Have you ever tried to mix a song in 10 minutes? If not, you’re missing out. It’s funny how if you only have 10 minutes to mix a song, you become super big picture oriented and you think like a listener, not a mixer. This exercise will help you with your mixes immensely. Check it out!
Do Not Create Another Song Until You Read This Guide
(Price: $17 Free Today)
Discover the 6 Steps for Creating a Radio-Worthy Song From Scratch
My name is Graham Cochrane and I'm the founder of The Recording Revolution, one of the world's most loved audio recording and mixing blogs with over 200,000 readers each month. 
First of all: GREAT PERFORMANCE. Period. This song is great because primarly the performance is completely awesome. By the way, I LOVE your bass sound, man, that “drive” sound is stunning! Anyway, I really like how you put everything together in such a short time! I like this kind of “challenges” with myself, like trying to mix a song in just an hour, but you took everything to a new level, 10 minutes. Just great man! You know what? Sometimes ago I was working on a song to mix, and it turned out exactly to your point: the first mix was a huge work, it took hours to finish the mix going surgically on every track. It sounded BAD at the end. I started again and tried to finish it as soon as possibile, it was AWESOME comapred to the first one!
Thanks Santo!
I totally agree, but I repeat the same shit again and again.. 🙁
Yes, yes, yes you are so great man. I think your rare in the world. Because you are amazing. Very simple and deep concerning to the explanation. Thank you very much. I have downloaded the 6 steps. I will read it in order to accoplish my reacording my music.
This was a great. Sounding good. I really noticed the the way you built the mix from the ground up starting with the drums which makes perfect sense, then moving across to the right. This is pretty much how I do it. Hope to hear the final version.
Oh, you’ll hear it alright 🙂
This article/video is a little misleading. It’s not a true mix. In 10 minutes, you basically make a monitor mix. Just faders – no processing.
Which is great! It’s the start of every great mix. But I have done entire mixes – processing included, in 10 minutes. Granted, I work between 8 and 12 tracks typically, and greatly disapprove of more than 12.
But your mix was still awesome! There were parts where I really thought, “that needs compression”, but that’s for processing, not monitor mixes.
You really can do a monitor mix in 5 minutes, if you leave it to 8-12 tracks.
I like your viewpoint of making a mix within that small window of your first impression – it’s very true. A quick fader throw-up gets you mixing as a listener, not a mixer, since you don’t have enough time to analyze the song, just hear it raw and without impression.
But truly, you should do this exercise at the beginning of every single mix. Then you just add plugins/units and make sure your gain staging is proper to stay true to the original “first impression mix”.
Great stuff! I have a tangential question though and I’m not sure where it should be asked: Where do you draw the line between production and performance?
I am a high fidelity kind of guy. I prefer to keep mixes clean and honest to the music, usually no more than 12 tracks (if I can’t do it with that- the song isn’t good enough). In my mind, the whole point of music is the live performance. I view the record as the marketing piece that brings people to your shows (and so does the economics of the music biz).
Sometimes I can enrich my mixes so much that they sound great, relatively speaking 🙂 Then I realize that the sound of the song in question cannot be recreated live without pre-recorded material or the crutch of extensive electronics. Adding 7 vocalists to my home studio is not an option that interests me, in contrast to say, Arcade Fire and their army of musicians.
Don’t get me wrong- it is addicting to quadruple vocals and I do it with purpose, but I struggle philosophically. Are we just making sonic brochures for our own selfish endeavors?
This is my pet peeve and the reason I do not enjoy most radio, nor the live shows of pop radio artists who use pre-tracked backings. My studies in mixing have exposed the cleverness of the engineer rather than highlight the unflinching honesty that only music can provide.
How do we approach this concept? What do we do at live shows? How do we justify 8 vocal tracks in the studio, and just one voice in reality? Or is this the point? Are we building a facade?
Dude, its called art.
A musical painting.
Riiiight. Would you consider them different art forms then? One is recording arts and the other is performing art?
Bohemian Rhapsody has something like 180 vocal overdubs and took like 3 weeks to do. “Blowin in the Wind” by Bob Dylan has a guitar, harmonica and vocal. Both are classic songs. Both are great. Both are very very different.
Yes, I hear that. The difference being Dylan could pull up on a flatbed truck and sound comparable to his studio recording, while Freddy Mercury and friends could not get close to the studio sound without lots of sonic help, as you noted. I’m asking where, if anywhere, do you personally draw the line. So how do you, as an artist, fit yourself into the studio-live continuum?
Depends on the song. Bohemian Rhapsody would not be as good without all of those amazing parts. Conversely, Dylan’s “Blowin in the Wind” wasn’t written as anything complex. If an artist brings in a song like “Blackbird” I’m probably not going to mess with it all that much. If an artist comes in with something a little more involved like “Clocks” I would probably add more to it. If an artist comes in with something really weird and/or interesting like “Paranoid Android” I’m probably going to arrange it differently…at least I’d hope so. Not everything can be acoustic guitar or 2 guitars, a bass, a vocal and some drums.
As far as the ‘studio-live’ continuum goes, again it all depends on the band and the song. It’s 2014. Like it or not, you can re-create pretty much anything in a live situation. If you’re basing your rule on the studio-live continum than any time a 4 piece band overdubs anything they have crossed that line. If a typical 4 piece band (vocal, 2 guitars, bass, drums and maybe a backing vocal) overdubs a guitar solo, they have crossed the line. If the vocalist does the harmonies because the other three can’t sing very well, the band has crossed the line. If they add a piano or a keyboard, they have crossed the line. If they add any extra percussion they have crossed the line.
Where I draw the line as far as number of tracks is when the tracks themselves stop adding to the song. Overdubbing just because you can is asinine and muds up a song. Like if an artist does two rhythm guitar tracks and then wants to add 2 more identical tracks to ‘quadruple it’ despite the original two sounding good, then I see that as having less value than adding 2 different parts maybe sprinkled in different parts throughout the song (like Graham’s slide work)
I dig that, Christopher. I totally agree with your idea of only adding tracks with purpose. I’m just bitchin about overproduction. Have a good day.
To be frank, learning that Bohemian Rhapsody used over a hundred vocal dubs is a bit disheartening. What made it so mind blowing was the impression the sound was coming from 4 voices, working together in real time. The difficulty in harmonies like that is working together to stay on pitch/time, arranging parts, and self-correcting (like the Beatles so eloquently did).
It’s like learning about Lance Armstrong’s cycling career. Yes, it it amazing to see, and it still takes an immense amount of talent and dedication, and in a sense, we demand to have our minds blown by performance, but it is a totally different context. Now I do not mean to say it is cheating, as my sports analogy may imply. I’m agreeing that they are different beasts and there is a time and place for each.
Hot air ballooning and flying in the Concorde are both awesome, yet completely different experiences. I’d rather watch the 400m in the Olympics than a drag race at the speedway, even though both end in one person traveling a quarter-mile. Just a personal preference, that’s all.
If you have about 27 minutes of free time, this is a great video with Brian May in the studio explaining how Queen made that song:
Check it out if you get a chance. Very far from a live performance, but a great example of the art of the recording process.
Thanks for sharing, Robert. I’m not unimpressed by the studio work. Awesome savvy by the engineers and Freddie Mercury. It really proved my point, though. The live performance of this song loses the audience (and the cameras for that matter), because it reverts to recordings for the most important part of the song, the mind blowing vocals.
Then I continued to watch live performances… and I noticed that NONE of the live shows include live vocal harmonies (for this song), not even just a four-part rendition. The stage literally goes EMPTY, leaving the audience to wander the space, alone, for more than a minute )or just skips the entire part. The performance digresses into a series of distractions to hide the fact that the band is hiding in the dark while a recording plays. Maybe in the 70’s and 80’s fans were satisfied to dazzle at lights, but I would have been a bit let down.
Still a legendary song and band, but you see my point, right?
[In reply to Jason’s post of March 24th]
Jason, I certainly see your point. Some of my favorite records (Eric Clapton – Unplugged, The Who – Live at Leeds, and the Allman Brothers Band – The Fillmore Concerts immediately come to mind) are live recordings. And I agree that Bohemian Rhapsody certainly suffers in a live setting because the band couldn’t re-create on stage what they did in the studio.
I think it’s important to separate the two art forms. As others have mentioned here in the comments, film and plays are not the same, and photography and painting are not the same. A record COULD be the same as a live performance, but it doesn’t HAVE to be. More food for thought – don’t forget about The Beatles quitting live performance altogether to concentrate solely on making music in the studio.
It’s definitely a personal thing as to where each of us “draws the line” as you ask above. For me, as an AMATEUR trying to make music on my laptop in my house, I’m completely concentrating on doing everything myself and not worrying about what it would sound like live, because I think of that as a different goal that I’m not striving for. For example, I’m doing all my drum and bass parts via MIDI and virtual instruments. I fully realize that having a real, live bass player and drummer would add stuff that I could never hope to recreate on my own via virtual instruments. But as an amateur, I’m really enjoying learning how to do all this stuff like program drum parts and mix a song (thanks in no small part to Graham!)
For me, it’s all about the intellectual and musical challenge of creating a song from start to finish. Could a real drummer play my drum fills 1000 times better than I could make them using virtual instruments? Definitely. However, as an amateur, my main goal is to have fun and challenge myself to create music. If I end up making $10 on Bandcamp because a couple people like my songs, then I’ll be beyond stoked! But I won’t care if I don’t make any money.
On the flip side, if you’re a PROFESSIONAL, your goal is to make money by doing something that you also love – making music. If you feel that the best chance you have for making the best music (and subsequently more money) is to have all your records be “live,” then do them that way. If you feel that you’ll make better music and therefore more money (be it selling records, T-shirts, tickets, or whatever) by creating an elaborately produced song, then go for it. I think it really depends on your goals as an artist. I’m not sure if you’re doing this as a career or just for fun (either way is totally fine) but I think if you know what your goals are and why you’re making music, then just go for it. Everyone has their own opinion about art, and none of them are wrong, just different. I personally don’t enjoy the over-produced pop hits of today either, but a lot of people do.
Since many of us reading this blog are amateurs, I wanted to draw your attention to a great article from another music blog, Trust Me I’m a Scientist. This article is all about us amateurs, and why we and our professional counterparts need each other in order to carry on doing what we love to do:
http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013/03/04/in-defense-of-the-amateur/
Sorry for the long post. Thanks for the great discussion, and thanks again to Graham for the great website! Time to get back to recording some music!
I guess the other side of the coin is that some artists, like me, love experimenting and adding layer upon layer… For me, the studio is like a playground.
The problem starts when people start to add tracks that serve no purpose.
I don’t think there’s a right or wrong, it just depends on what your musical tastes are.
I respect an artist who can play a song live with very few track well, and I also respect an artist who can tastefully add tons of layers that keep the song interesting.
Hi, Tom here – new boy with a couple of thoughts.
The difference between live music and recorded is the difference between a theatre production and a film – they are totally different beasts. One wouldn’t knock a film because it included elements that couldn’t be reproduced in a stage version.
Regarding backing tracks in a live performance, the parameters of live music have always has been evolving, changing. If this discussion had been going on sixty years ago, we’d have had people commenting on the increased use of ‘artificial’ crutches such as microphones and electric instruments… something most of us nowadays don’t bat an eyelid at. Anyone else remember the massive commotion over synths when they first came in?
Extreme example… My kids were really knocked out by Swedish House Mafia -what to all intents and purposes seems to be three guys with decks and laptops. What they had felt was the real buzz of being with thousands of other like-minded souls at an event and they didn’t give a monkeys how it had happened. Can’t say it would have worked for me, but it did for them and, even after all the live bands they’ve seen, it’s the thing that still sticks out in their minds the most.
What do you think… the end justifies the means… Or just a downright ‘con’??
It just depends on what your goal is Jason. If you want to take a picture of a song as it sounds with the band performing, then layering many tracks is not going to accomplish that purpose, and you’d probably be best off doing a live recording of the whole band at once (perhaps doing vocals after for a little tweakability). With this philosophy, recording is only a means to the end of allowing others to hear your music at times other than live shows.
However, recording can also be an end in itself. In this line of thinking, you are doing whatever you can to make the recording hit the listeners ear drum a certain way without any respect to what is “realistic.” An analogy would be painting and photography. With photography, you are trying to capture something as it really is, whereas with painting, you are just trying to make something pretty, even if it’s not based in reality. I realize this isn’t a perfect analogy as many photographers take some pretty surreal shots, and many painters paint with the goal of producing a realistic image, but you get my point.
Actually, it still works, because you can use overdubbing to create a realistic recording that could be played just as well live, or you can use a live performance to get some pretty weird sounds.
Good call. ^
So true. Very good point and I’m on board. I think my budget prevents me from going the route of trying to recreate 10 vocal tracks live since that would require more equipment (not a ton, but it adds up). I also play folk tunes so I’m biased toward needing to feel close to the artist, not just interested by the sound.
When I listen to artists who employ lots of studio savvy, I find myself following along with my mixing hat on, making notes on effects, panning, etc.. trying to dissect the process… then the song is over and I never really listened. I hear 25 tracks- not one song.
When I hear a guitar and a voice, I can figure all that out in 10 seconds and move on to what I enjoy most about music- all the intangibles. This is MY OWN FAULT in listening mentality, but it still happens and I think it’s where my distaste for a 25 track song comes from. That said, much love to ALL musicians out there. I love and respect it all.
This is the best blog on the internet!! Everyone here is awesome.
“This is the best blog on the internet!! Everyone here is awesome.”
I know right? I mean, most internet debates end up with everyone screaming bloody murder… This one was actually respectful! 😀
OK I have a question. At the very beginning of the mix you pulled down all the faders to 0 without putting them into the same group. I can do this in Logic. Please tell me how you did this in Pro Tools? I hate having to group tracks and then delete them when I want to zero everything.
anyone?…. anyone?…. Bueller??? Bueller???
“ALL” is a default group of every song that groups all tracks. If you click on this, you will control all tracks at once. I am not sure if this is how Graham does it here, but its one way to skin the cat.
Yes, there is an ALL group by default in Pro Tools. If not in Logic, then simply bring them all down manually or group them really quickly for that one move.
Thanks. Logic is actually far more intuitive. Highlight the tracks you want brought down and then they all behave like the group function in pro tools. I like this better because there’s no extra steps involved. Like if everything is balanced but the rhythm guitars, and background vocal you can turn them down the same amount without having to touch your Aux group for vocals or guitars….a minor thing I guess.
If only they made a combination of the two programs….Pro Logic!
Thanks
If it sounds good, it is good, whether it has 12 tracks or 120. I don’t much care for arbitrary rules and restrictions. I’m certainly not advocating filling up the tracks with useless BS that doesn’t add to the song or the arrangement, but to say you “greatly disapprove” of anything over a certain track count is kinda silly IMO.
As with many things, it’s all about making the decision on when something is done, and in recording and mixing that is as much an art as the songwriting itself.
That was Duke Ellington’s philosophy, if it sounds good, it is good. I suppose that’s true, but I still don’t believe the end justifies the means. But I empathize with your disapproval of our disapproval of so many tracks. It’s all one track in the end.
The ‘rule’ of limiting tracks, as I use it for myself, is anything but arbitrary, though. As Graham would agree, limits can be your best friend (see the many posts on this topic).
Hey Graham! Dueling Mixes idea:
What if you guys took a song and one of you mixed it with no more than 12 tracks and the other had unlimited tracks? Or you both try 12 tracks?
I’m newer here, so maybe you already did this, but what do you think? Taking 2 tracks down to one stereo is OK, but no merging of say, 8 vocals and calling it “one track.”
Last January we mixed a song with only 6 tracks (called “Known and Loved”). You can check it out on the site as a back issue.
Whether the end justifies the means is totally up to you in this case. While I do believe that music can be morally right or wrong, it mostly depends on lyrical content. Track counts are amoral. There is no need to justify them.
Don’t let your live opportunities limit what you do in the studio. Don’t let your studio work limit what you want to do live. Playing live allows for improvisation. Once your 2-bus is mastered, there’s no more time for improv. That’s my take on a studio song vs a live song.
I’ve tried this before (only with 15 minutes), and it wasn’t stressful, quite the opposite, I got surprisingly good results for only 15 min, and I had a lot of fun. I highly recommend every one at least tries this once.
Great post! Really interesting and inspiring to see your workflow
Glad it helped!
Great sounding tracks. A good place to start.
By far my favorite video executed extremely well.
Thanks Graham!
It was fun to watch this. Are all of these tracks raw, with no eq or plugins? I am not asking about plugins that are essential to the sound (like a guitar distortion).
Just raw. This is how I like to START the mixing process before I use any plugins.
I think this is an area I need to improve. Your tracks sound great with no eq. I’m guessing this is a result of paying careful attention to mic technique and getting the best sounds at input.
Yep! If you recorded well, mixing should be a breeze.
I got a chance to try this technique out on a song the other day. A few hours of work later, I had a finished product. I can say with confidence that I churned out my first pro-sounding mix. Thanks Graham, this tip made a world of difference. I finally feel like I’m getting somewhere!
Hi Graham, great video as usual, thank you very much!
My question: you have talked quite often about the LCR panning approach on your mixes, so I got very surprised when I saw you pan some tracks in between those three points. Why did you do it?
Usually 90 to 95% of my tracks are panned LCR. The occasional percussion track or lead track will go in between. I’ve discussed this before in my 5 Min series.
Thanks for the Idea, And boy do I need it. I spend way too much time with EQ and Plugs, almost makes me want to pull my hair out. Your tracks are inspirational and they rock, just a question, what did the finished track sound like, just for reference. I really like the fact that your helping the average joe like me that wants to get better but can’t go/ afford to go to school but has a passion to record. Your one in a million and all I can say is Thank You from the bottom of my heart!!!
Great tip!!!! Thank you :-)… I tried it out and it worked beautifully!! But I just had a question, what if you get a song to mix that was recorded all DI and drums triggered and a song with phase issues (all just examples)? By the time you find the sounds for the triggered drums, and using amp sims for guitars and fix phase issues, you have heard the song so many times already just trying to fix things so by that point, the element of first impression is long gone! How do you work around this?
If you’re doing things like triggered drums, for example, I’d treat that as part of the recording process, not mixing. When I trigger drums, I do it before anything else is even recorded, then commit to that sound before moving on.
Same goes for DI guitars, etc.
Hope that helps!
Yes that does help for the most part and I thank you! 🙂 but I am mostly a mixing engineer, so often times, I don’t have access to the recording process of the song. I just receive the leftovers lol
Int that case, I’d just treat finding the samples and amp tones as part of the recording process, then bounce those and mix them with all the other elements in a separate session.
This is one of my favorite videos you have done, but ofcourse you did the recording of the tracks on this song “sticks and stones”, and as such you had well recorded tracks for a start point. I would like to see you repeat this with a client project with some not quite so well recorded tracks, maybe drums from ez drummer without overheads supplied, it would be fun to see another speed mix.
The problem I have is getting tracks ready to mix, edting for timing, pitch .ect I would love to have raw tracks like these!
by the time Ive done the edting i pretty well know the them its hard to have that fresh perspective.
I know it was a quick ref mix I did note you didn’t stick to pure LCR on the panning, there was a bit of 45 in there.
but great stuff per usual.
Amazing.
Where can I hear the final version?
It’s called “Stick And Stones” from my EP The Tree – http://grahamcochrane.com/artist/
I was really impressed
Thanks.
Nuestro acuerdo con el Bar-Restaurante La Lonja, ubicado en el local
del mismo edificio, nos permite ofrecerle la opción del desayuno incluida en la reserva.
Tree House , ubicado en el Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo de De igual forma VIAJES HALCÓN no va a ser responsable de la disponibilidad técnica de las webs a las que
el usuario acceda a través de su web site.
I just wanted to compose a simple word so as to say thanks to you for
all of the precious ideas you are giving out on this
site. My time intensive internet search has
at the end been paid with reasonable knowledge to go over with my family
members. I would mention that most of us readers are quite blessed to dwell in a decent community with very many marvellous individuals with interesting guidelines.
I feel really happy to have discovered your entire
web pages and look forward to plenty of more thrilling minutes reading here.
Thanks a lot once more for all the details.