I usually use Battery 3 when I'm looking for drum sounds that sound sampled (rather than trying to emulate live drums.) For many genres of music this often fits much better than an acoustic drum emulation.

For example if you're trying to create an Aphex Twin inspired track you'll probably get a lot more use out of something like the "Glitch Kit" in Battery 3 than the realistic acoustic drum emulations you can get with Superior Drummer 2 or Addictive Drums. (Although a good argument can be made that it would be more creative to try to glitch up your own drum tracks rather than use the "Glitch Kit" samples.)

There's also a lot of cool percussion and world music type "kits" in Battery 3 which sometimes come in handy. To my ears these usually sound pretty "sampled" too (rather than realistically emulating real percussion) but I still think they can be quite useful. It really just depends on what you are looking for.

When it comes to this sort of thing a minute of sound is worth a thousand words so here's something I just put together to give you a small taste of what Battery 3 can do (just 8 of the over 100 kits included) --->

Battery 3 is included in the Native Instruments Komplete 8 pack along with a ton of other stuff.

(#1) Use the best monitors you can afford (if you are going to splurge on any music gear, it should be your monitors.) The importance of a good set of monitors is difficult to overstate.

If you can't accurately hear how what you're doing is effecting the sound of your mix then it's very unlikely you're going to be able to create a decent mix that translates to various playback systems.

Don't use headphones to mix. Yes, many people listen back to music on headphones now but what I've found is that if you can make your mix sound good on monitors than it's going to sound good on headphones too but the reverse is definitely not the case.

(#2) Check your mixes in mono too. Even if you don't think your music will ever be played back in mono (and you may be surprised at the scenarios where it may be) I still think it's a good idea to check your mixes in mono.

Using one Avantone Mixcube as my mono playback system (and clicking on the mono playback button on Reaper) has been an ear opening experience. What I tend to do is get my mix sounding pretty good on my stereo monitors and then I switch to mono playback and I usually notice some issues that are not as obvious in stereo.

I think of it as a "microscope" for my mixes. It allows me to hear all of the problems much easier which is awesome because it also lets me fix them much easier! After I get my mix sounding good in mono on this "crappy" speaker it then usually sounds really good when I switch it back to my stereo monitors.

(#3) Acoustic Design. Those of us with home studios usually have less than ideal spaces to mix in but there are some things we can do to improve that space for mixing (and recording.) This is too big of a subject to get into in detail here but I would recommend buying this book and learning a bit about it. It's important.

One easy thing you can do to lessen the impact of a subpar listening environment is to monitor at lower levels (this is also good to decrease the effect of ear fatigue.)

(#4) Cut it out. This brings me to my main topic for this post; the importance of muting unneeded tracks and what may seem like drastic use of EQ cuts to those who haven't thought of using EQ in this way before.

(a) Just because it was recorded doesn't mean it needs to be in the final mix. I almost always find at least one part that can be cut out entirely. If the part isn't essential to the song; cut it out. Hit the mute button. Often times just muting one part makes all of the other parts sound better.

This goes back a bit to my point about mono playback. When you playback in mono it's much more difficult to get everything to sit together. I do a lot of my muting & EQ cuts when I'm playing back in mono. Then when I go back to stereo I'm always amazed how much more clear and "professional" my mix sounds with the mutes & EQ cuts I've done in mono.

This brings me to another point which could really have its own header because of how important it is: Really listen closely to recordings that you love (or the songs you are trying to emulate) and notice how much (or how little) is actually going on. In most cases there's less going on at one time then you probably thought there was.

(b) Massive EQ cuts to the lows & the highs. I put a cut on the bass on almost every track (even tracks that don't sound like they have any bass often do have some rumble that's sneaking into your mix and muddying it up.)

The easy way to do this is to cut the EQ up to the point where you can hear the effect and then lay back off it a bit until you can't hear it anymore. I do this on both the highs and the lows. Generally I hear the cuts on the highs more quickly than I do on the lows.

You have to be careful here not to overdo it to the point where you make the parts sound overly manicured although you should also keep in mind that it doesn't really matter what an instrument sounds like when it's played back solo, it only matters how it sounds in the context of the song with everything playing back.

This is a very common mistake! People will spend hours getting all of their tracks to sound perfect when played back on their own but then they are dismayed when they play them all back at once and it sounds terrible. Think about what the word "mix" means and it becomes obvious why this is the wrong way to go about it. To repeat: It doesn't matter what a track sounds like on its own.

The hardest part of this for me is finding a space for your bass and your kick drum. I don't think there's an easy to share formula for this, you just have to try to give each one its own space (and you have to decide which one of them is going to be the lowest part of the song, because they can't both be at the same time.)

The end result of all of this cutting of lows & highs is not a song without any low end or high end but a song with much more clear and powerful low end and high end.

It may seem like having all kinds of stuff going on in the low end at the same time would be the way to have a really strong bass sound, but it's actually the opposite. If you have a strong bass sound you want that sound to have that area to itself rather than letting it get muddied up by all the other crap in your mix.

What I like most about it is that it focuses on the importance of timing and how to play different types of rhythms. This focus (and the helpful information on how to count different types of rhythms) has not only helped my bass guitar playing but it's really helped my musicianship in general.

The importance of timing cannot be overstated when it comes to musicianship especially because so many people overlook it. There's a tendency to think it's all about the chords and/or notes but really if you're not playing with a good feel (or "groove") it's going to sound like crap no matter what chords or notes you're playing.

I find that too many music tutorial books (and I have a ton) sort of skip out when it comes to timing. Even the books I have on drumming don't spend enough time on timing and how to count different types of rhythms.

For example; I have a drum book that mentions the common count for straight 16th notes (1-e-and-ah...) but which then introduces triplets with no mention on how to count them. This is an absurd oversight.

But Bass Grooves goes into every different type of rhythm that you are likely to play (including 16th note triplets) and teaches you how to feel the groove internally so that you can play in time.

Of course there's more to the book then just the timing instruction, there's also some great examples of many different styles of bass guitar playing (with tabs, a CD to listen to, and thorough instruction.) It doesn't really go in-depth into any one particular style, but it introduces a lot of them.

If you're looking into learning to play bass then I think it would be wise to start with this book and once you've really mastered it then look for a book on whatever kind of style you are most interested in.

I really like the stuff on timing so much that I almost want to recommend this book to anyone who feels they have any kind of issues with rhythm even if they don't want to learn to play bass.

And that leads me to one last thing; Rhythm is a skill like any other. You can significantly improve your sense of rhythm with practice. I did a post on "becoming a drum machine" last year that goes into some details on some practices you can get started with now (this is good practice regardless of what instrument or style of music you play.)

Another good basic rhythm practice is "making the metronome disappear."

I had the song mixed to the point where I thought it sounded pretty good on my KRK5s when I decided to flip to mono playback on the Mixcube.

Right off I noticed all kinds of things that I hadn't noticed when mixing in stereo on the KRK5s. It was like putting my mix under a microscope. At first I was a bit deflated by how terrible my mix sounded in mono on the Mixcube but then I realized this is a good thing, it's giving me a chance to hear what's wrong so I can fix it.

There were timing issues between two guitar parts that weren't really obvious when they were spread left & right but when they were laid on top of each other it was a bit of a mess. I didn't have time to re-record for this particular project so I used Melodyne's quantization to tighten up the timing until it sounded good (but I didn't push the quantization so far that it sounds robotic.)

I also used EQ more aggressively because I was trying to get the different parts to sit comfortably on top of each other in mono (which is of course much more difficult than when you have the advantage of stereo.)

Lastly, and maybe most importantly, I muted a couple of tracks that I realized weren't adding enough interest to make up for the mess they were adding to the mix.

Once I had it sounding how I wanted on the Mixcube I switched back over the KRK5s and I was instantly blown away by how great my mix sounded. It was a clear improvement over where it was at before. All the parts were clear and it really packed a punch as well.

At this point I'm pretty sure that I'm going to be doing a lot of my mixing in mono. It really does feel like using a microscope to me, it just seems to make it so easy to see (hear) where the problems are and if you know where the problems are, you can correct them.

I've been using a guide book called Producing Music with Ableton Live to learn the software and I highly recommend it.

When I first got Ableton Live last week I tried to just sort of figure it out on my own as I figured my long experience with other DAWS (REAPER is what I've been using over the last few years) would make it a cinch.

But this software is different enough that I really didn't make that much progress going this route so I decided to get this guidebook and that was a great decision. Last night in two hours using this book I learned about 50 times more than what I did when I just messing around with it for two hours last week.

And the things I've been learning are very exciting. I can see why this program is so popular for what it's meant for. For me electronic music is sort of a side interest but I want to keep my options open and I want to stay up to date with what's possible.

I've also read some things that are making me question the monitors I have been using (KRK 5s) because of their ported design.

According to what I've read in this book I should go with an unported 2.1 system (Blue Sky Media Desk is recommended) and use mono monitoring with an Avantone Mixcube as a secondary monitor system.

Considering how much less expensive it is to go with buying just one Mixcube, I'm going to go that route first and then possibly add the Blue Sky Media Desk 2.1 system later on.

In the meantime I may also try putting socks in the ports of my KRK5s to dampen the bass ringing that is apparently a big problem with comparatively inexpensive ported monitors.

I'll be sharing my experience with mono mixing (which I've never really tried before) and putting a sock in my ports in future posts here.

But recently it's sort of clicked for me just how important it is to have two sets of monitors, particularly two sets of monitors that are reasonably different from each other.

The idea being that if you can make your mix sound good on both of these sets of monitors then the chance of your mix working just about everywhere in the "real world" seems like it would increase significantly.

I'm considering the Yamaha HS50Ms based on some online recommendations.

I'm also considering getting a single speaker to use for mono monitoring (maybe this one.) Perhaps going back and forth between my KRK5s in stereo and another monitor in mono is the way to go? (I also check my mixes on my ATH M50 headphones.)

I am interested more recommendations on where to go with this. Share yours in the comments. Thanks!

I'm paraphrasing from memory so this may not be exactly what she said but it was something like this: "If it doesn't make you uncomfortable then it's not helping."

I think this is so true when it comes to improving as a musician. For years when I would play guitar I would just play whatever I already knew, whatever was comfortable and easy. Even though I played guitar quite a bit during this time, I never really improved my playing much at all. I had very little improvement over the course of about 7 or 8 years of playing because I didn't push myself to learn new skills.

Over the past year or so I've been actively trying to improve my skills as a musician and the difference is night & day. Now that I'm practicing daily with guitar lessons that often make me feel "uncomfortable," instead of just playing around, I become a much better guitarist.

I've also been playing guitar more often and for longer periods (I think this is mostly because I find it more enjoyable to play when I can play better) but I think the big difference between now and before is that I'm now actively practicing to improve rather than just playing. It makes all of the difference in the world.

This goes for more than just playing guitar of course. It goes for all musical skills, including songwriting (and drumming: from a background of having never played drums in my life, I've become a decent drummer over the course of the last 6 months by practicing about 30 minutes a day on average - by the book - see my post from early March on my new drum set.)

Before, I would "write a song" by just singing whatever came to my head while I was strumming some chords on my guitar. I still sometimes get initial ideas that way. But now I push myself much farther. I study the musical structure of songs I love (and those that I hate - it's good to know why things don't work too.) I write down my melodies and try all sorts of variations with them on the piano (which I've also learned to play, at a basic level, this year.) I've read books about lyrics and lyric writing and study the lyrics of songs I love.

This can be quite hard, quite uncomfortable. But I find myself understanding music at a much deeper level than I ever did before. And I think my songwriting is improving significantly.

Another important point that I think goes hand in hand with this is that everything is difficult at first. No one is born a great guitar player for example. When Jimi Hendrix first picked up a guitar he sounded like crap. Even a skill we think of as being something someone is "born with" like singing is mostly a learned skill. The people who we say are born great singers simply learned to sing at a very young age.

And no, getting better at something hard doesn't happen overnight. But if you keep at it every day, you will notice a few weeks later that you can do all kinds of things you couldn't do before. And then a few months later you will barely recognize the blundering fool you were before. It's an amazing thing!

I know in many ways this is all quite obvious; but I'm sharing it because I know that while it is obvious I somehow didn't really manage to realize it until about a year ago (you can see the kindling for where I'm at now in this post from July 2010) and I think it may help light a spark under the ass of some other person out there who is going along just doing what's comfortable with their music. Get better by getting uncomfortable!

Jillian Michaels?

And yes the "Ripped in 30" DVD is pretty good. Yes the target market is clearly females, but the workouts are pretty tough. They kick my ass and I'm a guy in decent shape. And I know that if I do them every day and push myself to the point of being uncomfortable that I will see the same type of positive changes to my body that I'm seeing with my guitar playing and other musical skills.

Not only will it be the first time the 1966 & '67 original recording for Smile are released in a form something like they were originally intended to be heard but there are also going to be a lot of alternate takes that will hopefully give some interesting insight into how Wilson was writing and arranging his songs during this very creative period.

It picks up on the note I'm playing much quicker (and doesn't jump to overtones) and it seems to pick up a wider range as well (picking up low and high notes better.)

Not only that but it's got a nice extra feature where you can tap out the tempo of whatever you are listening to (and you could even use it as a visual metronome, although I don't really like doing that.)

You can also flip it over from vibration to mic if you want to. Usually vibration is the way to go but sometimes I like to use mic to see if I can sing a note right on. The mic setting is also useful for tuning certain strange instruments I have that are hard to clip onto.

One more thing: It's crazy cheap. You can buy it on Amazon for $12. And you can see there I'm not the only one raving about this tuner: It's currently got a perfect 5 star average customer rating.