| Level wrote on Fri, 24 June 2005 17:33 |
Problems, the mixer did not acquaint themselves with the source energy and try to duplicate it.
This is an old broken record, skipping along at 33.33RPM.
Folks, it is not that hard to do a really tight mix. Acquaint translation then acquaint to source, extrapolate and move forward.
If your monitors are lying that much, quit and stop. Reconfigure your entire playback chain until you can actually trust it somewhat.
Damn...it is not that hard.
Brad, I am on remote server, pictures after the fourth..
|
This is precisely why you're a mastering engineer and not a mixer. I mean, I assume you are. Hopefully you're not mixing, because this is some of the most backwards thinking I've ever seen where the art of mixing is concerned.
A good mix provides the vehicle for the emotional impact of the song. One of the more important parts of mixing, as with production is selecting the parts that will make the arrangement. Not everything that was recorded should go in the mix, especially these days, as the Alsihad generation seems incapable of commitment where production decisions are concerned. In these cases the mixer needs to be a better producer (and arranger) than the producer himself. Of course, Bob Katz wants stems, so in those cases he would be the mixer, but I digress.
Mixing is an art form. Yes, I prefer rooms that have accurate monitoring, but frankly, I more prefer rooms that have good translation. An important distinction. There are some rooms that I've mixed in that are really fucked where monitoring is concerned, but the mixes translate great. Sometimes it's not such a bad thing to be mixing in a room that's not acoustically ideal, sometimes it's not. But certainly I can't just give up when I find myself in a less than ideal situation.
Mastering engineers are often under the misguided opinion that the best mixes require the least processing. Yes, I prefer to have nothing but a taste of broad band high-end added to my mixes along with some limiting, however, in the end all I care about is the following: does the record make me want to sing? Guess what? If the song was there in the first place, and the performances are great, the mix will be great (so long as I've done my job, and I do! I do!). If the song sucks, who gives a shit if the ME runs the thing flat? The mix still fucking sucks. I don't give up when the song sucks either. I do my best to bring the song to its fullest potential.
Accurate monitoring is a fallacy. There's no such thing. No matter what room; good, bad, or awful in it's monitoring, I have to reset my head to the room. I have to listen to other source material to get some idea of what the room is doing to the sound. It would be great if I worked in the same room all the time, but the problem with that is all the mixes start sounding the same. That's not mixing, and mixing is not mastering.
In reality, mixing is probably the hardest engineering job to do well. Even harder than producing because as E-Cue pointed out, mixers have to be the ultimate diplomat, dealing with sometimes 10 or more different opinions all the while avoiding a mix turning into a communal cluster fuck. Often times a good mix takes leadership, and an ability to present clear and concise reasons why someone's "opinion" doesn't work.
So, you see, mixing isn't about making a "tight mix", unless a "tight mix" is what's called for. Personally, I'd rather hear an inspirational mix that has some slightly fucked EQ curves, than a boring one that merely needs some level.
Lest us not forget, this is music.
Mixerman
Author
Topic: What are some common mistakes mixers make (Read 19108 times)