Sometimes Songs Sound so Perfect, I Don't Like Them

I think I know what you mean. I'm mostly into metal, so coming from that standpoint there is plenty of metal that I have found to sound "too polished" and too clean. I don't know about "perfect," but it's just not how it's "supposed" to be in MY mind. The music might be cool, but it's hard to see through the sterility of the production. And then relatedly, there's a whole style that's built on being technical and perfect, and I happen to not like that style. It's subjective, of course.

There are some other factors here. Have you heard the same songs mixed poorly (subjective...dirty-whatever adjective you want to assign)?

The other part? Clean production only benefits people who can play. It's like a microscope if you will...if you can hear everything clearly, you can hear EVERYTHING clearly. If any band self labels themselves "indie"...that is code for "cassettes give a cool, vibey sound, huh?"

You can certainly argue that it's the job to read the material and mix accordingly...but, I'd say that what you're hearing isn't the result of "mixing" one way or another. It's the recording. Always has been. Mixing properly, doesn't change what's there...it simply presents it clearly. It's, IMO, a myth that there's any significant difference in mixing a Nirvana record or a Steely Dan record. I mean-sure we can point to some kind little specific aspects, but mainly 90% of that work is the same...and at the end, you have he singles from In Utero and Two Against Nature. Which sound nothing alike. No one will confuse the two.

It's the recording. It the arrangement. this makes something "not dirty enough" for your taste. A mix engineer might use cleanly recorded material because as an engineer, that makes for the most impressive sound--flaw in that logic? Engineers don't HIRE engineers. By almost definition, the people hiring engineers CANt make a differentiation between material and sonics.

Whether you want to hear it again has nothing to do with the mix OR recording. IMO/E.

I think "sterile" and "neutered" are good words for what I think you're talking about. I seem to sometimes say that something's too "White"...as in too nerdy white/straight/square...Country radio has certainly been guilty of it...Over-tuning vocals, harmonies too in tune...I also hear it in a lot of modern rock. The Nicklebacks and the like.

This made me lol! Good stuff wreck 8)

But, there is a huge flaw in the "mix engineer demo" paradigm. With nothing to directly compare it to...how do you have any idea how much was the mix? If it sounds bad is the mix guy responsible for it sounding bad? Depends on how it sounds bad...but, without the raw tracks...you have no idea whose fault it is.

The maximum potential is there in the tracks. You can NOT better this potential. You can certainly F it up-at any point...but, the cumulative nuances of mixing and mastering are simply not making a recording good....they're just allowing people to HEAR whether it's good or not.

I said not long ago to someone who was asking how long a mix takes..."to do it right with a full band arrangement-- it takes about a day...anything beyond that is time spent is denial THAT is what the recording sounds like". Now, of course I thought in retrospect that DOES assume the mix guy knows what they're doing...but, if you accept that assumption...that's been my experience. And, I know on personal projects--I've lived in that denial for a while before....trying to fix that intangible "something missing"...because I lack the objectivity on my own stuff I bring to client work. It's not the mix. I'm unhappy with the recording or the performance. Maybe I find some kind of way to kind of deemphasize aspects I don't like enough that I can "make peace" with how it sounds. But, at the end of the day, it's done with rev1b the following am. I tend to mix the second half of the day....get it "done"....and come back with coffee and fresh ears in the morning and make last minute adjustments. A holdover from the analog days when there was functional reason for the next morning thing--before we had to reset the desk and rack gear for that days' work. So, I do count the morning after in "the one day"...but...you get the point. Let that gestate a little. If you don't believe me? Save your "day one" mix. Not your first attempt at "mix as you go" BS--you DO need to focus ground up for at least 4-5 hours from a reset. But, save THAT mix. The stereo audio file....and then go ahead and tweak away for a week or two if you want. Then pull that stereo file into a new project with your two week mix and gain match them as best you can two different mixes. I'm not saying you won't find SOME aspect to like more about the two week mix...but, in the panned back sense, it won't be that different.

In fact, if you DO a mix....and you're not happy? There IS a possibility it was an off day or whatever...but, the test? Is not to try to tweak the bad mix into a good one. Reset the mixer. All together. Like it would've been in the analog days. NOTHING saved. Mix it again. If it was an off day, the second one is your keeper. Full recall is helpful for picky client work...from a business perspective. But, it doesn't make for better mixes. It simply makes "exactly like that only with X change" financially viable.

I think by clean he means cleaned up. everything quantized and tunes to the hilt.

I tend to like stuff that sounds like it could be a band in a room. If you ask me what my favorite band is I'll probably say the Faces. So, I like things loose. Like early 70s loose. And then maybe a little looser than that. And i don't really hear too much stuff like that these days. Even on stuff that still has that band in a room vibe.

Then again, sometimes it has to be really tight. 

But regardless, it has to breathe. Pulse. Actually have a human element - not just quantized up the wazoo. 

So yeah, I think I get where the OP is coming from.

Cheers,
Geoff

To me, what you are describing has to do with the fact that most modern production techniques are designed to (or have a secondary effect of) eradicating performance. At least, in my case, that's what puts me off from the type of song I believe you are talking about. 

"Perfect" is a strange word. Sometimes, in the studio, people will be talking about "perfect" and they will mean "it is accurately on the click". If we followed this thought to it's logical conclusion, it would mean that the demo on a casio pt1 would be "perfect".

I think "perfect" should be used if you get goose bumps (for example). So the song you are describing, to me, would be "anti-perfect".

geoff738 Nice Sta-Level!

Well said. I work with an edm producer sometimes and this is my observation as well.

I suppose Bob is correct with the overproduction analysis. That word used to mean something different to me. Too many effects, didn't sound live, etc. Now with time and pitch correction and the ability to suck every last bit of mud out of every instrument with surgical eqs, what used to be overproduction to me is classic and good. I like one day mixes too. They make me focus on what matters the most. And people that sound like autotune live! Yes - I have seen and heard that and it's getting more common. Very funny phenomenon. So it's just the new version of overproduction. That's an age old issue and makes perfect sense. So on my next song I won't edit the timing of the guitars at all. Baby steps....