How do you deal with recalcitrant clients?

F

FrenchFrog

Member
Feb 15, 2011
196
0
16
Froggy France!
Not a question about production really but it's a part of it...

I'm just curious if some of you already had this kind of clients who take their crappy demo as an absolute reference and systematically want you to recreate their fabulous (shitty) guitar sound and make bad mixing choices.

I'm mixing an EP for a band now and although they know nothing about mixing, they want me to change my mix. In addition, they change their mind. Today it's ok, tomorrow it won't. I'm okay to change to find compromises of course some things but in this specific case it doesn't sound good at all and it makes me really irritated :Shedevil:

How do sort it out?
 
This is very common. Firstly if they are paying, then the customer is always right. BUT... You have a say and if they are hiring you to do the work you have to make a choice. You can say this is how I mix and if you don't like it take your project somewhere else, or you can offer them limited chances to change the final mix with notes. The trick is to get them to see things your way and make them think its their idea haha.

It really depends on if you want to work with them again. If you see no future for this band or their music then I would just pass on the job. If they want to be unprofessional there's no reason for you to be.
-John
 
Usually what I'll do is send the band on their merry way while I mix. I mix the song until I'm happy then I send it to them with a couple rules:

1. No one may comment on their own instrument unless there is something drastically wrong (bad edit, out of tune, etc), which there shouldn't be. This forces band members to look at the big picture. I can't remember where I got this from, but it really helped.
2. After I get the mix where I like it and send it to them, they are allowed 3 free revisions per song. And I'm strict. I label each bounce I send a client with the date it was created. If they want any revisions after this, I charge them my straight hourly rate....This has happened once since I implemented this.
3. This should probably be #1 instead of #3, but myself and the band set a projected completion date. This, along with the other stuff, is listed on the contract they sign in order to work with me. This gives everyone a goal that they can see. A light at the end of the tunnel, as it were, and it also lets the band know that I'm not willing to work on the mixes for the same 3 songs for months on end.

If all else fails, I usually just ask them why they came to me in the first place. If it's because they like my work (and isn't that why you go with someone, usually?), I ask them to let me do my job.

I also charge extra on top of the mixing fee if the band insists on being in the studio, because it will always take much, much longer with them in there.
 
Thanks guys. You're bringing def good tips. Jordan, your #1 is a great idea - especially for unexperienced clients.
The band I'm working with is not a good band but my name will be on the CD. So, I'll find compromises. In the past, I already made decisions to match the clients tastes knowing that it was not good for the mix/music (according to me) and I don't want act like that anymore because I was not happy with the result.

*off topic*
A few months ago, I mixed an EP for a band that was recorded in another "pro" studio (not a real pro one tho - they want to be seen as pros). When I got the tracks from the studio, they were crappy sounding, shitty produced and unedited. So I called them to know more. They told me that edition was not part of their job! (300€/tracking day for a good home-studio - no more - and no artistic implication from them!!) I was very surprised and charged the client to do editing. I don't think it is a common way to do from experienced studio. Am I wrong?
 
FrenchFrog said:
*off topic*
A few months ago, I mixed an EP for a band that was recorded in another "pro" studio (not a real pro one tho - they want to be seen as pros). When I got the tracks from the studio, they were crappy sounding, shitty produced and unedited. So I called them to know more. They told me that edition was not part of their job! (300€/tracking day for a good home-studio - no more - and no artistic implication from them!!) I was very surprised and charged the client to do editing. I don't think it is a common way to do from experienced studio. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Artistic implication is the producer job, not the tracking engineer job. Editing is also a producer choice, can be done by TE or anyone booked for do it.
So you are wrong:lol:
 
Mikaël-ange;10283531 said:
Artistic implication is the producer job, not the tracking engineer job. Editing is also a producer choice, can be done by TE or anyone booked for do it.
So you are wrong:lol:
Click to expand...

Well....If he was hired to mix, all of that should have been done, or he at least should have been told ahead of time that there was editing and cleanup work to be done so he could prepare.
 
Jordon said:
Well....If he was hired to mix, all of that should have been done, or he at least should have been told ahead of time that there was editing and cleanup work to be done so he could prepare.
Click to expand...

I agree but what I tried to say was if nobody was hired as a producer, nobody will give artistic input on a project unless someone is asked for (and pay for on ideal world).
 
Well, I have to explain. "Artistic implication" were not the good words.. I was not talking about big choices that are the producer job, I just wanted to show the picture. No, I was talking about very common things like redo a vocal part because the singer was out of tune and/or had a very bad accent, same for guitar tuning, and playing mistakes actually... I think its up to the tracking engineer to improve the takes in that way. And the studio was paid for tracking and delivering ready-to-mix tracks. But the guy I had on the phone told me that the project didn't need editing. (let me say that it did!)

I really think its a lack of professionalism in that case.
 
I have two names for credits...my own, and another. I use the latter for when it's a production I don't want my real name on due to these reasons. Problem solved. If they want it to sound like doodoo, let them and put a fake name on the credits. That way only they get branded "suckage".
 
FrenchFrog said:
Well, I have to explain. "Artistic implication" were not the good words.. I was not talking about big choices that are the producer job, I just wanted to show the picture. No, I was talking about very common things like redo a vocal part because the singer was out of tune and/or had a very bad accent, same for guitar tuning, and playing mistakes actually... I think its up to the tracking engineer to improve the takes in that way. And the studio was paid for tracking and delivering ready-to-mix tracks. But the guy I had on the phone told me that the project didn't need editing. (let me say that it did!)

I really think its a lack of professionalism in that case.
Click to expand...

Same thing, producer job.
Today everyone assume that kind of thing are part of TE job because (especially in metal) is often the same guy wearing multiple hat (tracking engineer, producer, runner, babysitter...:D).
When working as a producer on outside studio (pro studio), I can guaranty you nobody (tracking engineer, runner...etc) will give input unless asked for.

Edit: For add a little about what you can do as a mixer:
Mixing isn't just balancing track and comp/eq. It's about taste and vision. So if it's bad, tell your client about it and what can be do for improve it. Or work with what you get. Good luck;)
 
There is actually only one guy working in that studio. Its a small one even he wants to make people believe that's a big and pro one but anyway I get what you say ;) That's true, many bands I've been working with thought that I was here to produce and arrange when I was hired to track only.
 
You do see this from time to time. Had a band recently do 8 revisions for a mix off a live recording for a video they shot. We all agreed it sounded great by 5, the other 3 mixes were not to benifit the mix in my opinion, they were to satiate the band members egos. I firmly told them no more mixes until they could all agree and that limitations of it being a live take meant some things they were asking for were impossible- such as too much delay from a pedal on a guitar part where there are no DI's.

I've also gotten bands asking for mix revisions looking for more bass and then it turns out they only listened to it on laptop speakers. Of course you can't clearly hear the bass, you can't clearly hear the bass on anything on those speakers.
 
RevoltStudios said:
I have two names for credits...my own, and another. I use the latter for when it's a production I don't want my real name on due to these reasons. Problem solved. If they want it to sound like doodoo, let them and put a fake name on the credits. That way only they get branded "suckage".
Click to expand...

Love this response...
 
Not having known the meaning of that large word, maybe try milk and cookies, a warm fire and a turtle neck sweater, preferably beige in color.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ShipwreckSoundWorks
How to deal with amateur clients...
Replies
42
Views
3K
F.O.H.
The StabbinCabin
T
coldthrn
Dealing with difficult clients
Replies
56
Views
4K
F.O.H.
TheDriller
T
B36arin
Clients showing up late...
Replies
24
Views
1K
F.O.H.
Grå Värld
G
brandy
Preview-Mixes for Clients - with or without "Roughmastering"?
Replies
9
Views
732
F.O.H.
brandy
B
ForceTheTriggerSucks
Room acoustics, clients and genelec
Replies
7
Views
933
F.O.H.
ForceTheTriggerSucks
F
Top Bottom
Back