R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => j. hall => Topic started by: j.hall on June 19, 2007, 03:04:53 PM

Title: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: j.hall on June 19, 2007, 03:04:53 PM
so, we've done a lot of IMP's now.  more and more people are participating, and i'm sure tons are lurking (which is great too)

this last IMP was really great.  every mix was solid in it's own way.  i can't really say there were any technically bad mixes.

i guess based on that, i have to say that IMP is really helpful for you guys.

so, some questions would be (now that you guys are getting a clearer idea of what i'm trying to teach)

don't answer the questions based on what you know i think and what i'm trying to teach.  answer them honestly for what you personally think

1.  assuming that enginner is a technical thing, artist is artistic, and producer is marrying the two, and bringing third party focus.  what would your ideal blend of a mixer look like (i. e. one part engineer, one part artist, two parts producer)

2.  as a mixer, is it better to go into a mix completely cold (never hearing the song or having artist input) or going in with a lot of input from the client?

3.  as a mixer, is it better to work alone, or with clients in the room while you mix?

4.  assuming you have free reign on a mix, is it appropriate to add tracks should you feel it really makes a difference?

5.  if you were to listen to your work as a third person, how would you describe your style as a mixer?

6.  how do you, yourself, describe your style as a mixer?


i really want to see a lot of answers.  and try not to read too many other posts.  answering the questions cold, will be a good thing, don't let others influence your opinion.

bring your strongest opinion on these subjects, i want to go to the mat on some of this.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: dconstruction on June 19, 2007, 03:22:00 PM
1.) I see mixing as producing, but with a limited toolset.  You are to bring focus, lend third-party ears, and make decisions that emphasize a song's strength and ameliorate its weaknesses, just like producing.  That said, mixing is a hands-on science, unlike (some) producing.  Therefore, a technical prowess is necessary.

I believe I already think like a producer.  I need the tools and experience to get the sounds out of my head, through these EQs and compressors and finally out the 2bus like I want them to.

2.) Depends.  I'd say, given allowance for time and money, a cold first cut could be beneficial; it might open some doors to the mix heretofore undiscovered.  After that, discussion with the artist is in my opinion mandatory.

3.) Alone.  Only because I don't want the distraction of worrying  I'm abusing my clients' ears and sanity as I loop a single bass drum hit over and over and over while making adjustments.

4.) Eh, I would still say no, even if "free reign" is taken literally.  The artist is the artist.  If they agree to new parts, then, congratulations: you've become an even more producing mixer.  I would never assume adding or replacing tracks is OK.

5.) Tough question.  I hear a certain "flatness" to my mixes that I don't like, but then a certain "graininess" that I do like (most of the time).  I like texture and contrast over polish and sparkle - though I wouldn't say I'm a "lo-fi" mixer.  I'd love someone else to answer this question for me.

6.) Eh, kinda the same as above.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Iain Graham on June 19, 2007, 04:16:14 PM
I haven't done an IMP yet, as they always seem to fall at bad times for me. The next one is a definite target though.

Either way, I can maybe add something by answering the questions, I hope.

1. I think mixing is where engineering gets artistic. If I'm producing then I'm engineering too, especially by mix time (I may have an assistant for tracking), so it's hard for me to separate the two. I also do a lot of projects without producers, the band claim to be producing but I think we all know how few bands do it without help. No fault of theirs, but it's gotta be done to get the best out the project.

If I'm mixing with a producer, then I give them input if I think it needs it, or make some suggestions if I think it will help. It also depends on how technical the producer is. The un-technical ones will leave me to it and speak up if something is wrong.

2. I hate not hearing the track before hand. I like to have a plan of how I'm going to do things. The trouble for me comes from trying to not be influenced by the mix I'm hearing. Whether rough or a previous effort by someone else.

3. I like to start alone but would never really finish a mix alone, or without any input from the artist.

4. Define parts. Double tracking and changing tones etc,  is generally OK. Adding drum samples onto what is already there is as well. Maybe some noise type things (synth drones etc). Anything else and I'd suggest it to the artist or producer and get someone in to do it. I'm not a muso, so playing something would be hard, but I think adding full parts is beyond the remit of a mixer. That to me would mean the track wasn't ready for mixing.

5. Pretty up front and aggressive. I definitely have a style. The style of music and the target market will be factors as to how far I go with it though. If it's a pop thing it's pretty full on, if it's a jazz or acoustic folk thing, it's way more chilled out and subtle.

6. See above. I can do other styles, but that's how i like to mix it.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: ScotcH on June 19, 2007, 04:31:56 PM
1. (2 part engineer, 1 part artist, 2 parts producer)

2. Going in Cold seems to make the mix much faster for me ... if I get input before hand, I try too hard to match the expectation, and get bogged down.

3. Definitely alone for a proper mix, but with others present, I tend to work MUCH faster Smile

4. Nope ... this should be left to the artist.  Of course, discussing the idea or bringing it up is fine (even encouraged!)

5. Clinical ... I think maybe my mixes sound really clean, but maybe not enough emotion (which can come from the "dirt").

6. Probably the same (Clinical) ... I need to spend less time with the details I think, and work more with the big picture (ie, stop editing out 3 frames at a time, or 0.05db of gain!)

Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Fibes on June 19, 2007, 04:39:15 PM
1. The ideal blend would be someone who was there from the beginning. Sure, there are plenty of times a great mixer can take OK tracks and make them speak but i wholeheartedly feel albums are "start to finish" pieces of art.

2. If I'm tracking I have all the input already, if i'm just mixing i want no influence up front. If i have to back up (on a recall so be it, but do not influence me with opinions or rough mixes. I want NONE of that.

3. No one in the room with me until we are at least 80% there. they can sit in the other room and listen but if they want 200% from me their input comes after the framing is done.

4. I don't add tracks unless it is OKeeDokeed up front. They are paying me to mix not to track. Sure, a loop, pad or bleep or whatever but no "parts."

5. All over the place. As a room owner I am forced to do all kinds of stuff from working with legends of bluegrass to local shit metal and from traditional Jazz to complete freak rock. The one constant thread is the fact that everyone gets the same amount of energy, effort and respect put into their mixes that they require.

6. Constantly improving through hard work and dedication. I'm not about to put myself on a scale whether it is measuring talent or style because in the end no one cares what i think of my work. If the fans don't notice my work I've done my job for the song.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: ATOR on June 19, 2007, 04:47:34 PM
Great questions!

Quote:

1.  assuming that enginner is a technical thing, artist is artistic, and producer is marrying the two, and bringing third party focus.  what would your ideal blend of a mixer look like (i. e. one part engineer, one part artist, two parts producer)

A mixer is first of all someone who knows how to materialize a vision into a great sound. If you can't do that you can be all the producer and artist you want but you'll suck at mixing. You get bonus points for being musical and know how to groove.

Quote:

2.  as a mixer, is it better to go into a mix completely cold (never hearing the song or having artist input) or going in with a lot of input from the client?

I like to go into a mix completely unbiased, listen to the track with a good faders up balance and follow my gut instinct of where I'd like to take the song. If the artist did a good job the song tells me where to go.

Quote:

3.  as a mixer, is it better to work alone, or with clients in the room while you mix?

I think it's important to first realize the sound you have in your head. The client won't know where I'll take the track until he hears my endresult. Then we can talk about where he'd like changes. If a client start meddling when I'm halfway it's easy to end up nowhere because he'll be telling me to change where he thinks I'm going.

Quote:

4.  assuming you have free reign on a mix, is it appropriate to add tracks should you feel it really makes a difference?

Yup, do whatever it takes to make it a great track. It's easy to take it out if the client doesn't like it.

Quote:

5.  if you were to listen to your work as a third person, how would you describe your style as a mixer?

From the IMP feedback I get I'd say aggressive and trippy Smile

Quote:

6.  how do you, yourself, describe your style as a mixer?

I'm always trying to surprise myself, searching for divine sound.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: iCombs on June 19, 2007, 05:45:40 PM
1) I look at it as a hierarchy that's equal parts everything.  In other words, I want someone who's technically adept, artistically visionary, and organizationally hard-assed.  It seems to me that if any one of those overtakes the other, you end up with a sort of myopic view of the process.

2) The artist in me wants to come in cold because the producer in me knows that the engineer in me takes over when he's got too much information.  I'd rather let some of that artist through and see what happy accidents happen...to see what grabs me first.  Sometimes that gets me into trouble, but more often than not, it prevents my mixes from journeying to the land of suckitude.

3) Alone.  The client, unless they are engineers themselves, don't really understand the process, or the value of the process.  I'm learning more and more that when I go through a process on my mixes (i.e., start faders up, balances and panning, eq, GET THE VOCAL SOUND, dynamics, other effects, 2 buss, final blending and automation) I end up with a MUCH better product than when I work on each instrument in turn.

4) Not really.  I'd personally be pissed if I sent something to mix and heard something I didn't ask for.  Cutting arrangements you could talk me into, but if there's a 808 loop in the middle of my death metal track, I'm not going to be a happy camper.

5) I think as a mixer, I tend to do "realistically big" "extra-moderately aggressive" mixes.  Mayhaps a little tiny bit vanilla, but solid, listenable, and true to feel.  

6) I would describe myself as an "identity enhancer," or at least that's my goal.  Technical perfection isn't much fun.  I'm leaning more towards finding the right attitude, whatever that is.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: J-Texas on June 19, 2007, 05:49:37 PM
1. Recording - all things equal, I guess. 33.34% technical for getting on tape what the instruments are playing. 33.33% artistic to know where the artist is coming from and what he wants on tape. 33.33% producer for balancing the two, making sure not to go extreme one way or the other. Mix - To me only. I would have to say that it is mostly artistic. Put a blindfold on. You can still hear. Needles jumping and lights flashing are cool, but someone else could turn the knobs... I still know what I want to hear. It would be very difficult to explain to someone what you wanted with a blindfold on without knowing some technical. So, I would have to say 100% of each. A techno-geek overflowing with creativity!  Very Happy

2. Cold. At first. Get something to work with and then let the artist or producer decide if it's going in the right direction or needs to be tweaked. Sometimes the artist can only hear something one way and can't get that out of the head long enough to be open to other's interpretation of it. That's art! It's subjective. Although, the artist knows ultimately what he wants to hear... maybe he hadn't thought of something that the mixer has done. You wouldn't want him totally turned off from the get-go.

3. Read no. 2! It's definitely not easier. Unless, of course, time is an extreme factor and the artist is adamant about the sound.

4. Uh... no. I would confer with the artist or group and ask if they would like to try and add it to see if it grooves.

5. Safe.  Laughing No.. Balanced. Clean.

6. Detailed. Perfectionist. Personal. I care about what I'm doing and it is not unusual for me to go the extra mile for both of us to be happy.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Tom C on June 19, 2007, 06:19:09 PM
Here we go:

j.hall wrote on Tue, 19 June 2007 21:04


1.  assuming that enginner is a technical thing, artist is artistic, and producer is marrying the two, and bringing third party focus.  what would your ideal blend of a mixer look like (i. e. one part engineer, one part artist, two parts producer)


1 part artist, 2 parts engineer, 3 parts producer


Quote:


2.  as a mixer, is it better to go into a mix completely cold (never hearing the song or having artist input) or going in with a lot of input from the client?


If there's enough time and money, I prefer the completely cold approach because you're able to add something new, or show the artist something that's in the song he didn't even realized.
You could still bring it back to something more to the artist's intention.

With time and/or money constrains I prefer to have as much information as possible to avoid lots of recalls.


Quote:


3.  as a mixer, is it better to work alone, or with clients in the room while you mix?



Alone, at least until the mix is about 90% finished.

Quote:


4.  assuming you have free reign on a mix, is it appropriate to add tracks should you feel it really makes a difference?



Yes. Of course I do not invest serious time in the void.
I do a scratch demo and ask the artist for feedback.


Quote:


5.  if you were to listen to your work as a third person, how would you describe your style as a mixer?



Conservative.


Quote:


6.  how do you, yourself, describe your style as a mixer?



Dunno if that's a style, but in general I try to create an open and wide soundscape with lots of dynamics.
Most probably a result of my film composer roots.

Tom
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Fox on June 19, 2007, 06:40:51 PM
Alright, I haven't submitted a mix yet because I've been to busy to make the deadlines, but I have mixed the last 2 IMPs.

Here goes:

1) A good balance of them, but it depends on the situation. If there is no producer, I'll do more of that job, while if it's a band that feels a little more comfortable with me I'll be a little more of an artist, and if it's a client who knows what they're doing and just wants something done documentary style, I'm more of an engineer type. Really situation specific.

2) I prefer to get to know the band pretty well before we start if possible. I like to know their influences, what sound they're shooting for, what they're all about really, and then I strive for that. Works so far, anyway.

3)Unless I've worked with them before or I know they understand the process somewhat, I'll work alone, and they'll be present for recalls or approval.

4)Nope. If they wanted it there, it would be there. I might try to suggest it to them, but I'll never stick something extra in just like that.

5) Depends on the genre being done, but I've been told by clients that my mixes always sound "clear." Iunno.

6)I'd say that I tend to take a stripped down approach to mixing. I like to stick to the less is more philosophy; The only problem with this is that whatever is kept in the forefront better be damned good, else everything falls apart. I value clarity and separation.

Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Greg Dixon on June 19, 2007, 07:20:48 PM
OK without reading any other answers,

1. I think a mixer should know the technical side, so it doesn't distract from the creative side of mixing. Don't know the ration, but fairly even blend of artist and engineer, with a small part producer.

2. It depends on what the client wants. If they want something specific, then you need to know that before you start. If I'm mixing something I haven't tracked, then I like to check with the client as to what they're wanting. If I've tracked it, I rarely ask for direction.

3. I prefer to work alone, until I'm pretty much happy. I find I get a better mix without the distractions and interruptions. The client then gets to hear it finished and with fresh ears, not having gotten over hearing it hours before.

4. I would never add tracks to a mix. If I thought it needed something I would suggest it though.

5. That's hard! Fairly natural and unobtrusive as a mixer. Doesn't enforce his agenda on my song.

6. The invisible mixer. You hear the song, more than the mix.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: CHANCE on June 19, 2007, 07:50:05 PM
1.
I would say that the ideal blend would be 2 parts producer and 2 parts engineer and leave the "artist" part to the client.

2.
I like going into a mix "cold" with fresh ears. (if I tracked it)

3.
As a mixer, on mix day, I like to have the best mix that I can get,  BEFORE the client/producer arrives for mixing. Then use their input/feedback as to what THEY want.

4.
If I have "free reign" I'll do what ever it takes to get the best possible product.

5.
Third person describing my mixing ?  Thinking outside the box. Trying to be original, and exploring new ideas.

6.
My description of me as a mixer is to not give up until the client is happy with his mix
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: maxim on June 19, 2007, 09:12:15 PM
"1. assuming that enginner is a technical thing, artist is artistic, and producer is marrying the two, and bringing third party focus. what would your ideal blend of a mixer look like (i. e. one part engineer, one part artist, two parts producer)"

all three in equal measures


"2. as a mixer, is it better to go into a mix completely cold (never hearing the song or having artist input) or going in with a lot of input from the client?"

as i mentioned in the imp12, i'd like to have a "mission statement" from the artist, accompanying the tracks

also, a basic mix is not a bad idea

otherwise, as cold as possible..


"3. as a mixer, is it better to work alone, or with clients in the room while you mix?"

alone


"4. assuming you have free reign on a mix, is it appropriate to add tracks should you feel it really makes a difference?"

for this exercise, i think adding tracks is an unnecessary complication

otherwise, imo, anything goes


"5. if you were to listen to your work as a third person, how would you describe your style as a mixer?"

what are the options?



"6. how do you, yourself, describe your style as a mixer?"

erratic




Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: grantis on June 19, 2007, 10:59:16 PM
Quote:

1. assuming that enginner is a technical thing, artist is artistic, and producer is marrying the two, and bringing third party focus. what would your ideal blend of a mixer look like (i. e. one part engineer, one part artist, two parts producer)


in sevenths.....1 part artist, 2 parts engineer, 4 parts producer

Quote:

2. as a mixer, is it better to go into a mix completely cold (never hearing the song or having artist input) or going in with a lot of input from the client?


cold.  easier to use my producer side and be creative.

Quote:

3. as a mixer, is it better to work alone, or with clients in the room while you mix?


alone, no question

Quote:

4. assuming you have free reign on a mix, is it appropriate to add tracks should you feel it really makes a difference?


NO, unless you're talking about crazy FX that sound nothing like the source audio.  Never should an engineer...producer...whatever play guitar on someone else's record unless asked....etc.

Quote:

5. if you were to listen to your work as a third person, how would you describe your style as a mixer?


FM radio baby

Quote:

6. how do you, yourself, describe your style as a mixer?


FM radio baby
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Gabriel F on June 19, 2007, 11:21:18 PM
I was about to say the same about the quality of the mixes this time. Lots of mixes and not even one with obvious technical problems, thats awesome because it shows that the IMP works.

1. A great engineer should adapt himself to the song. some songs need more work in the technical aspects and some need more creative input, but an ideal blend would something like 6 parts engineer, 1.5 parts artist and 2.5 parts producer.

2. I like to go completely cold or a little input (and maybe ask  something specific having heard the song).

3. Alone and maybe with only one band member or producer on the final touches.

4. If you do something like play a guitar overdub or something like that I believe it is wrong if you dont ask the band and i would do this only if that overdub really really makes the song better (meaning i wont do it just to satisfy  my ego).

5. A little bit on the safe side, not very creative but touches of it sometimes. Nice balance of instruments. Understands the vibe of the song almost perfectly but lacks a 20 to 30 % to get it there.

6. I little bit conservative. with my heart on the seventies rock sound but i adapt easily to others styles. And i like loud drums almost all the time. And i dont care much for fake perfection like perfect tuned vocals and perfect machine timing. I tend to sacrifice perfection for vibe.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: j.hall on June 20, 2007, 12:06:09 PM
grant, 2 parts engineer, 4 parts producer????????  you either need to work with better tracks, or you have an over inflated view of your job as a mixer.  shouldn't the actual producer (the band or a third party producer) take the 4 parts role?  it would seem that putting too much emphasis on producing while mixing leaves you over looking details that shouldn't be over looked.  like over compressing the buss...........

ATOR -
Quote:


A mixer is first of all someone who knows how to materialize a vision into a great sound.


brilliant.  i never would have come up with that, but that really captures my thoughts of what my job is and what it isn't.

however, ATOR, TomC and Maxim, you guys would honestly sit down with a guitar and play a part?  what about vocals, would you cut some back grounds?  this is a kiss of death for a mixer, IMO.  i'll do some pretty radical things to a song with out a second thought.  but adding a part puts me in the position to be second guessed by the artist.  as in, "hey, this A-hole just tracked parts on our song, is he really the right guy for this job?"  i can't have that.  and it's harder to explain your way out of cutting tracks, then it is an edit or kick drum sample.

questions 5 and 6 are really interesting to me.

some of you can't hear your work as a "third person".  granted, no one really can.
others seem to have a decent grasp of the differences between what others think of their work and what they themselves think.

understanding your strengths (as others see them) and weaknesses, IMO, is a HUGE part of progressing in my career.

some of you avoided the question by saying something like "i'm always improving"

that's not a style.  whether you like it or not, your work is always filtered through you, and no one person on the planet hears alike.  therefore, you will naturally gravitate to what sounds good to you, in EVERY situation.  thus, creating a style, or sonic thumbprint.  knowing what thst is (which it will continue to change as you grow in your career) is crucial to me.  it helps me no when i'm outside of what i can do.  i can respectfully decline a project based on knowing what my style as a mixer is.

Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Iain Graham on June 20, 2007, 12:21:53 PM
J, what did you think of most people not wanting to hear the track before getting into the mix?

I find it quite hard to get the vibe of the piece if I've never heard it before and like to get a plan ready for how I'm gonna get the vibe of the tune right before I go into the mix.

That plan is mainly for the technical approach, but it's so I don't get particularly stuck on that while I'm actually mixing the thing.

It allows me to get a basic shape together fairly quickly too.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: j.hall on June 20, 2007, 12:36:17 PM
j.hall wrote on Tue, 19 June 2007 14:04


1.  assuming that enginner is a technical thing, artist is artistic, and producer is marrying the two, and bringing third party focus.  what would your ideal blend of a mixer look like (i. e. one part engineer, one part artist, two parts producer)



tricky question.  pro athletes rely less on their physical ability to play the game and more on their mental ability to persevere and win.  their bodies' are so conditioned that it becomes less physically demanding.

not claiming to be a seasoned vet, i have to answer like this:

1.5 parts engineer, 2 parts artist, 1 part producer.

Quote:


2.  as a mixer, is it better to go into a mix completely cold (never hearing the song or having artist input) or going in with a lot of input from the client?



completely cold.  if i get input i want it to be very simple.  i.e. "please no samples, just mix the songs raw and let it be what it is."

Quote:


3.  as a mixer, is it better to work alone, or with clients in the room while you mix?



alone, one band member or producer for recalls when ALL mixes are complete.

i'm a very social person, and a chatter box.  when people are here, i feel the need to entertain them.  i'll waste hours, talking and laughing......

Quote:


4.  assuming you have free reign on a mix, is it appropriate to add tracks should you feel it really makes a difference?



addig tracks is the kiss of death.  edit, sound replace, use FX to change sounds.  artists can deal with that.  they don't want to here me singing back up on their song, or shredding some hot guitar licks.

Quote:


5.  if you were to listen to your work as a third person, how would you describe your style as a mixer?



why did i decide to answer the questions...............WHY??????

ok, trying to be unbiased i would say this (written in the thrid person.)

j.hall has a developed sense of sonic structure.  he has a good sense of balance and what instruments need to be focused on.  his overall vibe is very developed, yet is still growing and it shows.  j.  is a mixer that brings attitude to a project in a good way by unappolegetically doing what he feels is best, while wasting little time exploring useless options.

Quote:


6.  how do you, yourself, describe your style as a mixer?



overall style (as much of my work sounds different) would have to be focused and thick.  i try to make every song i mix have it's own sonic vibe that enhances the actual song.  i'm not good at being transparent as a mixer.  i have a thumb print, i'm learning what it is, trying to embrace it, and attempting to dive further into it.  i'd say that i'm about 70% to the full thumb print and vibe i want to have......only time will round out the last 30% and that will be the hardest 30% to develope.

i used to try and mix like andy wallace.......but i've learned (years ago) that i just don't hear like that.  i just do what i do......
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: chrisj on June 20, 2007, 01:00:09 PM
1.  assuming that enginner is a technical thing, artist is artistic, and producer is marrying the two, and bringing third party focus.  what would your ideal blend of a mixer look like (i. e. one part engineer, one part artist, two parts producer)

Three parts producer, one part artist, no engineer. Or just enough to be able to know how to make certain sounds- which is really producer-ville, I think.

2.  as a mixer, is it better to go into a mix completely cold (never hearing the song or having artist input) or going in with a lot of input from the client?

The tracks are the input. They should say what's being intended themselves- at least they're going to say what is POSSIBLE never mind what's intended. If the tracks say Dragonforce and the artist thinks they are Mayhem, the artist is wrong and the mix needs to obey the tracks, not the artist, to reach an audience. Trying to push stuff away from what it is weakens it, and artists so often don't know what they really are.

3.  as a mixer, is it better to work alone, or with clients in the room while you mix?

Alone. It takes too long, clients will go crazy and start micromanaging stuff like routing Smile

4.  assuming you have free reign on a mix, is it appropriate to add tracks should you feel it really makes a difference?

If you're the producer- and in THAT case the client better be in the room, not out of it. Ideally they should have specifically asked you to add a particular thing, yourself.

5.  if you were to listen to your work as a third person, how would you describe your style as a mixer?

Competent with heavy vocals, usually trying to sound nice.

6.  how do you, yourself, describe your style as a mixer?

Old school Very Happy
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: chrisj on June 20, 2007, 01:14:15 PM
Oh, hey, immediate going to the mat! Very Happy

J, this is why I'm right (FOR ME) about the p/a/e split Wink

Engineer is what I do when MASTERING. Don't do all that much of it, but I have to use the big mains that I can't mix on, and I need to think TINY- generally it's not about broad-stroke changes, it's about fussing over the hair on the treble or whatever, detail stuff. When I get broad-brush with mastering (apart from usually boosting volume a lot) I go astray. To me, engineer is the uncreative, mechanical side, concerned with meeting existing standards.

Artist, to me, is the guy who picks up a guitar and tracks during mixing! I like to consider mixing as more about bringing out what's IN the tracks, the song's vision, not MY vision. This is a choice, because I can have a vision too, but for the purposes of mixing I don't think it's about my vision, it's about my expression, if you follow me...

Producer, to me, is the guy who's bringing out the vision of the band or the song, and THAT is why my notion of mixing is all producer-oriented with just enough artist to be able to exaggerate the raw tracks and just enough engineer to be able to technically execute anything I want... I love it when I hear about mix guys who don't really understand how the gear works but have a deep understanding of the way certain sounds and feels happen... those are the guys who can unthinkingly break the rules and produce new sounds, and the PRODUCER side means doing that when it actually helps the music, and not when it doesn't.

Maybe I'm not thinking of styles of producer that work with manufactured artists and dictate everything to them. I'm thinking about the guys who have a style but work with strongwilled bands...
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: j.hall on June 20, 2007, 01:54:09 PM
a producers job is to produce.  in our reality that means many things.  but at it's core, it means to serve the client, whether the client likes what they hear or not.

so, translate that to an actual job, it means they help write songs, motivate members to perform, dream up over dubs, bridge the gap between technical engineering communication and artistic.  the list goes on.

while we are talking about mixing, i see three clear departments we must fullfill.  engineer, artist, producer.

the engineering role can not equal 0, it's impossible to mix a record with absolutely no regard to the science of sound, gain structure, phase, THD, etc.....  claiming the engineering is 0 is just ignorant, or misguided.

the artistic side of mixing has nothing to do with my ability to play drums and guitar (the instruments i can play).  it has to do with my sonic choices, balances, and use of FX (including EQ and compression).

producing as a mixer is choosing if a keyboard part is necessary or not, nipping and tucking parts so they flow better (the groove), tuning a vocal for feel and performance.  editing an arrangement for better flow and direction.

as mastering is to the mixer, the last set of critical ears and checks and balances, the mixer is to the producer, the last set of ears for song developement and direction.

the mixer's job is not to produce the record, but to fine tune the production.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Tom C on June 20, 2007, 01:56:20 PM
j.hall wrote on Wed, 20 June 2007 18:06


however, ATOR, TomC and Maxim, you guys would honestly sit down with a guitar and play a part?  what about vocals, would you cut some back grounds?  this is a kiss of death for a mixer, IMO.



I knew you would ask that question  Smile

In general, I don't do this, but...

there's one songwriter I've mixed 2 albums so far who does vocals + piano
only (that's IMO the only style I think my mixing does not completely suck).

When I listened to this guys' songs for the first time I had the
vision how this could sound with a complete band.
Just for the fun of it I added some bass and a small strings
arrangement (maybe 2 hours worth of work) to one song and send it
to him as an additional goody, and he liked it a lot.

So, when I think it could help the song and it'll be not too much
work to do a quick demo I do an additional mix which I send
together with the 'normal' mix to the artist.
If the artist does not like my part at all he still has the normal mix.

Of course I'd never invest serious time without asking beforehand.
But one hour or two is okay when I like the song.

Tom

[Edit:] forgot to mention: no, I'd never add vocals.
When I sing it's, well, tragic  Laughing
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: garret on June 20, 2007, 02:02:36 PM
j.hall wrote on Tue, 19 June 2007 15:04

1.  assuming that enginner is a technical thing, artist is artistic, and producer is marrying the two, and bringing third party focus.  what would your ideal blend of a mixer look like (i. e. one part engineer, one part artist, two parts producer)



Good question... with the rise of home recording and barebones/cheap studios, there are a lot of artists who have tracks they recorded with no help from a "producer", and with at most a competent tracking engineer.   So, a "mixer" can fill in the gaps, being the producer after the fact, and making sure the technical stuff is cleaned up as much as possible after the fact.

So, my ideal "mixer" is three parts engineer, one part producer, zero artist.

Quote:


2.  as a mixer, is it better to go into a mix completely cold (never hearing the song or having artist input) or going in with a lot of input from the client?



Absolutely cold, but with the artist on call for questions as they arise.

Quote:


3.  as a mixer, is it better to work alone, or with clients in the room while you mix?



Alone.

Quote:


4.  assuming you have free reign on a mix, is it appropriate to add tracks should you feel it really makes a difference?



Yes, but...
a) you have to have agreed to free reign, both in regards to artistic control and cost.  Some clients are more protective, and some won't want to pay for new tracks they don't like.

b) you better bring it.  

EDIT:   Reading the other posts now... I wanted to add this...

c) I strongly feel that cutting tracks should be fair game in mixing.  Maybe it's my aesthetic talking, but I hear so many songs these days that are overloaded with competing tracks.   Every instrument does not need to play the song start to finish... a sparse arrangement always sounds better to my ears than a messy mash.   So drop out the drums at the start of a verse, or drop out the backup vocals in one of the verses...  I can imagine people freaking out if you go too far (as I've done in some IMPs)... but if done carefully, I think subtracting parts is an important part of mixing.

Quote:


5.  if you were to listen to your work as a third person, how would you describe your style as a mixer?



erratic... sometimes very conservative, sometimes very inventive.   Does well at cleaning up problem tracks (I bet he has experience with this in working on his own material -- lol).

Quote:


6.  how do you, yourself, describe your style as a mixer?



hard to answer one... I'd like to think I come at a song from a musical perspective.  As a songwriter of some skill, I can't help but hear, and try to address, problems that a purely technical engineer would miss.  But I know I've made a ton of progress in my mixing skill in the last few years.. to the point that I almost can't listen to older mixes I've done.   So I think I'm getting there as a mixing engineer, but know I can always call on the artist side of me to understand what makes a song work or not.

Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: j.hall on June 20, 2007, 02:14:27 PM
Iain Graham wrote on Wed, 20 June 2007 11:21

J, what did you think of most people not wanting to hear the track before getting into the mix?

I find it quite hard to get the vibe of the piece if I've never heard it before and like to get a plan ready for how I'm gonna get the vibe of the tune right before I go into the mix.

That plan is mainly for the technical approach, but it's so I don't get particularly stuck on that while I'm actually mixing the thing.

It allows me to get a basic shape together fairly quickly too.


if it works for you do it.  in this thread i'm stating my opinions as fact.  so, i'm leaving little wiggle room, which should force you guys to really defend your position.

hearing the song means you are hearing a mix.....rough mix, board mix, first draft, an attempted final mix....whatever.  you're hearing a mix, and no matter how you try, it will influence you.

you might try to copy it, you might hate it and go a different direction.....either way, you've now heard a mix and have a ground zero.

if i'm slated to mix something that has not yet been tracked, i tell the producer to not give out rough mixes, it influences the band and makes my job harder.

i want to go in cold and work the track from scratch.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Iain Graham on June 20, 2007, 02:33:43 PM
Yeah, it totally influences me. That's why I like it.  Twisted Evil

I try to be influenced by the song more than the mix. It's hard but it certainly does work for me. Or I think it does

When you go in cold, do you stick the faders up and have a listen back? I find that influences me more, because I instantly think about tracks being too loud/too quiet etc.

When I hear a rough, I try and listen to the parts, what drives the track, what's texture, what might or might not be working. What should be panned where, what might suit compression/eq/verb/etc, and how much and what type of it.

It then means I have a rough shape of the mix in my head and don't have to make it up as I'm actually mixing. I can get on with the mix. If that makes sense. It makes the  mixing a little  more instinctive for me.

Of course these ideas are not set in stone, but I can get a shape going good and early. As almost all of my mixing is attended it also means I can give something to the artist and producer quickly (and have them pick it apart  Laughing ), then we finish it off.

I agree about the client not getting rough mixes, but I simply don't have the power within the industry to say "no" to that happening.

I generally ask the client to keep quiet until I ask for their input, that seems to solve it. Or most of the time.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: j.hall on June 20, 2007, 02:58:48 PM
Iain Graham wrote on Wed, 20 June 2007 13:33


When you go in cold, do you stick the faders up and have a listen back?


nope, i just start working.

i typically start with the overheads.  i move through the drums, add the bass and get the lead vocal in as quick as possible.

the sonic direction of the mix is sculpted continuously all the way till i print it.  i print a mix when i've listened a few times and either get lost in the song, or can't find anything i want to change.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: ShakesTheClown on June 20, 2007, 03:05:38 PM
1.  I feel like there should be a healthy dose of technical knowledge here because if you're lacking there I don't see how you can be efficent.  It doesn't pay to spend 8 hours on a song looking for perfection if you're not sure how to get there. This is where experience comes into play.

I don't feel that a mixer needs to be an artist.  Artistic yes when it is called for but not so much that every song takes on the mixers personality.

If a producer is the role that marries artistic vision with technical knowledge and we are talking about one person having all of these traits then I believe that the producer role in this situation is simply staying on top of the vision of the project. Make edits only that serve the song and not for some fantastic vision of what that song should be. As a mixer this is not your role.

2.  I would like to hear a general idea about the direction of the project before I sit down that way I can take the song in the right direction.  This brings me to #3

3. I would much better work until I feel like I am close to finished and then ask for recalls.  I don't feel like I could accomplish much if there were people giving me directions from the beginning because "bring up the snare drum" doesn't always mean volume.  Sometimes it means more or different reverb, delay, guitar tones and people who do not do what we do do not understand this. This style of working is counterproductive.

4. If it doesn't sound like a record, why is it being mixed? If I am adding tracks, I am no longer the mixer.  Adding tracks puts me in a producer/Artist role and once I am done it needs to be approved.  Again this is counter productive.

5. Sloppy?

6. I've never tried to describe a mixing style.  I just know that I try to create a real or even extravagant sense of space as opposed to the in your face thing that is so popular today. I do like vocals to be very present however.  

I think I brought something up before in another IMP about low end. Things are getting out of hand here. I have never been in a room with a bass drum like some that I have been hearing lately.  I too am guilty of this from time to time.  Something is wrong if I start reaching for Maxxbass or whatever on every song for bass and bass drum.

Recording is a lie.  I just want to be less of a liar.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Iain Graham on June 20, 2007, 03:06:15 PM
Wow. I don't think I could do that without hearing the song before hand.

That's pretty much how I start working too. Get the rhythm section together and put the lead vocal (or instrument) in and go from there. But like I said, I have a plan of how to get there at least.

My mixing is pretty stream-of-consciousness. My assistants usually complain to me later that they just can't keep up with what I'm doing.

Without hearing the song beforehand I couldn't work like that and would spend to long figuring out what makes the song work to focus on actually mixing it.

It obviously works for you though, so who the fuck am I to say it doesn't work?  Razz
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: garret on June 20, 2007, 03:17:17 PM
j.hall wrote on Wed, 20 June 2007 14:58

Iain Graham wrote on Wed, 20 June 2007 13:33


When you go in cold, do you stick the faders up and have a listen back?


nope, i just start working.



I sort of do the same... By starting cold, I meant I don't want to hear anyone else's mix before staring my own. I also rarely listen to a full faders-up mix.

First thing I do is look over the tracks and figure out which ones are meat and which ones are spice.   The spice gets muted and hidden away until I'm ready for it... meat is usually drums, bass, main rhythm instrument (guitar or piano), vocals.  Spice is synthesizers, extra percussion, backup vox, doubles, secondary rhythm instruments, etc...

Faders up on the meat, and I'll listen to learn the song.... then start cleaning up the tracks, getting dynamics and eq under control, and gradually get the meat to balance.   It usually starts to sound like a mix before long.

Then one-by-one I bring in the spices and make sure each is adding something vital to the mix...  if not, it stays muted, or gets whittled down.

Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: j.hall on June 20, 2007, 03:56:59 PM
maybe i'm some kind of a freak, but i can get a pretty good feel for a song based on the drum sounds.

keep in mind, that i'm mostly focused on sonic direction at this point.  once the vocal comes in and guitars start showing up, i'll pay closer attention to the song.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Iain Graham on June 20, 2007, 04:08:53 PM
Going by the number of people who've said they much rather go in cold, I think it's maybe me who's the freak.  Embarassed

I have to say, most, if not all, of the stuff I mix I record, so I've got a feel for what's going on anyways.

I just find it easier to focus on the song if I have a plan of attack for the technical side of things before hand.

This is never more than a bit vague, because I know the really planned out stuff changes once it's actually mixed, but it stell helps.

On stuff I haven't heard before, I'd much rather mix in stages if I'm allowed. Get a mix together, go away and hear that and then come back and finish it off once I've learnt the song and what everything is doing in the song. Nothing is set in stone but I've usually got a solid idea of what needs done when I come back and can sort it out quickly.

It takes a bit of discussion with the producer and artist, but once they get what I'm up to it usually works out.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: ShakesTheClown on June 20, 2007, 04:35:10 PM
J. How can you know what the drums need to sound like if you haven't heard the guitars/bass or vocals?  Do you just end up wrangling guitar tones with eq until it fits or what?

Don't misunderstand me I do my share of abusing guitars to make things happen sometimes but there are may be times that I'd rather make guitars more important than drums.

I usually attack everything at once anyway kind of an ADD approach.
Faders up in mono then balancing everything before eq.  I seldom solo anything.  Usually only to check reverb sounds on drums or timing a delay.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: j.hall on June 20, 2007, 05:48:36 PM
i know what the drums will be capable of based off the overheads rather quickly.  now, i'm talking about what they'll do in the mix and how they'll blend with the other elements.

i rarely use radical EQ on guitars.  if it's that bad i just re-amp them with the sans amp plug.

plus, hearing the drum parts gives me time to focus on the rhythmic direction of the song and the groove.

listen to any of my mixes that have been posted.  my rhythm section balances are typically very maticulous and focused.  heck, that's the majority of questions i get in the IMPs is how i do that.

i build my mixes around the rhythm section and lead vocal.

i get the drums rocking, add the bass, adjust the drums and get that rocking, add the vocal.....adjust the bass and drums to that.  then guitars come in and i have to go back and make more adjustments
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: rankus on June 20, 2007, 06:03:50 PM

I like to have all the faders up from the start these days... I used to start with the drums and work other things into the mix, but the more I pay attention to the teachings of Compasspoint the more I am leaning towards all faders up approach.  

As TM keeps hammering home: Mixing is balancing.  I tend to try to achieve a balance between instruments before any panning or EQ etc.  The whole point of EQ is to help one instrument sit well with the others... not to make the drums/ guitars/ bass as kicking as can be on their own for instance, but to make sure the drums don't step on the vocal or bass (while still being kicking in their own right of course) etc. etc.  

I am surprised by how little EQ I am using with this approach as opposed to the one track at a time methods I used to employ.

As others have said .. it really is whatever works for you.

I'm just trying to add another perspective here. Not criticize J's or anyone else' methodology which obviously works very well.





Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: grantis on June 20, 2007, 06:46:11 PM
Quote:

grant, 2 parts engineer, 4 parts producer???????? you either need to work with better tracks, or you have an over inflated view of your job as a mixer. shouldn't the actual producer (the band or a third party producer) take the 4 parts role? it would seem that putting too much emphasis on producing while mixing leaves you over looking details that shouldn't be over looked. like over compressing the buss...........


coincidentally, that's the same ratio as you had as an example when asking the question (1 part engineer, 2 parts producer).  i didn't realize it at the time, but find it funny now Smile.

maybe i don't understand the question, and as i understand it now....i'd like to change my answer.

if a "producer" is really marrying the artist role and the mixer role, then.....

i want to be 0 parts artist, 0 parts engineer, and 1 part producer.

that is of course assuming the blend of "producer" is 50% artist and 50% engineer.  so in other words, that could be the same as

1 part artist, 1 part engineer, and 0 parts producer.

this seems to be a question that i don't understand.  my grip of math is superseding my insight to this question.

and i never overlook the bus, i like it that compressed.  could probably do better with learning how to tweak it better (will come with time and experience, and patience), (oh and a REAL compressor)
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Iain Graham on June 20, 2007, 07:03:15 PM
See, that's what I look for in a rough mix before I get to the mix session.

A touch of panning, a little verb cos I find no verb on close miced stuff so tough to listen to, and a reasonable balance. Anything else I just ignore. Or try to.

Once I get into the mix, I'm like J. Get the drums going, add in the bass and get that sorted. Add in the rest of the rhythm section (no solos, overdubs, or anything like that), and then get the lead vocal in and try and shape the mix from there.

As I'm usually mixing with the artist and or producer beside me, that's when I'll first ask if I'm going in the right direction. I won't make broad changes there but I'll make sure I'm going the right way. Particularly with the first song to be mixed on a project.

If the mix doesn't work as leas vocal and rhythm section, something isn't right.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: ATOR on June 20, 2007, 07:03:44 PM
j.hall wrote on Wed, 20 June 2007 18:06


however, ATOR, TomC and Maxim, you guys would honestly sit down with a guitar and play a part?  what about vocals, would you cut some back grounds?  this is a kiss of death for a mixer.



Going back to the question: "4. assuming you have free reign on a mix, is it appropriate to add tracks should you feel it really makes a difference?"

I'll do whatever it takes to make a great mix and IF I feel it really makes a difference I would add tracks.

I did rerecord a bass part once. The original bassrecording had terrible timing and I couldn't get it to sound right. Instead of wasting time trying to make gold out of shit I rerecorded the part myself. I didn't tell the band because I wanted the bass player to be proud of 'his' record.

Something that I do on a regular basis is that I thicken existing synth parts. I might double the bass with an analog synth, add another layer of strings etc. It's the same principle as adding drumsamples.

I don't sing myself but I do add background vocal harmonies with Melodyne. I think I did this in IMP12.

For me these examples are part of mixing, it's still about enhancing what's already there. I don't default to adding parts but if I feel it makes a difference I don't hesitate to do so.


On request I have added (bass)guitar, drums and keyboard parts but for me that's no part of mixing.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: J-Texas on June 21, 2007, 12:40:53 AM
Man... some of this is blowing my mind. Maybe that was cool for the Monkees, to say you suck and we'll have to find players to do this until you get the chops. I don't understand adding tracks to someone's tune and tricking them into thinking they did an awesome job. That's cruel man. At some point that bass player will realize that it wasn't him and people have been blowing smoke up his ass all this time. Anyone who adds tracks to an artist's work without asking is, well, like a Vlad! It's not your place. Like correcting your mother's grammar or farting in Ruth's Chris. It's just something you don't do if you have any sense.

That's not a stab, just my opinion. And... you know what they say about opinions don't you?

My take on the mix thing is: See what the OH's are doing. Make sure it doesn't fight with the vocal. Even a crappy singer is telling a story. Who cares if it's a bad story? The drums and bass are the rhythm section. They drive the whole song. I think of it like this... a hamburger. I can have one with everything on it, but not without the meat! Have you listened to a track that has no bass (that had one written)? It sounds like a burger with no meat. I can do without the pickles and shit. Give me a bun and some meat! The rest just needs to lay there and taste good. Stupid comparison? Maybe.

Let's keep with the burger. Who wants someone leaning over your shoulder while you're trying to make the patties? You're gonna put THAT on it? Are you crazy? I hate those things man, don't put that in there. You see? Let them take a bite first. They might like it!

Opinionated rantings... sorry.

Cymbals: don't fight with the vocals!
Bass drum and bass guitar: can't you just get along?
Piano: Inside voices please.
Guitars: You are allowed to speak up every once in awhile (but don't piss me off).
Percussion: I like you, but in moderation (you're annoying me).
Everyone else: Don't speak unless I tell you to.

Very Happy


Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: ATOR on June 21, 2007, 07:00:27 AM
I completely see where you're coming from J-Texas.

Rerecording a basspart was the most extreme I got and I don't think I'll do that again. Mostly because I've gotten better and faster at editing and making a sound. But adjusting the timing and replacing the sound of the drums with samples is exactly the same thing and is pretty mainstream right now. Some people say that tuning vocals is unethical.

It's a thin line. I don't think anyone plays crappy on purpose and if I can improve the groove, sound and tuning I usually do so.


What I always do is make a good faders up mix, bounce it and place it on a separate track. It gives me a reference to check if I don't lose the original vibe and energy. Not all 'improvements' make a song better.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: M Carter on June 21, 2007, 11:12:54 AM
1. assuming that enginner is a technical thing, artist is artistic, and producer is marrying the two, and bringing third party focus. what would your ideal blend of a mixer look like (i. e. one part engineer, one part artist, two parts producer)

All parts engineer in some cases
(3) parts Eng (1) part producer in other, it really depends on the project.

I don't feel like it's an engineer's job to make the song, all of that should really come from the artist.  And if the artist is incapable, then there should be a competent producer holding things together.  

2. as a mixer, is it better to go into a mix completely cold (never hearing the song or having artist input) or going in with a lot of input from the client?

I prefer to have some sort of map of what the client wants.  I don't like the idea of getting something cold, that I've never heard before and making a bunch of decisions the artist may or may not like. I think those things only work in the case of a Lord-Alge or Clearmountain type situation, where you're more or less hired for a particular sound and style.  I'm just not at that point yet.


3. as a mixer, is it better to work alone, or with clients in the room while you mix?

The projects I work on, I'm usually pretty involved in from the start.  Because of that, I like to get the mix to a certain point where I feel confident the artist can walk in and make comments.


4. assuming you have free reign on a mix, is it appropriate to add tracks should you feel it really makes a difference?

Not really.  At that point I think you overstep the boundaries of engineering and go into producing.  If that's what you signed on for, fine, but if you're just hired to mix the SONG, I don't see the point in changing the song.  

5. if you were to listen to your work as a third person, how would you describe your style as a mixer?

Critically, I never really like my mixes as much as I would like to.  I'd tell myself I need to learn how to better manage my low end.

6. how do you, yourself, describe your style as a mixer?

I'm still kind of figuring that one out.  This isn't my main source of income right now.  I kind of skipped the assisting route over in favor of making a livable wage in the city once I saw how things are going in the industry.  Because of that, I'm mostly self taught and I don't get the hands on experience.  I track most of what I mix (IMP's aside), and I try to get the vision of the song down in the recording process.  From there, I like it to be mostly 'sweetening'.  It's all about capturing the moment from the get go.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: J-Texas on June 21, 2007, 11:25:02 AM
ATOR wrote on Thu, 21 June 2007 06:00

I completely see where you're coming from J-Texas.

Rerecording a basspart was the most extreme I got and I don't think I'll do that again. Mostly because I've gotten better and faster at editing and making a sound. But adjusting the timing and replacing the sound of the drums with samples is exactly the same thing and is pretty mainstream right now. Some people say that tuning vocals is unethical.

It's a thin line. I don't think anyone plays crappy on purpose and if I can improve the groove, sound and tuning I usually do so.


What I always do is make a good faders up mix, bounce it and place it on a separate track. It gives me a reference to check if I don't lose the original vibe and energy. Not all 'improvements' make a song better.



Now see, I can TOTALLY relate to most of that.

The replacement thing is out of hand. I AM GUILTY OF IT MYSELF!!! Don't get me wrong. I think there are way too many choices, though. It's like we're second guessing ourselves or making up for inadequacies in our ability. We live in the 'let's make it easier than ever to do anything we want and not be happy with any of it because we could have chosen differently' generation. Whew! Replace, re-tune, re-amp... whatever happened to redo? We don't have time for it. It's not practical. We didn't track it. There are plenty of excuses.

It is a fine line. I've used the Bob Dylan reference before (because he's the best songwriter and the worst singer). Would you AutoTune Bob? The answer is no, to me. But Britney Spears is not Bob Dylan. There's a place for art and there is a niche for slick! Some bands just suck. I can't help it they suck. In this digital age, though, we can manipulate beats, re-amp a crappy guitar sound, tune up vocals until someone doesn't suck all that bad. You know what? There have been plenty of bands that kinda sucked, but they were unique enough to listen to. Some had great songs. Just think how stupid Mudhoney would sound if they were drum replaced and AutoTuned. It's silly.

In this day and age, the engineer isn't the producer, or the artist, he's the freakin' wizard. The monkey. Look at me... look what I can do. Listen to how great I can make you think you are... synthetically.

There are so many arguments out of this opinion. That's what an engineer does 'makes someone sound better'... blah, blah, blah. I guess I'm really bitching that there is no talent. A kid doesn't have to come home and practice his guitar for hours and hours and think about timing, tone, and technique. All he has to do is freak the hell out of it in ProTools with every splice and fade and shift and plugin until he is a rock god. We, as engineers, have brought it into our workplace and exploited it.

If someone told me they wanted to sound like Bonham, I would say: "I can't do that for you, you're not Bonham." If I were asked that these days I would say, let's just get something on tape. I'm  sure someone will come out with the Bonham Sample CD soon. I heard that spiral staircase castle in England plugin is on the way!

It's ridiculous!
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: M Carter on June 21, 2007, 11:37:19 AM
Then again, I'm also the guy who wishes Digidesign would charge per edit.  That way at least we could demand some professionalism out of musicians.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Fibes on June 21, 2007, 12:17:14 PM
Here is a recent email from a mix client after a full freedom mix recall:

Quote:

I know what you mean about the mandolin, and I kind of was on the fence about it.

The songs sound great Kevin! The only thing I hear is maybe raising the lead vocal just a hair on xxxxxx, and "wetting" it a touch more. And I don't mean the "xxxxxxxxxxxx" part, just the first two stanzas.

I think you've done a kickass job!  Hell. I'll get you that beer, plus a stripper or two. Oh wait, you're married, and so am I.

I'm glad I trusted my instincts to trust your instincts.

Have a great day! I'll call you.



I did an EP for them. Seasoned vet of a songwriter/bassist/guitarist/vocalist and a "newbie live group" scenario.

The last few records he's done with some "names" that you see at Tape Op con panels... He was someone who was always there on those sessions; this time he took a different approach, hired an old friend (myself), came in and did basics, vocals and then left me alone for a week. I was to track the stuff that was "missing" that the "newbie live people" would later emulate.

It turned out much better than he had hoped, hell, much better than i could have hoped and that I believe was due to the trust quotient.

There was no attempt to control my ideas, there were no "orders" and I know that this trust EMPOWERED me to do a much better job.

EMPOWERMENT is something you''ll here me say a lot when talking about work, in fact about life in general. It's about giving the right people the right tools and the trust/motivation to exceed expectations.

How many of us were given so many parameters and orders that they closed focus on the big picture?




I'm still going to do a mix with the mandolin part in it. For me.



Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: CHANCE on June 21, 2007, 12:27:40 PM
Fibes wrote on Thu, 21 June 2007 09:17



I'm still going to do a mix with the mandolin part in it. For me.




You do that too? LOL  Many times after working with a band or producer and mixing to their liking, I too will mix a copy to MY liking, just for me.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: j.hall on June 21, 2007, 12:55:19 PM
grant richard wrote on Wed, 20 June 2007 17:46


coincidentally, that's the same ratio as you had as an example when asking the question (1 part engineer, 2 parts producer).  i didn't realize it at the time, but find it funny now Smile.



that was an example, not my honest answer, which was:

1.5 parts engineer, 2 parts artist, 1 part producer.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: j.hall on June 21, 2007, 01:01:14 PM
replacement might be out of hand.....but keep in mind that drum replacement is nothing new, and has been on TONS of huge records since the 80's.

the introduction of software to replace sounds with samples just makes like easier.

auto tune, meoldyne, sound replacer.......these are tools.  and like any tool, it can be used to make life easier, and it can also be abused.

there is no accounting for taste...........................
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Iain Graham on June 21, 2007, 01:10:51 PM
Is replacement out of hand or is the advertising for it creating the impression?

It's impossible to open an audio mag nowadays without seeing a couple of adverts proclaiming how whichever plugin will save you cos you can't record drums or cos your drummer's kit sounds like ass.

It's the latest in a long running series of fads. Like Tubes, ribbon mics, etc. All great tools when used in the right (or wrong) way.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: grantis on June 21, 2007, 02:31:13 PM
Quote:

It's the latest in a long running series of fads. Like Tubes, ribbon mics, etc. All great tools when used in the right (or wrong) way.


i don't know that TUBES were ever a fad.....but i see your point. Smile
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Fibes on June 21, 2007, 03:00:21 PM
j.hall wrote on Thu, 21 June 2007 13:01

replacement might be out of hand.....but keep in mind that drum replacement is nothing new, and has been on TONS of huge records since the 80's.

the introduction of software to replace sounds with samples just makes like easier...............


FWIW I'll do anything to make a song work.

That said, I have a little rant in me that needs to get out.

Whether replacement is out of hand is someone else's thesis and I've been doing it since Wendell and Forat were born. The D4 or whatever was another box du jour.

The fact is, more and more great rooms are going the way of the DoDO and more and more hacks are using magic bullets because they didn't learn what poor technique is; they just learned poor techniques. They learned poor techniques in piss poor rooms with poorly wired and maintained consumer grade gear.

Then they hear the big guys are doing the SR thing and they hear immediate results. It's not about augmenting an already great sound or creating an amazingingly whacked out texture, instead it's about instant gratification.

A cover up, an elixer of male enhancement.

This type of replacement takes no skill whatsoever and benefits greatly from the angle of hindsight. Who needs to pick a sound at the beginning? Let's make decisions later...

Ahh, the delay of the decision.
#1 art killer in the US, illegal in 40 states.

It takes vision to make a decision and all technical aspects aside, vision should be the thing we miss long before we bash the replacement technology.




So, if it's not clear what i'm getting at here is that's OK, i'm old, out of touch and don't understand the "kids today." I cling onto those ideals where the interaction between the musicians is where i find the bliss, where the sparks fly and all of this happens in real time and the sum is greater than its parts.


Think for a second you are in the tracking room and Aretha Franklin is standing next to you belting out her vocal take while you are laying down your parts; do you think her passion would not rub off in any slightly more significant way than if it was coming through the cans from a session finished last week, or better yet, not at all.


How does this effect how we mix?

It makes it OK for use to go for hyper-reality.






Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: j.hall on June 21, 2007, 03:38:27 PM
grant richard wrote on Thu, 21 June 2007 13:31

Quote:

It's the latest in a long running series of fads. Like Tubes, ribbon mics, etc. All great tools when used in the right (or wrong) way.


i don't know that TUBES were ever a fad.....but i see your point. Smile



they were in the recording gear world for a number of years.

every body seemed to be tossing tubes in their boxes and telling you all about it........"it's so much warmer now that we added tubes to the design"

Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: j.hall on June 21, 2007, 03:43:03 PM
technique has indeed gone down the crapper.

more and more i'm mixing for bands recording themselves.  a good number of my projects are boarderline salvage jobs.  drums are typically the worst, but most everything is handles rather poorly.

some of the smarter artists, will ask me lots of questions or even pay my day rate to have me  come set up the session.  then i go away and tell them not to touch anything while they track.

mic selection and acoustics are typically the biggest problem, and i'm a tracking guy that'll use whatever mics........almost.....

most of the time i have to use drum samples and that still leaves me with going toward a "vibey" mix to match the overheads that sound like a square shaped living room.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: J-Texas on June 21, 2007, 03:52:42 PM
Fibes wrote on Thu, 21 June 2007 14:00

It makes it OK for use to go for hyper-reality.


That's just it man. 'hyper-reality' is the norm. Yeah, all the kids are doing it, but at what cost? We replace drums and call it a good drum sound? That's someone else's drum sound! Why can't I make the best possible kick drum sound from what is right in front of me? Is it because I don't know what the hell I'm doing? Because it's easier to just get a trigger because I have a hundred different kicks recorded with a hundred different mics at the click of a button? I'm not saying it's out man, I'm not saying it's not useful... if you didn't track it and just can't live with it, well, then it is worth it. I'm just waiting for this cookie cutter, non-dynamic, overly squashed rock to fade away. That's not music. That's brain washing from a corporate machine. Look at American Idol! Mixing as an art is really a paradox. It's really about louder, prouder, make me sound like the producers of 'big' records have set as the precedent. It's all a plugin, or a gimmick sound. Hey, that's the norm. That's what brings home the bacon. Do I have to like it? Do I have to compromise my integrity or my vision as a mixer? I guess so.

Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: M Carter on June 21, 2007, 04:32:40 PM
funny thing, right now i'm working on a project that started as a 'record the band as is, and make that the song' and now that the producer/guitarist has left the band, the person filling that role has decided to make it 'lets see how much space we can fill up the whole time with random sounds and call that production' type thing.

to me, it all sounds like gimmicky ear candy and trying to make the song something it isn't.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Greg Dixon on June 22, 2007, 07:22:41 AM
Fibes wrote on Fri, 22 June 2007 05:00

 i'm old, out of touch and don't understand the "kids today." I cling onto those ideals where the interaction between the musicians is where i find the bliss, where the sparks fly and all of this happens in real time and the sum is greater than its parts.




Old? You're 21 days younger than me and I'm not old!!

I do agree with what you said, especially about the interaction.

I've just spent this week tracking the last four songs for one of my long term client's latest album. The band played live, with no samples or emulations. Guide vocals and acoustic and extra parts added, but the foundation was 4 great musicians together, playing great parts, on good instruments. Drums, bass, guitars, keys (Hammond/Leslie, grand piano, Wurlitzer) and vocals.

You really can't beat moving those air molecules and capturing it with a great mic.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: mcsnare on June 23, 2007, 08:04:12 AM
Fibes, while I generally agree with what you've said here, I'll add my perspective and disagree a little. It's more fun that way.
I don't think that quality at the pro level has suffered all that much in recent times. I think that many more people than ever are recording and that points out a few things: The average quality of musicianship and recording technique has gone down. This is because there is so much more playing and recording but there is still only that relatively smaller percentage of people that truly excel at this.
All of my career I have worked on projects that have been played/produced/and/or recorded excellently, horribly and everything in between. The 'everyone can be a star', cheap recording gear, and all info available on the internets mentality has enabled a huge number of people to record. I'd almost argue that the percentage of well done productions has increased. But that also means there are a huge number that suck. This is neither good or bad, it just is. I see young engineers everyday doing high quality work and the lack of the traditional pro studio, up through the ranks system was not a part of their world. They're just good and they work at it to get better.
As far as drum replacement, I too have been using it(along with most pro engineers) since the 1st day it was possible. I have done many projects where I specifically tried very hard at the tracking stage to do everything possible NOT to use samples later. I have found that as long as the drummer plays decently, the overheads are well recorded, and your use of samples later is tasteful and skillfully employed, it doesn't really matter one way or the other. In fact for a particular style of hyper-reality mixing, I'll use samples regardless of how well the drums are recorded. So I always try to get the drums to sound good, but I'd rather get down to business and keep the flow going, knowing that I can tweak the drums later. It makes the recording process a lot less stressful for me. I don't consider this attitude to be 'throwing in the towel' or delaying the decision as far as getting good sounding drums.
The engineer that has rarely or never gotten great drum sounds on the recording, and 'defaults' to samples, is the guy that won't know how to make samples work as elegantly as the pro, so whats the difference whether he/she ends up with shitty 'real' drums or bush league sampled drums? That engineer will either keep working and figure out how to record better, replace/augment with samples better or both. Or not!
Dave
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: J-Texas on June 23, 2007, 11:34:03 AM
mcsnare wrote on Sat, 23 June 2007 07:04


The engineer that has rarely or never gotten great drum sounds on the recording, and 'defaults' to samples, is the guy that won't know how to make samples work as elegantly as the pro, so whats the difference whether he/she ends up with shitty 'real' drums or bush league sampled drums?


McSnare -

That has made the most sense yet, and is probably closer to what I was getting at than my ranting would convey!

The whole thread is about the engineer being technical, an artist, or a producer (or what mixture). It seems that anyone with ProTools and a microphone can be all of these things... just not well. I'm saying if we can re-amp, tweak out with plugs, use samples, copy and paste, just to use them or to impart a 'vision' that is so far removed from the original performance, then where is that ratio (e, a, p)?

Is it subjective? ie. you have to be technical to know how to use the gear/plugins. You need to be an artist so that it has some kind of cohesiveness. A producer to know where you want to use all of this crap? Who wants to take the time to learn the craft when you can tweak something to no end at your own pace. What about the one who can hear what they want from start to finish and maybe get some cool ideas along the way and know how to get the sounds? That's technician, artist, producer.

Like I said before, I know if you didn't get the sounds you might need to re-amp or use some plugs. That's not what I'm talking about. It's the misuse and abuse of everything. There is a time and a place, or a genre of music, or a necessity for these things, of course. What about the instruments and what they are meant to sound like (or what they really do sound like at that time)?

I didn't say they couldn't be enhanced or made to sound cooler. Listen to that band that J. is talking about, Mew. (it's easy to use this example because I just heard it). The vocals on that 'Frengers' album. They're on the verge of overdriven sonic chaos. It fits because the guy sounds like Fivel the Mouse singing 'Somewhere Out There'. That's an engineer with vision. Using a "weakness" and making it a strong point. He didn't tweak it out with a bunch of crazy stuff, just helped it out a little.

Am I opinionated? You bet! Is it a 'mix' or a 'tweak'? A total freak out of the song until the artists will never be able to live up to the recording in a live situation (or have to make an acoustic version for that reason)!  Shocked
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Iain Graham on June 23, 2007, 02:59:17 PM
So what about someone like Nine Inch Nails? Where the process, and the technology used in that process, is an integral part of the art?

My girlfriend got me into NIN about a year ago, and they were the first band since I discovered Massive Attack and Portishead who had a direct influence on my work due to the way the process and technology is part of the art.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: J-Texas on June 23, 2007, 11:37:52 PM
Understandable. That is not at all what I'm talking about. I'm merely referring to the cover-up, lack of talent (tech, vision, whatever) in the mix engineer, or over-production of a sound. Plug, plug, plug (sounds cool, huh?). I'm fabulous. Like I said, there is a time and place and genre for the sample type of thing. 'Industrial' rock would definitely fit that bill. I'm not talking about using midi, or samples, or whatever the ARTIST wants to use, that's not up to me... it's his song. NIN doesn't have a problem at all recreating that sound live anyway. Again, not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about polishing a turd so much that there is only corn and peanuts left. Was it a turd to begin with? I can't tell... it looks pretty good to me. Now. Sit right here. Can you squeeze another one out like that for me? Hmmm. This one's not so good.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: maxim on June 24, 2007, 01:26:24 AM
dave wrote:

"This is because there is so much more playing and recording but there is still only that relatively smaller percentage of people that truly excel at this. "

this applies to engineers as much as the musicians

in fact, while it has become no cheaper to pick up the guitar than 50 years ago (chinese made imports and market frorces excepted), the entry level into engineering and production has dropped SIGNIFICANTLY

previously, before one could produce a record of ANY sort, one had to have been a teaboy for a few eons, observing the process and rewinding tapes ("mad scientist makes a studio in his garage" sorts excepted)

i'm not sure if there's much of the above process left, what with abbey road closing down, so a new way of engineering craft learning must evolve

imo, the imp project is a great step forward (back on topic)

hear, hear!
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Iain Graham on June 24, 2007, 08:48:50 AM
Ok then, how about this.....

Surely as a mixer it's your responsibility to get the absolute best product out of the tracks?

If that involves tuning, replacing, reamping, whatever because it was recorded badly, or played by a poor muso, then so be it.

It's your job as a mixer to make that track sound as good as it can, not to comment about the recording quality.

I'm not saying I don't disagree with your stance, we've all had to make someone sound significantly better than they were recorded, but it's part of the job.

Also, if you weren't there on the tracking session, how do you know it wasn't someone having a bad day? We all have them. The technology just makes it cheaper and easier to use the results.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: CHANCE on June 24, 2007, 03:26:58 PM
Iain Graham wrote on Sun, 24 June 2007 05:48

Ok then, how about this.....If that involves tuning, replacing, reamping, whatever because it was recorded badly, or played by a poor muso, then so be it.


This post reminded me of a remote recording I did on one of the nights of the NAMM show. It was a concert featuring Eddie VH, Rick Derringer, Ted Neugent, Tod Rungren, Darryl Mansfield, and many others. Peter Criss was on drums. I had no part in the stage set up and the first 2 songs, Peter took out 3 of the drum mics. (snare and two front toms) The concert was "Magic". When I brought the recording back here to the studio and listened, everything was great except the snare and 2 toms. The overheads captured those bad drums OK, but the producer of thar event wanted more. On the 3 mics that Peter destroyed, there was still a signal, but no usable tone do I took those signals and triggered a D-4 to replace those sounds. I replaced them and when the producer came in and heard them, he was not only pleased, but asked if I could replace the FL tom and bass drum as well. The overheads fused everything together. I guess recordings of this nature are the only time I would go to this length and replace the original instruments, because there is no "lets try it again" almost like live radio. That same night an amp blew up and Rick Derringer got on the mic and stated "Here we are at a musicial instrument show, showing off all this new gear and a F---in amp blows up. I still have the video of that night
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: J-Texas on June 24, 2007, 03:53:31 PM
Guys... fine examples of when it is useful to use samples and such. I don't think I'm beating a dead horse here, just not getting it over correctly.

The use of these samples and plugs, at the mixer's discretion (just to be using the latest and greatest or vintage replica or whatever), regardless of what the artist's performance requires, is a bastardization and irresponsible misuse of the technology itself.

I've always been talking about one of the questions presented here. That is, the ratio of e, a, p.

The question is, should a mixer take it upon himself to redirect a song and be an artist to the artist? See it's all subjective. Where's the line between tasteful and trashy? Every situation is different, I'm sure. I also agree that certain genres deserve more 'production'. Where is the line drawn between using the available tools and abusing the available tools? To enhance, not re-work.

Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: ATOR on June 24, 2007, 04:55:49 PM
J-Texas wrote on Sun, 24 June 2007 21:53

Where is the line drawn between using the available tools and abusing the available tools?


It's music man, there is no line  Cool

Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: J-Texas on June 24, 2007, 05:15:48 PM
ATOR wrote on Sun, 24 June 2007 15:55

It's music man, there is no line  Cool


Come on man. Not the artist and his music. If someone wants to play the spoons and trigger that and then reamp his bagpipes... that's his decision. Do you, AS A MIXER, impose your artistry on it though and do the same thing because the spoons didn't have enough Umph... they needed a kick sample to drive the rhythm.

I'm going to extremes here, but I'm not talking from the artist standpoint here. I'll argue that there is a line being crossed, because yes... it's music, but not your music. Where is the line being crossed every day with what Fibes, I think, called the 'hyper-mix'.

We have lipo sucked, laser removed, Photoshop'd, remote controlled, wirelessly, corporate advertising ass-reamed, fad coated, super-sized, miniaturized, reality-based this country to death. That's spilling over to art. We as mixers are helping it along. (granted it really comes from the record labels dictating the industry standard 'louder is better' scandal)

Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Iain Graham on June 24, 2007, 08:21:26 PM
If done correctly, the samples or whatever don't change the artistic direction, they just make the recording sound better.

If you make that radical a change, you've missed the point. If that's the case, then you were probably the wrong person to mix the record or ignored what the artist/producer asked you to do. Or both.

Or were hired to do exactly the wrong thing.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: J-Texas on June 24, 2007, 09:59:28 PM
J. Hall

the mixer's job is not to produce the record, but to fine tune the production.


Fibes

It's about giving the right people the right tools and the trust/motivation to exceed expectations.

How many of us were given so many parameters and orders that they closed focus on the big picture?


J. Hall

the introduction of software to replace sounds with samples just makes life easier.

auto tune, meoldyne, sound replacer.......these are tools. and like any tool, it can be used to make life easier, and it can also be abused.

there is no accounting for taste...


Iain

Is replacement out of hand or is the advertising for it creating the impression... great tools when used in the right (or wrong) way.


Fibes

... more and more hacks are using magic bullets because they didn't learn what poor technique is; they just learned poor techniques... Then they hear the big guys are doing the SR thing and they hear immediate results. It's not about augmenting an already great sound or creating an amazingingly whacked out texture, instead it's about instant gratification...


Matt Carter

...to me, it all sounds like gimmicky ear candy and trying to make the song something it isn't.


McSnare

The engineer that has rarely or never gotten great drum sounds on the recording, and 'defaults' to samples, is the guy that won't know how to make samples work as elegantly as the pro...


Maxim

... the entry level into engineering and production has dropped SIGNIFICANTLY... previously, before one could produce a record of ANY sort, one had to have been a teaboy for a few eons, observing the process and rewinding tapes ("mad scientist makes a studio in his garage" sorts excepted)


Iain

If done correctly, the samples or whatever don't change the artistic direction, they just make the recording sound better.

If you make that radical a change, you've missed the point.


I GUESS WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE AFTER ALL! DON'T USE IT JUST TO USE IT.

Peace. Love. HARMONY kids.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: j.hall on June 24, 2007, 11:21:14 PM
ATOR wrote on Sun, 24 June 2007 15:55

J-Texas wrote on Sun, 24 June 2007 21:53

Where is the line drawn between using the available tools and abusing the available tools?


It's music man, there is no line  Cool





that's crap.  there is clearly a line.  and the line is when your use of the tools either overshadows the band (hey guys, check out my sweet mix skills), or, your use of the tools, simply doesn't work.

you think nora jones would sound awesome auto tuned like blink 182?  that would CLEARLY be a case of abused tools.

this is why i keep stressing the importance of being an artist while you mix.  

BTW, Frengers was made by Rich Costey.  a producer/mixer in my top 3 favorite mixers.

i STRONGLY advise all of you to get many of his records and listen.  the man has an insanely unique ear from pushing a song forward, and for INSANE sonic vibe.

Muse Absolution is a master piece of making things sound wrong and having them be so right.  few guys do this as well as Rich.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: J-Texas on June 24, 2007, 11:40:47 PM
j.hall wrote on Sun, 24 June 2007 22:21

that's crap.  there is clearly a line.  and the line is when your use of the tools either overshadows the band (hey guys, check out my sweet mix skills), or, your use of the tools, simply doesn't work... this is why i keep stressing the importance of being an artist while you mix.


Thank you J.

I needed the reassurance that I wasn't stupid or an asshole.

Again. NOT A STAB AT ANYONE! Just a reminder to use your skill well. Yes! Be daring. Push yourself. Don't rewrite history though. Believe in what you do. Don't read the manual... listen!! Don't see what it can do... hear what it can add. If it doesn't need anything... be the mix! Na Na Na Na Na Na

"Goodnight, you princes of Maine. You kings of New England."


Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: maxim on June 25, 2007, 12:17:45 AM
jason screamed:

"DON'T USE IT JUST TO USE IT"



if you don't use it, you lose it...
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: ATOR on June 25, 2007, 06:28:30 AM
j.hall wrote on Mon, 25 June 2007 05:21

ATOR wrote on Sun, 24 June 2007 15:55

J-Texas wrote on Sun, 24 June 2007 21:53

Where is the line drawn between using the available tools and abusing the available tools?


It's music man, there is no line  Cool





that's crap.  there is clearly a line.  and the line is when your use of the tools either overshadows the band (hey guys, check out my sweet mix skills), or, your use of the tools, simply doesn't work.

you think nora jones would sound awesome auto tuned like blink 182?  that would CLEARLY be a case of abused tools.

this is why i keep stressing the importance of being an artist while you mix.  

BTW, Frengers was made by Rich Costey.  a producer/mixer in my top 3 favorite mixers.

i STRONGLY advise all of you to get many of his records and listen.  the man has an insanely unique ear from pushing a song forward, and for INSANE sonic vibe.

Muse Absolution is a master piece of making things sound wrong and having them be so right.  few guys do this as well as Rich.


In mixing you can go from a pristine two mic setup that needs no touching up to abusing all the tools you have to create a vibe. There is no line there, it's only a matter of taste.

The last IMP song could have been done both ways and both versions could be great if done tastefully.

Of course I agree that it should work, that it should fit the song and blahblah but I just don't think you should draw lines because on the other side of the line might be something really great. We would have missed out on a lot of great sounding records if mixing engineers wouldn't have abused their tools.

Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: J-Texas on June 25, 2007, 09:30:49 AM
ATOR wrote on Mon, 25 June 2007 05:28

 We would have missed out on a lot of great sounding records if mixing engineers wouldn't have abused their tools.




But they did so because they needed a certain type of sound that they were searching for.

Not because the preset said: "kick ass setting".  Razz  ...and then used it every time.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: J-Texas on June 25, 2007, 09:33:37 AM
Maxim wrote on Sun, 24 June 2007 23:17

jason screamed:

"DON'T USE IT JUST TO USE IT"




Maxim wrote on Sun, 24 June 2007 23:17

if you don't use it, you lose it...


Then, if you use too much:

You use it and then you booze it!  Laughing
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: spoon on June 25, 2007, 01:16:35 PM
j.hall wrote on Tue, 19 June 2007 14:04


bring your strongest opinion on these subjects, i want to go to the mat on some of this.

1.  assuming that enginner is a technical thing, artist is artistic, and producer is marrying the two, and bringing third party focus.  what would your ideal blend of a mixer look like (i. e. one part engineer, one part artist, two parts producer)


Four parts engineer, one part artist.

j.hall


2.  as a mixer, is it better to go into a mix completely cold (never hearing the song or having artist input) or going in with a lot of input from the client?

A lot of input from the client.

j.hall


3.  as a mixer, is it better to work alone, or with clients in the room while you mix?

Assuming the band are fairly cohesive (minimal arguments) with the clients would be quickest to their vision.  (Alone would be quickest to my vision.)

j.hall


4.  assuming you have free reign on a mix, is it appropriate to add tracks should you feel it really makes a difference?

Unless there is a _very_ liberal free reign, it would be inappropriate to add anything not requested by the artist.  (Who am I to determine what makes _their_ vision or _their_ song better.)

j.hall


5.  if you were to listen to your work as a third person, how would you describe your style as a mixer?

I really dont know...you guys tell me.

j.hall


6.  how do you, yourself, describe your style as a mixer?

I like bass heavy (indie) rock mixes, if that can describe a style.  So, if left to my own devices, I would mix things that way.  Sometimes, if I feel it from the track, I can get fairly experimental.

If it is not obvious, I subscribe to the thinking that the artist is the producer.  They have the vision and unless the vision specifically requires otherwise, I try to keep technical errors from the recordings.

I will offer ideas if asked and if something seems irregular (base on my experience) I will mention it to determine if the artist intended it.

See, I cannot possible know (exactly) what the artist hears/meant when they created their work, so I am in no position to make "corrections" or add parts that are "better".  Even if it is as simple as playing a guitar part better...that may be their intention (to play sloppy or whatever) if it was not, it is still _their_ playing which makes it _their_ band playing _their_ song.

Obviously others differ in their thinking (as evidenced by various comments on the forum in general, and specifically in the IMP threads).  That is "Hit Making" mentality, and not my cup of tea (Earl Grey, thanks).  

Nothing wrong with that (if fact, it may be very financially rewarding, right...), just not the way I think of serving the art and artist.  (Unless the intent is a boat-load of cash, then, fair game.)


Regards,
David
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: J-Texas on June 25, 2007, 03:30:59 PM
spoon wrote on Mon, 25 June 2007 12:16

and not my cup of tea (Earl Grey, thanks).  



With milk? I love it with milk.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Fibes on June 25, 2007, 03:43:30 PM
mcsnare wrote on Sat, 23 June 2007 08:04


I don't think that quality at the pro level has suffered all that much in recent times.


but I'd rather get down to business and keep the flow going, knowing that I can tweak the drums later. It makes the recording process a lot less stressful for me. I don't consider this attitude to be 'throwing in the towel' or delaying the decision as far as getting good sounding drums.




Three great points that are worth reiterating and disagreeing with.

heh.

1. I think the quality of popular musics recording has become plastic, hyper-real if you will. It's like my fantasies for the chick in The Fifth Element or a cotton candy sandwich. The socialisation of recording has done both good and bad, i wish more artists used it as a tool to grow/develop a sound rather than a method to prematuregasm cd releases.

2. Moving quickly is more important than anything IMO. The key to getting good drum sounds is experience and the more experience you have, the quicker the sounds happen. This is so important with the shrinking budgets. I'm guessing that when you "step off/throw in the towel" the fight is already 90% over which leaves 10% for later. Sure, this is a game of inchs but ya gotta pick your battles and battle one is session flow.

3. There were two points.

I keed.

Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: CHANCE on June 25, 2007, 08:23:34 PM
Perhaps it would be interesting for an IMP to have input, the kind we would get from a paying client. That would take away some of the colorful mixes/ideas/creativity, but would be interesting to see the different paths we take to hopefully acheive the goal that the client is looking for.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: ScotcH on June 26, 2007, 02:28:17 PM
CHANCE wrote on Mon, 25 June 2007 20:23

Perhaps it would be interesting for an IMP to have input, the kind we would get from a paying client. That would take away some of the colorful mixes/ideas/creativity, but would be interesting to see the different paths we take to hopefully acheive the goal that the client is looking for.


That would be a great idea.  Most bands will have a reference cd (or more) that they like the sound of.  Working with a reference would be a cool excercise, and finding out how people did it would be a good learning op.  Post up an IMP, along with a reference!
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: j.hall on June 26, 2007, 09:57:37 PM
while that has it's positives, it simply doesn't support what IMP is attempting to teach.

at it's core, IMP is all about instincts.  mixing completely blind, helps you to better understand your own instincts, and how to capitalize on them.  thus far, i think it's really working for a lot of people.

AND.......i set up IMP to most closely resemble a real world situation, which for me (and that's all i know for real world) is a band delivering tracks and saying "make it rock".
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: CHANCE on June 27, 2007, 08:39:02 AM
j.hall wrote on Tue, 26 June 2007 18:57

while that has it's positives, it simply doesn't support what IMP is attempting to teach.

at it's core, IMP is all about instincts.  mixing completely blind, helps you to better understand your own instincts, and how to capitalize on them.  thus far, i think it's really working for a lot of people.

AND.......i set up IMP to most closely resemble a real world situation, which for me (and that's all i know for real world) is a band delivering tracks and saying "make it rock".




Good point. This will also allow us to use our minds, not just our skills to achieve what someone else might desire. It will let our "gut feelings" to become part of the chemistry of the project which makes it much more enjoyable.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: j.hall on June 27, 2007, 11:18:36 AM
yes!!!!!  and through that, you are able to bring more of yourself to the projects you do.

my mentor once told me, "you have to be yourself, and let your own personal style come out, otherwise, why would any one hire you."

that's kinda scary at first, but once you dig into it, you realize it's 100% right.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: ScotcH on June 27, 2007, 11:27:30 AM
j.hall wrote on Tue, 26 June 2007 21:57


AND.......i set up IMP to most closely resemble a real world situation, which for me (and that's all i know for real world) is a band delivering tracks and saying "make it rock".


No porblem ... in J we trust Smile  Curious though ... you're saying you don't usually get any reference materials when a band shows up?  This seems really odd.  In most situations, I would think that the artist has some ideas in their head, and they bring in what they like, or think their stuff could sound like.  Mind you I have no professional experience with this (yet), but I know what I did when we recorded Smile
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: j.hall on June 27, 2007, 01:24:51 PM
i would have agreed with you 5 years ago.  from that point to present, i've seen a shift in my clients.  the more a band or artist understands the process, the more they seem to just hire the right people and let them work.

bands that micro manage me typically are young and amateur.

i'm RARELY involved in tracking, and when i am, the bands are much more vocal about what they want.  

so, any more, i just don't get much input.

the most input i've gotten in years is a recent project the main writer asked that i not use any samples for the drums.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Fibes on June 27, 2007, 02:03:30 PM
Iain Graham wrote on Sun, 24 June 2007 20:21

If done correctly, the samples or whatever don't change the artistic direction, they just make the recording sound better.



Erm. This is of course out of context, and I don't mean to belabor the discussion but I have a line I draw with generalisation.

My personal belief that music is most natural and endearing when you can hear the soul of the artist through their instrument. Adding samples removes that or at the least shields it. Sure, one could argue that eq does the same thing. The expressiveness of a player can make the difference between OK and WOW. Yeah, in todays realm it's more about polishing turds than creating gold bars.

Just thought i'd share my thoughts on "the line."

So, when you turn down the mids in a kick with the eq you are essentially removing the artists "eyebrows/expressiveness" and it should be kept in mind before you commit.

It's a game of inches, I wish more people had rulers.


Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: j.hall on June 27, 2007, 03:12:14 PM
i disagree about EQ.  i see your point with samples.

EQ is my chance to correct recording erros, and/or create something more appropriate for the expressiveness of the performance.  often times, in the basement recordist climate, the tracking hinders the performance, and EQ is one of very few weapons to gain anything back.

i've used samples MANY times to get a drum kit where the artist wanted it.  if you take the time (yes it takes time) you can work a sample to the dynamics of the original, or close enough.

keep in mind, my last four projects have not used samples at all!!!!

though i do mult snares and kicks for additional processing to blend back in.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Fibes on June 27, 2007, 03:21:01 PM
Yeah J. but i'm totally serious about the EQ on bass drum.

Think Bonham

He has plenty of mids in his kick.

You can hear his foot.

You can hear every nuance.

Just like that kick you used on IMP 12.

Suck the mids out to make it lay in a dense mix and you have no more of J.s personality.

So anyway.

I'm not alone on this.

There's a fat guy in Jersey that owes me a cigar who agrees.



Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: j.hall on June 27, 2007, 03:34:16 PM
that fat guy in jersey is CRAZY, and until he shows up here to blabber his way through some analogy to mid 16th century oil paints vs. pastels and how it relates to EQ'ing a kick drum, then it doesn't count.

with drums in particular, it's a hard argument for me.  aside from dynamics, a drummer simply has his beat and his groove around the tempo.  EA seems silly to bring into the drummers arena.

vocals and guitar i might be pursuaded.  honestly, i just don't see how EQ changes the timing of a part, which to me, is the biggest form of expression.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Fibes on June 27, 2007, 03:42:49 PM
Not the timing.

The emphasis.

The "eyebrows" as Zappa described the personality of the player coming through.

Sure, you have those guys (and genres) that hit the bass drum with the same attack and tone every time. I'm not talking about that, i'm talking about the guys who are interacting dynamically with the other players. Where the way the instrument is struck is directly influencing the tone. Samples cover this (sometimes this is a good thing) up, all i'm saying is that sometimes things should remain inconsistent and that by sterilizing this stuff with replacement "tones" we are sucking more and more soul out.

I'm not saying we avoid the use of tools i'm merely reiterating earlier points about when and when not to use them.

Personally i consider it to be a last resort unless artistically directed.

Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: J-Texas on June 27, 2007, 03:52:06 PM
... and the Peanut Gallery said: Amen brother.  Razz
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: j.hall on June 27, 2007, 04:34:42 PM
i thought we were talking about EQ, not samples.

i agree about samples, though i'll continue to use them to get what i want.

EQ on the other hand.  i don't agree at all.  EQ doesn't change a performance to me.

it can if you are HPF a bass guitar at 600 Hz, but extremes aren't what we're talking about.

to claim EQ changes the performance, you have to assume that the drummer knows exactly what the mic sounds like.  the only thing the drummer knows is what his kit sounds like in the headphones with what you're sending him AND all the bleed of thea ctual kit.  so to him, the drums sound HUGE as he is hearing all the lowend of the live kit.  i know this to be true as i've been the drummer on countless sessions.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Fibes on June 27, 2007, 04:41:04 PM
J. I'm obviously not communicating this well enough.

In modern times the fad is to eliminate all mids from the bass drum. To make room for whatever, loud guitars, gargling or synths or whatever.

To me, the elimination of this part of the eq spectrum on the bass drum is neutering the "expressive" range of the instrument. Sure, it's great to feel the low end and hear a crack at 3k but what i'm talking about is the "voice" of the drum. It's that range where the nuances and emotion lie. Admittedly it's not wholly a part of the rock realm but it is in some instances.

The bass drum in IMP 12 was one such drum that "spoke" with the mids intact.

Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: j.hall on June 27, 2007, 04:48:53 PM
i see your point, i just think it's so miniscule it doesn't matter.  certainly for songs like IMP 12 and others of that vibe, it's not something you scoop out.  then again, i think songs like that speak for themselves and don't require much comment.

i'd be more willing to look at the overheads then individual drums.

seems like you are skating around some albini-isms, which is not something i have ever associated with you.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Fibes on June 27, 2007, 04:57:20 PM
j.hall wrote on Wed, 27 June 2007 16:48


seems like you are skating around some albini-isms, which is not something i have ever associated with you.


He doesn't have the market cornered on that philosophy.

I started my recording carreer doing classical stuff.

The nuance of EQ on an orchestra is an eye opening experience.

Look, i jump through all sorts of flaming hoops to create an illusion, the key is to do so by planning your steps so you don't get your ass burned.

taking the time to plot the course is important, many people eschew the planning for attacking the replacement.


Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: rankus on June 27, 2007, 06:26:35 PM


It all depends on the project.. and in that case I agree with both of you.!

I am currently working on two projects:

One is a down tempo Nick Cave kind of record where I took great care while tracking the drums knowing that I would be using them "organically" with little or no EQ and absolutely no samples... A perfect photo of the drummer in a room.. (i hope lol)

The other is a "power pop" record for a chick punk band where I knew from the beginning that I would be using samples and a lot of EQ... in fact on this project I actually picked out my samples as part of my pre-pro so that I could track the other instruments to "fit" the samples....

soooo.... Your both right..... Razz


Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: J-Texas on June 27, 2007, 08:01:11 PM
rankus wrote on Wed, 27 June 2007 17:26

in fact on this project I actually picked out my samples as part of my pre-pro so that I could track the other instruments to "fit" the samples...




Now this I really don't understand. If you know what kind of sound you're looking for going into it, and samples are just someone else's technique, then why wouldn't you try to emulate that with your own style? Help me on this. This is exactly what I've been talking about.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Greg Dixon on June 27, 2007, 11:14:32 PM
I almost never completely replace drums with samples, but I will blend them in if needed. Complete replacement rarely sounds right to me.

When I first started engineering, I definitely leaned towards the purest/documentary style of recording. I've had some of the greatest drummers over here tell me that they loved the way I captured their kit. Even after moving from analogue tape to Pro Tools, I still resisted getting Soundreplacer, as I prided myself in not needing it. I eventually tried the demo on some tracks where there was just too much hats in the snare mic and it sounded great and solved the problem. I was carefull to make sure it blended and wasn't noticeable. At the album launch, the drummer mentioned loving the way the drums sounded.

The way I look at it, mixing in samples is just like upgrading the kit. I'm just looking to enhance the performance, not make it something it's not. Of course that's not going to be everybody's approach.

Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Gabriel F on June 28, 2007, 12:29:21 AM
I use samples all the time because i usually work in less than great situations, but the problem is when someone automatically replace everything without listening if it fits the song.
As an example i dont think a tight kick drum sample fitted this last IMP, i believe that the long sustained kick really enhanced the song, it had a velvet underground vibe i really liked.
And when working with nice gear and acoustics i like to take samples of the actual drums so you can blend them to add consistency or really fuck them with compression and fx, that way your drums have a unique personality.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Fibes on June 28, 2007, 10:57:11 AM
So, now that I've been outted as a closet purist it's apparent I have to continue to tote the mail on said subject.

There are smoke and mirrors projects and there are "actual reality" projects.

Neither of them are gonna be 100% pure-bred, it's impossible without bringing the band around inside your I-Pod.

That said, it was beaten into me early on that every move you make in the studio has an impact. Whether it's mic selection or a pause before answering the vocalists question on "how'd it sound." All these little things can add up to something incredible or absolutely below the bottom of the barrel.

Experience and our gut can team up to tell us what to do but no matter what reason should stop us from doing things "just to do them."

Sure, I'm hip to the fun of science experiments in the studio during the overdubbing phase of some projects but I've never heard the WOW factor surpass people playing togther and really freaking nailing it.

So, before you reach for the snippers to yank that snare buzz out, the ring on that tom, the breath between vocal passages take a moment to ask yourself if taking that out is really needed.

See, I've learned one thing and that perfection is boring and that sometimes the more things we fix the less they breathe and i want the music i'm hearing to breathe.



Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: pg666 on June 28, 2007, 11:57:28 AM
Quote:

Sure, I'm hip to the fun of science experiments in the studio during the overdubbing phase of some projects but I've never heard the WOW factor surpass people playing togther and really freaking nailing it.


exactly. i really appreciate your posts on this thread.

i understand the need to fix things.. or more side-steppingly put, "build on what the artist intended to do", but those aren't the type of records i go home and get excited about listening to. i think engineer-type people can lose sight of what people are actually listening for.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Fibes on June 28, 2007, 01:29:51 PM
ou
pg666 wrote on Thu, 28 June 2007 11:57

Quote:

Sure, I'm hip to the fun of science experiments in the studio during the overdubbing phase of some projects but I've never heard the WOW factor surpass people playing togther and really freaking nailing it.


exactly. i really appreciate your posts on this thread.

i understand the need to fix things.. or more side-steppingly put, "build on what the artist intended to do", but those aren't the type of records i go home and get excited about listening to. i think engineer-type people can lose sight of what people are actually listening for.



Thank you for summing it up so nicely.

Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: rankus on June 28, 2007, 02:16:25 PM
J-Texas wrote on Wed, 27 June 2007 17:01

rankus wrote on Wed, 27 June 2007 17:26

in fact on this project I actually picked out my samples as part of my pre-pro so that I could track the other instruments to "fit" the samples...




Now this I really don't understand. If you know what kind of sound you're looking for going into it, and samples are just someone else's technique, then why wouldn't you try to emulate that with your own style? Help me on this. This is exactly what I've been talking about.



Well the reason in this case is that the sound of the genre is samples and edited to death guitars etc.  I use the picture below to illustrate my thinking... Sometimes the 3D rendering conveys what you want to convey, and sometimes the picture does... each has a place... (PS: this is a boat that I designed... I hear a rumor that Fibes is looking for a new boat...call me...)  The samples in question in this case are the same ones that folks with big names  are using.. Yes, I have tried to get there on my own and can get 95% of the way, but this is a game of inches and if your shooting for radio , as with this project, that other 5% counts big-time...(no I can't share the samples or source, sorry)

I don't feel the use of samples cheapens me as an engineer... I  I get killer sounds organically, so the use of samples are not a crutch (which is bad practice imo) they are a creative decision such as the decision to use a Tele for leads and Les Paul for rhythm. (thats just the sound of the genre I am working in on this particular project)

index.php/fa/5531/0/

Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: J-Texas on June 28, 2007, 05:51:06 PM
rankus wrote on Thu, 28 June 2007 13:16

...this is a boat that I designed...



Aye, aye Cap'n! You've got a nice dinghy.

I'm with it man. There is a time and place for everything.

(Back to the discussion at the first of this thread.)

That's engineering with a vision! That's what I mean about a little of each e, a, p! You had something in mind starting out and built around it... I can see that.

Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Iain Graham on June 28, 2007, 08:00:12 PM
True.

I have to say I never replace with samples, I simply add to what's there. I think it sounds better. It's used like EQ for me, a lot of the time. If the snare is to dull for example, I'll use Drum Rehab over a duplicate of the snare track and add a brighter sample onto what's already there. I just add enough to bring the top of the snare out a bit. It's way cleaner than adding top end to the snare mic and bringing lots more hi-hat into the equation, for me. I've also taken a clean hit of the existing snare, added some hefty HF eq onto it and used that as my sample before.

Like I said, it's not about changing things, just making the recording better, or better for the track.

There is a difference, to me, between polishing a turd, and subtly changing a recording so the final mix suits the song better. What happens if the drummer can't afford a new top snare skin so the snare is dull? Or what's the easiest, best sounding way to improve that for him?

Or for your example about the eq on the kick, what happens if the recording engineer can't hear that when he's recording it? Do you live with it because that's how it was tracked, even though the artist would have missed it on the same monitoring system? Or what happens if that mid frequency sits in some tracks of an album, but not others, and they were all tracked on the same setup?

For me, what we are essentially proving with this discussion, is that all the tools we have at our disposal while we mix are suitable in some contexts only. There is no absolutes in what we do. Sure we might eq certain instruments most times we mix, but is it the same eq every time? Or the same compression? Or the same whatever?

No, it's what suits the song and makes whatever source we're working on sit in the appropriate place in the mix that suits the song the best. Or that's the goal anyways. To get that song across as best we can for the delivery medium.

A large part of the trouble comes from the way things are advertised. An awful lot of people read the ads in the mags, see the endorsements, etc, and see them being advertised as absolutes and follow that. It teaches people half truths. If a musician reads that fixing any little problem is easy in a DAW. Not so much anyone here, but the people who walk into our studios every day.

It generally is possible, but the closer it is to being in time/in tune/recorded properly/whatever, the easier it is to fix and the better it will sound when it gets released.

I'd love to set a band up in a room, have them play a song and that be it, or maybe with some overdubs. It just doesn't happen. It's cheaper and easier to not rehearse and practice as much, and to have me fix little blemishes in the mix. Or to buy and properly maintain good sounding gear.

Unfortunately, fixing crap is as big a part of the job nowadays as knowing which end of a mic line is which. Do you refuse to do it and lose work, or just get on with it? I know which one I can't afford to do.

Excuse the ramble, it's been a busy week.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Fibes on June 28, 2007, 10:10:23 PM
It's a bit crazy when we merely become fix it jockeys.

There's a point where we can all make things better but none of us, no matter what the tool/skill set can make WOW.
Title: Re: thoughts and questions (generated from IMP)
Post by: Iain Graham on June 28, 2007, 10:29:13 PM
No, I agree. I meant that's more the attitude of the client than us.

I think the one thing we can all agree on is that the smaller the amount of fixing we do, the better the product at the end.

There are times where that happens, but a lot of us can't make a living by simply doing that. Sucking it up and fixing the shite means I can do this as a living. Being good at it means I get more gigs doing it too. Which sucks in a lot of respects, but that's life.

It means the good projects are all the more enjoyable as well.

Again, it's using the technology or abusing the technology.

Edit to add there are times where this job is being involved in and documenting art, some of it great art, and there are times when it's a service industry. Smile, nod, and do what you're asked. Bitch about it later to someone who'll listen and won't blab.

Edited again because the word "all" makes a big difference to the 2nd paragraph if I actually remember to right it.  Rolling Eyes