Apr 25·1 reply
Paper Mario 4thRelapse
sorry i was being rude
meant to say that track sequencing isn't rlly related to mixing/mastering at all
Apr 25·2 repliesA few reasons:
Back in the day, before DAWs were so accessible, poor mixing was less common because it was only done by pros. Now, people try to mix their own music (and usually fail), and even in the industry, mixing is one of the first things to get cut from the budget. Producers, beat makers, and unqualified recording engineers end up mixing instead of well-trained mixing engineers. People who grew up in the 90s and 2000s remember when music was polished and can easily tell the difference.
Since DAWs are so accessible now, more people than ever are trying their hand at music and getting familiar with the process. So, people are more knowledgeable and able to have an opinion, where they might've been clueless before unless they were in the industry.
The industry prioritizes speed over quality way more than they used to. Instead of being patient with the mixing process, they just try to get it done ASAP so it can be pushed out. People can tell the difference between the sonic perfection of the past and the rushed music of today.
Recording is probably the biggest reason. People nowadays record on cheaper gear in untreated rooms, while artists in the past recorded on $10k mics through $100k mixing consoles and thousands more in outboard gear, in studios built to capture sound in the best way. When you record with cheap gear in a bad room, you can't mix your way out of that, and you'd be surprised how many big artists do this.
Last reason: consumers naturally expect better quality as time goes on and technology advances. Entertainment is all about immersion, and a great mix is part of what immerses the listener in music. The internet has made the consumer smarter and more informed. That’s why a lot more people are paying attention to optimization in video games for example.
Apr 25
Shooabecause it's becoming more noticeable.
Apr 25
PAPI NIGGA DAVEi don't get this
Like, there needs to be a certain kind of polish in regards to music that's being played on the radio & is backed by major labels. (imo)
- Apr 25·1 replypurrple rain
sorry i was being rude
meant to say that track sequencing isn't rlly related to mixing/mastering at all
I know I just started playing last song to first song and my first wereYeezus and birds in the trap and I thought I was apart of another religion lol
And last year I finally heard my favorite albums for years I do that and shuffle too . I would never shuffle an album till now … sometimes it matters sometimes it doesn’t ….
I think when Kendrick dropped that damn edition like that I got the idea … or Mike Dean, and off the stem player , reversing the sound is some alien new chopped and screwed wave
Apr 25·2 repliesIt’s just wack cause people will complain about a mix but not have any remote clue what’s actually wrong with it. There’s a counter culture to this that believes if it bangs it bangs quality doesn’t matter. Look at like cash cobain’s stuff blowing up
- Apr 25twntytwntys
It’s just wack cause people will complain about a mix but not have any remote clue what’s actually wrong with it. There’s a counter culture to this that believes if it bangs it bangs quality doesn’t matter. Look at like cash cobain’s stuff blowing up
And Ian and all that Brazilian new wave stuff
- Apr 25
No one comes for mix quality on live instrumentals tho just music production. People step where for some reason they feel they can
Apr 254 pages and noone posted this?
Apr 25i feel like part of it too is the growth of "lo fi" as an aesthetic rather than as a result of lack of resources if that makes sense
- Apr 25·1 reply
idk whats worse complaining about the mixing or trying one of those 'mixing is subjective' arguments (I admit I used to say that as well)
Apr 25·1 replytwntytwntysIt’s just wack cause people will complain about a mix but not have any remote clue what’s actually wrong with it. There’s a counter culture to this that believes if it bangs it bangs quality doesn’t matter. Look at like cash cobain’s stuff blowing up
I don't get it though. I thought the counter culture is bad mixing for the past 10 years we've had. Give me a refreshing ten years of clean polished music now
- Apr 25Paper Mario 4th
I know I just started playing last song to first song and my first wereYeezus and birds in the trap and I thought I was apart of another religion lol
And last year I finally heard my favorite albums for years I do that and shuffle too . I would never shuffle an album till now … sometimes it matters sometimes it doesn’t ….
I think when Kendrick dropped that damn edition like that I got the idea … or Mike Dean, and off the stem player , reversing the sound is some alien new chopped and screwed wave
type s***
i feel u, one time i took acid n made a playlist that was just DJ Shadow - Endtroducing but backwards lol
- Apr 25GoodbyeCarl
I don't get it though. I thought the counter culture is bad mixing for the past 10 years we've had. Give me a refreshing ten years of clean polished music now
That only matters if you’re listening on headphones. Over monitors or speakers it probably isn’t noticeable. Dunk contest by Cash cobain might be the worst mix I’ve heard in a while and it’s probably the most fire track I’ve heard in a while too. I feel you tho
Apr 25·edited·1 replyWRU fuk em upidk whats worse complaining about the mixing or trying one of those 'mixing is subjective' arguments (I admit I used to say that as well)
you used to be a lot more intelligent about this topic and say some s*** that is actually true? okay cool ig?
it literally is subjective. not the idea of traditionally “good” mixing as in as clear and as pristinely recorded as possible. the music being clearly recorded well with proper equipment in a properly treated space and those recordings being handled with the utmost care in terms of their CLARITY is not a subjective thing. that’s not the subjective part here, that is objectively the recording with the most clarity and “high definition”. when folks say “it’s subjective” they mean you can like a song regardless of the way it was mixed or the manner in which it was recorded, of course. but that’s not even what i’m saying necessarily, although that’s 100% true.
what I’m saying that people on here don’t seem to understand is that mixing is merely another tool in the artist’s arsenal, whether they even know how to properly mix for as clean and hifi of a recording as possible or not. mixing IS artistic expression. it’s just as much as part of the music as the harmonies and percussion the melody is built upon, and and just because something is clearer doesn’t necessarily make it better or superior, as i personally know many people offline and off that prefer either the warmth and grain of an album recorded to tape in the 70s, or mfs that listen to vaporwave or surge/hex’d/tread/digicore type s*** like yabujin or lostrushi. not to rely on anecdotal evidence for my argument, but this is all a matter of opinion. it’s what you like vs what you don’t like, not what is “objectively” good or bad. market forces dictating what charts got y’all confused as to what qualifies as objectively good or bad, and art being inherently good vs inherently bad is a very right wing borderline nazi idea to begin with frankly.
instead of parroting the “bad mixing” take over and over like plenty philistine ass niggas do instead you can try and understand the circumstances that lead to the record sounding the way it did, realize why some folks don’t care or even prefer it that way or, most of all, whether that was the way the artist intended it regardless of their access to studio quality equipment or spaces.
this other mf quoted me with the common cherry bomb argument. i’ve never been a massive fan of that album and i don’t think i’ve listened to it intently in years, although i still remember very well what it sounds like. cherry bomb, whether you like it or not, sounds distinct in tyler’s discography due to the philosophy behind its mixing and mastering. tyler had already BEEN proven he understood what it took to make a record with professional recording studio tier clarity, and even on b****** or early goblin era s*** when the music was obviously lower fi it still had acceptable clarity. you’d also be hard pressed to find a tyler fan that DOESNT appreciate the atmosphere the somewhat lofi circumstances of the album’s recording lend to it.
i personally listen to a lot of untraditionally mixed music myself, and cherry bomb is not that difficult of an album for me to parse. i was a kid when i first listened to it and had already been introduced to and listened to the entire extant discography of death grips and was into extreme metal on the black and technical metal spectrum, let alone the fact that i was listening to a lot of shoegaze like fleeting joys or mbv, for context. i remember it having a unique sonic palette for a lot of reasons, the mixing choices among them. not that it “sounded bad!!!!” because that would be a stupid thing for me to say. it’s tyler’s art, and he communicated it exactly the way he wanted to i trust, as he had already proven himself to be a pro in the booth for years at that point, and then turned around and turned in one of his most lush and clarity driven albums of his career less than or about two years later.
the gist of what I’m saying is that you shouldnt call something “bad” when this is all entirely subjective art anyway. there are snobs and even racists out there that call hip-hop bad for one reason or another, from “they’re not even singing they’re just speaking rhythmically” to “they don’t even make their own music they sample everything”
experimentation in mixing is just that, experimentation, even when it’s from someone who’s never taken an audio engineering course in their life. you don’t have to like it, but a lot of people, even people who KNOW what “good” mixing sounds like such as myself (a trained engineer btw as in i’ve literally been paid to engineer recordings and know exactly what it takes to make a mix with clarity professionally) do. dismissive attitudes like these come from the same conservative bundle of s***ty tools that only serve to to stifle innovation in art and overall creativity, which is driven by experimentation, in engineering included. educate yourself my brothers. tl;dr it isn’t bad, you just don’t like it, and you don’t have to like it, that’s literally 100% okay. also listen to more music because some of y’all make it obvious you ain’t doin that.
- Apr 25·1 replyvoriox· edited
you used to be a lot more intelligent about this topic and say some s*** that is actually true? okay cool ig?
it literally is subjective. not the idea of traditionally “good” mixing as in as clear and as pristinely recorded as possible. the music being clearly recorded well with proper equipment in a properly treated space and those recordings being handled with the utmost care in terms of their CLARITY is not a subjective thing. that’s not the subjective part here, that is objectively the recording with the most clarity and “high definition”. when folks say “it’s subjective” they mean you can like a song regardless of the way it was mixed or the manner in which it was recorded, of course. but that’s not even what i’m saying necessarily, although that’s 100% true.
what I’m saying that people on here don’t seem to understand is that mixing is merely another tool in the artist’s arsenal, whether they even know how to properly mix for as clean and hifi of a recording as possible or not. mixing IS artistic expression. it’s just as much as part of the music as the harmonies and percussion the melody is built upon, and and just because something is clearer doesn’t necessarily make it better or superior, as i personally know many people offline and off that prefer either the warmth and grain of an album recorded to tape in the 70s, or mfs that listen to vaporwave or surge/hex’d/tread/digicore type s*** like yabujin or lostrushi. not to rely on anecdotal evidence for my argument, but this is all a matter of opinion. it’s what you like vs what you don’t like, not what is “objectively” good or bad. market forces dictating what charts got y’all confused as to what qualifies as objectively good or bad, and art being inherently good vs inherently bad is a very right wing borderline nazi idea to begin with frankly.
instead of parroting the “bad mixing” take over and over like plenty philistine ass niggas do instead you can try and understand the circumstances that lead to the record sounding the way it did, realize why some folks don’t care or even prefer it that way or, most of all, whether that was the way the artist intended it regardless of their access to studio quality equipment or spaces.
this other mf quoted me with the common cherry bomb argument. i’ve never been a massive fan of that album and i don’t think i’ve listened to it intently in years, although i still remember very well what it sounds like. cherry bomb, whether you like it or not, sounds distinct in tyler’s discography due to the philosophy behind its mixing and mastering. tyler had already BEEN proven he understood what it took to make a record with professional recording studio tier clarity, and even on b****** or early goblin era s*** when the music was obviously lower fi it still had acceptable clarity. you’d also be hard pressed to find a tyler fan that DOESNT appreciate the atmosphere the somewhat lofi circumstances of the album’s recording lend to it.
i personally listen to a lot of untraditionally mixed music myself, and cherry bomb is not that difficult of an album for me to parse. i was a kid when i first listened to it and had already been introduced to and listened to the entire extant discography of death grips and was into extreme metal on the black and technical metal spectrum, let alone the fact that i was listening to a lot of shoegaze like fleeting joys or mbv, for context. i remember it having a unique sonic palette for a lot of reasons, the mixing choices among them. not that it “sounded bad!!!!” because that would be a stupid thing for me to say. it’s tyler’s art, and he communicated it exactly the way he wanted to i trust, as he had already proven himself to be a pro in the booth for years at that point, and then turned around and turned in one of his most lush and clarity driven albums of his career less than or about two years later.
the gist of what I’m saying is that you shouldnt call something “bad” when this is all entirely subjective art anyway. there are snobs and even racists out there that call hip-hop bad for one reason or another, from “they’re not even singing they’re just speaking rhythmically” to “they don’t even make their own music they sample everything”
experimentation in mixing is just that, experimentation, even when it’s from someone who’s never taken an audio engineering course in their life. you don’t have to like it, but a lot of people, even people who KNOW what “good” mixing sounds like such as myself (a trained engineer btw as in i’ve literally been paid to engineer recordings and know exactly what it takes to make a mix with clarity professionally) do. dismissive attitudes like these come from the same conservative bundle of s***ty tools that only serve to to stifle innovation in art and overall creativity, which is driven by experimentation, in engineering included. educate yourself my brothers. tl;dr it isn’t bad, you just don’t like it, and you don’t have to like it, that’s literally 100% okay. also listen to more music because some of y’all make it obvious you ain’t doin that.
six paragraphs? ngl im flattered
Apr 25KIRbecause back in the day you wouldnt hear a song that wasnt mixed by a professional
now you got every shmuck with fl studio able to put out music thats mixed like s***
The bar is on the floor now
- Apr 25WRU fuk em up
six paragraphs? ngl im flattered
of course you’d have nothing substantive to say in response to any of that
- Apr 25·editedryuH
A few reasons:
Back in the day, before DAWs were so accessible, poor mixing was less common because it was only done by pros. Now, people try to mix their own music (and usually fail), and even in the industry, mixing is one of the first things to get cut from the budget. Producers, beat makers, and unqualified recording engineers end up mixing instead of well-trained mixing engineers. People who grew up in the 90s and 2000s remember when music was polished and can easily tell the difference.
Since DAWs are so accessible now, more people than ever are trying their hand at music and getting familiar with the process. So, people are more knowledgeable and able to have an opinion, where they might've been clueless before unless they were in the industry.
The industry prioritizes speed over quality way more than they used to. Instead of being patient with the mixing process, they just try to get it done ASAP so it can be pushed out. People can tell the difference between the sonic perfection of the past and the rushed music of today.
Recording is probably the biggest reason. People nowadays record on cheaper gear in untreated rooms, while artists in the past recorded on $10k mics through $100k mixing consoles and thousands more in outboard gear, in studios built to capture sound in the best way. When you record with cheap gear in a bad room, you can't mix your way out of that, and you'd be surprised how many big artists do this.
Last reason: consumers naturally expect better quality as time goes on and technology advances. Entertainment is all about immersion, and a great mix is part of what immerses the listener in music. The internet has made the consumer smarter and more informed. That’s why a lot more people are paying attention to optimization in video games for example.
some good points here especially with the market based a***ysis. i suppose when most people in this thread talk about poorly mixed music they really just talking about struggle rappers or rich rappers that are careless and don’t give a f*** about the art and not artists that are intentionally experimenting with their mixing.
Apr 25makes it seem like they know more than they do
- Apr 25·2 repliesryuH
A few reasons:
Back in the day, before DAWs were so accessible, poor mixing was less common because it was only done by pros. Now, people try to mix their own music (and usually fail), and even in the industry, mixing is one of the first things to get cut from the budget. Producers, beat makers, and unqualified recording engineers end up mixing instead of well-trained mixing engineers. People who grew up in the 90s and 2000s remember when music was polished and can easily tell the difference.
Since DAWs are so accessible now, more people than ever are trying their hand at music and getting familiar with the process. So, people are more knowledgeable and able to have an opinion, where they might've been clueless before unless they were in the industry.
The industry prioritizes speed over quality way more than they used to. Instead of being patient with the mixing process, they just try to get it done ASAP so it can be pushed out. People can tell the difference between the sonic perfection of the past and the rushed music of today.
Recording is probably the biggest reason. People nowadays record on cheaper gear in untreated rooms, while artists in the past recorded on $10k mics through $100k mixing consoles and thousands more in outboard gear, in studios built to capture sound in the best way. When you record with cheap gear in a bad room, you can't mix your way out of that, and you'd be surprised how many big artists do this.
Last reason: consumers naturally expect better quality as time goes on and technology advances. Entertainment is all about immersion, and a great mix is part of what immerses the listener in music. The internet has made the consumer smarter and more informed. That’s why a lot more people are paying attention to optimization in video games for example.
we got f***in chat gpt over here
- Apr 26·1 replynephew
we got f***in chat gpt over here
this don't read like chatgpt at all tho
- Apr 26·1 replyvoriox
this don't read like chatgpt at all tho
Indeed, your discerning eye caught on to the deliberate departure from the typical tone associated with AI-generated content. It's crucial to vary the style of communication to suit different contexts and audiences, ensuring a more authentic and relatable interaction. By deviating from the standard conversational style, I aimed to create a response that resonates on a more personal level, fostering a deeper connection and engagement with the message at hand.
In crafting the response, I focused on striking a balance between professionalism and readability, aiming for a tone that feels genuine and coherent. This involved carefully selecting language and structuring the content in a way that flows naturally, capturing the essence of the message while maintaining clarity and coherence throughout. By doing so, I aimed to create a response that feels organic and thoughtfully composed, rather than formulaic or robotic.
Furthermore, the decision to expand the response into five paragraphs allowed for a more thorough exploration of the topic at hand. This enabled me to delve deeper into the nuances of writing style and communication strategy, providing a more comprehensive insight into the thought process behind the crafting of the response. By elaborating on the considerations and intentions behind the choice of tone and structure, I aimed to offer a more enriching and informative perspective on the subject.
Ultimately, the goal of the response was to showcase the versatility and adaptability of AI-generated content, demonstrating its capacity to mimic various writing styles and cater to diverse communication needs. By stepping outside the confines of the typical chat-like format, I aimed to showcase the potential for AI to produce content that is both engaging and tailored to specific requirements. Your recognition of this departure serves as a testament to the evolving capabilities of AI technology in the realm of language generation.
In conclusion, I appreciate your astute observation and thoughtful engagement with the content. Your feedback serves as a valuable reminder of the importance of versatility and adaptability in communication, highlighting the need to tailor the style and tone of content to suit different contexts and audiences effectively. Thank you for your keen eye and insightful observation!
- Apr 26·1 replynephew
Indeed, your discerning eye caught on to the deliberate departure from the typical tone associated with AI-generated content. It's crucial to vary the style of communication to suit different contexts and audiences, ensuring a more authentic and relatable interaction. By deviating from the standard conversational style, I aimed to create a response that resonates on a more personal level, fostering a deeper connection and engagement with the message at hand.
In crafting the response, I focused on striking a balance between professionalism and readability, aiming for a tone that feels genuine and coherent. This involved carefully selecting language and structuring the content in a way that flows naturally, capturing the essence of the message while maintaining clarity and coherence throughout. By doing so, I aimed to create a response that feels organic and thoughtfully composed, rather than formulaic or robotic.
Furthermore, the decision to expand the response into five paragraphs allowed for a more thorough exploration of the topic at hand. This enabled me to delve deeper into the nuances of writing style and communication strategy, providing a more comprehensive insight into the thought process behind the crafting of the response. By elaborating on the considerations and intentions behind the choice of tone and structure, I aimed to offer a more enriching and informative perspective on the subject.
Ultimately, the goal of the response was to showcase the versatility and adaptability of AI-generated content, demonstrating its capacity to mimic various writing styles and cater to diverse communication needs. By stepping outside the confines of the typical chat-like format, I aimed to showcase the potential for AI to produce content that is both engaging and tailored to specific requirements. Your recognition of this departure serves as a testament to the evolving capabilities of AI technology in the realm of language generation.
In conclusion, I appreciate your astute observation and thoughtful engagement with the content. Your feedback serves as a valuable reminder of the importance of versatility and adaptability in communication, highlighting the need to tailor the style and tone of content to suit different contexts and audiences effectively. Thank you for your keen eye and insightful observation!
you proving my point the post you quoted originally don't sound like this sounds like a nigga wrote it fr
- Apr 26
Spice Kittytyler cherry bomb unlistenable
it objectively ain’t tho