Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Mixing and producing

Someone on the Peter Hammill mailing list asked a few weeks ago about the difference between mixing and producing (I don't recall what the background to this question was). I wrote an answer, most of which is quoted below. Unfortunately, there was no follow-up to the question, so I couldn't add any more material to my answer. But as I have a blog, I can expand as much as I want....

Mixing, in a nutshell, is balancing all the various sound sources together to make a coherent final product. This includes setting volume levels (which might change during the course of a song), panning, equalisation (tone), reverb (along with other effects), etc. This is generally done by the producer along with his engineer, although there are people who specialise in mixing songs which have been recorded by other people. The mixing stage takes tracks which have already been recorded, so the mixing engineer might have nothing to do with recording the tracks themselves. A good VdGG example would be Shel Talmy - according to The Book, Shel took the tracks which had been recorded by John Anthony for 'The least we can do' and mixed them, adding more treble.

Another good example of a mixing engineer working separately from the recording is the story of The Band's "Stage Fright". This was recorded by The Band themselves, so they can be considered to be the producers. They sent the tapes to two different producers, Glyn Johns and Todd Rundgren, and asked each of them to mix the album. The final product contains mixes by both producers, though no one seems to know who mixed what. As I have several different accounts of this process, I don't remember exactly who said the following phrase and where it was quoted, but this sums up the dilemma of the separate mixing engineer: There are four different guitar tracks. Which is the track that they wanted?

Originally, as someone else pointed out, a producer was the person who booked the session - the musicians and the studio - and liased with the record company (a good example of this would be Teo Maceo and the Miles Davis records that he produced). There would have been an A&R (artistes and repertoire) person who would have chosen the material to be recorded. In the early 60s, this situation began to change with the likes of Sir George Martin and Phil Spector, who became much more involved with the songs themselves. These days, there are several kinds of record producers: the kind that we know is someone who listens to a band demo recordings, comments on their structure, suggests instrumentation, oversees the recordings and picks the takes. Each producer has his own strengths and weaknesses, and of course his function is also dependent on whoever is being recorded. 

The best way for understanding a producer's contribution is to listen to the output of the same group with different producers - eg VdGG pre- and post- 1972. The earlier recordings (especially H to He and Pawn Hearts) have large numbers of overdubs and are quite theatrical, whereas from Godbluff onwards, there seems to be much less overdubbing and a more direct sound.

Try listening to 'House with no door' followed by 'My room' - two recordings with the same instrumentation: piano (Peter Hammill), bass (Hugh Banton), saxophone (David Jackson) and drums (Guy Evans). Listen especially to the difference in sound of the drums and vocals between the two songs: in the first song, the vocal is panned to one side and has a certain amount of reverb added to it, as do the drums. In the second song, the sound of all the instruments is dry (no reverb) and almost all the sounds (especially the vocal) are panned to the centre. In other words, John Anthony's productions are distinguished by their use of reverb and stereo. 

I'm not saying that JA's tracks are better or worse than the self produced tracks that came after the reformation in 1975 - they simply sound different. VdGG also took a producer's decision when they decided to 'dumb down' (my words) their sound when they issued 'World record', which is exceedingly simple, at least when compared to their earlier works. Of course, a real producer would have done something about the length of 'Meurglys 3'....

Obviously, the number of channels available when recording make a big difference. When a producer had only one or two tracks, there was very little that he could do regarding the technical side, so the sound would be mixed live and the producer would influence mood and rhythm. Even when there were eight tracks available (for example, 'The least we can do'), the producer was still somewhat limited, but sixteen, twenty four and thirty two tracks gave the producer much more room. Of course, in today's digital world, the number of tracks is basically unlimited, which can make the job of both the producer and the mixer very hard.

Most tracks, thankfully, are produced well, but there is the odd track which could have had a better production. I was listening to one such track today - 'Full moon' by Sandy Denny. Her first solo album was coproduced with John Wood and Richard Thompson, and features RT on every track. Whilst the sound may not be the best, it is certainly distinctive. Her second solo album, 'Sandy', was produced by husband to be Trevor Lucas, and is richer sounding and more even (I think that it's the best produced of all her records). But after that, Lucas' production skills declined (if ever he had any; Richard Thompson plays on all the 'Sandy' tracks and so counteracts any of TL's mistakes), and her final solo record, 'Rendezvous', was a complete hodge-podge.


'Full moon' is a good song: it has exquisite lyrics, a good tune but a so-so harmonic palette. The recording features one of Sandy's best vocals, improving on the written tune and providing excellent phrasing. But the arrangement - with or without the strings - is plodding and pedestrian. The string arrangement tries to be good, but it is very one dimensional. To be fair, there isn't much of a chord sequence with which to work. The only good part of the instrumental track is the clarinet solo, played by Acker Bilk (of all people). This is the work of a so-so producer.  The fact that there are five verses (four with words and one instrumental) necessitates variety in the arrangement, in order to maintain the listener's interest. Whilst Sandy's impeccable vocal certain catches the ear, the somewhat boring string arrangement and lumbering rhythm only serve to turn the user away. A good producer would have recognised that a different instrumental approach was necessary.

No comments: