AAAARGH...mixing duration debate: pro's vs semipro's

[::XeS::]

I have this thing in my mind that is driving me crazy.
Usually a studio near me spend 2 days to mix a 6 songs promo. Studio Fredman 5-6 days to mix a 10 songs cd.
But, when bands listen the works done by professional studios or big names, do they argue with them for every fuckin' roll, kick hit, snare hit, solo eq, etc...?
I mean, I often hear albums where snare disappears, toms are barely noticeable, etc....pretty normal in some very full sections, but these albums are considered killer, awesome.
If I mix a promo or an album, I do my mix and send it to the band...and everyday there is something to change, something to fix, a single snare's hit buried in a wall of guitars that they want to hear and something like that.
So.....I can't imagine bands arguing with Fredman, Madsen or Sneap, saying "it sucks, we can't hear our fucking snare in one hit"...
I'm not saying my mixes are comparable with the big's mixes but holy fuck, I undertand why I spend weeks on a promo mix instead of 2 days...
Someone would say "sending premix is unprofessional, you have to send the final product and that's all" but also if I send the final product, it'll become a premix because I'll have to change 1000 little stupid things.
Would they tell to Fredman to change 1000 things as well? In my opinion NO.

 

[BLUElightCory]

I use these two rules when I mix, and they work really well for avoiding the type of situations you're describing:

1. No band member can ask for changes to their own instrument.

So, the drummer can't ask for more snare, the guitarist can't ask for more guitar, etc. This keeps everyone listening to the big picture, instead of letting individual egos come into play.

2. If you don't hear a problem with the mix the first one or two times you listen to it, THERE IS NO PROBLEM.

This keeps bands from listening to the mix 500 times, just looking for any "problem" that can be found. You can find "problems" with any mix that's ever been done, if you listen to the music with that intent. This rule keeps bands realistic about what really needs to be changed.

 

[::XeS::]

I agree. They seem to search every mistake, listening the song 200times and through every audio system possible. Holy shit.
I worked with a drummer that wanted in order, after all my changes: a natural sound, a decapitated drum sound, a more natural sound, a necrophagist drum sound.
Or some band member that initially says "wow! that's great! awesome" and after a couple of hours contacts me on msn "there's this to raise, this to low, etc etc etc..."
Fuckin' ridicolous

 

[crosstalk]

I hear ya. I've noticed myself, while listening to a lot of pro releases, that certain things like toms disappear or are barely audible. There are a lot of pro releases that I can barely even tell what the guitar is playing. It works though and no body listening thinks any less of the song/mix. But us less than pro dudes have to make every single note, hit, sound, whatever, equally audible 100% of the time. We're making peanuts for our time from the get go and they demand more.

I like Cory's idea on nobody asking for changes on their own instrument. I tell bands to listen to the mix together and get back to me with a group consensus. I won't accept hearing from multiple band members. You'll get one saying turn this up and another saying turn the same thing down. No good.

 

[Erkan]

I agree with all that's been said in here!

I too am the victim of "change this, change that" all the time. But the funny thing is, when this particular client sits with me while I'm changing these small things, he sometimes asks "did you increase the reverb on the guitars now?" and if I say yes he will say it sounds good and if I say no he will say it sucks and wants me to increase the reverb, even though I really did nothing =)

So watch out for those idiots too... they want you to fix imaginary problems. Maybe they do it because it gives them more of a sense of control over the mix, I don't know.

 

[Ermz]

I think you need to put yourself in a position where you charge for all these changes, because they do cut into your own time. If a mix takes a month instead of 2 weeks just because the band are so busy nitpicking every detail, then make sure to put that into perspective by charging per alteration.

See the issue is that *you're* the one currently bearing the burden. Once you shift that back onto the band they will be a lot more reluctant to ride you for changes like your time is meaningless

 

[::XeS::]

Yes I know, but you have to clarify these things before they enter into the studio. If you come out like "ok, from now I charge for every change" becaue you're tired by the requests, you're wrong.
And if you say from the start that you charge every change, you look like someone that wanna do only what he want without listen any advice from the band, and it doesn't look well too

 

[joeymusicguy]

one thing the bigger guys do is play the mix back live with the band in the room. they get that one listen to make a final decision on fixing it. this is because the mixing engineer is good enough to get it 99% right before they come in, and that 1% is left for the band to give one last final say. after that its done. its one of those: "turn this up a hair and it'll be perfect" type of things

if your mix isnt to that point, then you can't expect them not to say anything.

 

[::XeS::]

You're right...the best thing to do is to take the band into the studio and doing the final listen. Sending them mixes is a total no no

 

[jval]

you can cut down on this by checking your mixes at home, in the car etc and making sure you're 100% happy with them before sending them out.
The thing with 'pro' records is that there's usually a deadline so they don't have time for tons of revisions, and the band themselves might not have final say on the mix. If a band suggests something that I really don't agree with, I'll tell them and they rarely argue... but you should always try to listen to their critique because sometimes a change that you initially shrug off actually ends up being the right thing.

also clip the mix a lot to get the volume up when you're sending it to the band, 'fake master' it. the louder it is the more they will like it and be able to compare to records they like without getting fooled by the mastering.

 

[C_F_H_13]

one thing the bigger guys do is play the mix back live with the band in the room. they get that one listen to make a final decision on fixing it. this is because the mixing engineer is good enough to get it 99% right before they come in, and that 1% is left for the band to give one last final say. after that its done. its one of those: "turn this up a hair and it'll be perfect" type of things

if your mix isnt to that point, then you can't expect them not to say anything.

An interesting flip side to this sometimes your judgement is clouded because a "big mixer" works on your stuff and you don't notice errors till its too late!

I recently had a big name guy mix a song I had engineered. I was so stoked to meet him/hang out at the studio, that I got it in my head that any mix he played me would be awesome. A week after getting over the fact that it had happened, I noticed some pretty awful mistakes in the mixes (massive bus compression pump before each chorus, all drums buried, lead vocal very sibilant).....

I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying that the opposite does happen haha.

 

[ahjteam]

Well, thing is that the earlier somebody fucks up in the making process ( preprod / choosing instruments / micing / recording / mixing / mastering / marketing ), the more time it takes to fix it later. Also if you charge by the hour, it usually keep the amount of revisions down by a lot.

and +1 to what Joye said.

 

[abt]

Although I don't disagree with what anyone's said I think you need to distinguish with the band before you start who is the engineer and who is the producer.

Who ever the producer is needs to be there the entire time. In most cases at the semi-pro level the engineer will be the producer. This can be hard and sometimes you need to hold your ground.

Having said that if you're mixing for a band that wants to produce but isn't going to be there then you're always going to have problems, you need them with you.

If you have the band with you at first they will continue down the same path but as the days drag on you need to keep reminding them that there is a limit to the amount of time they can use before they have to pay you for overtime. This will force them to compromise there position and start to think about the bigger picture. Every mix is a compromise, you can't have perfect drums without stealing some space from the guitars etc.

 

[greyskull]

one thing the bigger guys do is play the mix back live with the band in the room. they get that one listen to make a final decision on fixing it. this is because the mixing engineer is good enough to get it 99% right before they come in, and that 1% is left for the band to give one last final say. after that its done. its one of those: "turn this up a hair and it'll be perfect" type of things

if your mix isnt to that point, then you can't expect them not to say anything.

thats the way it goes down here

 

[::XeS::]

Joey was right, but mine was a different example. Every mix is a compromise so snare can disapear in some parts, also toms, etc... but I can figure bands ask Tue Madsen to remix a whole album because in some parts the snare disapear (and sometimes it happens) or because he uses some vocal fx they don't like. I'm speaking about these kind of things, because usually bands like my mixes very much but they wanna change 1000 little things like snare that disapear in one hit or a kick hit that they can't hear the way they want.
Another example: yesterday evening one of the guitarist of the band I'm actually mixing said me (after 2 weeks of mixing and after many many version I sent them) "ah, another thing...all the songs have no bass and the bass is very low". Holy shit, if the bass is so low why you have never told me before???????? I replied "it's strange, in my car the glasses vibrate" and he said "really? oh, probably it's my car stereo....and I listened it with flat eq, not like I used to listen other albums"
.........no comment.

 

[Demonstealer]

I think you just need to explain to the bands that you will only make X number of changes after which you charge.

Its like this I tell bands I'm recording during a session that whatever is recorded in that session is pretty much all there is. If he records his solo he better make sure what he put down is final, he can't wake up in the middle of a vocal recording and say that guitar part needs to be re-done. Its the same with the mixes. Once I do a mix, the band can take it. sit on it for a week for all i care, but you get to come back just 1 time to fix EVERYTHING and then take your mixes and go

Something like that.

 

[Sacha]

Sounds like you have some difficult clients, but I'll tell you that when Tue Madsen mixed our album there was lots of back and forth on changes.

The overall mix was awesome right off the bat, nonetheless we worked together on tweaks such as the lead guitar tone, riding the drum rolls more, vocal FX moments, synth layers up / down etc. etc.

As great as Tue is, the album is our baby that we worked super hard on for a LONG assed time, and things need to be just so for the final product.

He was completely professional about it and didn't complain once, and was always very fast to respond with changes and answers to questions. Awesome guy to work with, and he should be for what he charges!

 

[::XeS::]

Yes I know Tue usually send premixes to the bands but there should be a limit I suppose, at least bands should listen the premixes all togheter, write the changes and after those, stop.

 

[nwright]

Once again, I think it comes down to laying down the ground rules with the band, as well as establishing a rapport with the band that allows you to gain their respect prior to them working you like a dog.

I send premixes all the time, mainly because I engineer and don't "produce", so I try to keep the band's vision of their material in place while I try my own ideas. But I tell them up front that once I get through the mixing stage and deliver what I consider "final" mixes, they get 2 chances to do complete listen throughs and request their changes. After that, more charges come into play (once again, I charge by project and do not do this as my full time job).

 

[joeymusicguy]

Joey was right, but mine was a different example. Every mix is a compromise so snare can disapear in some parts, also toms, etc... but I can figure bands ask Tue Madsen to remix a whole album because in some parts the snare disapear (and sometimes it happens) or because he uses some vocal fx they don't like. I'm speaking about these kind of things, because usually bands like my mixes very much but they wanna change 1000 little things like snare that disapear in one hit or a kick hit that they can't hear the way they want.
Another example: yesterday evening one of the guitarist of the band I'm actually mixing said me (after 2 weeks of mixing and after many many version I sent them) "ah, another thing...all the songs have no bass and the bass is very low". Holy shit, if the bass is so low why you have never told me before???????? I replied "it's strange, in my car the glasses vibrate" and he said "really? oh, probably it's my car stereo....and I listened it with flat eq, not like I used to listen other albums"
.........no comment.

this is where you explain to them that they should be listening to the cd the same way they listen to other cds, especially cd's they aspire to sound like.

this one is a no brainer. instead of just getting frustrated, explain to them how and why this needs to happen.

bands can be very stupid when it comes to the record making process.