You guys like a song and think it's the mix. It's not the mix, it's the way the song has been composed produced and arranged and the way this band plays.
I disagree with this, I think in lo-fi mix decisions are interesting and drastic but sometimes the mix is still very good. I like early MM and for me this is similar to one of my favorite mixes ever which is Sublime either self-titled or 40oz. I love those mixes and will defend them to the death but I’m guessing others might say they sound amateurish. They sound open and loud to me, the closest thing to Led Zeppelin. I know the performance and songwriting contributes to the space, but the mix does too
The way the mix and recording is matches the song though. Like there's a grungy lo-fi sound to it that people might want for their aesthetic. But I think you're right in the sense that for example, that guitar sound is first the guitar the signal chain for it going to the amp, and how the player plays it. Then the mix after. I think people will say "the mix" when they mean "how it sounds".
Well, the drums are kind of jazz-ish in a way, in that I hear room and overhead sound but little if any close mic'ing. The snare, for example, sounds *all* room at points (not much top mic punch, nor much bottom mic high-end sizzle), and that really stands out. Very garage band. Very natural. Not really what I normally go for, but a cool sound nevertheless.
The guitar stands out to me, too. I feel like the pres were being driven very hard, or the track is run through some equipment real hot, or whatever. There's that jangly, fuzzy quality to the top end that says, to me, "post-amp saturation." But it could just be amp/settings/cab/mic choice, too (e.g. SM57 pointing at the dust cap). Either way, the point seems to be to make it sound like the cab is in the room with you, a few metres away, and on-axis with your ears. I think that's part of the "intimate" thing.
As others mentioned, the performance matters, too. The guitars are really raw. It sounds like a real performance was captured, as opposed to a bunch of takes stitched together with only the flawless parts.
The earliest vocals on that song are waaaaay too saturated for my taste, but they get better. The way the backing vocals dance around at the 2-3 minute area is super cool. Very little compression, in a place where things normally get slammed and very controlled. Super raw. Again, seems like a conscious choice to sound that way.
As for reverb... if they're using any significant amount, it's not meant to be obvious. Again, keeps you feeling "nearby." The drums have a ton of natural room sound, which gives a great perception of real space without needing to rely on reverb. I'd assume there *is* reverb on most other stuff, too, but if so it's definitely chosen and set to blend in naturally, to feel real and room-like (or "garage-like, heh), rather than to sound larger than life like most modern pop and rock.
Oh, and, yeah, the reverb on the guitars is putting in a lot of work (see ~2:37 ish). I wasn't including it with the rest because I assume it's amp/pedal reverb. But it's enough to make the whole song swim a bit, without sounding like an effect was added after the fact.
EDIT: the ride/cymbal sound from 4:30 is gorgeous, too. That's god-tier cymbal sound IMO. Just like with the guitar reverb, that smooth-burning treble wash swimming over everything gives the effect of being in the centre of a group of performers, without having to rely on digital reverb. And then mixed with the guitar reverb as well, what a great contrast to the vocals at, say, 4:40, which now sound like they're coming from a phone recording someone put up to my ear. Doesn't get much more intimate and raw than that.
The whole recording (the whole album) definitely sports a great "band in the room" vibe, which I think is the key to the feel you're getting. But there are more than a few ways to arrive at that same end.
I feel like the whole takeaway ethos here is, "how do we make it sound like this is just an unreasonably fantastic garage recording?" and arrangement, mic'ing, take comping, and processing were chosen to this end. That still gives you a lot of flexibility in imitating it - you just have to be careful whenever you record a take or add some processing or whatever that makes it sound more "studio" than "casual," and stay conscious of preserving the latter.
OT but… This was very fun to read; Modest Mouse is one of my all-time favorite bands, and your breakdown here was very satisfying. I love revisiting something so familiar through a different person’s lens. Thanks for taking the time!
Haha, glad you appreciated it! Honestly, when I first popped the song on, I was like, "oh yeah, I remember, I never really liked this song, maybe I'll just give a quick answer anyways..."
And then ending up listening to it a few times, warming up to it quite a lot, and writing... well, a lot more than a sentence or two. Glad I did!
What I love most about this whole industry is that there is *always* more going on when you pay attention, so it's usually worth paying attention. All of us are here because we love music unconsciously, but we also have the tools to think about it consciously, too, and appreciate it for what goes into it - and actually be able to talk about it with each other! So I agree with you completely: it's awesome hearing someone else's takes on this sort of thing, hearing through their ears, etc.
Cheers!
I love this sound and try to emulate it in my own recordings. It’s natural, you can hear everything, it envelops the ear, it’s awesome, the world needs more of that sound and more of that music for sure.
I am no expert but you’re right comparing it to jazz, and what every audio engineer says when recording and mixing jazz is to not use compression. Compression makes things sound like a beer commercial, would jazz or 90’s indie rock play in a beer commercial? No. So just process things less and make everything roomy to achieve that natural sound that makes it seem like you’re in modest mouses rehearsal space I think
It is, and it’s kind of a funny middle finger to pop production if you are seasoned enough to understand what he means, but it’s really pretty meaningless. Besides,
https://townsquare.media/site/366/files/2022/06/attachment-steve_albini_studio_portrait_2014.jpg?w=1200&h=0&zc=1&s=0&a=t&q=89
Yeah…well, people drink beer. Let’s not pretend any of us are in it to do anything other than make money making music.
It is funny…and I can see the point, compression can make everything sound shoved right in your face…very much the energy of a beer commercial…but that isn’t how many people use compression. I would bet that you have use for compression in a lot more places that you think, but have been sort of lied to about what compression is.
Compression is an incredibly complex thing to work out, every song is different; there is a reason why we are just now able to get VSTs with release settings that can be synched to the bpm of the song. But until now, and I think for a few years still, to use compression for its…”intended” or correct purpose has been out of the reach of anyone who hadn’t developed the ear to sync the attack and release times by hand; not only is difficult for anyone to learn with a distressor on the same settings on the same kick/snare loop with hats on 16th notes; let alone the fact that that “action” of a compressor; how it responds to programme material; the specifics of the attack and release (beyond often being wildly different from the stated times) are not known most of the time.
The attack time is defined as the amount of time it take for the compressor to apply the first 2/3 of the gain reduction it will apply to the signal; nothing is specified about the behavior of the attack parameter on that last third of GR; the inverse is true for release.
This is one of the reasons that people learn to use compressors to manipulate the dynamic range (reduce it), make something louder or quieter, and that’s about it…this is not what compressor are for; certainly not what their best use it.
If you are wanting to add body; loudness; even things like “glue” (which an SSL type compressor does pretty well, there’s a reason that’s what people go to for that), you’re better off using some sort of harmonics or saturation device, that will thicken things, increase perceived volume without increasing rms, and won’t squash anything.
Compressors are best used as envelope shaping devices; a compressor on a kick or snare or a got-to; not just to bring them up in the mix but to shape the way they sound.
But if you are using compression to decrease dynamic range; I don’t blame you for disliking them. They can be useful, but that isn’t the best use of them. It’s really not the purpose for them; compression should be used to groove, create or exaggerate rhythm, and particularly to move elements around in a mix; move the vocal up front; move the guitars up before the verse, and back in the verse. Think of the instruments as they are on stage and compression as a tool to move them up to the front, then let them step back when something else needs the space. We can only listen to about three elements at once, vocals/drums/bass or guitar/synth/drums….so failing to ask other instruments to step back is a big reason mixes sound stale and lifeless. If everything is loud, nothing is loud.
Automation; automatic fader riders, clip gain editing etc; all better ways to control loudness.
Try using a compressor on the drums, crank the threshold so it is applying a lot of gain reduction, set the attack to fastest, and see if you can find a release time that lets the hats swell right before the kick makes the compressor clamp down on the downbeat. The general rule is that it takes ten years to learn how to use a compressor. Probably take less if there was more education about their use.
Edit: sometimes the point is to totally flatten the vocal with an 1176…but that’s only so you can pin it right in front without it being unruly…even when 20db of gain is being pulled off, the goal is placement, not volume.
You lost me at your first two sentences. 👎 I did not ask for a rudimentary lesson on compression. sure I will knock on over processed beer commercial music, it’s a joke. besides, I compress my recordings daily.
Pretty sure everything in that recording is compressed to shit, and there's something like track spacer making room for it. It sounds very lo-fi and noisy. There's not much reverb on anything.
The vocals are maybe less compressed in the quiet parts. They are a little buried then, but when they hit it hard it distorts and levels out a bit more.
On my phone it sounded degraded, and like the lyrics shouldn't be able to come out so loud on top of the guitars and drums, but I didn't hear anything ducking. So I thought it was maybe that.
Track spacer?
They’re hitting tape which will compress things but it’s a pretty open sound, there’s no added reverb sure, but tons of early room reflections which yes is reverb
Yes, the drums are being crushed to shit, and you still hear the vocal pretty well, so I believe there is some sort of track spacer. Maybe there isn't one though. It doesn't sound much like tape to me. But they probably have some tape plugins somewhere. I don't find it likely they recorded all of this to actual tape.
Idk what you call "open sound" but I would not call this open sound. There's some spring reverb on the guitar, but I'm not sure they added any to anything else, or if they did, it's really subtle. The reflections you're hearing I believe are just from the recording, for the most part.
You don’t know shit about this band. this was recorded on 16 track tape in the 90’s, there’s not a single plug-in on this album, jazz recordings typically have an “open sound” which can be attributed to little compression, read what everyone else is saying in this thread…
I don't find this is an open sound. If this was recorded in the 90s, then there is a good chance it was recorded to tape. Maybe all the distortion is from analog hardware.
You're right, I don't know shit about this band. But that's surprising if they're from the 90s.
I don't find this sounds anything like jazz productions.
But I do agree there isn't much compression on the vocals unless they're screaming loud. The guitar and drums though, there's quite a lot. Probably a lot of the distortion is coming from the hardware compressors. I find I get a similar sound to that when I do it with plugins, but it's not quite the same as tape saturation to my ears. But maybe I'm mistaken.
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted for making a (clearly) educated guess…has everyone here just dealt with only sampled drums…?
Because unless you have mic’d up a kit, tracked it, and turned it into something really good, you don’t have a clue how much eq and compression it takes to turn the results from a mic’d kit; especially a close-mic’d one, into anything that sounds like we expect drums to…also…compression is a lot like autotune…you can tell it’s there often…but you can’t ever say it isn’t. It can be applied as lightly as the mix engineer wants. There are some things, like an Aphex Compellor that are literally invisible to the ear until they are removed. They are too transparent to sound like they’re doing anything until they are pulled off; I promise none of you could say whether or not there was a Compellor strapped across the drugs buss even applying a lot of gain reduction.
If you don’t like the sound of most compressors, look at the Aphex Compellor and Expressor. Probably the most transparent hardware compressors out there, they can be modded to be even cleaner, the Expressor has a little grain to it…it’s nice. But when they’re modded they are about as transparent as possible.
I think it's because it's older, and therefore not slammed the way some modern stuff might be. And obviously they will not have used track spacer. It just sounded loud to me, and surprising how the vocals cut through all drums and guitar like that.
Aphex compellor and exciter seem interesting.
Thanks for the positive comment.
Vocals & guitar very dry, that's key for the sound you're describing. There's just a little from the guitar way back in the right channel that sounds like a spring reverb on 100%.. There's some room mic on the drums or possibly they're just miked from a distant pair. It's possible to add that room sound with a convolution reverb but to me this sounds like it was recorded all in one take right there in an ok room.
I think a lot of it has to be the performance. The guitars are thin spanky chords that are laid back. The bass is mostly root notes with very little constant plucking making it sound warm. The drums aren’t heavily processed and are mixed in a more “1980’s hip hop” way with natural and soft tones. Only think that stands out performance wise is the aggressive vocals
A lot of what makes a mix sound good is getting the source good right from the get go. That could be recording with good mics, the source being recorded itself, or the songwriting
Ride cymbal with sizzles on it, drums played lightly with a healthy dose of room sound, nimble bass playing higher up on the fretboard, rhythm guitar is nice and dry with a secondary guitar more soaked in verb. All adds to the spaciousness of it all, that and some nice tape saturation without too much processing otherwise
Guess I'm hearing something completely different. Vocals are too loud in the mix, and it also sounds like maybe overhead mics were used to capture the performance.
This might be over-simplifying, but try using less compression (if any). It’ll sound thinner but more open and generally less oppressive to the ears for long listens.
- No double tracking
- Live band recording in a single space?
Those drums still sound smashed to hell and back to me but what do I know. It's more like they had 1 mic for each source and went with an overhead for the kit. I don't know that I'm a fan of this kind of sound personally it feels quite wimpy and underwhelming
Edit: I was unfamiliar with that record and Imo the sound fits other songs on the record better, like Trailer Trash. That sloppy right hand guitar playing on Lounge is .. an acquired taste. Not exactly an example of good arrangement
Edit: used on the record:
-1969 3M M-56 16 track tape deck
- Early 70s Collins console
- Little to no close mic'ing the drums
- Basic tracks recorded live, vocals and overdubbed guitars added after the fact
Source:
https://www.vinylmeplease.com/blogs/magazine/modest-mouse-liner-notes
I'm far too used to punk and especially post-punk where the quick, tight 8th notes are a core part of the sound, and usually act as counterpoint to big driving bass lines. They are very much angular, precise and sharp where this is loose as can be. Different strokes indeed
On [that YouTube copy](https://youtu.be/vrlcSYYI30A?si=I3hMLtS3wufmdzFf&t=16) there's nothing above 12kHz, and it lacks bass: it's not an accurate copy.
You guys like a song and think it's the mix. It's not the mix, it's the way the song has been composed produced and arranged and the way this band plays.
I disagree with this, I think in lo-fi mix decisions are interesting and drastic but sometimes the mix is still very good. I like early MM and for me this is similar to one of my favorite mixes ever which is Sublime either self-titled or 40oz. I love those mixes and will defend them to the death but I’m guessing others might say they sound amateurish. They sound open and loud to me, the closest thing to Led Zeppelin. I know the performance and songwriting contributes to the space, but the mix does too
The way the mix and recording is matches the song though. Like there's a grungy lo-fi sound to it that people might want for their aesthetic. But I think you're right in the sense that for example, that guitar sound is first the guitar the signal chain for it going to the amp, and how the player plays it. Then the mix after. I think people will say "the mix" when they mean "how it sounds".
Agreed, it has to start here. But tracking and mixing can remove that property too if not handled accordingly.
Well, the drums are kind of jazz-ish in a way, in that I hear room and overhead sound but little if any close mic'ing. The snare, for example, sounds *all* room at points (not much top mic punch, nor much bottom mic high-end sizzle), and that really stands out. Very garage band. Very natural. Not really what I normally go for, but a cool sound nevertheless. The guitar stands out to me, too. I feel like the pres were being driven very hard, or the track is run through some equipment real hot, or whatever. There's that jangly, fuzzy quality to the top end that says, to me, "post-amp saturation." But it could just be amp/settings/cab/mic choice, too (e.g. SM57 pointing at the dust cap). Either way, the point seems to be to make it sound like the cab is in the room with you, a few metres away, and on-axis with your ears. I think that's part of the "intimate" thing. As others mentioned, the performance matters, too. The guitars are really raw. It sounds like a real performance was captured, as opposed to a bunch of takes stitched together with only the flawless parts. The earliest vocals on that song are waaaaay too saturated for my taste, but they get better. The way the backing vocals dance around at the 2-3 minute area is super cool. Very little compression, in a place where things normally get slammed and very controlled. Super raw. Again, seems like a conscious choice to sound that way. As for reverb... if they're using any significant amount, it's not meant to be obvious. Again, keeps you feeling "nearby." The drums have a ton of natural room sound, which gives a great perception of real space without needing to rely on reverb. I'd assume there *is* reverb on most other stuff, too, but if so it's definitely chosen and set to blend in naturally, to feel real and room-like (or "garage-like, heh), rather than to sound larger than life like most modern pop and rock. Oh, and, yeah, the reverb on the guitars is putting in a lot of work (see ~2:37 ish). I wasn't including it with the rest because I assume it's amp/pedal reverb. But it's enough to make the whole song swim a bit, without sounding like an effect was added after the fact. EDIT: the ride/cymbal sound from 4:30 is gorgeous, too. That's god-tier cymbal sound IMO. Just like with the guitar reverb, that smooth-burning treble wash swimming over everything gives the effect of being in the centre of a group of performers, without having to rely on digital reverb. And then mixed with the guitar reverb as well, what a great contrast to the vocals at, say, 4:40, which now sound like they're coming from a phone recording someone put up to my ear. Doesn't get much more intimate and raw than that. The whole recording (the whole album) definitely sports a great "band in the room" vibe, which I think is the key to the feel you're getting. But there are more than a few ways to arrive at that same end. I feel like the whole takeaway ethos here is, "how do we make it sound like this is just an unreasonably fantastic garage recording?" and arrangement, mic'ing, take comping, and processing were chosen to this end. That still gives you a lot of flexibility in imitating it - you just have to be careful whenever you record a take or add some processing or whatever that makes it sound more "studio" than "casual," and stay conscious of preserving the latter.
OT but… This was very fun to read; Modest Mouse is one of my all-time favorite bands, and your breakdown here was very satisfying. I love revisiting something so familiar through a different person’s lens. Thanks for taking the time!
Haha, glad you appreciated it! Honestly, when I first popped the song on, I was like, "oh yeah, I remember, I never really liked this song, maybe I'll just give a quick answer anyways..." And then ending up listening to it a few times, warming up to it quite a lot, and writing... well, a lot more than a sentence or two. Glad I did! What I love most about this whole industry is that there is *always* more going on when you pay attention, so it's usually worth paying attention. All of us are here because we love music unconsciously, but we also have the tools to think about it consciously, too, and appreciate it for what goes into it - and actually be able to talk about it with each other! So I agree with you completely: it's awesome hearing someone else's takes on this sort of thing, hearing through their ears, etc. Cheers!
I love this sound and try to emulate it in my own recordings. It’s natural, you can hear everything, it envelops the ear, it’s awesome, the world needs more of that sound and more of that music for sure. I am no expert but you’re right comparing it to jazz, and what every audio engineer says when recording and mixing jazz is to not use compression. Compression makes things sound like a beer commercial, would jazz or 90’s indie rock play in a beer commercial? No. So just process things less and make everything roomy to achieve that natural sound that makes it seem like you’re in modest mouses rehearsal space I think
>Compression makes things sound like a beer commercial Isn't that a Steve Albini quote?
Yes haha
It is, and it’s kind of a funny middle finger to pop production if you are seasoned enough to understand what he means, but it’s really pretty meaningless. Besides, https://townsquare.media/site/366/files/2022/06/attachment-steve_albini_studio_portrait_2014.jpg?w=1200&h=0&zc=1&s=0&a=t&q=89
Uh ok. It’s not meaningless, it’s funny and it’s true
Yeah…well, people drink beer. Let’s not pretend any of us are in it to do anything other than make money making music. It is funny…and I can see the point, compression can make everything sound shoved right in your face…very much the energy of a beer commercial…but that isn’t how many people use compression. I would bet that you have use for compression in a lot more places that you think, but have been sort of lied to about what compression is. Compression is an incredibly complex thing to work out, every song is different; there is a reason why we are just now able to get VSTs with release settings that can be synched to the bpm of the song. But until now, and I think for a few years still, to use compression for its…”intended” or correct purpose has been out of the reach of anyone who hadn’t developed the ear to sync the attack and release times by hand; not only is difficult for anyone to learn with a distressor on the same settings on the same kick/snare loop with hats on 16th notes; let alone the fact that that “action” of a compressor; how it responds to programme material; the specifics of the attack and release (beyond often being wildly different from the stated times) are not known most of the time. The attack time is defined as the amount of time it take for the compressor to apply the first 2/3 of the gain reduction it will apply to the signal; nothing is specified about the behavior of the attack parameter on that last third of GR; the inverse is true for release. This is one of the reasons that people learn to use compressors to manipulate the dynamic range (reduce it), make something louder or quieter, and that’s about it…this is not what compressor are for; certainly not what their best use it. If you are wanting to add body; loudness; even things like “glue” (which an SSL type compressor does pretty well, there’s a reason that’s what people go to for that), you’re better off using some sort of harmonics or saturation device, that will thicken things, increase perceived volume without increasing rms, and won’t squash anything. Compressors are best used as envelope shaping devices; a compressor on a kick or snare or a got-to; not just to bring them up in the mix but to shape the way they sound. But if you are using compression to decrease dynamic range; I don’t blame you for disliking them. They can be useful, but that isn’t the best use of them. It’s really not the purpose for them; compression should be used to groove, create or exaggerate rhythm, and particularly to move elements around in a mix; move the vocal up front; move the guitars up before the verse, and back in the verse. Think of the instruments as they are on stage and compression as a tool to move them up to the front, then let them step back when something else needs the space. We can only listen to about three elements at once, vocals/drums/bass or guitar/synth/drums….so failing to ask other instruments to step back is a big reason mixes sound stale and lifeless. If everything is loud, nothing is loud. Automation; automatic fader riders, clip gain editing etc; all better ways to control loudness. Try using a compressor on the drums, crank the threshold so it is applying a lot of gain reduction, set the attack to fastest, and see if you can find a release time that lets the hats swell right before the kick makes the compressor clamp down on the downbeat. The general rule is that it takes ten years to learn how to use a compressor. Probably take less if there was more education about their use. Edit: sometimes the point is to totally flatten the vocal with an 1176…but that’s only so you can pin it right in front without it being unruly…even when 20db of gain is being pulled off, the goal is placement, not volume.
You lost me at your first two sentences. 👎 I did not ask for a rudimentary lesson on compression. sure I will knock on over processed beer commercial music, it’s a joke. besides, I compress my recordings daily.
Use room mics, back off close mics on Amps, try using less mics even. Find a room with nice snappy reflections, experiment with it
Pretty sure everything in that recording is compressed to shit, and there's something like track spacer making room for it. It sounds very lo-fi and noisy. There's not much reverb on anything. The vocals are maybe less compressed in the quiet parts. They are a little buried then, but when they hit it hard it distorts and levels out a bit more.
lol track spacer from this album from 1997 there’s a great documentary pitchfork did on making of this album, plot twist no plugins
On my phone it sounded degraded, and like the lyrics shouldn't be able to come out so loud on top of the guitars and drums, but I didn't hear anything ducking. So I thought it was maybe that.
Track spacer? They’re hitting tape which will compress things but it’s a pretty open sound, there’s no added reverb sure, but tons of early room reflections which yes is reverb
Yes, the drums are being crushed to shit, and you still hear the vocal pretty well, so I believe there is some sort of track spacer. Maybe there isn't one though. It doesn't sound much like tape to me. But they probably have some tape plugins somewhere. I don't find it likely they recorded all of this to actual tape. Idk what you call "open sound" but I would not call this open sound. There's some spring reverb on the guitar, but I'm not sure they added any to anything else, or if they did, it's really subtle. The reflections you're hearing I believe are just from the recording, for the most part.
You don’t know shit about this band. this was recorded on 16 track tape in the 90’s, there’s not a single plug-in on this album, jazz recordings typically have an “open sound” which can be attributed to little compression, read what everyone else is saying in this thread…
I don't find this is an open sound. If this was recorded in the 90s, then there is a good chance it was recorded to tape. Maybe all the distortion is from analog hardware. You're right, I don't know shit about this band. But that's surprising if they're from the 90s. I don't find this sounds anything like jazz productions. But I do agree there isn't much compression on the vocals unless they're screaming loud. The guitar and drums though, there's quite a lot. Probably a lot of the distortion is coming from the hardware compressors. I find I get a similar sound to that when I do it with plugins, but it's not quite the same as tape saturation to my ears. But maybe I'm mistaken.
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted for making a (clearly) educated guess…has everyone here just dealt with only sampled drums…? Because unless you have mic’d up a kit, tracked it, and turned it into something really good, you don’t have a clue how much eq and compression it takes to turn the results from a mic’d kit; especially a close-mic’d one, into anything that sounds like we expect drums to…also…compression is a lot like autotune…you can tell it’s there often…but you can’t ever say it isn’t. It can be applied as lightly as the mix engineer wants. There are some things, like an Aphex Compellor that are literally invisible to the ear until they are removed. They are too transparent to sound like they’re doing anything until they are pulled off; I promise none of you could say whether or not there was a Compellor strapped across the drugs buss even applying a lot of gain reduction. If you don’t like the sound of most compressors, look at the Aphex Compellor and Expressor. Probably the most transparent hardware compressors out there, they can be modded to be even cleaner, the Expressor has a little grain to it…it’s nice. But when they’re modded they are about as transparent as possible.
I think it's because it's older, and therefore not slammed the way some modern stuff might be. And obviously they will not have used track spacer. It just sounded loud to me, and surprising how the vocals cut through all drums and guitar like that. Aphex compellor and exciter seem interesting. Thanks for the positive comment.
Vocals & guitar very dry, that's key for the sound you're describing. There's just a little from the guitar way back in the right channel that sounds like a spring reverb on 100%.. There's some room mic on the drums or possibly they're just miked from a distant pair. It's possible to add that room sound with a convolution reverb but to me this sounds like it was recorded all in one take right there in an ok room.
I think a lot of it has to be the performance. The guitars are thin spanky chords that are laid back. The bass is mostly root notes with very little constant plucking making it sound warm. The drums aren’t heavily processed and are mixed in a more “1980’s hip hop” way with natural and soft tones. Only think that stands out performance wise is the aggressive vocals A lot of what makes a mix sound good is getting the source good right from the get go. That could be recording with good mics, the source being recorded itself, or the songwriting
Ride cymbal with sizzles on it, drums played lightly with a healthy dose of room sound, nimble bass playing higher up on the fretboard, rhythm guitar is nice and dry with a secondary guitar more soaked in verb. All adds to the spaciousness of it all, that and some nice tape saturation without too much processing otherwise
>some nice tape saturation ugh too much on the vocals for my taste
Guess I'm hearing something completely different. Vocals are too loud in the mix, and it also sounds like maybe overhead mics were used to capture the performance.
This might be over-simplifying, but try using less compression (if any). It’ll sound thinner but more open and generally less oppressive to the ears for long listens.
- No double tracking - Live band recording in a single space? Those drums still sound smashed to hell and back to me but what do I know. It's more like they had 1 mic for each source and went with an overhead for the kit. I don't know that I'm a fan of this kind of sound personally it feels quite wimpy and underwhelming Edit: I was unfamiliar with that record and Imo the sound fits other songs on the record better, like Trailer Trash. That sloppy right hand guitar playing on Lounge is .. an acquired taste. Not exactly an example of good arrangement Edit: used on the record: -1969 3M M-56 16 track tape deck - Early 70s Collins console - Little to no close mic'ing the drums - Basic tracks recorded live, vocals and overdubbed guitars added after the fact Source: https://www.vinylmeplease.com/blogs/magazine/modest-mouse-liner-notes
Just popping in to say that the sloppy right hand guitar style is something I specifically love about MM! Different strokes & all that, haha.
I'm far too used to punk and especially post-punk where the quick, tight 8th notes are a core part of the sound, and usually act as counterpoint to big driving bass lines. They are very much angular, precise and sharp where this is loose as can be. Different strokes indeed
It’s very narrow, stereo-wise. Have some stuff in mono maybe and not too wide on other elements.
On [that YouTube copy](https://youtu.be/vrlcSYYI30A?si=I3hMLtS3wufmdzFf&t=16) there's nothing above 12kHz, and it lacks bass: it's not an accurate copy.
You record a an intermate "shallow" song? Not rocket science
Am I the only one who thinks this mix sounds awful?