^^^ This! ^^^
I was simply getting on this thread to basically say that. Being critiqued is helpful as a mixer and critiquing helps you be a better listener. Both are subjective and both take lots of practice.
4 Likes
No, I don’t see it that way at all… The goal is always the same, regardless of whether it is a competition or not. IMO, you still should mix as if you are mixing for the person who wrote/performed/produced the song. If we’re mixing to impress the other people in the competition, then to me that is a futile pursuit. Mix for the song; mix for the artist. The preview/rough mix should always be a clue.
It seems to me that you want to make a whole lot of “set-in-stone” rules about what people can and can’t say/do in this situation. To me, that is the antithesis of art…
I view it this way. Get a bunch of intelligent, adult people doing something artistic they enjoy. Each of them should be able to work out their own path. Some will be gifted/good/practiced/tasteful/helpful; Some will not. Some will be discerning/realistic/humble enough to pick out the good advice from the bad,apply it and improve their art/craft. Some will not. That’s it really. (as I see it)
Sure, it would be great to live in a world where everything was clearly defined, everyone had an equal chance, and everyone felt great about everything, but that just isn’t reality.
4 Likes
I do have my idealistic tendencies, but I think all I’m asking for is a little more definition or progress in the methodology. “Pushing the envelope” as it were. Yes, art and creativity are boundless, but human beings are creatures of habit and structure to some degree. Having a framework and yet evolving the framework. Innovation. Build a better mousetrap.
1 Like
I’m trying to reconcile these two statements, per the thread theme:
Assuming we are initially coming in with the vision for the song we had chosen, if we apply some advice we are given to improve the mix, isn’t that potentially trying to impress the advisor? If the advisor then judges that the advisee has improved the mix, according to their own subjective opinions and tastes upon which they gave the advice, then it seems to me the advisee is trying to impress the advisor and the advisor is making the subjective judgement that improvement occurred. It seems like too much of a closed loop. Does that make sense?
Now, I realize that there can be cross-checks if other people in the contest chime in that there was an improvement made - there is more of a consensus. Although in reality this only works with the BTR process we had. Since contest rules don’t allow us to update or change the final mix it’s pretty much just information at that point.
As far as I’m concerned, there is no trying to impress anyone. If you do what is right for the song, then impressing people will most likely be a side benefit.
If I think advice is valid, and I trust the skills and taste of the person giving it, then I apply it and hopefully reap an improvement and an insight. This is not political, it’s personal.
As Andrew Scheps says: When I’m happy with the mix, and I don’t have to think of any caveats to put in the email to the client, then the mix is ready.
I don’t really understand what you are trying to get at… Are you trying to prove that mix critiques are not valid? Look, this all seems like Captain Obvious stuff. To me, you seem to be creating an overly complex discussion about something that is, in essence pretty straightforward…
Put your work up for critique. Analyse your feedback and sort the valid criticism from the noise. Make changes based on the valid stuff. RInse and repeat. Draw your conclusions. Gain confidence. Grow…
Personally, I’ve given and received literally thousands of critiques over the years. That has resulted in improvement for me, and improvement for others… And when I say “improvement” I don’t mean vague subjective improvement, I mean improvement to the point where others seek out your skills, and are willing to pay for them.
3 Likes
I’m not one of the guys on here who would get involved in a mix contest, my skill set resides elsewhere. I think Stan brings up a variety of great points and ideas, but the crux of the matter is that mixing is subjective, just as songwriting and performance are.
Some of the variables can be reduced in this type of contest; the music and production was already completed to someone’s satisfaction. Maybe one suggestion to narrow down mix critiques to be more valuable would be to give reference tracks from a couple of other artists as templates for overall tonal balance and dynamic content. By doing this many of the subjective elements would be evened out, leaving critiques to focus on the creative aspects one person brought to the table vs. another.
By narrowing the focus, less emphasis will be placed on the critic’s personal preference for overblown low end or sizzling vocals, since a reference was given to emulate, and more value can be given as to how a particular mix that met the basic criteria added movement and emotional involvement to the song.
That, to me, is where the art is in this stuff. As Andrew stated, you can’t answer to 10 people as to what your intentions were; you went for a particular feel based on where the material took you.
The guys that many on this site aspire to emulate don’t get bogged down in the subjective stuff, they figured out the basics and attract clients based on their unique approach. When you get to that point, subjectivity works in your favor. What that says to me is that all critiquing should be steered towards rewarding creativity to encourage people to keep working at it until the basics come naturally and the mixer’s specific talents become more apparent.
2 Likes
Its not. You have to make do without it.
Try either/or and see how that works out for you.
That’s up to you. Pick one and stick with it. Make a decision.
Also up to you.
1 Like
I’ve been following this from the start. What I gather from this is that Stan feels the critiques should be more encouraging, enthusiastic, goal-oriented and considerate of artistic preferences, because unless an essay is submitted about what the objectives are, then by what standard could we possibly critique each other? If I have correctly understood what I think Stan is trying to say (And I may have misunderstood, because like you Andrew, its not real clear what exactly he’s after), I say this takes a relatively simple task and introduces a sizable headache to the process that inevitably defeats the purpose of volunteering your time to try and help someone.
Stan, if I post a mix here, I’m quite content with simple facts and data. I have no problems with the way this community has been critiquing mixes for the last 8 years.
2 Likes
I opened a thread to prompt a discussion. I’m hoping to discover and learn something, as well as expressing some ideas about how the process might be improved. Yes it may challenge the status-quo, and could add some layers of complexity to the process (if changes are adopted). I get that there may be resistance to challenging the “same old, same old”, and that there could be an argument that it works as well as can possibly be expected, but I see no reason not to ask the questions and see if there’s potential for something greater.
I did mention “encouragement” in the OP, so Jonathan I think you have restated some of my premises quite well. And yes you may be correct that it takes something simple and makes it more complex, but to me that doesn’t mean we should dismiss it or avoid looking at it. I also really like what Bob had to say:
1 Like
A platform was certainly developed, and it’s not my intention to throw shade on that, but to ask in what ways might we help the process to be more effective. I think there’s been some assumptions made, and some traditional views held for a long time that could benefit from some scrutiny and questioning. That’s what I’m looking at.
What brought this up is that the idea of “help” in the mix contests has been around for at least those 8 years, but if you can’t update your final mix how do know if someone was helped? Where’s the evidence?
I think this has to be evaluated at the BTR stage, and each contest entrant would have to go through the BTR stage in order to give others the opportunity to help. It’s still subjective, but I think there’s a greater chance to see help in action and evaluate it as such. It may not come into play until the final mix contest, but the history and experience are there as a testament.
And just for BTR alone, without a contest, I would like to see more focus on this “artist development” model. I don’t know if that’s realistic on an internet forum, but again I’m just asking the questions to give the forum a chance to marinate on these possibilities.
There’s certainly no harm in asking.
-lts one thing being resistant to change.
-Its another saying we don’t need to fix something that isn’t broke.
-These are completely different than contesting proposed change under the premise that the change is a step in an entirely wrong direction.
I’m not resistant to the idea because its new. I’m resistant to the idea because either I don’t correctly understand it or perhaps I do and I just don’t like the idea.
There’s nothing stopping you from critiquing in this capacity if you choose to do so. My issue is with requiring it from everyone either on BTR or in a contest. I disagree that this is the best way to issue critiques, because it narrows the diversity of critiques by limiting applicable expertise.
Let everyone throw the critique on the table and leave it to the recipient to sort out what they need and what they don’t.
1 Like
Yes, it’s something I will start doing once I have a clear idea what I think it is. I have done this before with BTR, coming up with a format that seems more clear and helpful IMO. It wasn’t my intention to require people to follow a certain method, though I think it could impact how the rules of mix contests are constructed - I think those have been pretty static for 8 years, at least in this little corner of the world. I was wanting to begin the discussion and perhaps inspire a “sea change” based on the collective ideas and wisdom that came up … I assumed it wasn’t just me that thinks the process could be improved.
This idea of expressing not only the technical information, but the artistry and the emotional context of a song is mainly what’s coming up for me. In other words, when the feedback is pretty straight technical stuff it seems kind of one-dimensional, and that’s what feels limiting to me, because humans are not one-dimensional beings. “I think you should pull some 250 Hz out of the vocal, it sounds muddy.” Okay, well how does that impact the artistry and emotional context of the song? Both the strength and the danger of the simplistic approach is that we’re likely to act through rote habit of hearing and reacting; x - 1 = y. If “x” is the current vocal and “-1” is the 250 Hz cut, then you get “y” which is the new vocal with less mud. Cool huh? But if I can reduce it to an algebraic formula I have taken the humanity out of it. And the whole point here IMO is art as an expression of humanity - feeling and meaning.
I’m only suggesting more definite guidelines when the contest involves mixing material that has already been completed. If it revolves around personal taste it is really hard for those involved to agree on a “winner” when one guy’s idea of air on a vocal is another guy’s icepick.
As to BTR, I agree with you; everyone needs to learn how to benefit from the input in their own way. Some of us present critiques better than others, but it is really rare for it to be overly harsh. It is easier when the poster asks for specific help. I choose not to get too specific with technical stuff. If it’s a well written piece that I like listening to I typically don’t question eq decisions unless they are way off. I don’t really know what the other guy is thinking unless he/she tells me.
2 Likes
Earlier in this thread I was talking about “communication”, and mentioned the “backstory” aspect of what someone is working on. I think it’s helpful because then you can cut right to the chase of their situation and what help you could specifically offer them. Otherwise it’s all over the place and hit-or-miss. I think it’s actually beneficial.
Personally, I’m very opposed to this. I’m not trying to be ornery , disagreeable or argumentative - I just believe there is a very good reason not to go down this path…
The reason I continue to come to BTR to get critiques from others is that I’ve come to highly value the concept of “Fresh Ears”. I know from experience that first impressions are SO important. It seems redundant to say so, but you only get one chance at it.
When I post a mix, I know where all the “bodies are buried”. If I tell everybody a big long backstory about it, then everybody else will too. Poof! There goes their invaluable “fresh ears”. Expectation bias doesn’t just apply to gear shootouts - Expectation bias is REAL! Suddenly they are all listening for the things I’ve told them to listen for. That’s why I never give much of a backstory myself; That is also the reason why I prefer not to be told one…
I don’t care if you recorded your lead vocal via tin can on the end of a string, or that you struggled for 16 hours and 10 mix versions to find the right snare drum sound. All that matters is what comes out of the speakers when I press play. Only at that point can I give you a truly unbiased, fresh impression of what I am hearing.
“YMMV” as they say 
3 Likes
I would say there is room for both approaches, depending on the situation and the personal preference. The way I look at it, asking for feedback on a specific issue doesn’t limit or prevent a basher from throwing in their .02 on anything else they notice. If there is a specific issue to address I think it can be better for all concerned to cut to the chase, but I get the expectation bias thing too - so it’s like there’s a double edged sword whichever way you go. For a general listen with fresh ears I can see not giving much information - just see what comes back. But if the person is definitely looking for help with something they can’t figure out or are struggling with, I’d rather have the backstory.
1 Like
You hear past the obvious stuff and cut to the chase politely with your comments, and your mixes have a noticeable signature to them, making prior explanation superfluous. Not too many people, and certainly not inexperienced mixers know where to go without a nudge here and there.
2 Likes
I think there are two levels of operation here…
Presenting a mix/production to an audience requires the confluence of multiple technical disciplines, all of them inter-dependent, to produce a result that is affecting to the listener. Analysing how that works as a whole definitely requires a “macro” outlook, which benefits from as little bias as possible.
On the other hand, gaining control of those disciplines requires extreme attention to detail, and at that stage, it is almost impossible to make the connection between the technical and emotional…
…And from what I’ve observed over the years, while many gain a good, even excellent degree of technical expertise, very few are willing to deep-dive to the point where they are truly seeking mastery over the emotional element. Many are content with “pull out some more 500hz and your kick drum will be sweet”… I’m not being dismissive or condescending - just telling it as it is.
…so to take the “lie down on the couch and tell me your deepest thoughts and fears” approach to mix critique from the outset just seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse… Perhaps it’s enough just say “hi, how are you today? - I noticed you had a bit of a smudge on your sleeve” and leave it at that for the moment 
Generally, I find that if someone wants to really go further, they’ll enquire further. Personally, I’m thrilled to accommodate in that case. The fact is, a decent mix critique takes a LOT of thought, time and energy. If it’s appreciated and acted on, I consider it all worth it. On the other hand, if it’s not even acknowledged, you can’t help but feeling just a little bit of “pearls before swine” bitterness.
So that’s my personal modus operandi. Dip your toe in the water; see how deep it is and who wants to go swimming with you.
Thanks Bob, yes - you said it with just a few words.
2 Likes
Personally, I think the very best method for getting feedback on a mix is to get as much unfiltered feedback as possible from as many people as possible.
Some people are more encouraging, some people are more blunt. I think both are needed. It is is a requirement that the person getting the feedback learns how to filter that information and figure out what to do with it.
So it’s really not a question of what people should do differently, and a question about what I should do differently. I tend to not comment when I see somebody else has already said what I was going to say. I also have a hard time commenting when the direction of the mix is so far from what I would have done that I can’t tell if I’m giving feedback or just informing people that my tastes are different.
5 Likes
Yes, I see what you mean, and thank you for the insights. I think that’s what has been pulling at me is this “seeking mastery over the emotional element”. As I have been describing in this thread, I’m sensing there is “more”, and I feel this sense of dissatisfaction at my current understanding. So in that sense, it’s a personal journey that I may be on the precipice of. I appreciate everyone going on the ride with me as I discovered this. Kind of a roller-coaster, perhaps. 
Bitter and twisted? 
2 Likes