to lord fickle and daniel vz

i mean't weekend , before anyone start's on that

About software apparently not being available back then. Wrong. Cool Edit, for example, has been available a very, very long time. That's the software that became Cool Edit Pro and then Adobe Audition. And of course, even I used to use some shitty little software back in 1998 called DDclip. In fact, a few days back I reinstalled it to listen to some old multitrack songs. Bliss..!

Anyway, the software has been around for a VERY long time. Much longer than say, 1994. Very little has changed in that dept. Editing software is still editing software. And let me be the first to agree that those older mixes from elsewhere are usually disappointing. I never understood why there were people that really loved them. Maybe just cause they were starved of original material. Who knows.

Peace,
Adam.

I would not say a word about software not being available in that time. In fact, the basic editing tools are pretty the same as in the early 90s. Of course now you have more pre-set effects, nice plugins, etc. But the basic features were the same. Well, I just remembered doing some command line programs to apply mathematical expressions to the waveforms because it took ages to do all the necessary steps within the first editing programs. Anyway, as Adam's words suggest, there was a fast improvement in that area in the early 90s - and also the soundcards became better and cheaper. I know this very well as I started mixing music with computers in 1989, when the sampling quality of most non-pro audio cards was very limited. In fact, I preferred my analog multitrack machine by then...

But enough reminiscences - as they have nothing to do with point I was trying to make earlier.

Regarding mixing, different people have different learning curves - just as in most human activities. And a very good way to learn is through constructive criticism - I agree with that. Adam here is a very good example. He does not only say things like "I do not like this" or "that didn't work for me" but he also justifies his point of view. Also there is another curve, which I would name "boring curve" when some people start to feel that way (it might be that they only wanted to learn some techniques, or that they got frustrated very soon, or that they just wanted to test every effect in their software - I have heard examples of the last over and over, now and then ;-) and then decide to move on and start doing other kind of stuff. Which I feel it is not right is to pick some random old tracks out of context and then destroy them when you do not know the motivations behind them. As you have surely noticed, most of you have the need to make brief statements when you post your own mixes.

Anyway, it is not big deal. Surely there were bad stuff back then. As there is now. As there will always be. But while some of the old mixes were technically not perfect, most of them were also made with some plan in mind. After all, most of the mixes here, if taken out of context, are just somebody playing around with some DVD-A ripped tracks/instrumentals/etc. with no previous purpose - no matter how technically perfect, that seems plain easy.

So, to prove myself wrong, I might start a competition with some strange rules and a prize. What do you think? Would you like to be a judge, Adam?

If it's anything like the last "competition", which was basically a one man judge and jury, I will pass, thanks. I don't feel the need to impress any one individual, no disrespect intended.

None taken. :-). Of course the winner should be choosed by voting. I just want to make the rules. Perhaps with Adam if he wants to.

And also I will donate the prize.

What about...

First rule: The mix should be in 5.1!

Speaking for myself, the mixes I do are not in any way supposed to be competetive, although I admit to entering into this in the first place because of the mixing "contest". To me, they are fun, and interesting to make. That others also seem to enjoy some of them, is an added bonus. Whether they are "easy" to make, or not, is irrelevent. No one has said that a fan mix has to be technically perfect, or over complicated., Personally, I prefer to stick fairly closely to the body of the song. I hate remixes where it's all samples and effects, and the song is buried beneath. If we get bored, we'll go away and do something else. This isn't supposed to be life changing in any way (unless one of us gets a call from Greg Brooks!), so I don't see any need to compromise the relaxed atmosphere in this forum, by taking things more seriously. There are always losers in competitions, as well as winners.

Oh, and I don't think any of us have the software to create 5.1 mixes, but I could, of course, be wrong.

Thanks for the complements on many levels. I wasn't expecting any after my last post. Anyway, competitions? I'm not sure about it. However, I totally agree that it should be based on the zoner's choice, rather than one sole person. I'll never forget the result that they came up with. Absolute rubbish and felt like it was totally biased. As did others, may I add.

As for 5.1... I'm not sure. It's something I've dabbled in, but then, I have the software and speakers setup to make it work. Not a lot of people have the same thing.

Btw, I totally understand what you're getting at with some mixes as of late, Wilki. It has been frustrating to listen to certain mixes that are just bits of instrumental mixed in with the original. Not very interesting, usually. But, I think it's a mistake to say that the older mixes from elsewhere had better ideas. I think all mixes old and new have touched upon the same ground. Regardless of content, they live and die on the premise they put forward. That's how I judge them, anyway.

Peace,
Adam.

P.S. I brought up the software thing because Fickle mentioned it.

I edited my previous post. Please read it again, Adam. I did not want to leave the impression that I think that the old mixes were all good and the new are all bad - I was just saying that, now and then, most are good in context, but bad out of it.

Also, it was never my idea to be the jury of the contest. The jury should be all of you, by voting. I want to be the judge, I mean the one who set the rules and checks that the submitted mixes comply with them. But I will need help.

About 5.1 mixing, I have not considered the hardware thing. But I still like the idea. The rule should be changed to: The mixes can be in mono, stereo or in any combination of surround channels. What do you think?

Surely, a 5.1 mix will be more impressive, but it will be less playable...

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Adam Baboolal wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It has been frustrating to listen to certain mixes that are just bits of instrumental mixed in with the original. Not very interesting, usually.[/QUOTE]

Well, again, this surely boils down to what is available to work from. What were the Queen "extended" mixes of the 80s, if not bits of instrumental mixed in with the original? Unfortunately, Brian isn't on hand to produce some extra guitar parts, and somehow I don't think Freddie will be along to oblige either, so we only have what we have, and comparatively limited software with which to manipulate it ("comparatively", being compared with the original master tapes in a professional studio environment). I'm not making excuses here, I know my last few mixes have been of a similar nature (that's because I just got hold of the Karaoke DVD), but I don't think they are bad because of it. In particular, without wishing to blow my own trumpet, I think my mixes of IWBTLY and Winter's Tale are exceptionally good for an amateur.

As far as any contest goes, if I were to enter, it would probably have to be with one of my existing mixes, as the well of inspiration has run slightly dry at the moment, and I don't have that much spare time either. Unless, of course, you're going to make a rule that it can only be previously unreleased mixes. ;) However, I still don't really like the idea, as I'd rather keep this forum uncompetitive.

Fickle, the point being that the official edits are usually an interesting take. Whereas there have been things on here that just link one section to another and while nice, isn't worth much of a relisten. I'll agree that your Winter's Tale one is good. It had some nice ideas. But even you have put out some that are like what I was getting at. TSMGO comes to mind.

Peace,
Adam.

Yeah, TSMGO wasn't all that special, I'll admit. That one was done quite quickly, as I recall. TATDOOL goes on a bit too. I haven't listened to that one myself since. Have you listened to my IWBTLY, Adam? I only ask, because, unusually, although you commented later in the thread, you didn't actually say anything about the mix. That one is probably my favourite, currently, and I think my HFE Duet Mix (the second one in the thread) has a certain charm as well, even though the twin vocals can sound a bit muddled at times.

OK, scratch the whole entire-album idea.
If it ain't broke, don' fix it, I guess.
Keep up the good work, Fickle, Dan-Z, Baboolal, et al. You're gonna keep my Rapidshare account and Zen Micro hummin'.