Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'F.O.H.' started by CatharsisStudios, Apr 12, 2010.
If it's required, making separate projects out of a big one is quite easy:
1. Select and remove everything but one song
2. Save project to new folder
4. repeat for the rest of the songs.
5. if needed remove unused tracks.
thanks for the advice though
I would like to get Andy's opinion on this. IIRC he mixes in one session, and I believe thats how Dave O, prefers his projects.
Having all extra fx-tracks that are spread across the songs in one huge session sounds horrible to me.
nope, you pulled that one outta your ass... Andy does one session per song... and he has said so, in one or two of the other threads on this same subject.... i also spent 5 weeks with Andy a couple years ago, and i know first hand.
However, I think he said that he did a whole album in one session and it helped keep things consistent. I can't find the post though, so I'm not sure.
not trying to be a dick or anything, but it doesnt take that long to split the session down into multiple sessions if that is what is required.
fwiw, when i was tracking and mixing one of my bands albums, my track count was up around 40 or so for the music and my home pc at the time wasnt loving it so much all burden with plugs. so i got the music roughly to how i wanted it, bounced that out and imported into a new session to track and comp vocals over. can help to split your stuff up like that, i believe joey was saying he does music and vocals in two different sessions.
Def Not digging the multiple projects i've gotten so much faster as one giant session and it feels great to know that album is gonna be super balanced, but that just my cents on it, i mean cause really there is no wrong way to do it
yes there is. if you ever track anything that i get hired to mix.... it had best show up as individual, well-organized sessions.
I understand where you are coming from. I prefer to track and mix, myself, in a single project. Just because it fits my style and work flow better.
I am completely aware of the fact that if there is a label that wants a copy of the project(s) or I'm going to be sending the material to someone else down the line, they may prefer a single song per project method, and would plan on duplicating the giant project (however many times as there are single songs), and removing all but one song at a time.
If your workflow doesn't match the standards and expectations of the rest of the industry, you gotta be willing to bend a little bit and put the extra effort in to accommodate others, without putting any additional work on their shoulders. (I'm not talking to you Murphy, I'm talking to folks like me that do weird shit because we're complete fuckers.)
Tracking in one big session, start mixing the big picture and make the overall start mixing, edits/samples there. Then spilt out to separated sessions for mixing. Leaving the regions/markers where they wore tracked.
If its only a small EP I might not split up later and use automation.
I find it helpful when tracking to be ably to switch songs quickly
When doing mastering myself i also master in the same mixing session
Dave O tracks/edits in one big session (these are big fucking sessions ), but I remember him telling me he moves it out to one session per track for mixing.
I'm mixing my band's 4 song EP right now, and its the first time I've tried to mix multiple songs in one session. I find it to be more efficient myself, but as people mentioned the automation is annoying.
But i'm with Marcus, I change my mix like twice every day so that would be such a pain in the ass to do to each session.
I totally get what your saying about labels and mixing sessions though, sucks
Maybe you can help me with this a little....
I use Reaper, and am nearing completion of a 3 song demo my band recorded ourselves. Each song is a different session, and I have applied FX to a lot of the tracks. I am trying to figure out how to get all 3 songs into either A) 1 session, or B) create a "template" of the mix I want, save an empty session with all the FX on the tracks, and manually load in each track.
I assume there is an easier way, but I'm still kind of a newb. HALP!
I just mixed an EP as one big session and loved it. Made sense for the band because the tones were consistent.
I just wish I had tracked it that because it was a bitch to move everything over. Next time I get a band it makes sense to do it that way, best believe I will be!
If I was to do a project in reaper using project tabs for each track on the album, would you then consolidate everything into one session somehow (for crossfades/gapless stuff) and then use Reaburn to produce a final disc with all the bells and whistles? Any Reaper users know the best way to go about this?
While I can see the appeal in keeping everything essentially the same save a few changes, I can also see the appeal in making a cohesive album that has songs that have their own thing going on. I really don't see how that would be realistic if it is all one big session. It sounds to me like it would be a nightmare to keep track of all of that. Not to mention if somewhere along the way you happened to change some things somewhere that you didn't mean to you. You might be miles down the road before you realize you killed your automation on song 3 of 12. You'd have to go back and mix that track again...unless of course you are only making tiny changes between tracks anyway. So are you guys doing this literally keeping everything the same? Same micing, tones, gain etc? Same compression? I know we're talking about 'tweaking' but it would seem to me if you're able to do this that the band must not have much dynamic or your mixes will suffer for not getting to have their own life.
These are just my thoughts out loud. Don't mind me.