Recording - August 2014 - 72

The Evolution Of Evolutionary Mixing

Guest editorial by Aaron Trumm
The modern recording process has
been set for quite a while. It goes:
1. Pre-Production (writing/rehearsing)
2. Tracking
3. Mixing
4. Mastering
Keeping these processes separate and
distinct has its advantages. For example,
a well-written song that's composed,
arranged and rehearsed is usually
tracked smoothly, with fewer problems
than ill-conceived ideas, even with nontraditional music like electronica. Wellarranged songs also lend themselves to

These are often one-shot sessions, with
hours of listening on multiple monitors,
earbuds, computer speakers, and car
stereos to achieve translatable mixes. This
works, but what if you make a mistake, or
find out the mix is too boomy in WalMart? Can you recreate that session? Do
you have the time and money to rebook?
You can attempt to recreate an analog
session, but it is painful and rarely works
(remember the knob/fader sheets that
came in the old manuals?).
Of course, DAWs and automated
boards make it easier. A Pro Tools mix
can be called up again and again,
sounding exactly the same, especially if
no outboard gear is involved, and an
automated console can do the same with
programmable outboard gear. However,
in the old school, even an inexpensive
digital board sits in a single (expensive)
room and so does a hefty Pro Tools rig, so
the arrival of digital didn't necessarily
result in a huge change to the process.
However, when laptops got powerful
enough to handle multitrack audio, there
was a bigger shift. In my own work, that

of the composition itself. While it can certainly be a double-edged sword, if managed right, it can also lead to a more integrated and rewarding experience over
all... and sometimes even to smooth-as-butter traditional mixdown and mastering sessions later in the process. Not to mention
that there is a new sense of freedom that
wasn't there before, and we artists do love
our sense of freedom!
I like to call it "evolutionary mixing". I
wouldn't call it a replacement for the traditional workflow. As I said, there are reasons
that workflow developed, and some of the
freedom afforded with a new outlook can
be problematic. Mixing while writing and
tracking can cause a loss of perspective, for
example, and sometimes easier processes
foster laziness. There's also plenty of reason
to hire and learn from masters of the trade.
Having a laptop and an attitude is great,
but taking that material back to an experienced mixing or mastering engineer can
really create that earth-shaking sense of
bridging past, present and future.
Personally, I still do my best to compose
complete pieces first before doing much

When laptops got powerful enough to handle multitrack audio, there was
an immediate and dramatic shift. Suddenly mixes could evolve over time.

easier mixing. Mastering, meanwhile,
needs to be its own process, with new
ears and different gear, and of course
getting a break from long tracking sessions and coming back fresh for mixdown
can not only be more effective, but more
fun and rewarding too.
This process has proven effective, but
in the past 5-10 years, I've noticed a
new paradigm developing for many musicians and producers, myself included...
In traditional mixdown, we bring
recorded, edited final tracks to a mix studio, call up the tracks on tape, MDM or
DAW, and use a console and outboard
processing to create the final mix. We
move faders, dial knobs, and make
patches. If our console isn't automated
(less and less common these days, but it
still happens), we must rehearse and perform moves and changes in real time,
sometimes working in teams ("Move over,
Bob! I have to twist the mid-range now to
create that EQ wahwah! Make sure you
fade channel 2 while I engage the
delay...").
72

RECORDING August 2014

shift was immediate and dramatic.
Suddenly mixes could evolve over time. I
could take the laptop everywhere, checking mixes and making small tweaks while
I listened in video edit suites, project studios, theaters, houses, or strange headphones. Add MP3 files and faster Internet,
and suddenly I was sharing evolving
mixes with band members or label partners remotely, reading emailed feedback
and correcting mixes while at coffee
shops or on planes. Not only was there no
longer a time crunch every session, I was
listening in different environments, which
is great for translatability. The result was
lower cost and better mixes.
That change in process levels the playing
field a bit, giving more artists another way
to strive for world-class material, but it can
also change the fundamental recording
process. With the ability to quickly tweak
and change mix parameters (and save old
versions), dialing in the sound can start earlier in the chain. Mixes can evolve during
the songwriting process, which is great for
genres where the mix is a fundamental part

tracking, and I'm adamant about hiring a
world class mastering house. On my next
project, though, I'll be using the evolutionary mixing approach during tracking and
editing to put my creative spin on things.
I'll then combine it with a more traditional
mixdown later in the process, done by a
whole different (better) engineer.
That all said, it is exciting to see technology changing the process in a way
that increases access and creates new art
and inspiration, not only for up and comers, but also for salty veterans who may
need a kick in the pants. After all, new
processes lead to new results.
Aaron Trumm (trumm@recordingmag
.com) has been searching for a good
mix for 20 years. He was the 10thranked slam poet in the world once, created NQuit Music and techno/classical/poetry fusion act Third Option, and
is now the front man of the imaginatively named Aaron Trumm Trio. Please visit
aarontrumm.nquit.com to learn more.

http://aarontrumm.nquit.com

Recording - August 2014

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Recording - August 2014