there may come a time in your life when you want to make a mix more special than the standard, introductory mix. this short tutorial, my friends, will help you in planning the next step in your role as a mixmaster.
introduction II
this type of mix is used as a follow-up to your first introductory mix after receiving feedback on the mix. if someone likes a particular song or artist, this is your chance to introduce them to other songs by their favorite artists from the mix, as well as putting other songs that may be in the same vein as the recipient's favorites. it is wise to follow the same rules as the introductory mix, though you may repeat artists from mix to mix, which is very important to know. how else will you truly convince someone of the genius of your favorite musicians?
themed mixes
ahhh....the theme mix is a popular choice of mix. there are many types of themes that one can incorporate while making the perfect mix, and the only rule of thumb is to make sure that all songs fit your particular theme, in whatever way you like.
ideas for themes:
holiday songs (not typical holiday songs, but songs that mention holidays in them)
long songs (songs over 7 minutes, for example - not a mix for the weak)
geography songs (songs that mention geographical landmarks)
birthday songs (songs with mentions of birthdays, for that special birthday friend in your life)
love songs (chansons d'amour!)
mood mix (mix of songs that fit a mood)
this is a chance to really analyze your own music collection in order to best represent your chosen theme as a form of mix, and to expand your own horizons and be creative in the art of mixing.
mixes as a means of communication
sometimes, it is hard to find the words to express your feelings, be they happiness, anger, love... musicians have a way of doing that just perfectly, which is why we (i) love them. mixes may be used to tell someone something. do you secretly hate your best friend? why not put i never want to see you again by quasi on a mix cd for them? do you have the biggest crush on someone? try la la love you by the pixies.
speaking from experience, this is definitely a way to convey meaning to someone. i traded mix tapes with my ex for a long time and they gradually became more and more not so secretly a means of saying, "hey, i really like you lots and lots and could possibly love you at some point". trust me - if you pick the right songs, it totally works.
above all, as with all modes of the mix, have fun. be creative. go a little crazy. you can't go wrong with a mix, unless you just have absolutely no sense of what good music is (bright eyes). put yourself out there and mix it up.
future volumes to follow.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Friday, May 27, 2005
the art of the mix, vol. 1: the introductory mix
there are many types of mixes that one can make, but the most common of all is the introductory mix. the typical use of this type is to introduce your tastes in music to someone else. this can also be used to introduce a particular band or musician to someone (commonly referred to as "best of" mixes, but still a form of introductory mix).
while mixing, it is vital to choose your medium. will it be a tape or cd? with the advancements in digital technology and the ease with which one can download mp3s and upload songs to a computer, cds are the easier choice and also the best in terms of playability by your recipient. however, there are some of us who still prefer to make a good old-fashioned mix tape. tapes are more intimate than cds. you need to sit there for the ninety minutes that it takes for the tape to run, and the choices may be more spontaneous than they would be on a cd, where you can pre-select and rearrange tracks on your computer program. tapes tend to show mood at the time of mixing better than cds will, though, if you are crafty, you can make a perfect mood cd as well. do not feel limited by either medium, as they both have pros and cons. instead, give in to the art of the mix!
ninety minute tapes are the optimum length for mix tapes, while sixty-nine to seventy-three minutes would be the optimum length for a mix cd. though you may have eighty minutes to use, i would not recommend using all eighty. that can be overwhelming for a listener. you may be asking yourself, "why would ninety minutes be okay for a tape, but eighty is not okay for a cd?" the answer to that is that with a tape, you have the automatic break of side a to side b, so the listener can break it up into two separate listening experiences, if they so choose. whereas, with cds, one tends to listen the whole way through.
as with everything in life, there are rules to follow while making the introductory mix.
1. do not repeat artists on the mix.
this is the cardinal rule of the introductory mix, with the exception of "best of" artist mixes. it is not okay to put more than one song by any one particular band on a mix. the purpose of this mix is to introduce as many good songs and artists as possible to your listener, and by repeating musicians, you are not holding true to the purpose of the mix.
however, you may make exceptions to this. let us use stephen malkmus as an example. it would be possible to put stephen malkmus on one mix three times, as long as you do not put three "stephen malkmus" songs on said mix. stephen malkmus, prior to putting out solo and "jicks" albums, was in the band pavement, and also worked on some silver jews albums. you could put a silver jews song that malkmus sings on, a pavement song, and a stephen malkmus and the jicks song on, and you would not be breaking the rule, since all three are separate entities and have different sounds.
examples in practice:
introduction II - silver jews
harness your hopes - pavement
jenny and the ess-dog - stephen malkmus and the jicks
as long as the artist is working under a different moniker, you are free to use them more than once. loopholes rock!
2. know your audience.
you do not need to know everything that your listener has in their music collection, but it is helpful to have an idea of what they like. if your listener is an obsessive elliott smith fan, it is pointless to put any smith tracks on a mix, because they will most likely have this in their collection already. if your listener hates a particular artist (bright eyes), then do NOT use this artist on a mix, no matter how much you love them.
though this is not necessary with an introductory mix, you may also choose to customize the mix to the listeners tastes. this is only possible if you have broader knowledge of their musical tastes and music collection. if you have this knowledge, then you may choose to put particular artists on that are similar, but not the same, as some of their favorites. this is a variation on the standard introductory mix, and gives a personal touch to the mixing process.
3. keep the listener engaged.
some songs are really amazing, but are simply not mix-worthy. songs should be six minutes or less in duration. the mix should start off kind of slow, but interesting, and gradually increase in intensity through the first few songs. at that point, one should maintain the intensity and tempo for a few songs before mixing it up with a slower song or a longer song. not all songs should sound the same. there should not be a full mix of hard rock songs, for example.
the typical formula for a mix is to:
start it slow
build it up
maintain it
mix it up
bring it down
end it
"it" being the tempo and feel of the overall mix.
*
following those three rules will not guarantee success, but should help serve as overarching guidelines for the mix process.
in introductory mixes, it is nice to have some "standards" on hand to use for the mix. it is okay to use these songs on different mixes, as long as these are mixes for different listeners. these songs should be good (obviously) and should reflect your personal favorite artists and songs.
personal favorite standards for introductory mixes:
harness your hopes - pavement
up jumped the devil - nick cave and the bad seeds
in the aeroplane over the sea - neutral milk hotel
i wish i was the moon - neko case
no cease fires! - destroyer
(this list could go on and on, but that is at least a short representation.)
mixes not only introduce songs and artists to a listener, but they represent a part of you to your listener. if you are a big music fan, then these bands and musicians should be near and dear to your heart, and you are sharing that with someone else. it is a reflection of you and your style, whether you intend for it to be or not. it is. that is a fact.
further information to follow in future art of the mix volumes.
while mixing, it is vital to choose your medium. will it be a tape or cd? with the advancements in digital technology and the ease with which one can download mp3s and upload songs to a computer, cds are the easier choice and also the best in terms of playability by your recipient. however, there are some of us who still prefer to make a good old-fashioned mix tape. tapes are more intimate than cds. you need to sit there for the ninety minutes that it takes for the tape to run, and the choices may be more spontaneous than they would be on a cd, where you can pre-select and rearrange tracks on your computer program. tapes tend to show mood at the time of mixing better than cds will, though, if you are crafty, you can make a perfect mood cd as well. do not feel limited by either medium, as they both have pros and cons. instead, give in to the art of the mix!
ninety minute tapes are the optimum length for mix tapes, while sixty-nine to seventy-three minutes would be the optimum length for a mix cd. though you may have eighty minutes to use, i would not recommend using all eighty. that can be overwhelming for a listener. you may be asking yourself, "why would ninety minutes be okay for a tape, but eighty is not okay for a cd?" the answer to that is that with a tape, you have the automatic break of side a to side b, so the listener can break it up into two separate listening experiences, if they so choose. whereas, with cds, one tends to listen the whole way through.
as with everything in life, there are rules to follow while making the introductory mix.
1. do not repeat artists on the mix.
this is the cardinal rule of the introductory mix, with the exception of "best of" artist mixes. it is not okay to put more than one song by any one particular band on a mix. the purpose of this mix is to introduce as many good songs and artists as possible to your listener, and by repeating musicians, you are not holding true to the purpose of the mix.
however, you may make exceptions to this. let us use stephen malkmus as an example. it would be possible to put stephen malkmus on one mix three times, as long as you do not put three "stephen malkmus" songs on said mix. stephen malkmus, prior to putting out solo and "jicks" albums, was in the band pavement, and also worked on some silver jews albums. you could put a silver jews song that malkmus sings on, a pavement song, and a stephen malkmus and the jicks song on, and you would not be breaking the rule, since all three are separate entities and have different sounds.
examples in practice:
introduction II - silver jews
harness your hopes - pavement
jenny and the ess-dog - stephen malkmus and the jicks
as long as the artist is working under a different moniker, you are free to use them more than once. loopholes rock!
2. know your audience.
you do not need to know everything that your listener has in their music collection, but it is helpful to have an idea of what they like. if your listener is an obsessive elliott smith fan, it is pointless to put any smith tracks on a mix, because they will most likely have this in their collection already. if your listener hates a particular artist (bright eyes), then do NOT use this artist on a mix, no matter how much you love them.
though this is not necessary with an introductory mix, you may also choose to customize the mix to the listeners tastes. this is only possible if you have broader knowledge of their musical tastes and music collection. if you have this knowledge, then you may choose to put particular artists on that are similar, but not the same, as some of their favorites. this is a variation on the standard introductory mix, and gives a personal touch to the mixing process.
3. keep the listener engaged.
some songs are really amazing, but are simply not mix-worthy. songs should be six minutes or less in duration. the mix should start off kind of slow, but interesting, and gradually increase in intensity through the first few songs. at that point, one should maintain the intensity and tempo for a few songs before mixing it up with a slower song or a longer song. not all songs should sound the same. there should not be a full mix of hard rock songs, for example.
the typical formula for a mix is to:
start it slow
build it up
maintain it
mix it up
bring it down
end it
"it" being the tempo and feel of the overall mix.
following those three rules will not guarantee success, but should help serve as overarching guidelines for the mix process.
in introductory mixes, it is nice to have some "standards" on hand to use for the mix. it is okay to use these songs on different mixes, as long as these are mixes for different listeners. these songs should be good (obviously) and should reflect your personal favorite artists and songs.
personal favorite standards for introductory mixes:
harness your hopes - pavement
up jumped the devil - nick cave and the bad seeds
in the aeroplane over the sea - neutral milk hotel
i wish i was the moon - neko case
no cease fires! - destroyer
(this list could go on and on, but that is at least a short representation.)
mixes not only introduce songs and artists to a listener, but they represent a part of you to your listener. if you are a big music fan, then these bands and musicians should be near and dear to your heart, and you are sharing that with someone else. it is a reflection of you and your style, whether you intend for it to be or not. it is. that is a fact.
further information to follow in future art of the mix volumes.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
an open letter to bright eyes fans
dear fans of conor oberst,
are you deaf? seriously. are you?
before you suspect that i am someone who has never actually listened to mr. oberst and am just making judgments because he is a critic's darling , let me tell you that i did, in fact, try very hard to like bright eyes. in late 2000, one of my two best friends bought fevers and mirrors and loved it; he proclaimed it to be the best thing he'd ever heard. he burned me a copy and i listened to it and just didn't get it. some whiney boy from omaha talking about his dead brother in a bathtub and other such nonsense? it didn't hit me the way that oh so many other albums have. but, i didn't want to give up, and went to see bright eyes play live in february of 2001. and you know what? it was totally crap. like, among the worst shows that i have ever been to actually. oberst oozes pretension, and that, my friends, is something that i cannot handle.
plus, after seeing him live, i realized that his voice had the ability to make me physically ill.
for example, how is this any good? ooh, he's making a political statement and does not like our president! he is so in tune with today's culture!
and, he's from nebraska! do i even need to say anymore?
his lyrics are not good. his sense of melody is not good. he cannot sing, he kind of whines. his voice is shakey, at best. his songs are crap. his albums are crap. and yet, somehow, he has legions of fans!
if you could please explain to me, in ten sentences or less, why he is good, that would be most helpful. i would really like to understand the appeal, though i must say that i will probably never be a fan of his music.
in the meantime, i am going to go sit outside by a tree and ponder life.
love!
erin
are you deaf? seriously. are you?
before you suspect that i am someone who has never actually listened to mr. oberst and am just making judgments because he is a critic's darling , let me tell you that i did, in fact, try very hard to like bright eyes. in late 2000, one of my two best friends bought fevers and mirrors and loved it; he proclaimed it to be the best thing he'd ever heard. he burned me a copy and i listened to it and just didn't get it. some whiney boy from omaha talking about his dead brother in a bathtub and other such nonsense? it didn't hit me the way that oh so many other albums have. but, i didn't want to give up, and went to see bright eyes play live in february of 2001. and you know what? it was totally crap. like, among the worst shows that i have ever been to actually. oberst oozes pretension, and that, my friends, is something that i cannot handle.
plus, after seeing him live, i realized that his voice had the ability to make me physically ill.
for example, how is this any good? ooh, he's making a political statement and does not like our president! he is so in tune with today's culture!
and, he's from nebraska! do i even need to say anymore?
his lyrics are not good. his sense of melody is not good. he cannot sing, he kind of whines. his voice is shakey, at best. his songs are crap. his albums are crap. and yet, somehow, he has legions of fans!
if you could please explain to me, in ten sentences or less, why he is good, that would be most helpful. i would really like to understand the appeal, though i must say that i will probably never be a fan of his music.
in the meantime, i am going to go sit outside by a tree and ponder life.
love!
erin
pictures from shows long past
elliott smith - october 13, 2002; 400 bar, minneapolis, mn
stephen malkmus - may 24, 2003; first avenue, minneapolis, mn
quasi - october 30, 2003; 400 bar, minneapolis, mn
lou barlow - march 15, 2005; 400 bar, minneapolis, mn
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
the woods
oh, sleater-kinney... the woods starts out so promising with your heavy guitars and your minor chords. the lyrics are a bit iffy on track one, but the rocking more than compensates for that. by "wilderness" you are sounding like your bad old selves. classic s-k! you come into your own by "modern girl", which is (gasp!) almost a ballad. excellent work, girls! the progression from one beat is evident by this point. you manage to sound like yourselves without compromising your sound.
then, you go and ruin it all with "let's call it love". now girls, was an eleven minute song necessary? is an eleven minute song ever necessary? ask yourselves that, and really reflect on it, because the answer is no. few artists can get away with long songs, and unfortunately, you are one of those bands. the fact that this lends itself right into the closer turns it into what is basically a fifteen minute song. fifteen minutes! oh, girls, the key to a long song is to keep it varied and keep it interesting. guitars thrashing for a good five minutes does not constitute either component necessary to creating excellence.
you really threw it all away there. 2/3 of your album is really good, and could be considered excellent with more listens. but that last third? really, knowing that the last two songs constitute a full third of your album says something in and of itself. that last part will never be good. ever. and it is a shame, because the woods could have been your brilliant debut on a new label with a new sound, but instead, turns into a good effort with a poor poor ending.
examples of good long songs:
"notorious lightning" - destroyer, notorious lightning and other works (merge records, 2005) [9min, 51sec]
"1% of one" - stephen malkmus and the jicks, pig lib (matador records, 2003) [9min, 11sec]
examples of bad long songs:
"let's call it love" - sleater-kinney, the woods (sub pop records, 2005) [11min, 01sec]
anything by phish. (probably live.)
then, you go and ruin it all with "let's call it love". now girls, was an eleven minute song necessary? is an eleven minute song ever necessary? ask yourselves that, and really reflect on it, because the answer is no. few artists can get away with long songs, and unfortunately, you are one of those bands. the fact that this lends itself right into the closer turns it into what is basically a fifteen minute song. fifteen minutes! oh, girls, the key to a long song is to keep it varied and keep it interesting. guitars thrashing for a good five minutes does not constitute either component necessary to creating excellence.
you really threw it all away there. 2/3 of your album is really good, and could be considered excellent with more listens. but that last third? really, knowing that the last two songs constitute a full third of your album says something in and of itself. that last part will never be good. ever. and it is a shame, because the woods could have been your brilliant debut on a new label with a new sound, but instead, turns into a good effort with a poor poor ending.
examples of good long songs:
"notorious lightning" - destroyer, notorious lightning and other works (merge records, 2005) [9min, 51sec]
"1% of one" - stephen malkmus and the jicks, pig lib (matador records, 2003) [9min, 11sec]
examples of bad long songs:
"let's call it love" - sleater-kinney, the woods (sub pop records, 2005) [11min, 01sec]
anything by phish. (probably live.)
top ten albums of all time (subject to change)
1. pavement - wowee zowee
2. elliott smith - xo
3. pixies - doolittle
4. destroyer - streethawk: a seduction
5. nick cave and the bad seeds - tender prey
6. neko case and her boyfriends - furnace room lullaby
7. quasi - featuring "birds"
8. the magnetic fields - 69 love songs
9. leonard cohen - new skin for the old ceremony
10. neutral milk hotel - in the aeroplane over the sea
in the future, gimme fiction by spoon could become a contender.
2. elliott smith - xo
3. pixies - doolittle
4. destroyer - streethawk: a seduction
5. nick cave and the bad seeds - tender prey
6. neko case and her boyfriends - furnace room lullaby
7. quasi - featuring "birds"
8. the magnetic fields - 69 love songs
9. leonard cohen - new skin for the old ceremony
10. neutral milk hotel - in the aeroplane over the sea
in the future, gimme fiction by spoon could become a contender.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
