[fabkebab]

Happy new year everyone -

Is it too soon for the first competition of the year?

I would like to kick off a new compeition, if there is sufficient interest:

This thread is now the signup place for the fist ...
"Mixing and mastering competition"

I know how our informal competitions have improved my skills in lyrics and music, so now I am interested in looking at the third leg of the music barstool - production. The aim of this competition (other than winning) is to learn more about the techniques everyone uses for production, by comparing (and discussing) "before" and "after" versions of a song

The competition will be run as follows (similar to the collaboration competition) - contestants will take one of two roles - either "track provider", or "track producer" -

(A ) track provider - Be open enough to let someone pick up the individual "tracks" one of your multitracked songs and remix them, perhaps change them a little bit, and make a new version of the song

(B ) track remixer - Take tracks from "A" and see if you can produce them to make a more appealing "mix" than the original. You may adjust the song a little, but it must be clearly recognizable as the original (you may add a new beat, or you may insert breaks etc, but you must include all of the original tracks)

the last important thing will be some eager participation in the competition thread at the end, so we all get to learn something.

(1) Please signup here if you are interested in participating as a "provider" or a "remixer" - I will assign teams
(2) the "provider" and "remixer" agree on which of the providers soundlick-hosted songs should be remixed. It must contain 4 or more tracks
(3) Everyone does their remixing , and we reconvene 2 weeks later to judge the results of our musical makeovers


Who is interested? I propose this comp starts Jan 15 and judging begins 1 Feb -
please sign up below!!

[Alistair S]

I'd be interested, Fab. I'd hope to learn quite a lot in either role (or both!).

A few questions:

Are we talking about existing songs?
Do you see any "regulations" around what is provided? Does it have to be the raw, original track (maybe allowing some comping and editing first, but no more)? Or is that down to the provider?
Should we all hear the "originals" first, so we can do a "before and after" comparison (that would help, especially as some people will be able to provide "raw" tracks that have been tracked much better than others).
Can the "remixer" add instrumentation?

Sign me up in any case

[fabkebab]

Alistair S, on 01 January 2011 - 09:53 AM, said:

I'd be interested, Fab. I'd hope to learn quite a lot in either role (or both!).

A few questions:

Are we talking about existing songs? - Yes - I was thinking that the "remixer" would go to the soundclick site of their partner, and choose a song that they thought they could improve upon

Do you see any "regulations" around what is provided? Does it have to be the raw, original track (maybe allowing some comping and editing first, but no more)? Or is that down to the provider? I guess its down to the provider - I would think the more raw the tracks provided were, the more scope there was for remixing. The only regulation is that there has to be at least 4 channels of music provided (e.g. vocals, guitar, drum, bass)

Should we all hear the "originals" first, so we can do a "before and after" comparison (that would help, especially as some people will be able to provide "raw" tracks that have been tracked much better than others). Yes - the winner will be the one who can make the most enjoyable, improved and possibly imaginative new version

Can the "remixer" add instrumentation? yes - but the original tracks must still be audible in the mix

Sign me up in any case

[lyD]

I like the idea of this Fab and I'll definitely sign up. I'm going to have a lot of work the next few weeks but it seems to me the track provider won't need to commit nearly as much time as the remixer?

So, yeah, put me down as a provider

[FunkDaddy]

Great idea fabby!

Count me in as a remixer with one note, I'm starting training on a new job next week, I'm not sure if it's 1 or 2 weeks of training, so I might have to bow out depending on that. I'll try to find out when I start (it's mostly a weekend job to pick up a little extra scratch, but I'm training during the week)

[Simple Simon]

I quite like the idea in principle; I'm just not too sure how it might, er, pan out in practice. The way I tend to edit and mix is just far too messy for me to be able to simply provide time-aligned (as they would need to be) tracks of individual instruments to re-mix. I'd be interested in attempting to be a "re-mixer" of someone else's recordings though, I think.

[daddio]

I think I'm interested, I'm not sure about how it's all going to work. Some of the songs on my soundclick are over a year old and I've archived the tracks so those songs would probably not be available. But I'd be interested in seeing what someone else could do with one of my songs.
One more question: How much can the remixer add as opposed to remixing? I mean, I could take someone's songs and add so many tracks that even though the original tracks are there, I've essentially created a new arrangement. That's not the same thing as remixing.

[neuroron]

Simple Simon, on 02 January 2011 - 01:51 AM, said:

I quite like the idea in principle; I'm just not too sure how it might, er, pan out in practice. The way I tend to edit and mix is just far too messy for me to be able to simply provide time-aligned (as they would need to be) tracks of individual instruments to re-mix. I'd be interested in attempting to be a "re-mixer" of someone else's recordings though, I think.

I agree with Simon - its a real PITA to take audio and MIDI tracks with VST amps, etc - I've been meaning to do this for a friend (that is actually a "pro") that is going to re-mix some tracks and I've procrastinated for well over a year - although it woulD be good to get my act together to do this efficiently, I've got a feeling it's not going to happen any time soon - Ron

[FunkDaddy]

daddio, on 02 January 2011 - 05:33 PM, said:

I mean, I could take someone's songs and add so many tracks that even though the original tracks are there, I've essentially created a new arrangement. That's not the same thing as remixing.

That's actually most people's perception of remixing. It most definitely is what remixing is in terms of pop music. I actually offered to try this out on anybody's songs who wanted for practice here way, way back when and didn't get a single PM except from my girlfriend about "remixing her" lol There is some nonclementure discernment between mixing and remixing.

neuroron, on 03 January 2011 - 03:03 PM, said:

I agree with Simon - its a real PITA to take audio and MIDI tracks with VST amps, etc - I've been meaning to do this for a friend (that is actually a "pro") that is going to re-mix some tracks and I've procrastinated for well over a year - although it woulD be good to get my act together to do this efficiently, I've got a feeling it's not going to happen any time soon - Ron

I would think the idea would be to give the remixers the raw audio sans VST amps/effects or the MIDI printed to a VSTi of your choosing (or to save bandwidth, give the remixer the MIDI file and let them choose their own?). Trading tracks over the Internet isn't complicated, just a bit of a hit on bandwidth if we're talking .wav files. I think .mp3's might work but always hear about timing issues. In mix contests I've participated in, it's always been a ZIP file of wav's uploaded to a filesharing site.

[Alistair S]

That's pretty much how I see it, Mark.

I think this could be as complex or as simple as the paired up people want to make it.

I'm not sure we need the "4 tracks minimum" rule as a start point, though. It could remove some 1+1s which might be great to dress up with instrumentation.

Having said that, I don't see this so much as being about arrangement and instrumentation as I see it being about clarity and spatial mixing. Yes, there will be limits set by the quality of the input, but it could still be revealing and educational. I wouldn't mind if someone offered midi files for some instruments or audio files, but a lot might depend on what instruments the "remixer" can access. It's a simple negotiation between partners, and every partnership will have to operate within the constraints of what is possible (for them).

[fabkebab]

My main goal of this is, like the collaboration competitions - a fun way (with a the chance to be the winner!) to launch an informative discussion about how people worked on their remixing projects, and how they got the results they did

I think making a recording more "clean" and "ear-friendly" is the goal, but if someone wants to add new instruments (for example a beat) and cut and paste parts of the song, I think this is fine (its actually intriguing to leave it open and see what comes out!)

The only two guidelines I had was

1 ) Multi track - I think there has to be some "meat" to work with
2 ) The original tracks have to be audible in the mix - so that the remixer doesnt basically "drown out" the song with their wizardry

other than that, I think we should keep the rules open, and use the results as a guide to making any future rules - please let me know if you think I am missing something!!

[m24p]

I'd like to make a mix.

I was in a similar competition that was some midi tracks and some DIed guitar and bass. I think the provides the most flexibility for artistic interpretation, so it would be a good start for a competition like this.

I'm confused about if everybody is going to be remixing the same song, or if you are wanting multiples songs to choose from, though.

[fabkebab]

m24p, on 04 January 2011 - 12:43 PM, said:

I'm confused about if everybody is going to be remixing the same song, or if you are wanting multiples songs to choose from, though.

The plan is that each person remixes a different song, each song provided by someone here - I am also hoping that once I have downplayed the competitive aspect enough (and emphasised the fun/learning aspect) I can get to join in too!

[neuroron]

fabkebab, on 04 January 2011 - 10:59 AM, said:

My main goal of this is, like the collaboration competitions - a fun way (with a the chance to be the winner!) to launch an informative discussion about how people worked on their remixing projects, and how they got the results they did

I think making a recording more "clean" and "ear-friendly" is the goal, but if someone wants to add new instruments (for example a beat) and cut and paste parts of the song, I think this is fine (its actually intriguing to leave it open and see what comes out!)

The only two guidelines I had was

1 ) Multi track - I think there has to be some "meat" to work with
2 ) The original tracks have to be audible in the mix - so that the remixer doesnt basically "drown out" the song with their wizardry

other than that, I think we should keep the rules open, and use the results as a guide to making any future rules - please let me know if you think I am missing something!!

I think if one of the options is the contemporary use of "remixing"; i.e. having free reign with re-imagining the song - and it seems from the above, like it is - using 1 + 1 recordings [or even, ultimately, just using the a cappella] might be fun, and of course little or no problem for the track provider.

[m24p]

I'd suggest allowing the mixer to remove some tracks at his discretion. Sometimes too many instruments fight for the same frequency range, and removing one is a good mixing decision.

[vtoutlander]

What's the ante for hardware/software for being able to do a re-mix? I've got a hardware multi-tracker. It can output tracks to disc, each track to a separate file (I'll get the manual out tonight and see what format).

[Len]

Fab, great idea for a new contest. I'm interested but...

This would be my first stab at any serious mixing (unless you call using an equaliser mixing) so I would not like to collab with anyone to avoid wasting their time. Also, as it is a contest (and though we downplay it, this is a contest, not an exercise) it will depend on the initial set of tracks.

Here's a proposal for a future format though:
Everyone works on the same basic set of tracks (e.g. voice, guitar, bass and drums).
You can add tracks to the mix as long as each of the original tracks can still be heard
Winner, best mix...

If you think you could run something like that I would love to do it, love to have the chance to learn and learn from others. But for this, I'll sit it out and watch it unfold. Enjoy

[Simple Simon]

Len, on 05 January 2011 - 11:46 PM, said:

Here's a proposal for a future format though:
Everyone works on the same basic set of tracks (e.g. voice, guitar, bass and drums).
You can add tracks to the mix as long as each of the original tracks can still be heard
Winner, best mix...

I tend to agree with this approach, although I would be inclined to leave out the option of adding tracks. I think that what needs to be clarified is whether this would be a mixing and mastering competition - both of which are fairly clearly defined areas - or a production and arrangement competition. If it's the former, it doesn't make sense to be adding more musical elements.

I like the idea of everyone working with the same raw material though - it would make it a lot easier to evaluate and compare the results. I think it would also be more meaningful in terms of the resultant discussions and what might be learnt from them.

I think that between 4 and 8 tracks would be ample. These would need to be time-aligned (ie. all start at the start of the song) and non-fragmented. They should have no effects (including eq or compression) applied. The actual mixing process, then, would involve exactly what a mixer does: adjusting the balance and panning between the tracks, applying eq and compression as and where needed and adding effects (delay, reverb etc.) according to taste. The mastering aspect would involve fine-tuning the overall eq (and compression if desired) of the resultant mix.

I would personally enjoy this kind of exercise most if the original tracks were of good quality in terms of both the playing and their recording. For this reason, I would suggest asking someone along the lines of RLD if he'd be willing to supply the raw material.

[m24p]

I agree with Simon. I'd like any electric instruments like guitar and base to be DI tracks, and basically have everything as dry as possible. I think it would be great of at least on synth or other instrument was a midi performance as well.

That would leave a lot of room for creativity in the contest, but still have a reasonable base to work with.

[daddio]

Simple Simon, on 05 January 2011 - 04:49 PM, said:

Len, on 05 January 2011 - 11:46 PM, said:

Here's a proposal for a future format though:
Everyone works on the same basic set of tracks (e.g. voice, guitar, bass and drums).
You can add tracks to the mix as long as each of the original tracks can still be heard
Winner, best mix...

I tend to agree with this approach, although I would be inclined to leave out the option of adding tracks. I think that what needs to be clarified is whether this would be a mixing and mastering competition - both of which are fairly clearly defined areas - or a production and arrangement competition. If it's the former, it doesn't make sense to be adding more musical elements.

I like the idea of everyone working with the same raw material though - it would make it a lot easier to evaluate and compare the results. I think it would also be more meaningful in terms of the resultant discussions and what might be learnt from them.

I think that between 4 and 8 tracks would be ample. These would need to be time-aligned (ie. all start at the start of the song) and non-fragmented. They should have no effects (including eq or compression) applied. The actual mixing process, then, would involve exactly what a mixer does: adjusting the balance and panning between the tracks, applying eq and compression as and where needed and adding effects (delay, reverb etc.) according to taste. The mastering aspect would involve fine-tuning the overall eq (and compression if desired) of the resultant mix.

I would personally enjoy this kind of exercise most if the original tracks were of good quality in terms of both the playing and their recording. For this reason, I would suggest asking someone along the lines of RLD if he'd be willing to supply the raw material.

I agree with these sentiments. To me, mixing and mastering are not the same as arranging and producing. If this is all about adding tracks and rearranging someone's song, then I'll probably pass, at least until I see how it goes. But if it's about mixing and mastering which has been accurately described above, then I'm more interested and think the learning value is greater.
I also agree that the fairest way is for everyone to use the same tracks. Otherwise, people will tend to vote for the genre they like most, as often happens in the song comps, rather than the best mixing/mastering job.

[Alistair S]

I'd actually be less interested in a contest as described by Simon and M24P.

I see this more akin to the collab contests than the song contests. The real value and pleasure lies in the way two people work together and the discussions that take place. The scoring is secondary (in my view).

I'd rather have something to work on that needs work (if that makes sense). I have 4 tracks of Beatles songs and I can play with remixes of those to my heart's content. It would be more fun to try and work on something I think I could bring out, rather than something that almost mixes itself.

If someone has supplied midi, the results you can get from it may well depend on what instruments/samples you have. This shouldn't be about who has the best VSTis. If it is better to supply an audio track that was produced by midi, so be it. If, however, the remixer feels he/she can improve the sound, but needs the midi to do so, that's cool too.

I don't really want every song to be drums, bass, guitar, vocal. That would make every contest a similar challenge.

If this is to be more than a one-off, we can't always rely on someone like RLD to supply the input. Can we?

I do agree that this shouldn't be about adding much and thus making it about arranging.

[m24p]

While I respect you seniority on this forum, Alistair, and think the type of contest you are describing could be fun, I don't think the contest you are describing should be titled "Mixing and mastering competition".

I also agree that always doing drums, bass, guitar, vocal could lead to a sense of sameness and would be boring. However, I wouldn't object to having that for the first competition of this type.

Having a synth part in midi form would not, in my opinion, become a VST measuring competition. There are loads of free, flexible VSTs like minimogue and the free Kontact library that can get great sounds. The limiting factor will not be VSTs, but intelligence in how to make the synth part fit the mix.

I have nothing against collab competitions. I just think that Len, Simon, Daddio, and I all think that a mixing and mastering competition would work best if given a single source to work with.

I would personally be happy if that single source had plenty of parts and we weren't allowed to add any new parts to it. Again, the title of this thread is "Mixing and Mastering", not "producing and arranging". I think it would be a lot more feasible to pull off, as well.

[Simple Simon]

m24p, on 06 January 2011 - 12:30 PM, said:

While I respect you seniority on this forum, Alistair, and think the type of contest you are describing could be fun, I don't think the contest you are describing should be titled "Mixing and mastering competition".

That's all I was saying.

As for the midi aspects, I feel that they should be rendered to audio by the track submitter. It isn't (usually) the mix engineer's role to choose VSTi's and render midi tracks.

[Alistair S]

Ah, poop to "seniority"! I have none.

I think we are more in agreement than disagreement. I too would prefer this to be about mixing and less about arrangement. I'm not sure where I gave the impression that I disagreed on that.

I can also see the value in having one set of tracks that we all work on. The trick is in choosing an interesting enough set of tracks that we could all mix in our own way.

Eminently doable, I think.

On the midi side, I have no problem with what you are saying. I just don't think it is important that we have a midi element (an thus, it shouldn't be a requirement). Some people who might be interested will barely ever use midi, and it may put them off.

[m24p]

I'm not opposed to not having midi. I just think it's a fun way to add more flexibility. But that is somewhat less a mix engineer's job, you're right.

[m24p]

Just to explain why I think we should be allowed to cut material out.

From the famous Yep thread we're pointed to here:

Quote

That should have been dealt with at
the arrangement and tracking stage, but the mix engineer has a great tool at her
disposal: just cut out the stuff that distracts from the vocal. There is nothing at all
wrong with a verse that just consists of bass, drums, and vocal. Or even less. First
rule of mixing: Just because it was recorded doesn't mean it has to be in the mix.

[Alistair S]

True. I fully expect that there will be times when we will need to cut parts. Maybe not entirely, but cuts will be needed at times, I'm sure.

[m24p]

How's this coming? It sounds like there are several interested mixers, and a few interested in providing tracks.

[crazypoet]

Sign me up as a remixer, please! Not that I'm any good, but I'm trying to learn and getting better all the time.

[Tom Honeyman]

A group of collaborations on different songs would not be a contest, although it could be fun.

In my opinion, to make this a true contest (if that is what we are after) then we should all remix one track. This track should have some qualifications:

1. be decently recorded
2. be the raw tracks (or as raw as possible)
3. have enough tracks to work with (we could have the bass, drums, vocal, guitar rule for this first competition)
4. be concise enough that listening to the same song 6 or 7 times doesn't become mind-numbing

A limited number of people remix the track with the capability to do whatever they please with the tracks available -- but be unable to add new tracks. This way it's as if you are a mixer who has received some raw tracks and have to mix it into a song. Your decisions will be within the limit of the tracks you are given.

We should avoid mixing a poorly recorded song, or mixing several songs to see how great we can get them, as that's more of a friendly gesture than a competition.

One potential problem is if too many people are mixing - then we end up with too many tracks to remain interesting (no one wants to listen to 12 versions of the same song).



*A lot of this has been said by previous posters, sorry if I stole your ideas - they're here for coherency!

TH

[crazypoet]

Yup, what Tom said. Five or six tracks maximum. Basic instrumentation. No adding, just plain and (not so) simple mixing.

And divide the mixing engineers into sections: Beginner, intermediate and advanced so nobody has to listen to a whole bunch of versions. Eight mixing engineers max per category.

Does mixing in this sense also include mastering?

[lyD]

I would think this will work better if the "mixer" is given licence to interpret the songs rather than just mix them. That's how I read fab's suggestion anyway. The way George Martin would add instrumental parts to Beatles tracks, that kinda thing.

Quote

Yes - the winner will be the one who can make the most enjoyable, improved and possibly imaginative new version

I suppose that's what I'm trying to say


I can't imagine judging the subtle differences between mixes of the same track will appeal to that many Musers, and certainly as mentioned it would limit the number of contestants. That isn't to say it shouldn't be done as a contest either though.

[Alistair S]

I suspect that the only way to proceed would be to try something.

We could debate the "ins and outs" ad infinitum and probably never agree on what the "perfect" set of tracks would look/sound like, what we mean by a "good recording", etc.

If we simply tried it, we would then be in a better position to say what worked well and what could be improved in any future versions.

However, there is a bit of a hush right now...

Fab..

You out there?

[daddio]

Instead of mixing and mastering, call it a remix comp. Have all contestants receive the same basic tracks. Set the number of tracks that can be added so that everyone is on equal footing. Allow any other effects or remix tricks that can be dreamed up including cutting the song up, sampling, stretching, looping, etc.

[Thinman]

fabkebab, on 01 January 2011 - 01:46 PM, said:

Happy new year everyone -

Is it too soon for the first competition of the year?

I would like to kick off a new compeition, if there is sufficient interest:

This thread is now the signup place for the fist ...
"Mixing and mastering competition"

I know how our informal competitions have improved my skills in lyrics and music, so now I am interested in looking at the third leg of the music barstool - production. The aim of this competition (other than winning) is to learn more about the techniques everyone uses for production, by comparing (and discussing) "before" and "after" versions of a song

The competition will be run as follows (similar to the collaboration competition) - contestants will take one of two roles - either "track provider", or "track producer" -

(A ) track provider - Be open enough to let someone pick up the individual "tracks" one of your multitracked songs and remix them, perhaps change them a little bit, and make a new version of the song

(B ) track remixer - Take tracks from "A" and see if you can produce them to make a more appealing "mix" than the original. You may adjust the song a little, but it must be clearly recognizable as the original (you may add a new beat, or you may insert breaks etc, but you must include all of the original tracks)

the last important thing will be some eager participation in the competition thread at the end, so we all get to learn something.

(1) Please signup here if you are interested in participating as a "provider" or a "remixer" - I will assign teams
(2) the "provider" and "remixer" agree on which of the providers soundlick-hosted songs should be remixed. It must contain 4 or more tracks
(3) Everyone does their remixing , and we reconvene 2 weeks later to judge the results of our musical makeovers


Who is interested? I propose this comp starts Jan 15 and judging begins 1 Feb -
please sign up below!!

I'm up for this as a provider !

Am I too late ? Hope not

Cheers

Robby

[fabkebab]

Ok - Sorry to have dropped the ball a little (on the thread that I started, no less!)

I have the following people signed up (although I appreciate that some of you want to all work from the same track... I am thinking a bit about this)

provider:
Lyd
vtoutlander
Thinman


remixer:
AlistairS
FunkDaddy
Simple Simon
m24p
crazypoet

someone who has commented on the thread, but seemingly not signed up for anything
Tom honeyman (?)




My current feelings are

1 ) I personally dont know enough about the mixing/mastering terminology - so lets call it a "production makeover" competition - the aim is to use your production skills to make the song sound better, in a side-by-side comparison of the "before" vs. the "after"

2 ) I will kick the competition off shortly, if anyone else wants to sign - perhaps in another week

3 ) It will be a learning experience, but I also aim to have voting and a "winner"

[m24p]

w00t!

Do all the providers have a good idea for how to upload their songs? Some sort of file hosting like dropbox ready, and know how to make sure all the *.wav files start at the same spot? Even if there is no midi performance, a midi file is helpful for importing the tempo.

I can't wait! Well, I guess I can and will wait.

[Simple Simon]

m24p, on 20 January 2011 - 04:19 AM, said:

Do all the providers have a good idea for how to upload their songs?

Yousendit.com allows the sending of files up to 100mb at a time for free, so it might be one of the quickest and simplest ways of achieving this. I would suggest grouping the files/tracks into zip files of no more than 100mb each (probably about enough for 3 X 44.1khz, 16bit wav files at a time).

[neuroron]

Andrew - Drop me from the list please - way too busy at the moment - also, for me personally, if it's not "re-mixing" in the sense of having free reign at complete deconstruction and reconstruction, it just wouldn't be creatively satisfying enough to invest a significant amount of time.

Best of luck to everyone though! Ron

[Tom Honeyman]

I'm pretty busy at the moment but if I'm needed I can step in as a remixer. I'd like to be clear though -- if this is a remixing thing then completely changing the direction of the song is normal. If it's a production thing then we'd follow the original intentions and just make it sound good.

The consensus seems to be leaning towards remixing -- we take some common songs, remix them, and vote on the remixes to see which one is 'best'. This also skips nitpicking on production ability (earlier I was approaching this as a mixing contest rather than a remix contest). I think the original/remixer ratio may be off, I'd like to see 3 remixers per song if possible.

We could have people sign up for songs, three to a song, and then have the original artist send each of them the tracks.


As remixing, I'd like to be able to change the instrumentation while keeping the same melody, like the way techno and hip hop remixes are done.

Just some thoughts!

Tom

[FunkDaddy]

neuroron, on 19 January 2011 - 02:35 PM, said:

"re-mixing" in the sense of having free reign at complete deconstruction and reconstruction

Tom Honeyman, on 19 January 2011 - 08:32 PM, said:

I'd like to be clear though -- if this is a remixing thing then completely changing the direction of the song is normal.

The consensus seems to be leaning towards remixing -- we take some common songs, remix them, and vote on the remixes to see which one is 'best'.

As remixing, I'd like to be able to change the instrumentation while keeping the same melody, like the way techno and hip hop remixes are done.

If we're calling it a remix contest, these should be the standard.

If it's a mixing/mastering contest, then it should be "mix the tracks, master them".

Remixing is and would be a LOT more fun, imo. I'd be happy to throw a demonstration of the differences together if somebody wants to provide tracks.

[Simple Simon]

Tom Honeyman, on 20 January 2011 - 01:32 PM, said:

(earlier I was approaching this as a mixing contest rather than a remix contest).

That was how I had been reading it too. In the past, re-mixing always meant exactly that - creating a new mix of the original tracks. But I can see how more recent usage of the term might be causing some confusion here.

If this were to be about remixing in the contemporary, hip hop sense (which the pedant in me would still considered to be better-labelled "re-producing" ), I would still be interested in giving it a go, but it would be pretty much essential for the original tracks to have been recorded to a click track or other fixed tempo device and it would help for that tempo to be stated by the supplier.

[Bruce N]

Well call me Johnny, as in come lately. I like the idea of this contest, though my preference would be for one of those complete re-mix type of contests. Mix and Master contest ? I think that would all be more or less subjective IMO. Whereas a complete re-mix contest would be a better avenue for displaying one's skills in the editing suite.

I would also like to suggest that perhaps only one or two songs be put up for either type of contest, hence a better foil for judging the various entries in comparing them to each other.

Hopefully for any of the songs submitted for this contest, they will have at the minimum, say at least six tracks to work with. Just some of my thoughts.

Oh, I almost forgot, you can put me down as mixer, for which ever style of contest that's decided, whether it's a complete re-mix or mix and masturbate.

[Thinman]

Hi All

I don't mind whatever happens to my trax

They can be just "mixed/mastered" (make my trax sound reasonable - although I'm not too sure what "mastering" is), remixed (with additional rhythms, accompaniments, accessories - like the DrDre remix of "Miss You") or even "covered" - I'm not keen on additional words or major changes to the lyrics though

I am grateful already

Robby

[Alistair S]

*cough*

/flexes fingers

/looks up expectantly

[Bruce N]

Alistair S, on 31 January 2011 - 09:36 AM, said:

*cough*

/flexes fingers

/looks up expectantly

Very good Mr. Sutherland....examination's over....you can pull your trousers up now.

[Alistair S]

Oh, for goodness' sake, Bruce! One minute it's down, then it's up! Make your bloody mind up!

[m24p]

In the meantime, I've been practicing on some of the old "mix this" competitions at Recording Review. Not a great forum, but the "mix this" files are pretty good opportunities to practice. Mix this 3 is a cool, Latin sounding affair with acoustic guitar, trumpets, and violin. Mix this 4 is a screamo track where the drumkit was record with around 11 mics. It's fun stuff.

I still want to do this one, though.