- Joined
- Jan 19, 2006
- Messages
- 221
Good grief…
When wavelength says something's amiss with your playback system, he isn't referring to "Chicago (II)". He's talking about your statement that Steven Wilson is nothing more than a 'big stereo' surround mixer, and if you really feel that way, tell me who you consider to be an aggressive surround mixer, please, I would love to be enlighten…
OK, here we go again...
WHAT is YOUR definition of BIG STEREO????
Guthrie's PF DSOTM is , to me, a definition of big stereo...(and boring)
PT's Lightbulb Sun is not.
YES, the BASS has to be in the FRONT (unless you want a DANCE mix a la Goldfrapp's "Supernature", which actually works and its MCH mix is panned almost universally, BUT I LOVE IT!) and the kick and snare have to be in the FRONTS too..Also, the LEAD VOX has to be in the front, all of this is industry standard---if it were otherwise , we'd revert to "Abraxas" early 70's Quad mixes with stuff in every corner...and those mixes are merely "curios" from an age long ago....
EVERY good MCH mix engineer follows the rules mentioned above...now...what's your beef?
Are you gonna challenge these Pros?
For petes sake, sorry to offend so many people by not licking SWs boots with every comment. I wasn't dissing on him or his style AT ALL. I was simply giving my opinion that I've never really heard much in his mixes that leads to me believe he's greatly improve upon the existing 5.1 of Chicago II. It's certainly never been one I've ever played and was left weeping for for something better.
But maybe he'd do something amazing with it? Who knows unless we hear it, of course.
i guess by saying "aggressive surround mix" you're referring to plenty of gimmicks based on ping-pong effects?I like SWs work very much. I find his mixes to be warm and surrounding. But (IIRC by his own words) he adheres very much to the original stereo and expanding upon that rather than looking to make radical changes. To me that's the definition of "big stereo" but maybe you have another? That's cool. Definitions differ
My example of an aggressive surround mix would be Flaming Lips' "Yoshimi". A less extreme example would be "Tusk"
But (IIRC by his own words) he adheres very much to the original stereo and expanding upon that rather than looking to make radical changes. To me that's the definition of "big stereo" but maybe you have another? That's cool. Definitions differ.
I'm with you that I would rather see another title done in surround instead of Chicago II...and maybe Steven's version won't be a dramatic difference...I can agree with that statement too...but your problem was that you made a general statement about his surround mixing style...not just as it applies to Chicago II...and nothing could be farther from the truth...but I think it stems from a misunderstanding of statements he made...not any "dissing" by you or malicious intent...when he mentions looking at the conventional mix(the stereo mix) before creating his surround version it's not to expand it to "big stereo"...it's to get the feel of the original sound because bands don't want a radical change to the original ...they just want more of the same...so Steven adds discrete elements(something completely different than big stereo)to open up the music more without changing the character of the original release...in other words enhance it by opening it up...again...I don't think you were dissing him...BUT..since he's the best "active" surround mixer out there right now you can expect a chorus of boos regarding your statement...just keep these things in mind going forward and you can't go wrong
You don't say Steven Wilson's surround mixes are big stereo..
I hear ya. I just wasn't familiar with the term "big stereo" and didn't realize it was a perjorative. Yes, SW generally adds more discrete elements to mixes than exist on "Chicago II", but he also usually has more to work with then what he's likely to find on these tapes. Unless he's wants to start getting really gimmicky with stuff, which isn't his style. IIRC, Ballet For a Girl in Buchannon was recorded on 8-track. But I could be wrong, and maybe SW will just blow us all away with it.
OTHO, while I really enjoy his surround mix of "Songs From The Big Chair", that's one of his where I expected to hear MORE aggressiveness.
and I won't ever again! But, at the same time, let's not turn this into the Hoffman forum.....
I think we are safe unless Steven buys this forum:couch...I've said this before but having that forum hurts Hoffman more than it helps...he should just stay off of it..
Has anyone considered the notion that "Ballet for a Girl in Buchannon" is on more than one Chicago album?
View attachment 25703
I like SWs work very much. I find his mixes to be warm and surrounding. But (IIRC by his own words) he adheres very much to the original stereo and expanding upon that rather than looking to make radical changes. To me that's the definition of "big stereo" but maybe you have another? That's cool. Definitions differ
My example of an aggressive surround mix would be Flaming Lips' "Yoshimi". A less extreme example would be "Tusk"
But rather than rolling your eyes at my comments perhaps you can enlighten me and detail in what ways you think Wilson's more aggressive style of mixing would improve upon what was already done for Chicago II?
If some don't like the old mix and want a new one, that's cool. Personally I'm in the camp of those who would rather see the time and effort put towards another album. VII would be awesome!
Many others have already said in this thread what I would have said, so I'll just add this.
For me, a mix like "Yoshimi" has not held up well at all after a few listens. The crazy panning just makes me dizzy, and a mixing engineer's prowess is not measured on his use of the panpots alone. (At least it's certainly not that way for me.)
Contrast that to "Larks' Tongues in Aspic", "Nonsuch", "Fragile", and "Songs from the Big Chair". All of those (and more) are continuously enjoyable mixes because of their tastefully discrete and faithful presentation. I wouldn't have them any other way.
As I said, it was the extreme example of "aggressive". You asked what I thought defined "aggressive", so I told you. Are you "enlightened" now?
I enjoy their tastefulness as well. I could also enjoy them if they were more aggressive. So I can't say I wouldn't have them "any other way". I might very well like them some other way. But I'll take them for what they are. Just like some people seem to want "Chicago II" to be more aggressive--which might be cool, and I might also enjoy--, but I'm also fine with the way it is.
Matter of personal taste, as always. So again, I'd rather see the time and effort spent on other works. So while I might personally want "Songs From The Big Chair" to be done a bit more aggressively? Sure. But, I'd rather hear someone do "The Hurting" instead.
ANY TFF in surround would be beyond great!!!
Raoul!!!!
ESPECIALLY Roland's "Tomcats screaming outside"!!!!! THAT would make a WICKED MCH MIX!!!!!
I just hope somebody's is listening......especially NOW!!!!!
Giving the DVD-A another spin, if Sir Steven can improve upon this, I'll be dumbfounded.
Enter your email address to join: