesome"
Shit tune + clean mixdown = "this sounds boring / sterile / lifeless"
Great tune + rough mixdown = "this sounds raw / dirty / exciting"
Shit tune + rough mixdown = "this sounds cheap and shit"

Would it be heretical to suggest that an interesting tune with interesting ideas, solid sounds, strong melodies, good rhythms is more important than whether or not you've 'filled the box' or whatever with the mixdown. Up to a point, obviously.

I think it's impossible to get all the former right, and fail in the mixdown - as it means you've already been producing for some time. It all gets better together, in tandem.

Would you say Tyler The Creator is a bad producer or a raw one?

I don't know who's producing what on their stuff but I like a lot of the odd future stuff. I like the attitude as well aka downloading shit off their site and the mp3s ain't 320s.

I think in edm there is a big emphasis on a clean mixdown as a lot of the time the hope is the song being played by a dj in a club setting. in which a clean mixdown is preferred.

in *ahem cough cough* "beat music" (or whatever people are calling it) there is less emphasis placed on getting something sound club ready. I have shit loads of beat-tapes from random people who just made the beats on a sampler (mpc, roland sp series, etc..) and tracked the thing directly into a 4-track and then into audacity. and loads of them sound dope as fuck.

I think in music that's made primarily for home listening allows for more experimentation in many areas (this includes structure your track, how you're going to mix it down, etc...)

of course music is entirely subjective so some people may hate a clean mix, the same way that some may hate a lo-fi fuzzy one.

just because you can make your stuff sound ultra clinical doesn't mean you want to. or maybe you can't do super clean mixes but it doesn't matter as your music doesn't call for it. all depends on the situation. I can't play guitar but that doesn't really matter as the stuff I do doesn't really require it.

slothrop wrote:IMHO:
Great tune + clean mixdown = "this sounds awesome"
Shit tune + clean mixdown = "this sounds boring / sterile / lifeless"
Great tune + rough mixdown = "this sounds raw / dirty / exciting"
Shit tune + rough mixdown = "this sounds cheap and shit"

Would it be heretical to suggest that an interesting tune with interesting ideas, solid sounds, strong melodies, good rhythms is more important than whether or not you've 'filled the box' or whatever with the mixdown. Up to a point, obviously.

Amazing post. I've said it before and I'll say it again - girls don't care about the mixdown.

slothrop wrote:Shit tune + rough mixdown = "this sounds cheap and shit"

Sometimes I like this. Like Crass. Like St. Anger. Had the production matched the quality of the songs(and not been Metallica), I probably would enjoy that album more.
Cheap/low quality production in some instances has an aesthetic too it that makes it feel more rough and can blur really simple/boring riffs in a flattering way imo.

Lucifa wrote:Reminds me of old 2004/2005 Grime instrumentals, the mix downs were raw as fuck and you'd be lucky to find ones with over 128kbps bit rates. That just added to the charm and grittyness though. I remember actually preferring a tinny, shoddy limewire rip of a Low Deep instrumental I had, to a decent quality version of the same instrumental I came across years later.

You can definitely have a too cleanly produced track IMO. And I reckon present Dubstep suffers a lot from it. All the DJ Fresh/Nero/Chase & Status anthems at the moment are fantastically mixed, immaculately so, razor sharp synths and crystal clear highs, but they ultimately any character or soul. You can argue thats solely down to the artist, but I do reckon the cleaniness contributes.

It'd make sense as you have these dozens of plug-ins thats sole purpose is to dirty up the track.

completely agree about Grime, early grime was raw and sometimes had questionable mixdowns and was also very simple production wise, but it gave it character and it sounded unique.

I try to stay clean and raw if that makes sense?
I think this is the kinda thing that'll give you your own sound. A unique-ness to your tunes

I think rawness has a lot to do with vibe.

Using sounds with heavy amounts of character (spesh in drums) opposed to punch or weight and splitting your track into 3 frequencies is a good technique..

Try not using many high hats (instant crisp sounding stuff..)


Highs - Percs
Mids - Leads / drums
lows - pure sub.

Example :

^ suuuuuuuch a good tune

Lets be honest if Coki or Jakes were unknown and came in here later on today, we'd probably all be saying sweet tracks but you need to work on your mixdown a lot. But they're both two of my favourite artists, go figure.

PERCEPT wrote:we'd probably all be saying sweet tracks but you need to work on your mixdown

KesEs wrote:The line between raw and badly produced

is defined by

http://ounce.bandcamp.com/track/live-on-whpk-885-fm

Thread can end now.

ive always seen it that way :

if you have an utterly raw production, try to put a clean post prod on it...

if you have an utterly clean production, try to make it more raw thru post prod...

ive always loved contrasts.

zerbaman » Wed Aug 03, 2011 1:11 am
I try to stay clean and raw if that makes sense?
I think this is the kinda thing that'll give you your own sound. A unique-ness to your tunes

^ This. It is possible to keep it raw and still have a clean mixdown

as for OFWGKTA ... id say the prods are okay... they aren't the focus, or the thing that makes them special... better then most of the little grimy-rap-wannabe-kids out there... yet... its always annoyed me how it bit the neptunes so bad... and so badly... a lot of useless synth work like they really wanted to stack sounds up like the neps, and crowded ass zesty beats kinda like the neptunes, but built in a way less pertinent fashion.. with non-consistant mix work and a rather unpleasing use of compression on certain tunes.

Funny how a good flow and a dope vibe and dope texts can go a long way Rap is simply as dope as music should be in that sense.

now dont get me wrong i love their shit and the hype they got from it... just think the beats are not the best thing about their stuff

good thing they joined forces with startrak cause that poor rendition of the neptunes really annoyed at times .

Manic Harmonic wrote:Also, an old trick of mine was running certain sounds through a tape recording. Super cheap and effective when that's the sound you're going for.

Giving some serious consideration to bouncing out my drums directly to tape, then re-recording them back into my project off the tape and inserting the stem straight into the playlist to see what it does to the sound.

RAW

everything ive been making has been too clean recently i reckon- going to try much more minimal eqing in the future

one of the reasons why i think brostep is so funny is that all the fans think its so filthy and nasty, but when i listen to it i hear super clean ultra produced shit. it doesn't make any sense. if you want to make barbaric music why the fuck are you spending all day making it so clean. same with new death metal. fucking caveman shit sounding perfect?????? i hate it