Never Close Your Eyes - the right mix?

[Fhangor]

Hi all!

After a long time I have done a new song. And so I have to ask: is this mix ok and if not, what can I do to make it better?

Here is the song:
Never Close Your Eyes

Thanx for advices.

[folderol]

Do you have a downloadable version?

[Fhangor]

Tried, but something is wrong at my server.

Ha! Here it is now!
Never Close Your Eyes - Download

[folderol]

Ta. Got it

First thoughts. Seems quite good. I think you could use some compression on the voice track, it tends to almost disappear occasionally. I'll have another listen later. It's wee hours of the morning here!

[bluedad]

sounds sweet through the headphones. I like your accent.

[Fhangor]

Have changed from 2.5:1 to 4,9:1! And you are right! It's much better. The new version is here:
Never Close Your Eyes - Download - 2

[Fhangor]

Thanx Bluedad. I hope it is now well mixed.

[folderol]

Have changed from 2.5:1 to 4,9:1! And you are right! It's much better. The new version is here:
Never Close Your Eyes - Download - 2

Yes this sounds much better now. Good work

[annode]

Hi Fhangor.

A very good tune all around.
I (A/B)listened to each version about 10 times..no more needed to see that both versions have their attributes.

How I see it;
- ver 1 is better for this song because the feel of the song conveys a certain honesty and frail vunerability. The shorter,choppier bass and vocal envelopes help to sell those emotions.(as when someone speaks with his voice dropping off in volume rather quicky shows shyness.)
There is one too loud sustained vocal note that is heard a few time during the song that I think needs to be attenuated in an editor program. (did that in the "edited".mp3 ver below)
- as for ver 2, the compressor HAS successfully increased the overall sustain of each envelope,including the vocals. But I do believe it hurts the song. Now it sounds more powerful...just the opposite of what I feel is actually giving the song it's real strength and appeal.In my opinion.
I'm looking at this song from a producer vantage point.

I also hear a few other things;
- I'd change the electric bass over to a standup bass and simplify some of the notes.(to see what it might sound like.)
The bass rhythm works in most places but in some others,maybe more simple sustained bass notes might give that song section more independence and help it to stand out from other sections.
- I think you can back off of the auto-tune. Would like to hear more vocal imperfection.It sounds too perfect and the effect is pretty apparent.

I did a little experimenting .
I made two new versions to hear what they would sound like.
- Flangor pitch time 132 B .mp3 (changed the pitch down a half step to B from C. Time stretched it down to 132 bpm from 140. Also edited the crash/vocal sustain/and some other things.)
- Flangor time 132.mp3 (only altered time from 140 to 132 bpm on this version.

These are just examples for considerations. Each mp3 is 64kb/s .wma. Quality has nothing to do with these...just time/pitch and volume.

Like to hear your reactions to these Flangor. I know they will be hard to hear since you've been hearing your ver for all this time. But I haven't...

Here's the zip;
http://home.comcast.net/~newdabranck/music/Flangor.zip

[Fhangor]

Annode, the idea to make it slowier is very interesting and tempting! It's more calm behind it! Good idea.

About the autotune: Believe me, you don't want to hear sing me without it. As a matter of fact I am a bad singer. I never wanted to perform my songs. But I have found nobody who does it for me...

Thanx for investing so much time to analyze the song. If I have time I will resing it again at 132.

[Fhangor]

Forgot: it has to be in tune C cause I can't go deeper with voice... even if it sounds better to me in B...

[annode]

Forgot: it has to be in tune C cause I can't go deeper with voice... even if it sounds better to me in B...

Hi Flangor.
I like the sound of your voice and you sing this in a way that works well for the song.
I have never used auto-tune...although if I do sing,i'd surely need it.
You know best how to use it.

I can understand that B is too low for you to feel comfortable.

I'm suprized you have considered re-singing at 132.
I know when I do a track,I listen to it forever and it's burned into my memory.
132 does, to me, sound much more true to the feel of the lyrical content of the song.

Anyway,great song,Well done as is even if you keep it at 140.

[Fhangor]

I asked for advices cause other ears hear sometimes better. And as we know is the result of a group better than the result of a single one. If I think the advice works better for the song I try to put it in, if the afford isn't too great. I want to get the best out of the song...

[annode]

I asked for advices cause other ears hear sometimes better. And as we know is the result of a group better than the result of a single one. If I think the advice works better for the song I try to put it in, if the afford isn't too great. I want to get the best out of the song...

Well...I guess you yourself asked for it.

Here are a few other post production ideas;
- I slightly increased the tempo in the two verses "never close your eyes" from 132 to 133bpm to increase the excitement on the main title verse.(My edits are a bit sloppy, but it still works good enough as an example.)

- I Brought down volume level in a few places for impact.(I expect you'll notice where)
- I shortened the fade out time.

Sorry about the sound quality again.I converted the 64kb/s .wma back and fourth between .wav and 64.wma so many times it's just about shot. In the beginning,I never expected i'd be doing all this to the 64kb/s file. Lesson learned.
File;
http://home.comcast.net/~newdabranck/mu ... ited_2.wma